The hyped, the workhorse, and the surprise: Comparison of Three Max Cushion Shoes

First off some basic stats: (US mens 8)

Endorphin Shift: 4mm drop, 10.3 Oz, 70 miles

Triumph 17: 8mm drop, 9.75 Oz, 450 miles

Nike Invincible: 9mm drop, 9.35 Oz, 15 miles

[Upper lockdown/comfort/fit] 

All three shoes have no issue locking down. I don’t have any heel slippage. The Triumph initial feels like slipping a bit but that is only a sensation due to the heel collar is very slick. I don’t feel that anymore after some running in it. In terms of step-in comfort, I would say Triumph > Shift ~ Invincible. The Triumph is very plush and soft. It screams comfort. Some people may find it too much shoe and it does feel warm in the summer. The Shift feels comfortable in the way that it fits better than the Triumph and has a better/snugger lock down. The breathability in the Shift is the best out of the three. The Invincible has a comfortable step-in too, but not quite as plush as the Triumph. The “flyknit” somehow feels stiffer than the engineered mesh on the Triumph, and certainly not as comfy as the Shift. I don’t want to comment on the style of Invincible as it hurts my eyes to look at it.

[Midsole Ride]

This is where the three shoes have distinctive characters. Because of the stack height, in none of these shoes you will feel the road at all. If I may try to describe the midsole in three different sub-categories, they would be the shock absorbing capability, the energy return and the rate of

the retu啪啪啪怕了怕了评论了啪啪啪0啪啪了老婆力量rn, and finally the sole geometry. 

First off, the shock absorption. This means the ability of the shoes to absorb impact on the road and shield your feet and joints from the pavement pounding. Softness or durometer is a good measure for this property. In my experience, while all of these three shoes provide good enough shock absorbing capability, the Invincible is clearly the softest one. So in this sub-category: Invincible > Triumph > Shift. That said, we all agree that softer is not always better. So the sweet spot of softness is a personal choice. I personally am not a big fan of a soft ride and find it working against my gait cycle. 

Secondly we come to the energy return, the most hyped up property of a running shoe midsole. There are many adjectives describing energy return, like bouncy, responsive, snappy, springy, or pingy. They are all very subjective descriptors based on personal sense. I want to boil down this characteristics into two simple measurable terms: the amount of energy returned, and the rate of the energy return, so that we can demystify things in a measurable way.  The former simply means how much energy that you put in comes back in your toe-off instead of dissipated as heat, and this can be measured roughly by heart rate effort; The latter is how fast the energy is returned in your toe off. Imagine two springs, upon the same impact loading, both return the same amount of energy but one does that faster than the other. If you have a foot pod, this can be measured as time elapsed between max compression to toe-off. I don’t have a foot pod so I can only provide comments based on my own experience.

For the energy return or saving, I did three longish runs, all around 11-12 miles, at similar heart rate of 140 bpm (this is my zone 2 HR). The one shoe that gives me the fastest pace should deliver the best energy return.

The result is: 

-Endorphin Shift: 8.08 min/mile

-Triumph 17: 8:23 min/mile

-Invincible: 8:21 min/mile

I don’t really feel which shoe give me a “fresher leg”. To me leg freshness is very subjective or ambiguous, and it involves not just the midsole, but also your fatigue level, and mostly your form. I understand the pace has lots of other factors. I made my best attempt to try to keep other factors equal. But take it with a grain of salt.  From this crude comparison the Shift has the best energy return. And the Triumph and Invincible is similar.

For the rate of return, Shift>Triumph > Invincible. The TPU foam in the Triumph has less compression/travel than the Invincible and it snaps right back while the Invincible decompresses leisurely. The Shift returns the fastest but it might feel too firm to some. To me it feels pleasantly firm. Different rates of energy return affect the peak paces which the shoe excels at, simply due to the fact that the natural frequencies of the materials resonate with different gait cadences. What that means is that the faster the rate of return is not always better if it doesn't match your pace/gait cycle. Imagine a foam that has instant energy return, i.e. It returns energy while you are still landing down so the returning force is out of phase with the work you put in. The best rate of return is the one in phase with your gait cycle, i.e. It pushes you up when you need it to. The Invincible while being uber soft and has good enough return, it feels not as snappy due to the sluggish decompression.

There is a very nice write up to demystify energy return of running shoes: The Truth About Energy Return in Your Shoes | Runner's World (runnersworld.com)

The last sub-category of midsole ride is the sole geometry. Here the result is Shift > Invincible ~ Triumph. The Shift is the only shoes in the bunch that has a meaningful rocker. I have a theory that a rocker shoe must have some rigid element in the sole in order for it to rock, otherwise it will simply compress and collapse instead of rolling forward. In plated shoes it is the plate that plays this role as the rigid guiding element. In the Shift it is the midsole itself. So I can understand why they make the Shift with a firmer midsole even for a daily trainer, it is precisely because of the need of the SpeedRoll geometry. Another point to note is that I don’t really mind the “firmness” of the Shift at all. First of all it doesn’t bother me. And it provides a quick energy return that it feels fast. In Feb-March I was suffering PF and it was the Shift that helped me run through it. So if it is soft enough for my PF foot, it is soft enough for the normal me. The fact the Shift surprisingly runs the fastest while being the heaviest of the three also tells me weight is an overrated spec that people fuzz too much about.

[Durability]

In this category, there is really no comparison. Triumph >> Shift >> Invincible. Why? Earlier I posted my AB test on my 450 mile Triumph  17 and it still looks (upper and outsole) and runs the same as a brand new pair. It is built like a tank. I can take it to all kinds of terrains without thinking about it. And we all know how fragile the ZoomX powered Invincible is from了 what has been posted here. ZoomX foam typically last 300-400 miles if not less, while the TPU foam arguably never dies. I suspect if I want to, I can take the Triumph to 800 miles. Did I mention that I bought it at $90? Incredible value as a workhorse long run shoe.

The Shift sits in the middle in terms of durability. It is also built like a tank (literally look at the heel armor). However its PWRRUN foam is less durable than the PWRRUN+ (TPU) foam, so I gave it a bit less score. But still no doubt that it can last 450+ miles and can take abuse. 

The Invincible, some has quoted that lasted 400+ mile but many have reported split or torn Zoom X with some twists and turns or simply hiking. I will need to baby this shoe since I spent $180 on it (two pairs worth of Triumph). Mine arrives brand new with some glueing defect on the outsole. 

[How would I use them]

Recovery from beaten up legs or injury: Invincible;

Long slow distance runs: Triumph > Invincible; (Triumph first because it is cheaper).

Long distance moderate-effort runs: Shift > Triumph. I need snap in this kind of runs. Babying my legs is not the priority. I need interaction and these two shoes give me that.

[Bottomline]

I would buy the Triumph 17 again and again without a heart beat. And probably would say the same for the Shift as well. The only thing I wish to improve on the Triumph 17 is to tone down the plushness on the upper to something like the Ride or Freedom but keep the midsole as is. The Shift I wish it can be priced at $130. At $150 I won’t buy it again especially considering the Axon is out there. 

I will not buy the Invincible again unless it: redesign the upper to make it look better and the price drops to $150 or less. And need to fix all the quality and durability issues found in this iteration. The only thing that keeps the Invincible in the comparison is the somewhat intriguing Novablast-like ride. While it is fun, it doesn’t return energy significantly more or faster than the other two shoes. It is what it is, a hyped up daily trainer. With this category of shoes my primary objective is to soak long miles, and to train aerobic endurance. So durability is high priority and mile/dollar is important and all three shoes discussed here are comfortable enough for this goal.

In this running shoe era, softness is somehow marketed and shoved down our throats as better. It is not always the case and it is certainly not true for everyone.

跑鞋评论 2020

 今晚和老婆一起跑完5英里以后，在strava上一看发现不知不觉今年跑了1000英里的里程碑。在圈里发帖庆祝之际，想回顾一下今年陪过我的所有亲密战友，我的跑鞋。

先简单讲讲跑鞋分几类。基本上有两大类：公路跑鞋(road running)和越野跑鞋(trail running)。对于大部分跑友来说我们关心的是第一类。公路鞋按照用途又分成三类：日常训练鞋(daily trainer), 速度训练鞋(tempo trainer)，还有比赛鞋(racing shoes)。它们的主要区别是重量，鞋底的舒适度和能量效率，还有就是耐久度。一下我会针对我今年穿过的每双鞋介绍一下它们的优缺点。排名从后到前。

第7位 (图一）：Brooks Ghost 12。这是我第一双严肃的专业跑鞋。当然那时候啥都不懂。当你啥都不懂的时候，买Brooks Ghost是肯定不会错的。因为这是一双专门为初学者设计的鞋。舒适度10分。尤其是把脚穿进去那一刻的感觉，紧紧但又很温柔得把你包住。脚底的midsole很软很舒服。对于当时刚入门的我，简直没想过原来跑鞋可以这么舒服。当然，现在回头看其实有点太软了。可惜这双鞋质量一般，跑了100多英里以后，脚底的泡沫出现裂痕。尽管我很喜欢，可是还是给退了。

第6位 (图二）：ASICS Novablast。把Brooks退了以后换了双Novablast。当时觉得想要一双max cushion的鞋。这双鞋在网上是rave review。很多YouTube大神都狂赞这鞋，说脚底极其有弹性，跟跳弹床一样。我上脚的第一感觉是，妈呀，这太软了吧。软到腿都站不直。说实在第一次跑的感觉非常不爽，感觉很费劲很浪费能量，因为太软太不稳定。后来过了30英里以后，基本上熟悉了它的脾气了以后，感觉还是一双蛮有意思的鞋。基本上用这鞋的时候配速就是比其他鞋快不少。可以说这是一双速度鞋但是又以舒适为主题。过了50英里以后我还是忍不住它的不稳定性，最后换成我最满意的鞋。

第5位 (图三）：Saucony Ride ISO 1。这是一双让我难忘的鞋。$60从REI打折入的。但是非常满意非常舒服。重量刚刚好作为daily trainer，9盎司。一般daily trainer都不能太轻因为否则不够耐用。最让我喜欢的是它的midsole, 有减震保护之余，却一点都不想novablast那么软。很responsive，一点都不费劲。看了鞋底不是越软越好的。这双鞋我穿到300英里以后因为慢慢失去弹性了就退役了。稍微有点遗憾。EVA泡沫材料就是有这个问题，很轻很有弹性，但是不能持久。

第4位 (图四）：Saucony Freedom ISO 2。从Nordstrom Rack打折$70入。TPU鞋底。TPU跟EVA最大的区别是重量和弹性。TPU稍微重，但是非常有弹性，能量损耗很低。真得就有穿了弹簧的感觉。当然，对于初学者来说，刚上脚的时候可能会觉得有点硬。因为它的鞋底比较薄，触底感比较强。但是稍微有经验的跑着都喜欢这种感觉，而不是盲目地追求cushion。我其实是到了100英里以后才开始慢慢喜欢这鞋。现在它是我速度跑和10公里以内的主力。

第3位 (图六）：Saucony Ride ISO 2。尝过上一代的甜头后，看见这个2019年model减到$60后秒入。如果你愿意等，大部分跑鞋第二年都会降到$60左右。但是只是维持很短一段时间就会卖光。比上一代更加fit和轻盈。更重要的是保留了我喜欢的midsole材料和跑感，没有像其他牌子那样再变软。另外外形比上一代好看了不少。脚面的透气度也改进了。在夏天跑也基本没有问题。如果我只能拥有一双鞋，我会选它。

第2位 (图七）：New Balance Beacon v1。这是一双速度王。重量才不到200克。脚底的midsole比较硬，一切开始很不适应(不太适合初学者)。经过30英里以后，我爱上了它的反应度和灵敏度。每次PR都是穿这双鞋刷的。而且是在你不知不觉中实现。它唯一的缺点是，脚底没有太多橡胶保护。这是它重量轻的原因。所以估计这鞋撑不过200英里。

第1位(图八）：Saucony Triumph 17。这就是我把Novablast退了以后换的鞋。爱爱爱这双鞋的脚底。它不是最轻，也不是最软，也不是最快。但是是最适合长跑（16公里以上）。它的感觉无法言表，就像踩着一根弹簧一样但是有非常敏捷。整个鞋体的做工上盛，用料到位。唯一缺点就是用料有点过了，可能会比较热。我反正是没有感觉。如果我只能拥有两双鞋，那就是Triump + Beacon。前者用来练长跑，后者用来练速度。

友情客串(图九) : Adidas Boston 9。这双鞋是买来收藏的。一直不舍得穿。这是阿迪为波马专门设计的冠名马拉松跑鞋。上面有2020年波马的标志。注意2020年是波马开创124年来第一次被取消的。所以我觉得这鞋非常有收藏价值。最有意思是它的鞋垫：上面写满了波士顿周边的地名。其实这些地名都是波马比赛路线经过的小镇。作为曾经在波士顿住过七年的我，特别有感觉。

地缘政治第二课 - 俄罗斯

喜欢阅读地缘政治的人，都听过20世纪英国地缘政治家Mackinder的一句名言：

“谁控制了东欧，谁就控制了心脏地带”；
“谁控制了心脏地带，谁就控制了世界岛”；
“谁控制了世界岛，谁就控制了世界”。

当时Mackinder并没有明说，但是他所指的世界岛，就是欧亚大陆。而他文中的“心脏地带”，指的是俄罗斯。Mackinder的理论认为心脏地带有得天独厚天然的自然屏障：北有北冰洋，南有高加索山，西有寒冷的西伯利亚。似乎无限的腹地使得这个心脏地带几乎是不可毁灭的。相反，沿海的海权国家靠的是快速的海路补给线，但是和无限的心脏地带腹地相比，海权国家的势力是有限的。这套理论奠定了陆权理论的基础。和19世纪Alfred Mahan的海权理论形成鲜明对比。

心脏地带唯一的缺口在东欧。

89年美苏冷战结束，两方决定允许东西德统一的一个重要谈判条件，是北约不可以扩展到德国以东的国家。无独有偶，二战刚开始的时候，希特勒第一个占领的国家是波兰。为什么德国/波兰这个国家这么重要呢？他们的战略意义是什么呢？看看我手画的地图就知道。欧洲大陆基本西北-东南走向的被喀尔巴阡山脉分成两半。山脉以东是一马平川的东欧平原。盟军一旦穿过这个山脉，坦克车是可以直达莫斯科的。但是这个山脉显然是陆军不可逾越的。然而这个山脉停在了波兰。所以波兰是对俄罗斯（或者俄罗斯的敌人）至关重要的战略口。守住了波兰，就守住了俄罗斯。一旦波兰失守了，盟军的战略前线马上就可以拉成上千公里，想守都守不住。如果我是普京，晚上睡觉都会被波兰的风吹草动给弄醒。自古以来的战略家都看见这个地理位置的重要性。

俄罗斯的唯一选择就是不断的把国界以远离莫斯科的方向扩充。南边扩展到中亚，东欧基本是它的底线。90年代克林顿开始的北约东扩违背了当年德国统一的诺言。俄罗斯人觉得被背叛了，发现西方民主只是面纱，背后藏着的，还是几百年不变的罗马天主教征服者的灵魂。这就是普京的民意基础。

战斗民族的钢铁是怎么炼成的呢？寒冷的天气，和无限的平原。自古以来俄罗斯就四面是敌。中亚的突厥，南部的拜占庭，西边的拿破仑和普鲁士。当你的国家永恒的生活在危机赶感的时候，只有中央集权的政治制度能够适用。地理条件决定政治制度。

俄罗斯最想要的是一个温水港。看地图就清楚，俄罗斯的最直接入海港是波罗的海还有黑海。但是前者不是不冻港。后者要经过被北约的土耳其和英国的直布罗陀控制的海峡才能到大西洋。这样的海军在战争时期是没用的。有人说苏联之所以陷进阿富汗的泥潭，是为了印度洋的出海口。这个理论有一定基础，但是阿富汗并不靠海，只是通向印度洋之路的必经之路。这似乎可以解释为什么阿富汗被称为大国的坟墓。

二十一世纪的俄罗斯都有什么远景目标呢。北约的战斗机就停在离莫斯科航程20分钟的机场。高加索山的吉尔吉亚和大部分东欧平原上的国家加入北约。乌克兰，这个唯一一个在欧洲大陆上的正统俄语国家正在倒向西方。离开了乌克兰，俄罗斯就再也没有神圣罗马帝国的历史命脉，就变回一个亚洲大陆上野蛮民族了。所以乌克兰不光是俄罗斯的军事重地，武器中心，更是文化灵魂。如果说今天俄罗斯人还觉得自己是欧洲人的话，明天乌克兰倒戈了以后，俄罗斯人就要重新审视自己的历史地理身份了。总得来说，俄罗斯可以打的牌越来越少，但是仅剩的几张牌都是核武性的。

What did Karl Marx get right about capitalism?

Marxism still holds its ground on several key points about Capitalism. My Top Ten Takeaways from Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, and Vladimir Lenin:

1. Capitalism is the most dynamic and productive form of collective wealth creation known to man. “Constant revolutionizing of production, uninterrupted disturbance of all social conditions, everlasting uncertainty and agitation distinguish the bourgeois epoch from all earlier ones… All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned, and man is at last compelled to face with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind.” (~Karl Marx)
2. Inequality is a necessary product of Capitalism. It also is the driving force of competition. The highest, most coveted prize is a lasting, sustainable unfair advantage, an eternal fountainhead of individual wealth.
3. At the same time, inequality is a double-edged sword. Too much inequality necessarily leads to wealth destruction.
4. Private property on the means of production is the prerequisite for sustained innovation and entrepreneurship. The estrangement of individuals from the means of production (proletarianization) hampers their interest in development and leads to stagnation.
5. Power follows sources of wealth, not the other way around.
6. The key to a deep understanding of society lies in property relationships, economic dependencies, money flows, and wealth creation.
7. Gender patterns are shaped by economic power.
8. Politics, whatever the banners say, is always about (re)distribution of wealth. “People always will be the foolish victims of deception and self-deception in politics, until they have learned to seek out the interests of some class or other behind all moral, religious, political and social phrases, declarations and promises.” (~ Lenin)
9. The State is nothing else but a monopoly agent of violence outsourced by the most organized—but not always most wealthy—groups. Everything else is just add-ons, bells, and whistles attached to that essential core.
10. Ideologies and religions are necessary superstructures cementing a consensus between certain social and ethnic groups about their common economic interests

香港事件九月总结

香港反送中事件发展到如今已经三个多月。该发表一下评论了。

1. 从一开始我就认为，但是很多人反对，香港这次事件之所以能发展到今天这个程度，有两个内因。第一个是内在矛盾，就是经济分配极其不均。但是这个只是内在矛盾，绝对并不是根源。因为很多城市都有分配不均的问题，但是没有发展成暴动。第二点才是根本原因，这也是香港这次暴动能够激发成今日程度的深层原因，就是大部分香港人内心深处的种族仇恨。这个东西说浅是对大陆一切的蔑视，说深了是对中华民族这个身份从内心里的否定。如果光有第一个内在矛盾，我肯定不会发展成今天的程度，而且要示威也应该是冲着权力阶级。正是因为内心存在仇恨和歧视，才容易被煽动极端化，并且反对一切形式的和中国进行融合。

2. 有没有外国势力支持？ 这个用脚想想都应该知道。还不知道的人麻烦看看新闻最近世界舞台上都在进行什么大事。如果还是不知道的话，那您最好还是换台看韩剧算了。

3. 这次示威事件中暴露了两个缺口。一个是外籍法官问题；另一个是教育问题。外籍法官是个双刃剑。有人说如果深圳上海给予同样的关税金融政策就能取代香港，我认为不可以。人才还是其次（大陆人才还是有的）。关键是中国大陆缺乏外资能信得过的司法机关。说的不好听可以随时冻结财产。外籍法官的存在保住了香港的核心竞争力-独立（于中共）的司法。注意，这里讨论的不是这个施法的公正性。这里讲的是其独立性。

教育问题。很多人讨论香港的通识教材。其实更应该讨论香港的教育人员。香港教材缺乏爱国主义教育。试过了，人家说这是洗脑。但是这个“洗脑”是必要的。你要是不洗，他们的脑袋就被西方媒体洗。在中国软实力基本为零的前提下，不洗脑等于铸就了今天的示威者。但是怎么洗，要洗多久？我觉得最起码要二三十年事件。

4. 香港的未来是怎样: Who cares?

Seriously, 通过这次事件，中共清楚的认识到香港这个孩子“养不熟”。地位从以前的opportunity(机遇)变成liability(风险)。不好好做好联系世界的桥梁，反而跟西方一起搞屎棍。要教好这种“孩子”就一个办法，把它的优越感收回来。

我会预言香港金融中心的地位短期内还不至于被取代，但是中央会用政策倾斜于深圳和上海，给以把总部和结算放在内地的外资更多优惠。而同时，香港人会继续着他们高企的房价，拿着滞涨的工资，抢着不断减少的就业岗位，拦着不断萎缩的金融业，做着他们的民主梦。

等梦醒了以后就会发现，东方之珠已不再。

地缘政治第一课: 中国

人类自从有历史以来，就是跟自然界互相斗争的故事。地缘政治的核心概念是:国家自身以及周边的地理环境，决定了她的生活习性，文化，战争，甚至政治体系。这一系列博文是笔者在对地缘政治的阅读过程中写下来的领会，放在这里跟读者分享。

很多地理学家和战略家分析过世界主要的文明和强国。他们都有共同的特点:地缘条件极佳。对于一个国家而言，理想的地缘条件有以下几点：

1. 拥有天然防卫屏障；

2. 在国家的腹地，有足够可以耕作的土地，以及适宜农业的气候；

3. 腹地里有可畅通的水路或者交通；

4. 腹地最好被一圈缓冲区或自然屏障包围；

5. 有漫长的海岸线和良好的港口。

既然这是这系列的第一课，我们必须现在自己的国家，中国，开始说起。

中国作为一个有人居住的地理概念，是从大约5千年前开始。最初的文明开始于黄河流域花呗平原一带。经常发大水的黄河留下的肥沃土地，为最早期的文明提供了农业和定居的机会。知道今天，中国的腹地，依然是围绕着五千年前就定下来那个圈(见地图（1，腹地））。这个腹地主要是由降雨量决定。在腹地里的降雨量充足，可以务农。出了这个圈降雨量太少不够耕作，所以人口密度下降。中华文明核心，大部分都是在这个降雨圈里发生。秦始皇最早统一六国的地图，大概就是今天的腹地。

作为中国的腹地，她具备几个明显的战略弱点。首先，中国的腹地四周大都是平原（除了西藏）。背面是蒙古，东北是满洲里，西北是新疆。缺乏天然保护屏障，使得腹地常年收到外族入侵和骚扰。中国几千年来的历史，可以总结为周期性的对抗从这些平原草原入侵的游牧民族的历史。这些游牧民族的进攻路线在地图上标为（2, 3）。为了保住腹地，中国必须要把边界尽量往外推移，把尽可能多的新疆、蒙古、满洲等地区包括在版图里作为战略缓冲区。可以设想，如果新疆落在敌方手上，大规模进军中原腹地是很容易的。

中国腹地的另外一个弱点是西藏。西藏有两个重要地理意义。首先喜马拉雅山是个战略上不可逾越的壁垒。任何国家占领了这个壁垒，在壁垒另外一边的国家可以说是不可能过来的。这解释了中国印度为什么一直互相敌视但是从来没有发生大规模战争的原因。但是如果印度占领了西藏，那么从西藏进攻中原却是有居高临下的优势。西藏的另外一个重要意义是她是中国的水源。黄河，长江都是源于西藏。一个国家想控制自己的命运，必须控制自己的水源。综上原因，西藏对中国的腹地有着至关重要的地缘意义。 所以可以理解自古以来中国就认为西藏是必争之地。51年刚建国不久，解放军就把西藏给拿回来了，可想而知其重要性。

现在大家应该理解为什么西方国家老鼓吹新疆和西藏独立。就是因为它们的重要战略意义。

相比之下，蒙古草原曾经是中国最大的缺口。这就是为什么长城一开始就是冲着蒙古建，就是为了防蒙古。但是相比西藏和新疆，现在它的地缘意义已经不是那么重要了。主要因为敌从蒙古进攻可能性和成功率很低。蒙古和中国之间是戈壁沙漠，北面是西伯利亚。要从蒙古大规模进攻，需要很长的补给线。这个显然做不到。

在当今中国，其实最大战略缺口是东北亚，也就是朝鲜半岛。因为敌军可以从朝鲜长驱直达北京。所以中国必须要在朝鲜半岛布置缓冲区。于是有了北朝鲜。很多人以为中国当年为了讨好斯大林才打朝鲜战争，其实是为了自己的利益打的。

把西藏，新疆管好，把东北亚缓冲区守好，中国基本就是保住了腹地，并且留有足够的战略纵深。但是当今中国还有两个弱点。首先70%的能源来之中东，并且经过马六甲海峡和南中国海。另外日本台湾和菲律宾连成所谓的“第一岛链”把中国海军封死在太平洋以外。战争时期这是极其危险的。二战的时候苏联之所以打败德国，美国打败日本，其实主要靠的是能源物资的封锁。战时，美国及盟友只要把马六甲一封，把第一岛链一锁，中国就断油，断矿甚至断粮。所以要想控制自己的资源和海外利益，中国必须具备自由进出太平洋和印度洋的蓝水海军。也就是平常说的“打破第一岛链”。这个通过近年的反舰导弹射程慢慢超过美军舰载机航程做到了。在16世纪之前，中国最头痛的是陆上的边界。这就是为什么郑和比哥伦布还早到非洲，却没有开展欧洲式的殖民掠夺的原因。因为那时候中国真的不是很稀罕。16世纪以后，中国开始担心海上的敌人了。边界越长，邻国越多的锅盖架，受到战争的威胁越多。这是被历史不断证明的规律。正因为长期在外族入侵的危险下生存，中国选择中央集权作为自己的政治制度，这不是个偶然。下一课我们会看见，另外一个熟悉的国家，俄罗斯，也是因为长期被侵略而不的不选择集权制度。

Hong Kong's Enemy

Hong Kong has a population of 7 million and GDP per capita of ~ $50,000. So a rich big city. Well,

Denmark has 5 million people, one of the most productive agriculture industry in Europe, Maersk the biggest international shipping company, Novo Nordisk one of the top pharmaceutical companies in the world…

Sweden has 10 million people, Volvo the car company, Ericsson the telecom company, H&M the clothing retailer, Electrolux the home appliance company, IKEA the furniture company…

What about Hong Kong? Hong Kong doesn’t have a single world-class company. Not a single one, despite of its fantastic wealth. Handed over to the British since 1842, so almost 180 years where the local tycoons get to play in the sandbox. What has Hong Kong done with all its money? Which Hong Kong company has made it big worldwide? OK, so you can argue that Hong Kong is too crowded. Well Tokyo is also terribly crowded - so they became the world’s leader at Miniaturization. Small, high-quality, efficient. That’s what led to Sony and Toyota. Why couldn’t Hong Kong do this?

Hong Kong does not have the “economic DNA” for those things. You need to learn how Hong Kong really made its money. Hong Kong started it’s “industrialization” as an Opium Den. Jardine Matheson was the opium-runner https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hi..., and HSBC was the bank that financed the opium trade. Almost all Hong Kong tycoons are in real estate, where you take a monopoly on the land, and extract exorbitant rent from people for no work. Hong Kong’s Richest People Movie-making in the Great Britain involves 50-year-old Dames with serious acting skills. Movie-making in Hong Kong is mostly money-laundering for the tycoons, and publicity for the tycoons’ 20-year-old mistresses and/or their third wives.

In 1997 Hong Kong was handed over to PRC. To boost Hong Kong economy and promote integration, China signed a CEPA (Closer Economic Partnership Agreement) with Hong Kong in 2003, basically gave preferential status to trade through Hong Kong. Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement This agreement was promptly turned into a tax loophole by the Hong Kong lawyers. Goods worth $1 is exported from the Mainland to Hong Kong at $1, so you don’t pay China taxes because no profit is made. Then the goods is exported from Hong Kong to the rest of the world for $10, and you don’t pay Hong Kong taxes either, because no “work” has been done in Hong Kong. Up to a quarter of Mainlands goods get to route through Hong Kong to evade tax. Trillions of dollars route through Hong Kong for money laundering. If you do it, you’ll be called a “criminal” and end up in jail. If the tycoons do it with their companies, it’s called “providing legal/financial services” and ended up being a large chunk of Hong Kong’s GDP.

In a word, Hong Kong was and is all about money-laundering.

Hong Kong is not without opportunities to develop a real economy, but misses too many opportunities.

In the millennium, when there was a shift in manufacturing and entrepot trade, Hong Kong received several proposals for transformation.

In 1999, Tung Chee-hwa proposed the "Digital Cyberport" project to develop Internet technology.

We stand at that crossroad and look at the world around us. Google was just born in a private garage in California. It is far from being listed giant then. Facebook and Twitter were still unknown. China’s Alibaba and Tencent were just small gangs of 10 people. Ma Yun was not a "dad", he was just an ugly young man.

At that time, Hong Kong had the software skills, technology, talent, and capital, which of these were not stronger than that in the mainland?

However, the Internet was not taken up, and the Cyberport was turned into real estate development.

Later, Tung proposed the "Dangang" plan. Taiwan’s Zhang Yujing of TSMC, wanted to make chip manufacturing in Hong Kong. The people of Hong Kong resolutely opposed it by "speculating the land and speculating the price of the property" and engaged in a protest [against Article 23 of Basic Law]. As a result, Shanghai invited Zhang Yujing to take a SMIC in Shanghai. It is now the largest chip manufacturer in China and the fourth in the world.

Later, Tung once again proposed the "Chinese Medicine Port" plan because Hong Kong has a strong scientific research system, as well as a large number of biological researchers and more importantly it has a quality inspection system recognized by the whole world. This proposal is a combination of production, education and research. However, again because of the short-sightedness of the city’s capitalists, Tung’s proposal was not adopted.

As a result, the Huada Gene appeared in Shenzhen across the river, and it has become a world-class genetic and biological research enterprise.

From 1999 to 2005, if Hong Kong seized these three opportunities, Hong Kong would be the Asian Internet center, chip manufacturing center, and biological research center.

In those years, what was Hong Kong busy with?

The economy took a turn and Hong Kong turned to "financial, real estate, and service industries." These industries went sky-high and housing prices skyrocketed. The so-called free financial trading port has brought a lot of hot money across the border. These capital hot money boosted Hong Kong economy.

Today, the enemy of the Hong Kong economy is inside Hong Kong, amongst those financial oligarchs.

The financial profits have made Hong Kong rich but also spoiled Hong Kong. The short-sightedness and profit-seeking of capitalists have made Hong Kong miss the best 10 years.

Hong Kong is left with financing center for listing but Hong Kong is not the only choice [for such service]. Shanghai and Shenzhen could replace Hong Kong.

"Democracy" shaped itself into an isolated golden bell [cast-iron shield], and when Hong Kong looked at the rising small fishing village on the other side of the river, began to panic, then stupidly blame the government, blame the chief executive, blame the Li [Ka-shing] family, blame the return of Hong Kong to China. Everything was some else’s fault.

Ignoring the opportunity of huge market of 70 trillion yuan, [Hong Kong youth] took to the streets, playing "politic is right." It’s pitiful and pathetic!

The formerly closed ignorant Mainland China has becomes open and inclusive; Hong Kong, which was open to freedom in the past, has become ignorant and closed.

In just a few decades, history has played us the biggest joke.

Hong Kong people ~ have you woken up yet?