[Epoch Times October 28, 2021]”There is a mistake.” October 28.
The battle between Amazon’s Bezos and Tesla’s Elon Musk for the world‘s richest man seems to have come to an end recently. In the past year, the scale of their wealth has always been ding-up, you chased me, but this week, Tesla’s stock price has risen sharply, and the results have been different.
Over the weekend, Tesla announced its financial statements, and Tesla’s profits increased significantly. Not only that, Hertz, a large American car rental company, has issued a large order to Tesla. This order indicates a trend that in the future, the developed car rental industry in the United States has begun to turn, and more and more electric vehicles will be provided to customers in the future. On Monday, Tesla’s stock price rose sharply by 12.66%, breaking through $1,000. The Bloomberg Billionaires Index calculates that Musk’s personal wealth soared by $36.2 billion on Monday. His net worth reached an incredible $289 billion (not $28.9 billion, but $289 billion), far surpassing Amazon founder Bezos.
The personal wealth of Amazon founder Bezos is $193 billion, which is 98 billion less than Musk.
Not only that, Bezos, together with several other wealthy American IT industry, Microsoft’s Bill Gates and Facebook’s Zuckerberg, still not as many as Mr. Musk. This number is too surprising and too sudden.
However, this does not seem to be a big deal. There are now more than 200 Musk in China. Of course, this is not a person, but a trademark. A Chinese online media “IT House” reported after a software survey conducted by Chinese companies that China now has at least 273 Musk trademarks.
In addition to the mixed use of “Elon Musk” and “Elon Musk”, there are also several “Beijing Musk”, “Hangzhou Musk”, and “Shenzhen Musk”. It is said that they are all technology companies, as well as communications Services, advertising design, educational institutions, and consulting companies use Elon Musk, and even the catering and apparel industries are competing for names.
Elon Musk hot pot restaurant? Musk women’s clothing store? It feels a bit Martian!
This is not surprising. I have also seen TICK TOCK restaurant in the United States. I don’t know if it has anything to do with Douyin or ByteDance. I guess it’s not. Following a famous person, I hope to be rich and human.
In fact, Chinese officials did the same thing as early as ten years ago.
In 2011, when Musk was just emerging, no one was optimistic about Tesla’s electric cars. At that time, Apple’s Jobs was the man of the day. He died in October 2011. Before his death, he returned to Apple and created the company’s second wave of miracles.
The Ningbo Municipal Government announced a big plan that year to train thousands of Jobs-style scientific and technological innovation talents in Ningbo within ten years. Ningbo City is ambitious, and the target of training is Ningbo’s enterprises and institutions, as well as “provincial and ministerial-level institutions” scientific and technological talents. The municipal government also plans to spend a huge sum of RMB 50 million to cultivate talents. On average, each Ningbo “Jobs” spends RMB 100,000.
Of course, ten years have passed. Perhaps I am ignorant, and I really haven’t seen any new business created by Ningbo “Jobs”.
Today we talk about innovation and entrepreneurship.
The topic of innovation and entrepreneurship is actually quite boring in theory. It is much more interesting to talk about it in terms of money. After all, people live in fame and wealth, and success or failure is nothing more than these four words.
In the past two decades, there have been two countries with the strongest innovation and entrepreneurship, one is the United States and the other is China. Of course, the situation in the two countries is very different, but there are also similarities. Let’s not say much about the situation in the United States. China also has a number of companies brought by powerful people, including Alibaba, Tencent, the aforementioned ByteDance Douyin, and many Internet technology companies. However, the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States will continue, and there are big doubts about whether the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship in China will continue.
American business management guru Dulac believes that the next generation of economy should be named the innovation and entrepreneurship economy, not the information age economy. He believed in the 1990s that only one and a half countries in the world entered the innovation and entrepreneurship generation. , One country is the United States, half of the country is Japan, and the others are far behind, far behind.
As a result, more than ten years later, a number of innovative and entrepreneurial enterprises have emerged in China, and the result does not seem to be exactly what Dulac said.
It can be seen that the Chinese people have creativity. But this kind of creativity may soon become the end of the war.
Including Dulac, there have been many monographs on innovation and entrepreneurship in the world over the past two to three decades. They probably have some basic consensus, including innovation and entrepreneurship does not refer to technological innovation, at least not only to technological innovation, but more to the innovation of business systems and processes; second, innovation is not a technological activity, but a systematic engineering ; The third point brought about by this is that innovation and entrepreneurship is not so much a technology as it is a culture, system, and concept.
Many overseas scholars, such as Taiwanese experts, tend to focus on enterprises when they look at innovation and entrepreneurship, because they are already in a market economy and free system environment, but mainland Chinese scholars tend to focus more on systems and culture. .
The reason is very simple. Durak once said categorically that there is no environment for innovation and entrepreneurship under the Communist Party’s autocratic system. He was right, but he was also wrong.
The reason for the mistake is that a regime like the CCP has actually evolved into state capitalism, rather than the socialism of the Communist Party in the traditional sense. But he was also right. Because the epilepsy of the Communist Party’s autocratic system is recurring, the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship in mainland China is likely to be a flash in the pan and will never happen again.
There are several interesting aspects about the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship, including: core authority and central planning are the enemies of innovation and entrepreneurship; mechanisms to encourage failure; and decentralization is a prerequisite for innovation and entrepreneurship, and so on.
Let’s talk about the second point first, the mechanism that encourages failure. Most social cultures discourage failure, and even punish failure, but the culture of innovation and entrepreneurship must encourage failure, and even reward failure. This is not difficult to understand. For example, all technological inventions are actually a process of trial and error. Edison invented the light bulb. It is said that after 2,000 experiments, he found the tungsten filament as the lamp core. In other words, the first 1,999 times have failed. If the laboratory fails once and is punished, it is estimated that the light bulb cannot be invented. Almost all other technological inventions are probably also in this process. Therefore, the encouragement and failure of innovation and entrepreneurship is actually a culture transplanted from the scientific and technological circles. It is to allow failure and tolerate failure.
Encouraging failure and rewarding failure are the invention of American big financial capital, that is, venture capital. Venture capital has greatly encouraged innovative entrepreneurs. After success, their wealth increases, but if they fail, there is actually no problem for entrepreneurs.
From this perspective, the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship in China in the past two decades was largely driven by Western capital. A large number of American and Japanese venture capital has entered mainland China, which has promoted the wave of entrepreneurship in China. But we see that the Chinese government is punishing these capital institutions. What China has recently criticized is “capital”, “capital is not allowed to form a monopoly,” “capital is not allowed to control media public opinion,” “capital is not allowed to intervene in politics,” and so on. Here, capital is not a financial concept but a political concept. In fact, it is capitalism or the capital class. It is just that the Chinese Communist Party does not want to repeat the old discourse of the Cultural Revolution, and simply calls it “capital.”
To promote “common prosperity”, the CCP must strengthen the third distribution, which is the “spontaneous” donation of enterprises and wealthy people. This “spontaneous” quotation mark is actually forced, and everyone knows that there will be problems if it is not spontaneous. Therefore, the current system of the CCP not only punishes failure, but also punishes success.
The other two parts of the innovation and entrepreneurial culture have just begun in mainland China in the past ten years, but they have disappeared more rapidly than “capital” in the past two years. For example, “central planning” is now called “planning”; for example, “top-level design” is a measure that eliminates the autonomy and spontaneity of market players. There is also “decentralization”, which is essentially demonopoly. The CCP’s anti-monopoly is actually anti-monopoly of others. The goal is to strengthen its own monopoly. Therefore, there is “state-owned enterprises becoming bigger and stronger” and what “strong alliance” is. and many more.
From the perspective of the nature of social power, it has three sources: force (violence), capital (money), and ideology (including science and technology). A social system with a high degree of concentration and monopoly of the three must be a dark system. This has been proven by history. Countless times. However, this is the ultimate goal pursued by the Communist regime. In a society where Communists are in power, as long as they are not paying attention, they will move towards this absolute monopoly. However, this direction is completely opposite to the culture and system required for innovation and entrepreneurship.
Ten years ago, the Ningbo Municipal Government’s plan to create thousands of Jobs-like figures was of course bankrupt, because the CCP only saw the technological integration brought by Jobs, and saw the performance and profits. They hoped to replicate a group of standardized people with the industrial model. But this is precisely the biggest obstacle to innovation and entrepreneurship. Without freedom, there is no innovation; without system, there is no entrepreneurship.
China’s innovation and entrepreneurship in the past two decades is actually an episode parasitic on the wave of innovation and entrepreneurship in the United States. China is a nation that likes entrepreneurship, but it may not like innovation. It is also culturally stubborn. In the past few years, although the mainland has made some achievements in innovation and entrepreneurship, with the disappearance of the preconditions (that is, the culture of tolerance), this wave of entrepreneurship will also disappear. According to the trendy statement of the mainland, a new generation of scrolling has begun.
Subscribe to Shishan Angle: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_x4TYTL7Ibhs0JPuHVQY1A/videos?view=0&sort=dd&shelf_id=2
Editor in charge: Lian Shuhua#
.