In popular culture, the line “Follow the money” is associated with Watergate, when Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein tracked the cover-up of the break-in at the DNC headquarters all the way to President Richard Nixon. A similar version comes in the recent Broadway musical Hamilton, when Thomas Jefferson is pursuing salacious charges that will eventually ruin Alexander Hamilton: “Follow the money and see where it goes.” It is an apposite statement with regard to the 1Malaysia Development Berhad (fund). Today, firms across the world are asking where their money went in the case of the money-laundering Malaysian sovereign wealth fund. Following some initial investigations and findings, Goldman Sachs is in the crosshairs.

The investment firm, long one of the world’s most integral, has come under a barrage of criticism and rhetorical gunfire from Anwar Ibrahim, the likely future Prime Minister of Malaysia. After key Goldman partners were caught bribing and misleading significant Malaysian politicians as part of their dealings and bond underwritings with the country’s sovereign wealth fund 1Malaysia Development Berhad (1MDB), the firm has essentially been labeled “persona non grata” by Malaysia’s new ruling coalition. Goldman could lose out on numerous future contracts and the damage to its reputation will likely last for some time.

Anwar argues Goldman should return “significantly more” than the $600 million the bank was paid for arranging three bond sales in 2012-13 because “it’s a cost to the image of the country, it’s a cost to investments and now it’s a burden shouldered by the government because of the complicity of so many of these so-called credible, renowned financial institutions … For them to use a country like Malaysia — which is struggling to reform itself economically, moving up the ladder — really, to me, it’s disgusting.” [source]

The prime minister has said “aggressive negotiations” with Goldman are necessary, which may result in litigation or having the bank engage in information sharing to support the country’s ongoing probe of the fund.

Not only is Goldman under pressure in the country tainted by the scandal of its own prime minister furthered by financiers like the bank’s senior Asia partners, it is also under serious investigation at home in New York. The US Department of Justice is investigating as well. Goldman share prices have dropped, according to (rival) investment bank Morgan Stanley, by fourteen percent since it was reported that the bank was involved in the sleaziness.

Morgan Stanley analysts write that “It is unclear how long the issue will take to resolve, what the fines and penalties could be, and what costs Goldman Sachs will subsequently incur to satisfy any demands from regulators” [source].

Currently, much of the infrastructure projects developed in conjunction with other nations by 1MDB is under review, and some have even been cancelled — including multiple China-backed pipeline projects. As part of the new government’s relatively icier China stance, the current prime minister, Mahathir Mohamad, “suspended $23 billion in schemes linked to Beijing and criticised “lopsided” contracts as well as potential links to the scandal-ridden fund” [source] [source].  

It is quite possible Goldman could be charged with a violation of the Foreign Corrupt Practices act, and could face a fine of $1.2 billion, double the amount it made on bond underwriting for 1MDB. With the additional lawsuit against Goldman by Abu Dhabi’s own sovereign investment fund that is also wrapped up by the tentacles of the scandal, the bank could end up paying damages that “exceed Goldman’s average annual net profit over three years of $5.4 billion” [source]. While it remains to be seen how much Goldman will end up paying, it is clear the hit to its reputation and the three charges against former partners are just the beginning — the longer this scandal entangles Goldman, the worse it will get.

Black Friday and its shopping craze have been the hallmark beginning of the United States’ holiday season for decades, with the term first becoming popular in print in the 1960s. In years past, the holiday (if one can call it that) has been characterized by eager deal-seekers crowding outside of stores, waiting for midnight to strike so they can grab hot, discounted items before they’re sold out. It has become an iconic sight to see the most intense shoppers actually fight over the last product on the shelf, with many recorded fights turning into viral videos in the process. Black Friday is, after all, the busiest shopping day of the year.

 

Black Friday isn’t just a family shopping tradition — it’s an economic necessity for retail, too. In the U.S. economy at large, consumer spending accounts for about two-thirds of U.S. economic activity, and holiday spending makes up a decent chunk of that. For example, in 2013, the U.S. retail industry generated over $3 billion in sales during the holiday season, accounting for 19.2 percent of the industry’s total sales that year. Additionally, 768 thousand employees were hired to aid with the increase in consumer shopping, according to Statista. After a dip in spending following the 2008 recession, holiday retail sales have continually been on the incline.

Holiday retail sales continue to soar. Source: Statista

Holiday spending in 2018 will be no exception. With the Los Angeles Times reporting high consumer confidence with low unemployment, rising incomes and a greater sense of job security, shoppers are spending enthusiastically. This holiday season, retail sales are expected to total $1 trillion (a 5.8 percent increase from 2017) according to research by eMarketer, and online sales may reach $123.73 billion (a 16.6 percent increase from 2017).

Black Friday 2018 saw record online sales, raking in $6.22 billion, which is up 23.6 percent from a year ago. With that, $2 billion of those sales stemmed from smartphones, according to CNBC.

Increases in e-commerce spending across Thanksgiving weekend. Source: Statista

As Black Friday trends show, online shopping, clearly, is the future of retail. The e-commerce giant Amazon has been at the forefront of consumers’ shift from physical shopping to online shopping. Outside of holiday expenses, Amazon has proven to be strong competition with large brick-and-mortar stores that were once thought to be invincible. Take Macy’s and its iconic red star for instance. In June 2018, the company’s stock price was down 45 percent from its all-time high in July 2015. Additionally, Amazon is estimated to pass the behemoth Walmart and become the top player in the U.S. apparel industry, according to Investopedia.

The increasing popularity of Amazon demonstrates that the e-commerce giant is the prime (pun partially intended) destination for online sales. Source: Investopedia

I don’t necessarily think brick-and-mortar stores are going anywhere because they are still central to the American shopping experience. After all, It wouldn’t be the holidays without someone anxiously running to Best Buy to purchase some discounted 60 in television. The prominence of e-commerce, however, will only continue to offer more competition to physical retailers, which will be an interesting trend to watch as the digital age continues to envelop our lives.

Ashley Rivenbark, an American student who has studied in Hangzhou through the U.S. State Department’s Critical Language Scholarship, said living in China has changed her view of it.

China has its unique culture and increasing global power. The trade between China and U.S. has spurred the need of graduates who are fluent in both China and America – not only the two languages but also cultures and business development.

However, among 330,000 American students who chose to study in different countries, only 12,000 of them went to China last year. For most American students who choose to study abroad, France, UK, Germany, and some other European countries are ideal.

Reversely, in 2017, Chinese students accounted for more than one-third of total 1.1 million international students who studied abroad in the United States.

Since 2007, the number of Chinese students who have chosen to come to the U.S. has increased dramatically. On the other hand, the number of American students in China has remained virtually flat. According to the Financial Times, the number was 11,064 in 2007 and 11,910 in 2017.

There are now 30 times as many Chinese students in the U.S. as U.S. students in China. This phenomenon has caused an information asymmetry, which means that there is not enough information exchanging between two countries.

The U.S. Foreign Policy recently surveyed 343 Americans who have studied in China through higher education programs. Most of them reported that they satisfied with their choice and explained why they think this is an ideal option for American students who want to study abroad in the future. Here are some statistics:

Are you the first person in your family to study abroad?

69.4 percent of students responded yes.

This shows that students who preferred to study in Beijing or Shanghai were not just the children of those who studied in Paris or London 30 years ago.

Most students didn’t have any previous relationship with local residents. 56 percent responded that they were positively searching for local friends on and off campus.

Do you think that living in China was worth the time, effort and expense required?

97.1 percent of students responded yes.

Students said that they didn’t realize the convenience and adaptability of China until they came here. Convenient transportations including G-series high-speed train and new subway system shocked them at the very beginning. Also, the cheap labor created the booming of food delivery service.

78.4 percent of students even responded that they felt “more positive” towards the country after studying in China.

Do you, or do you plan to, use the Chinese language in your future work?

82.9 percent of students responded yes.

The increasing communications and trades between U.S. and China have created plenty of job opportunities for graduates.

Although most American students didn’t think they can operate their own businesses in China, most believed that the language skill and, more importantly, a better understanding of Chinese culture definitely would help them to find a good job.

Conclusion

According to a 2017 Quartz report, eight in 10 of Chinese students who studied in the U.S. went back to China after graduation. They have become teachers, operated their own startups and even built advanced AI technologies in China.

This year, the Trump administration worried about Chinese student spies and considered to put restrictions on the majors that Chinese students can choose and even cancel the student Visa for Chinese students.

But for young Americans who have studied or want to explore in China, it is still a transformative period.

 

Sources:

http://www.studyinchina.com.my/web/page/study-in-china-for-american-students-in-china/

https://www.ft.com/content/6665e98c-ece6-11e8-8180-9cf212677a57

It looks like millennials have abandoned their big-city dreams—more people aged 20-36 are living in the suburbs than in the city.

Millennials have the reputation of not being very responsible with their money—some say that they can’t afford to buy homes because they spend their paychecks on avocado toast. But living in the suburbs? Isn’t that the American dream?

Rent or own, 38% of millennials live in the suburbs compared to 37% that live in the city. Though this is only a difference of one percentage point, it marks a turning point for this generation. Moreover, for millennial homeowners, 41% decided to stick to the suburbs rather than anywhere else, compared to 36% in 2016.

For some, the suburbs represent settling down, starting a family, and overall stability. However, at face value, suburbs are an affordable living option for those who want an easy commute to the city for other reasons. If millennials really do value things like avocado toast, good Instagram posts, and trendy brunches, moving right outside of expensive big cities might just be the smart thing to do to keep up their habits.

One thing that could be holding millennials back from affording the city lifestyle they might crave is student debt.  83% of people 22-35 who have student debt and do not own homes claim the two are correlated.

Though millennials have been buying more homes lately, around 70% of those who have regret it. One reason is the hefty down payment—a survey found that a third of them dipped into their retirement savings. Other reasons include underestimating ongoing costs and buying a home even when timing wasn’t perfect.

Given the buyer’s remorse, it makes sense why millennials are gravitating to the suburbs. A report by Zillow shows that people can spend around 26.5% of their income to own property in a city, but only 20.2% to own a similar home in the suburbs.

The move to the suburbs could mean that millennials are changing their reputation. A 2016 survey by Ernst & Young LLP and Economic Innovation Group (EIG) showed that the age group was “deeply pessimistic.” Two years later, that picture has changed. They’re getting married sooner than they thought they would, they’re graduating college and entering the workforce with stable jobs, and they think the economy is doing well. Most millennials think that sticking with one company is the best way to advance in their careers instead of hopping from place to place.

Though there are countless theories about the reason behind it, this newfound attitude is likely the result of growing up. Millennials live and learn, too.

By Roy Pankey

When I find myself the subject of dinnertime interrogation after refusing my aunt’s meatloaf, I have an artillery of arguments ready to deploy. I talk about how I am decreasing animal suffering, fighting climate change, and setting myself up to live longer than everyone else at the table.

I also talk about how I’m being economically conscious. In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, University of Oxford researcher Marco Springmann estimates (conservatively) that if the U.S. continues its current meat-consumption trend, by 2050 it could cost our country between $197 billion and $289 billion annually. The costs for the world are significantly higher.

Springmann laid out numerous dietary scenarios in the year 2050. He considered costs related to healthcare and climate change that will be incurred if we maintain our diet saturated with meat instead of adopting one that follows global dietary standards. (This would mean a great reduction in meat consumption for many parts of the country.) He also totaled cost savings for vegetarian and vegan world populations.

Costs considered include those related to healthcare (for treatment of diseases like diabetes and heart disease related to a diet heavy in meat), unpaid care (by family or friends for those affected by such diseases), and lost work days. Savings of minimizing greenhouse gas emissions related to the production of meat and other animal products were measured using the “social cost of carbon.”

Source: The Atlantic

The U.S. would save more than any other country by giving up meat. We would save $180 billion if we ate in accordance to recommended guidelines, and $250 billion if we gave up animal products altogether, due to our high healthcare costs per-capita. That’s more savings than would see China or all the countries in the European Union combined. And that’s not speaking at all of the minimum 320,000 yearly deaths associated with chronic diseases and obesity.

Overall, the study shows that the savings in healthcare-related costs are greater than the savings in environmental costs achieved when adopting a meatless diet. However, Springmann admits that the study’s numbers are “subject to significant uncertainties.” To realize these levels of savings, the world would need to decrease the amount of red meat it consumes by 56 percent and increase vegetable and fruit intake by about 25 percent. Globally, we’d also need to reduce our calorie intake by 15 percent in general.

Associating these well-known effects of a meat-free diet with a dollar amount is powerful. The numbers determined by the study can drive policy and attitude changes. Governments can now weigh the expenses related to consuming meat and other animal products against their economic needs. They can also use these numbers to drive debate about new taxes, existing subsidies, and changes to food advertising.

#ByeMeatloaf

In October, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (I.P.C.C.) released a sobering report, stating that the threshold temperature (2 degrees Celsius) at which we must keep the planet’s climate below by 2040 might still be too high. Researchers originally believed that we had to keep temperatures below 2 degrees Celsius by 2040 to be somewhat safe. Now, they’re saying we must keep temperatures below 1.5 degrees Celsius by 2040, a conclusion that is harrowing in its implications if it wasn’t already.

What our species needs to do next is clear: we must move faster to a zero emissions society or face food shortages, more intense wildfires, and an exacerbated refugee crisis, just to name a few.

We’ve read the myriad of articles spelling out our impending doom, but what about the solutions? As journalists, editors, and media makers, what are we to make of all this? What can our role be, besides participating in the occasional march?

We can start by changing the ways we’ve defined progress, via the metric of GDP growth. As over 200 scientists stated in an open letter to the EU back in September, economic growth as we currently measure it is environmental unsustainable. We need to reduce our rates of production and consumption, which means we must have different measures for progress and wealth.

This might trigger anxiety for many, including myself, who’ve been raised under the belief that more growth means greater wellbeing. But it shouldn’t. A 2016 study by the Social Progress Initiative concluded that traditional measures such as GDP fail to capture the overall progress of societies.

For instance, countries like Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, and the United Arab Emirates have extremely high GDP per capita rates but lag heavily in social progress indicators like personal freedom and choice, access to advanced education, and tolerance and inclusion.

Contrarily, countries like Uruguay, Chile, and Estonia have much lower GDP per capita rates but rank much higher in social progress indicators like access to healthcare and opportunity.

As Jason Hickel from the Guardian put it so eloquently, an alternative growth model would entail “easing the intensity of our economy, cutting the excesses of the very richest, sharing what we have instead of plundering the Earth more” and, of course, liberating ourselves from ramped consumerism (which makes us more miserable anyway). This does not entail a Ludditian regression into pre-industrial society. It means reevaluating the language we use to define growth.

Hence, there’s another way of looking at it. First off it, GDP growth doesn’t matter as much as we think it does. Media outlets and politicians alike love to use GDP as a buzzword for calculated progress and often employ absurdly hyperbolic language to suggest that something monumental is happening. Prime example: pundits praising the Trump economy’s “uuge” growth rates, how it’s just on fire (“on fire” for whom and for what is never addressed). Yet, economic pundits fail to mention how, for instance, this will directly address wealth inequality or the political disenfranchisement of communities of color and the poor.

Take another case: Nigeria. Traditionally, the rapid growth of Nigeria (now the largest economy in Africa) would elicit ecstatic responses. And indeed, some level of growth in Nigeria is positive. But what’s not in the equation is the fact that millions of Nigerians face hunger and hundreds millions more live below the poverty line. Meanwhile, the top five billionaires in Nigeria have a shared net-worth of about $30 Billion, about $5 Billion more than how much it would take to eradicate extreme poverty at the national level.

The point here is not to say we should stop talking about GDP growth. That’s impossible and undesirable. But we should place less emphasis on it politically. The actual mechanics of what this would mean on the ground via political policy is of course another matter.

As media disseminators, our primary job should be to allow for more open discussions on the alternative ways we can measure and subsequently construct a more environmentally sustainable vision for society. When have you seen a CNN panel discussion on the merits (or de-merits) of “de-growth” policies or the “steady-state economy”; or discussions on the differences between absolute and relative “decoupling”(the rate which economic output uses less energy and raw materials due to increased efficiency.)?

There’s no clear-cut rubric right now and the debate is mostly held in obscure environmental and social science circles. Instead, we should encourage these admittedly uncomfortable and controversial questions to be debated openly in mainstream outlets everywhere and the socio-economic urgency of mitigating climate change to be taken a tad bit more seriously.

 

China announced a 6.5 percent economic growth rate in the September quarter of 2018, the lowest rate since 2016. However, the decreased economic growth rate didn’t cool down the consumption enthusiasm on e-commerce platforms. Instead, the Chinese e-commerce companies made e-commerce history in November.

China GDP Growth Rate

The most representative e-commerce company would be the giant—Alibaba. This year, Alibaba reported that customers spent $30.8 billion online in 24 hours, a significant increase from $25.3 billion in gross merchandise volume in 2017. The number is almost five times than the total online sales on 2017 Cyber Monday reached $6.59 billion, the largest online sales day in the U.S. history, according to Adobe’s analysis.

Singles Day (Nov.11) was originally created by Chinese university students to celebrate their single status. In 2019, Alibaba created its first shopping day on Singles Day with about $7.1 million in gross merchandise volume and turned it into a nationwide shopping festival. And now it’s the world’s largest online-shopping festival, according to Bloomberg.

Source: Statista

When the creative marketing strategy created by accident has become a profitable business model, Alibaba is not the only company who participates in the festival. While Alibaba calls its shopping festival as “Double 11”, JD.com, the most competitive rivalry of Alibaba, names its shopping festival as “11.11” and extends its sales time from Nov.1 – Nov.11. During the period, JD.com saw about $22.8 billion in transactions, a 25.7 percent increase compared to the gross merchandise volume of the same period in 2017. JD.com also has its own shoppers’ holiday in mid-June (6.18). This year, JD.com has sold $24.7 billion worth of goods on that day.

Plus, other popular local platforms performed well in this Singles Day, for example, Suning, VIP.com, Vmall.com and Kaola.com, all of which are popular e-commerce companies in China.

Based on the whopping numbers, China’s media show their confidence in Chinese customers’ purchasing power. According to people.cn, an authoritative media in China say that the development of shopping festivals over the ten years has shown the increase in China’s economic growth and witnessed the consumption power of domestic economic growth. In the past ten years, the items customer buy online have changed from everyday necessities to high-quality commodities, such as big-screen televisions, smartphones and imported products. Also, an increased number of rural residents are taking part in the shopping festival, for example, the number has reached 241 million in western rural areas, which can show huge potential possibilities for the e-commerce industry. China is welcoming “consumption upgrading”, China’s media say.

However, the opposite points came out that the numbers “ suggest China’s economy is cooling down”, according to Business Insider. Although the gross merchandise volume has been increasing over the past ten years, the GMV annual growth rate is not the case. This year, the GMV annual growth rate of Alibaba has dropped from 39% to 27%. Also, the upstart e-commerce company Pinduoduo, featuring to sell unknown-brand, cheap, low-quality products but low-price products, has won many shoppers in China this year. The phenomenon was heatedly discussed that Chinese people are facing “consumption degrading”.

The 2018 shopping festival in China has come to a close. What is the status quo behind the hilarious shopping carnival? Maybe the consumers can tell.