**10,000 Fans Incentive Plan
First: the re-industrialization that the United States is currently advocating is impossible.
Unless the basic logic of the U.S. capital market is changed from the bottom.
Note that the "reindustrialization" mentioned here refers to a pie similar to Raimondo's "Made in the USA 2030" said in the past two days, as well as other American ** paintings.
After all, 2024 is the first year, so it is normal for both the United States and Russia to set a very ambitious goal with 2030 as their goal.
And after all, unlike Putin who has already locked in the election, Biden is quite dangerous on the American side, so the pie should be drawn bigger.
But the problem is that reindustrialization, even in high-end areas, is inconsistent with the basic logic of the U.S. capital market.
In the 1970s, the United States put forward the "shareholder supremacy theory", which believed that the role of the company is to maximize shareholders' profits at all costs.
This philosophy has become the highest creed of the American capital markets, Wall Street, and many American multinationals, and it is unshakable.
This is also the fundamental reason why it is indeed easier to make money in the United States, although there are cycles.
But from the perspective of a country's manufacturing industry, it is extremely harmful.
Based on the "shareholder supremacy theory", the United States advocates the so-called "core competitiveness" and advocates an asset-light operation model.
The manufacturing industry, which has large investment and thin profits, is precisely the first to be thrown out, and by the 90s of the last century, this has become the political correctness of the US capital market.
If a U.S. company retains a manufacturing-like sector, it will be spurned by the entire capital market.
This gave birth to a model that is now very popular: the global factory-free model.
Regarding this model, with Apple as the core representative, although Apple's products are physical, Apple is a service company in the United States and does not have any manufacturing sector.
Instead, by outsourcing production and manufacturing step by step, Apple controls the ** chain, thus establishing an Apple empire.
Of course, there are very big benefits to this model, which is extremely profitable, with cutting-edge technology and a rising stock price.
But for a country, it's not all good.
Similar to yesterday's "Shunchang Declines, Enters a New Era" emphasized, when high-end innovation and manufacturing are out of touch, it will inevitably gradually lose its competitiveness.
What's even more dangerous is that the manufacturing site is precisely the foundation of innovation at the source.
For example, it is now emerging that after the most advanced technology in the United States is developed, it needs to be implemented in China.
The United States is also aware of the seriousness of the problem, so since 2014 has established 20 manufacturing innovation institutes.
It helps to transform laboratory technology into results and get close to commercialization, but there are only 20 of them, which is too few, and the flow of this bridge from the laboratory to the industry is extremely limited.
Europe has a lot better to do this, and Europe's cutting-edge companies still try to keep the unprofitable manufacturing sector as much as possible.
For example, the Swedish bearing manufacturer SKF, which is the world's number one bearing company, still retains its own bearing steel plant, and other cutting-edge companies in Sweden have also retained as complete a chain as possible.
In the United States, Timken, the best bearing manufacturer in the United States, was fiercely rebuked by shareholders in 2013, arguing that keeping the steel production line was dragging down the company's stock price, and strongly demanded the divestment of steel manufacturing.
The stock price is indeed rising, but the competitiveness of Timken's industry has been declining, and now it is almost impossible to keep the top 10 in the world.
But capital doesn't think about what will happen in 10 years, and it doesn't even bother to think about what will happen in three or five years, what it wants is to immediately push the stock price up, cash out and leave immediately.
Now the United States claims to be "re-industrialized", and also says that it will become the only country in the world with a whole chip industry chain by 2030.
The most advanced ones are only produced in the United States, and that's a joke.
Looking back on yesterday's "Shunchang Reversal, Entering the New Era", an industry must have at least three parts:
End products (front-line corps).How many companies in the United States are still willing to do unprofitable foundations?Parts enterprises (logistics support).
Tools, equipment and materials (indigenous hinterland).
And how many terminal manufacturing industries can give full play to the advantages of chips?
What happened to Tesla's Gigafactory in the United States?
When will the shortcomings of the U.S. power infrastructure be filled?
The reason why our country has made it clear that "traditional industries cannot be simply withdrawn as low-end industries" is not only for employment considerations.
Because of the so-called low-end manufacturing and traditional industries, there are a large number of small and medium-sized enterprises, and these small and medium-sized enterprises are precisely the waist of a country's and a region's industries.
These small and medium-sized enterprises are linked to each other to form a complete first-chain system, which is the source of innovation.
Typical enterprises such as specialized and special new enterprises at all levels, countless small and medium-sized enterprises have launched offensives at one point after another.
Therefore, it is perfectly fine for the United States to achieve the "re-industrialization" it professes, but only if it breaks the "shareholder supremacy" that the United States has formed since the 70s of the last century.
The U.S. capital market is required to focus on the medium to long term;
Require U.S. companies to focus on low-yield traditional manufacturing;
Asking students in the U.S. to consciously go to lower-paying sectors;
Not all aim at finance, high-end.
Is this possible? 
Second: decoupling is theoretically possible, but the practical possibility is zero.
Some people may say that the United States can keep high-tech, high-profit links at home and transfer low-profit production to countries other than China.
So as to establish a second global industrial chain, and even give examples of how China was in the past.
This is a typical irrational quantitative thinking, which seems to make sense, but it can't stand up to scrutiny.
Let's talk about two points: the first point: low-end manufacturing is not rigid and unchanging, and it is actually upgrading and iterating.
There are always people who worry about the outflow of low-end manufacturing, but ask yourself, what exactly is the so-called low-end manufacturing in your head?
To be concretized and visualized, it is necessary to say exactly what the outward migration you are worried about is.
Some people may say that clothing, the clothing industry is indeed the first export industry developed in China, such as the TV series "Flowers", which is made of clothing.
But clothing technology is also iterating rapidly, is the current clothing the same thing as it was more than a hundred years ago?
The textile industry that some people think about is still the same as in the TV series "Flowers", the appearance of the last century?
Think about it, SHEIN can complete the whole process from design, manufacturing, and sales within a week, and hundreds of thousands of millions of ** designs every year.
A large number of domestic clothing anchors can press the threshold of customization to 10 pieces, and they also have extremely high ** advantages, which is all hard work behind it.
Nowadays, clothing manufacturing has begun to use the laser cutting technology originally used in the semiconductor field to cut hundreds of clothes at the same time.
Modern manufacturing is much more than just an assembly plant.
Behind it is a whole set of industrial system, national system.
System support for components, raw materials, energy, and infrastructure is required.
China's current industrial scale also took decades to achieve after the founding of the People's Republic of China.
At the beginning of the transfer, it was also the initiative of Europe and the United States, which have the world's largest and strongest manufacturing strength.
Do Europe and the United States still have this ability?
Assuming that even if India, Vietnam, Mexico and other countries are more capable and hardworking than the Chinese, then if you want to establish a new industrial chain, at least 20 years and tens of trillions of dollars.
This is not counting the shortcomings of infrastructure, governance and education.
Who is going to build? The United States, Europe, Japan?
If Western countries build it, the cost of infrastructure alone will be several times that of China's infrastructure.
That's at least 20 years, hundreds of billions of dollars in foreign aid.
It also has to help solve a country's education and consumption capacity, and if Europe and the United States really do it, it will really be a blessing for all mankind.
But is it possible? Everyone knows that the world may have to change in the next 10-20 years.
It takes a long time to build a new industrial system, and why do such a thankless task when you expect the future to change dramatically and offend the next global giant?
On the contrary, it will accelerate the evaporation of the essence.
The so-called transfer now is not so much the expansion of China's ecosystem.
Most of the industries in other countries are based on China's parts, materials, and energy.
And these are the most difficult parts of an industrial system, and China is obviously not willing to take the initiative to send them.
Case in point: high-speed rail.
China's high-speed rail is not only because it is targeted, but also because even if the high-speed rail is simply running, it needs a complete set of system support.
The most basic thing is the matching power network.
Therefore, Indonesia's first high-speed railway, supporting China's power projects and power grid projects in the past, which means that Indonesia's power and power grid standards should be Chinese.
Wherever China's high-speed rail goes, which country or region it has, it has been highly integrated into China's ecosystem.
Similarly, there are new energy vehicles, which are also very lively these days, and there are always people who think that foreigners do not do it, which means that Chinese are mistaken.
But have you ever thought that it is likely that foreigners can't do it?
New energy vehicles are also based on electricity, and a large part of the reason why China can implement it is that China's electricity price is stable and far lower than the oil price.
However, European and American countries are different, compared with China, the power infrastructure in Europe and the United States can only be said to be a product of the last century, and the price of electricity is completely market-oriented, which is higher than the price of oil.
This is the core reason why it is more difficult to promote new energy vehicles in Europe and the United States, of course, it is better in Europe, and the current penetration rate has reached more than 20%.
But the United States is completely impossible, and if the United States wants to enter the era of new energy vehicles, it needs to make up for the power infrastructure debts that will go crazy if you think about it.
A more realistic approach would be to import China's power infrastructure, and China would help Europe and the United States rebuild a standard power system for the 21st century.
But the question is, can Europe and the United States be willing?
Therefore, it has been said that the key market for China's new energy vehicle exports is not in Europe and the United States, but in other countries and regions.
This is because these regions are clearly more willing to accept China's full range of power solutions than Europe and the United States.
Talking about this briefly, I look forward to everyone's discussion.
Praise for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation together!