This is an update that is two months late.
Writing is best done alone, and being alone is best for writing. As a result, the decrease in writing frequency has led to a significant decrease in my alone time.
Therefore, I never expected that a chance decision to attend a book club last year would bring me so many friends.
We can gather in the beautiful April weather, at Shenzhen Bay, find a shady grassland, and debate the viewpoints of "Great Nation, Great City" from the afternoon until the evening, and continue arguing in the WeChat group for a week.
We can also play Werewolf at midnight, with the Hunter being killed by the knife and the Witch causing the collapse of the Good camp.
We can also invite friends who love reading to a spacious meeting room at the company and share our views on a book.
This is something I have never experienced before, to the point where I haven't had time to write some sentimental words to pretend to be sentimental /doge.
The subsequent updates will be gradually added, take it slow~
Discussion on "Great Nation, Great City"#
A debate between liberalism and conservatism. As a supporter, I agree with Lu Ming's viewpoint in the book that population needs to flow freely and land use indicators in big cities no longer need to consider arable land protection.
On the other hand, opponents like Haofeng and his friends strongly oppose this view, believing that it will further exploit vulnerable groups and jeopardize national stability.
I originally wanted to participate in the discussion, but when the argument started, everyone was basically saying different things, making it difficult to reach a consensus, hahaha. But this was the most intense and fun discussion I have ever seen. We argued from the afternoon on the grassland until dinner, and continued arguing in the WeChat group after going home. We kept arguing for a week during work, hahaha.
Here are some points:
-
From Haofeng: Some questions:
- The issue of fiscal appropriations. If we want to do this, which part of the fiscal expenditure should be allocated?
1.1 Non-fiscal appropriations, implemented in the form of debt. The government issues bonds, and banks provide loans to solve the problem. Referring to the real estate model, the bank is still the lender, and companies/governments issue bonds and compensate after receiving the money. There was indeed space for this between 2008 and 2013, which was equivalent to encroaching on the government's land sales revenue, reducing infrastructure construction, and indirectly subsidizing urban residents.
1.2 Non-fiscal, non-debt, direct printing of money by the central bank would cause short-term inflation, followed by deflation of goods and a large number of bad debts for companies in the supply chain of loans and production. There is also the issue of quotas.
1.3 Squeezing existing fiscal resources. Corresponding fiscal expenditure projects would have to be reduced.
If we want to do this, the reasonable approach at present should be asset taxes - inheritance tax, property tax, exit tax, and other types of taxes, and then redistribute and compensate with new land tax sources.
But no matter how you say it, the real problem is the unequal development between urban and rural areas. The unequal situation between urban and rural areas is inevitable in the development of the commodity economy on the one hand, and it is also inevitable under the modern production division model. The former is driven by capital profit and credit growth - it is impossible to achieve large-scale national uniformity; the latter is a problem of human development and education, which is a difficult problem in the world today - the problem of conservative family traditions and propaganda and the issue of middle-class inheritance after class differentiation - China at least has the average line of the college entrance examination; even if they are compensated in a form that does not consider the consequences, a large amount of money being put into circulation will result in new fluctuations in market production, foreign exchange, investment markets, and the redistribution of pension and medical resources; and with a large amount of money being put into circulation, in the current imperfect distribution mechanisms of wages, taxes, and pension insurance, I think it will eventually create a new balance of wealth distribution (the problem of Rome and cattle and horses, the Gini coefficient increases again), and new class exploitation.
As policy makers, the uncertainty is too great, stability > development - now even the employment of 10 million fresh graduates each year is difficult, the international environment is unpredictable, and with the current situation where even asset taxes cannot be mentioned, I think this kind of reform carries great risks. If we want to do it, we can discuss it, but when our RMB truly becomes East Asian, when we can collect coin taxes, when our asset taxes can be collected, it won't be too late to talk about this.
- The issue of fiscal appropriations. If we want to do this, which part of the fiscal expenditure should be allocated?
-
From Lao Li's viewpoint:
First of all, the issue of land resources is a high-quality asset, and fiscal appropriations are not a problem. There are plenty of people willing to invest in bad debts, and even garbage projects can deceive the government. Are you afraid that there won't be enough money for these high-quality projects? So the problem you mentioned doesn't really exist.
The reason why I repeatedly mentioned the example of the Humen Bridge is because of this. High-quality projects are not afraid of a lack of money. What they are afraid of is that the money will go to garbage projects.
Second, development > stability. Chinese society has developed extremely rapidly in the past 20 years, except for the lack of cultural and policy development, rapid development has covered up a large number of problems. Now is a period when problems are erupting, so it may feel relatively difficult.
Talking about stability is meaningless. This society is no longer an agricultural era, and all problems can only be solved through development. Stagnation is equivalent to regression.
The so-called maintenance of stability is just an excuse for not solving existing problems, a kind of lazy governance. Ignoring problems will only accumulate contradictions to a certain extent and lead to even greater outbreaks. You can refer to the bankruptcy of state-owned enterprises in the 1990s and the turmoil in December 2022.
Execution and decision-making are most important. Scientific decision-making with full democratic discussion is necessary, rather than impulsive decisions or leaders only focusing on their own promotion. Decisions made without democratic supervision are dangerous, which is the irony of "good intentions".
-
Again from Haofeng:
I can only say it's too idealistic.
First, learn more about finance and economics. I'm talking about the macro cycle, and you're talking about sales and fund consolidation. They are not the same thing. First of all, not every project is like the Humen Bridge, able to generate long-term and stable profits. Secondly, the evaluation criteria and evaluators for land use purposes are too specialized and centralized, making it difficult to achieve democratic supervision and scientific evaluation (similar to the academic clique in a certain school). Furthermore, in the current 24 years, good projects (profitable and productive) will not be hindered. When the author wrote the book (in 2013), there may have been projects that were delayed due to this, but it is different now. It is equivalent to ignoring many problems and pushing forcefully, but it also cannot analyze the problems of inflation and the resulting bad debts.
As for supervision and regulation, that is a problem of bureaucratic capitalism. The Soviet Union ended up like this. The instructor abhors it deeply. The resistance against Japan, the united front war, the Vietnam War, the Three Major Transformations, and the First and Second Five-Year Plans were all closely cooperated with the Soviet Union. He also saw the bureaucratization and ideological alienation of the Soviet Union, as well as the class differentiation and the issue of middle-class inheritance after that. At least China has the average line of the college entrance examination. Even if they are compensated in a form that does not consider the consequences, a large amount of money being put into circulation, market production, foreign exchange, investment markets, and the redistribution of pension and medical resources will create new fluctuations. And with a large amount of money being put into circulation, in the current imperfect distribution mechanisms of wages, taxes, and pension insurance, I think it will eventually create a new balance of wealth distribution (the problem of Rome and cattle and horses, the Gini coefficient increases again), and new class exploitation.
As policy makers, the uncertainty is too great, stability > development - now even the employment of 10 million fresh graduates each year is difficult, the international environment is unpredictable, and with the current situation where even asset taxes cannot be mentioned, I think this kind of reform carries great risks. If we want to do it, we can discuss it, but when our RMB truly becomes East Asian, when we can collect coin taxes, when our asset taxes can be collected, it won't be too late to talk about this.
-
From Lao Li's viewpoint:
First of all, learn more about finance and economics. I'm talking about the macro cycle, and you're talking about sales and fund consolidation. They are not the same thing. First of all, not every project is like the Humen Bridge, able to generate long-term and stable profits. Secondly, the evaluation criteria and evaluators for land use purposes are too specialized and centralized, making it difficult to achieve democratic supervision and scientific evaluation (similar to the academic clique in a certain school). Furthermore, in the current 24 years, good projects (profitable and productive) will not be hindered. When the author wrote the book (in 2013), there may have been projects that were delayed due to this, but it is different now. It is equivalent to ignoring many problems and pushing forcefully, but it also cannot analyze the problems of inflation and the resulting bad debts.
As for supervision and regulation, that is a problem of bureaucratic capitalism. The Soviet Union ended up like this. The instructor abhors it deeply. The resistance against Japan, the united front war, the Vietnam War, the Three Major Transformations, and the First and Second Five-Year Plans were all closely cooperated with the Soviet Union. He also saw the bureaucratization and ideological alienation of the Soviet Union, as well as the class differentiation and the issue of middle-class inheritance after that. At least China has the average line of the college entrance examination. Even if they are compensated in a form that does not consider the consequences, a large amount of money being put into circulation, market production, foreign exchange, investment markets, and the redistribution of pension and medical resources will create new fluctuations. And with a large amount of money being put into circulation, in the current imperfect distribution mechanisms of wages, taxes, and pension insurance, I think it will eventually create a new balance of wealth distribution (the problem of Rome and cattle and horses, the Gini coefficient increases again), and new class exploitation.
As policy makers, the uncertainty is too great, stability > development - now even the employment of 10 million fresh graduates each year is difficult, the international environment is unpredictable, and with the current situation where even asset taxes cannot be mentioned, I think this kind of reform carries great risks. If we want to do it, we can discuss it, but when our RMB truly becomes East Asian, when we can collect coin taxes, when our asset taxes can be collected, it won't be too late to talk about this.
Some conclusions about Werewolf#
I have been playing Werewolf since college and have played it at least dozens of times. Although many people criticize this game, it is still the best game for gatherings.
Recently, I have been playing with my book club friends a lot (yes, we just use reading as an excuse to gather), and I have summarized some new experiences:
-
Werewolf is ultimately a game of taking sides and campaigning. You must take a side, regardless of whether you are right or wrong.
As a non-Seer god, it is easy to fall into self-doubt. When the villagers mindlessly take sides, you will always suspect if you are the Welder Wolf. But many times, it is really unnecessary to overthink. Overthinking can easily expose yourself, so sometimes mindlessly taking sides is enough. If you lose, blame the Seer. -
The Seer must bravely come forward and promptly declare their identity.
This should be the simplest rule, but many beginners are afraid to come forward. Don't be afraid, just come forward. After all, the Seer only has two rounds, and they will die after that, hahaha. -
It is difficult to say whether the Witch should save on the first night, but if you are killed, don't say that you are the Witch.
This is a trap. It is easy to make the Good camp lose if you are killed.
Board Games#
Shenzhen has been raining heavily for several days, not even sparing the weekend. On Sunday night, Cloris and I went to play board games, and for the first time, I was exposed to so many types of board games, not just limited to Three Kingdoms Kill 😄. Among the two-player board games that left an impression, I particularly liked Insect Chess. It has hexagonal pieces, and each piece has a different function. The ultimate goal is to surround the opponent's Queen Bee. The design concept made me applaud, but when I actually played it, I found that the complexity made me dizzy. However, for the two players who were new to this game, having the first move advantage was significant, so I lost both games 🐶
Compared to that, the design of multiplayer board games seems to follow a certain formula, and they mostly rely on a significant number of props. This is what makes me feel that playing board games is quite troublesome, so I won't buy them myself. When I want to play, I'll just go to a board game store to experience it. We played two games of "Azul" with two other players in the store, and the design concept and gameplay were similar to "Splendor". They both involve collecting tiles/gems, strategic combinations, or blocking opponents to calculate scores.
Another advantage of board game stores is that you can switch between playing various types of board games. Unexpectedly, we became addicted to "The Da Vinci Code" hahaha. This game of guessing the opponent's number is both strategic and fun. The most amusing thing is that every word I say can be used by the opponent, providing some exclusionary information. As a result, I became afraid to speak, and we played silently, drawing cards, looking at cards, and thinking while looking at each other until around 3 am 🤣
Games#
As a former Dungeon Master, of course, I have watched Yu-Gi-Oh! 5D's after it was released. I have always had nostalgia for Yu-Gi-Oh! and have played Duel Links before, but after grinding and spending a lot of time and money on that silly game, I switched to playing Magic: The Gathering for a while. Comparatively, the design of Magic: The Gathering is more scientific, and the gameplay is more diverse. I also spent a long time studying the economy of drawing cards, but I couldn't feel the glory of being a planeswalker, so I gradually quit.
Later, Konami released the latest Yu-Gi-Oh! Master Duel. I initially played it despite the language barrier for a few months, but for various reasons, I quit. But recently, I couldn't suppress the desire to play card games, so I returned to Master Duel. Coincidentally, this game recently released a Chinese version, so I bought a starter deck directly. I have to say that the way Master Duel handles starter decks is quite worth it, and the reincarnation mechanism is worth mentioning. Breaking down and combining cards is worth giving Konami a thumbs up.
I have played Silver City, Snake Eyes, Salamangreat, and Pearl Tears decks. As a player who only memorizes formulas, I basically copied the strategies of the big shots on Bilibili. This game has gone through so many years of evolution, from Ritual Summoning, Advanced Summoning, Fusion Summoning, Synchro Summoning, Xyz Summoning, Pendulum Summoning, to Link Summoning. The brainstorming of Yu-Gi-Oh! designers is truly remarkable, and their design concepts are consistent. Unlike the neighboring Three Kingdoms Kill, the design of certain Eastern Wu fate lines is not about brainstorming, but about opening the third eye.
Recently, I also saw a Bilibili video analyzing the evolution of Yu-Gi-Oh! summoning methods. Combining his analysis, I will briefly list my thoughts. Synchro Summoning was actually introduced to compensate for the weaknesses of Ritual Summoning. Both methods involve adding card levels, but Ritual Summoning occupies the main monster zone and requires a Ritual Magic card in hand, making this summoning method frustrating for players, as not everyone has the bond with their deck like the protagonist. So the designers moved it to the Extra Deck and no longer required the assistance of a Magic card, combining it with the frequent Special Summoning of monsters to make up for the limitation of only one Normal Summon per turn. I have to say that combining 5D's and the protagonist's character design, it is about uniting the power of the weak to create a shining path!
However, the effects of Synchro Monsters became too powerful, so the designers naturally wanted to limit the number of times card effects could be activated. This led to the birth of Xyz Summoning, which is essentially subtraction. But with the subsequent rule changes, Xyz Monsters became new generic cards, after all, compared to the Synchro's star combination, Xyz Summoning has fewer restrictions.
Pendulum Summoning was another breakthrough, and the gameplay was well-designed, but it was difficult to design cards with both strength and playability. Link Summoning initially appeared to subtract, but subsequent rule changes made Link Monsters new generic cards, after all, compared to Synchro's star combination, Link Summoning has fewer restrictions.