Looking at the return of American neoliberalism from Trump’s coin issuance: survival of the fittest and barbaric growth

Author: @Web3Mario

Abstract : This week is really exciting. Trump personally issued coins on January 18, two days before he officially took office as president, and the price increased by as much as 400 times in just a few days! First of all, I would like to congratulate all the friends who have seized this wave of wealth opportunities, and I also wish you a Happy New Year in advance. There has been a lot of discussion over the past few days about the potential impact of this phenomenal event, and I would like to use this opportunity to start the discussion. In general, the author believes that "Trump issuing coins" marks the official return of American neoliberalism, and survival of the fittest and barbaric growth will become the main theme of this new era. More specifically, in the context of deregulation, Web3 will carry the banner of financial innovation in the new cycle of the United States.

**The development history of mainstream economic doctrines in American

history—continuous exploration of the relationship between government and market**

In order to help friends have a deeper understanding of the impact of this change, the author believes that it is very necessary to make a simple overview of the changes and development of mainstream economic doctrines in American history. In fact, the history of the development of economic theory is a history of exploring the relationship between the government and the market. With different historical stages and different internal and external conflicts in society, modern sovereign countries often adopt different economic strategies to deal with internal and external pressures. It ensures social stability internally and maintains its relative competitive advantage in international geopolitical games externally. The so-called mainstream economic theory is the abstract summary made by some of the most insightful people based on specific economic phenomena to provide theoretical basis for policy makers to formulate policies. They are not some eternal truths in Neo-Confucianism, but rather belong to the category of sociology and are applicable to a certain area at a certain historical stage.

After clarifying the above premise, let's take a look at the development history of mainstream economic doctrines in American history. In fact, it can be roughly divided into six stages:

1. The colonial era in the context of the Puritan withdrawal from Europe: the process of resistance to the colonial economic exploitation of the mother country under mercantilism (1600-1776)

Friends who are familiar with Western history will know that unlike most nation-states, the United States is a country of immigrants. The uniqueness of immigration countries is that their birth usually depends on certain internal irreconcilable contradictions in the home country of immigrants in a specific context, which leads to large-scale migration of vulnerable interest groups. This means that the cohesion of immigrant countries is usually much higher than that of nation-states at the beginning of their establishment. There are two reasons. First, they are a group of selected interest groups with common ideologies and values. Secondly, because at the beginning of the establishment of the immigration country, the distributable benefits were still abundant, and all classes were able to enjoy objective distribution of benefits, so they felt a strong sense of satisfaction.

The birth of the United States can be traced back to the colonial era when the British Puritans evacuated the European continent and were looking for a new "Promised Land." The landmark event here is naturally the familiar "Mayflower" incident, which established the British Puritans' influence on the European continent. North America's first virgin colony, Virginia. Here we need to talk a little bit about the background of the Puritans. We know that the Middle Ages on the European continent was a period of so-called theocracy. The background of this stage was that the Western Roman Empire used foreign mercenaries to resist barbarian invasions from the perspective of interests and costs, which led to The decline of its own military power gave rise to the rise of barbarian kingdoms on the European continent. In order to deal with this background, the rulers of the Western Roman Empire chose to use the surplus value of the empire to transform their identity and governance model. By promoting Catholicism originating from the Middle East, they found legitimacy and authority for their rule in order to relieve themselves. The embarrassing situation of insufficient military strength. The result was that with the conversion of most of the "barbarian kingdoms", the old ruling class of the Western Roman Empire transformed into the Holy See, and the ruling model also changed from forceful suppression to ideological control.

And how is this done? This is because although the barbarian kingdoms have advantages in force, they are not good at culture. Therefore, whether in the East or the West, when the barbarian kingdoms use force to govern certain areas where culture is in a dominant position, they will Assimilated, whether top-down or bottom-up, once most of the group is assimilated by a dominant culture, the source of authority of its ruling class will not be independent and will have to rely on external forces. intervention. Specifically, because most of the barbarian tribes converted to Catholicism, such as the Germans, Gauls, Celts, Angsans, etc. The legitimacy of the ruling class of its sovereign state will not depend on national consciousness, but on the coronation of the Holy See to give it legitimacy. This model is actually similar to the Western Zhou Dynasty's control of the vassal states through Zhou rites.

In this context, since there is no option of intimidation by force, in order to ensure the stability of its rule, the Holy See must design complicated religious rituals to achieve absolute control over people's thoughts and completely eliminate these "barbaric" armed forces. People” resist the idea. Therefore, we will find that under the background of the Middle Ages, there was basically no bottom-up resistance similar to that in Eastern civilization on the European continent, because the minds of the people at the bottom were firmly controlled by Catholicism.

However, as religion is a metaphysical subject, different people will naturally have different views due to their different life backgrounds. Once another opposing thought is formed, it will inevitably have a fatal impact on the authority of the old mainstream thought. , and this opposition is irreconcilable, so throughout the Middle Ages, the so-called "chaos" was not the chaos of the internal order of society, but the long-term senseless disputes between national alliances with different religious views due to differences in metaphysical values. Bloody war.

With the huge impact of the cruel war on society, some progressive people began to reflect on this status quo, which also gave birth to the "Enlightenment" and "Renaissance", with liberalism and rationalism as the core. The cultural changes began to impact the Catholic system in all aspects. The so-called Puritans are the product of this background. They refer to a group of religious radicals in the UK. Their radical thoughts focus on the ownership of the right to interpret the Bible. They believe that the Bible is the only authoritative one. Sexually, everyone can interpret the Bible, while non-traditional ones can only be interpreted by the official church designated by the Holy See. Naturally, this was suppressed by the Catholic group, which resulted in these radical religious figures being expelled from the church, so they were called Puritans. Moreover, it coincided with the Age of Discovery, and European navigation technology was developing rapidly. These suppressed people had a reactionary Authoritative and freedom-seeking interest groups chose to come to the distant North American colonies to re-establish their "promised land." This is the beginning of the story, and it also established that anti-authority, self-awareness, and pursuit of freedom are the national spirit of the United States.

After introducing this background, we can understand why Americans seem to have a certain paranoia about liberalism. Closer to home, although there was an environment of religious freedom, economically, the North American colonies at that time were still under the colonial economic system of their mother country. At this time, Britain was pursuing mercantilism. The core idea of ​​mercantilism was that the country should use policies and force, and use the two precious metals of gold and silver as the standard to export more than it imports, thereby achieving national power. improvement. On this theoretical basis, the British usually require colonies to focus on raw material industries such as agriculture and mining, and curb the development of their manufacturing industries. In this way, they can import raw materials and export industrial products with higher added value to achieve economic development in the colonies. Predation and control, this was what was known as the colonial economy, such as restrictions on the colonies' freedom of trade through the Navigation Acts. Therefore, at this time, an agricultural-based landlord class gradually formed in the North American colonies, as well as a group of progressive people who advocated the development of industry to get rid of the economic control of the metropolitan country. A large number of landmark events in this stage revolved around the conflicts between progressives and the sovereign state, such as the Boston Tea Party. In the end, after a series of struggles and pulls, coupled with the influence of France's strong intervention in North American affairs, the United States won the War of Independence as a symbol, and the United States was officially born.

2. The early days of the founding of the People 's Republic of China when the Juche nationalities were integrated: the national struggle between Physiocrats and Heavy Industrialists (late 18th to mid-19th centuries)

After gaining independent sovereignty, the United States was actually still very weak at this time and had to rely on its alliance with France to gain a certain sense of security. At this time, two mainstream economic doctrines gradually emerged in the United States. As we have mentioned above, After exploring the formation of the two classes, progressives and traditional landowners, the two economic theories are supported by these two groups of people respectively.

Among them, due to the superior agricultural development advantages in the southeastern United States, its economic system is mainly based on slave agriculture and plantation. Naturally, the landlord class has obvious advantages among the social classes in the region. Moreover, this coincided with the honeymoon period between the United States and France. At this time, France was at a disadvantage in the colonial competition with Britain, so it changed its views on mercantilism and put forward physiocrats. There is a big difference between physiocrats and mercantilists. First of all, physiocrats believe that agriculture is the only industry that generates value, because the raw materials of agriculture are natural and free, such as sunlight, rain, land, etc., while agriculture The output of raw materials has value. This is a process from scratch, while industry only processes raw materials and only changes their form. No value is generated in this process. Therefore, the measurement of national strength should be based on the assessment of agricultural output, which is very different from the concept of mercantilism that the accumulation of precious metals represents national strength. Second, regarding the attitude towards the market, Physiocrats believe that although industrial products do not produce value, they are the lubricant of economic operation, affecting the efficiency of value circulation, and a relatively free market system is beneficial to enhancing turnover efficiency. , which is also very different from the exports encouraged by mercantilism and the practice of curbing imports. Of course, from the perspective of hindsight, we can also see that Physiocrats was an optimal choice when industrial technology was relatively backward compared to Britain at that time, but it had a demographic dividend. It is conceivable that the landowning class in the American South would naturally support this doctrine.

However, as an important North American trade transit center for the United Kingdom, the northern part of the United States is naturally greatly influenced by British economic concepts. Therefore, the northern part of the United States naturally formed an industrial structure based on trade and primary manufacturing. And because they were deeply affected by the dangers of the colonial economic system, progressive people in the northern United States had a clear preference for industry. Therefore, after gaining independent economic status, they naturally vigorously developed industry to get rid of the shadow of the colonial economy. In this era of mercantilism and Under the dual influence of the colonial economy, the economic theory of heavy industry was formed in the northern United States. It believed that industry was the embodiment of national strength. The difference in added value brought by industrial products and raw materials was the only way to increase national strength. Therefore, the country should formulate Policies such as protective tariffs encourage the development of local industry as much as possible.

As time went on, two cultural groups with great differences gradually formed in the north and south of the United States. The north was called Yankee. This word originally meant the descendants of the residents of the New England region in the northern United States; later its folklore meaning extended to the United States. All residents of the Northeast (New England, Mid-Atlantic States, Upper Great Lakes, etc.), as well as Northern Americans during and after the American Civil War. The South calls itself Dixie, which refers to the southern states of the United States and the people in this region. Cultural differences eventually led to a complete split, and eventually the Civil War broke out in the United States, which ended with the absolute victory of the Yankee cultural group in the north who advocated heavy industry doctrine. So far, the mainstream economic doctrine in the United States is dominated by heavy industrialism. The landmark event was President Hamilton's "Report on Manufactures" (1791), which proposed protectionist tariffs and a federal bank and laid the foundation for American industrial policy. Of course, it also included the Tariff Act of 1816, which protected domestic manufacturing from cheap imports.

3. Manifest Destiny’s era of expansion and the Roaring 20s: Laissez-faire and classical economics (mid-19th century to early 20th century)

As the United States relied on the abundant supply of raw materials from the North American continent and industrialization began rapidly, the United States' national power achieved great development. At that time, a huge sense of superiority and a sense of mission inherent in Christianity emerged in the American people. The general mood of imperialism arose, and the United States has now entered the era of Manifest Destiny's western expansion. At that time, the central and western parts of North America were controlled by indigenous tribes, and most of these indigenous tribes had long-term dealings with Western colonists, especially the Spanish. , France and the United Kingdom are represented. The United States, through policies such as the Homestead Act, encouraged citizens to independently march westward to seize indigenous lands. Under this vigorous westward movement, the U.S. territory started from the Mississippi River and guided Taiping Sheep to stop the pace of expansion, spanning the entire North American continent.

At this time, the rise of classical economics in continental Europe also deeply affected American society. The so-called classical economics is a system of economic thought formed from the late 18th to the 19th century, and is also the founding theory of modern economics. It emphasizes the spontaneous regulation of the market, free competition and economic freedom, laying the theoretical foundation for the capitalist economic system. This school of thought mainly explores core economic issues such as production, distribution and growth.

In fact, the birth of classical economics is not accidental. It is not difficult to find out by referring to the experiences of its representative figures. Take Adam Smith as an example. He was born in Scotland and was naturally deeply influenced by mercantilism. However, under mercantilism, the country Adam Smith was also deeply influenced by the legal system during his exchange in France with regard to the strong intervention in industry and the increasing financial pressure to maintain the colonial system. Inspired by Physiocrats, it absorbed the core ideas of Physiocrats, such as the meaning of the free market, the government's attitude towards market intervention, the analysis logic of commodity value, the government's analysis of economic conditions through mathematical models, etc. Of course, there are also differences. For example, classical economics believes that agriculture is not the only industry that generates value. The real source of value of commodities is labor.

This kind of economic theory is obviously more suitable for the enlightened West that has completed the Enlightenment in the new era. Moreover, as the human rights movement has accelerated, aversion to government intervention has gradually formed a social consensus. At this stage, most Western countries have

We should pursue a minimum government intervention, a more open international trade policy, and rely on the power of the market to allow the economy to develop freely. This policy is also known as laissez-faire. This also gave rise to the rapid rise of the capitalist class. Influenced by Ricardo's comparative advantage theory, countries also support their own advantageous industries based on their own industrial advantages. At this stage, like most countries in the Western world, various industries in the United States are developing in an all-round way and showing a thriving trend. However, the contradiction between the working class and business owners brought about by the development of industrialization has gradually increased, and a red cloud has enveloped the sky over the European continent.

The proposal of Marxist economics is an inheritance and dialectical criticism of classical economics, and its core idea continues the labor theory of value in classical economics. He also used materialism to explore production relations and developed the theory of surplus value to reveal the mechanism of capitalist exploitation. Its essence is a change in the political system. In response to the criticism of some phenomena in classical economics pointed out by Marxist economics, classical economics has also evolved, and some shortcomings in classical economics have been improved by introducing "marginal theory". For example, the analysis of commodity value is based on Labor theory of value, transition to marginal value theory, how the market regulates prices, etc. This is also known as neoclassical economics. But in fact, both ideas have entered a stage of independent development. Markian economics has found a ground for dissemination in the East, while neoclassical economics has penetrated the development of the West.

4. The Turbulent Great Depression Era: Big Government and Keynesianism (1929-1980)

Along with the rapid development of industry, the pace of financial innovation has not stopped. Among them, the booming development of the U.S. stock market is the most representative. Due to the free market concept emphasized by classical economics, government intervention is minimized, which makes capital development appear A state of loss of control.

In the 1920s, also known as the "Roaring Twenties", the U.S. economy experienced rapid growth and the stock market was highly prosperous, but much of the growth was based on speculation and excessive credit expansion. Moreover, with the rapid development of industry, most industries have shown a certain degree of oversupply, but residents' income growth lags behind and purchasing power is insufficient. With the support of these two situations, the U.S. stock market has entered a stage of irrational exuberance. The value of most corporate stocks is much higher than its actual value, and speculation accounts for a very high proportion.

This capital feast eventually ended in the Great Depression. The so-called Great Depression refers to a global economic crisis that occurred in the 1930s. It was centered in the United States, but had a devastating impact on the world's economy and society. had a profound impact. This period was characterized by economic depression, surges in unemployment, and widespread social unrest. On October 24, 1929 ("Black Thursday"), the stock market began to crash and a large number of investors went bankrupt. The decline accelerated on October 29 ("Black Tuesday"), marking the beginning of the Great Depression. Until 1933, the unemployment rate in the United States was as high as 25%, and industrial production dropped by nearly 50%. Thousands of banks collapsed, depositors lost their savings and credit markets froze. Many families are unable to pay their mortgages and basic living expenses, and a large number of homeless people have emerged.

The crisis has also had a profound impact on a global scale, with the economies of European, Latin American and Asian countries also being severely hit. International trade is on the verge of collapse, with total global trade falling by about two-thirds. It is not an exaggeration to say that the fuse of World War II was attributed to this.

In response to this crisis, Keynesian Economics was born. Keynesianism is one of the most influential economic theories of the 20th century. It was developed by the British economist John Maynard Keynes in 1936. It was proposed in "The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money" published in 2007. This theory mainly focuses on how to achieve full employment and economic growth through government intervention. It is a criticism and revision of the "market self-regulation" of classical economics.

Since the trigger of this crisis is the stock market bubble caused by insufficient demand and excessive speculation, the core theory of Keynesianism is mainly built around these two aspects. One is the effective demand theory. Keynes believes that the fundamental cause of economic recession is It's a lack of effective demand, not a problem of production capacity. Effective demand consists of four aspects, total consumption (C) + total investment (I)

• government expenditure (G) + net exports (NX). Therefore, when private behaviors such as consumption, investment, and net exports weaken, the economy When there are signs of recession, the government can intervene and boost effective social demand through government guidance. The second is that the government should provide strong monitoring of capital expansion to avoid excessive speculation in the financial market, thereby causing systemic risks.

Roosevelt's New Deal marked that Keynesianism had officially become the mainstream economic theory in the United States. President Roosevelt adopted large-scale economic intervention measures through the "New Deal". For example, many public infrastructure investments stimulate domestic demand, rebuild the financial credit system, promote financial system reform, and establish new regulatory frameworks (such as the Securities and Exchange Commission) to strengthen control of the financial market. This is also the familiar SEC.

With the introduction of Roosevelt's New Deal, the United States quickly got out of the Great Depression, and with the help of the two world wars, it formed one of the world's two poles. Keynesianism also established its historical position.

5. The Stagflation Era under the Bipolar Cold War: Neoliberalism and the Supply-side School

As time continues to develop, after World War II, the world entered the bipolar Cold War stage under the Iron Curtain. At this time, the main theme of world politics and economy was the struggle between the left and the right, and the confrontation between the socialist camp and the capitalist camp. Although there was no direct conflict between the United States and the Soviet Union, proxy wars occurred frequently. After each experienced rapid development brought about by post-war reconstruction, the United States was the first to encounter a bottleneck period in the 1970s. This was the dominant stage of the socialist camp. After suffering the defeat in the Vietnam War, the United States entered a stage of strategic contraction and defense. There were two triggers at this time. First, the collapse of the Bretton Woods system (1971). As the United States abandoned the dollar peg to gold (the Nixon shock), the fixed exchange rate system collapsed, leading to increased instability in the international economic system in the capitalist camp. Secondly, the oil crisis caused by the war in the Middle East caused oil prices to skyrocket, further raising inflation.

Against this background, the United States encountered severe stagflation, economic growth came to a standstill, and inflation and unemployment continued to rise. To deal with this dilemma that Keynesianism cannot solve, the economics community has proposed another solution. A group of economists represented by the Chicago School and the Austrian School proposed the so-called neoliberalism. The former was mainly committed to the construction of economic theory, while the latter focused on the criticism of political systems. The core idea of ​​neoliberalism believes that the cause of stagflation is excessive government intervention, which seriously affects the vitality of enterprise innovation, which in turn leads to higher production costs for enterprises on the supply side and the market does not enter a state of full competition. Therefore, it advocates returning to small government, avoiding excessive regulation, advocating reducing corporate taxes, and controlling government expenditures to revitalize the supply side. Therefore, it is also called the supply school. Of course, at the theoretical level, the biggest difference between neoliberalism and Keynesianism is that it advocates regulating the economy through monetary policy rather than fiscal intervention.

From 1979 to 1980, the inflation rate in the United States was close to 14%, much higher than the historical average. The unemployment rate rose to 7.8% in 1980 and reached 10.8% in 1982, the highest level since the Great Depression. Republican candidate President Ronald Reagan won the U.S. election and chose to use neoliberalism as the basis of his governance, vigorously promoting "Reaganomics" and matching it with Federal Reserve Chairman Volcker's monetary tightening policy. The United States finally struggled to get out of the stagflation dilemma and finally won the Cold War. I would like to add here that Trump’s policies have long been compared to Reagan’s policies.

6. The era of large-scale water release during the post-subprime crisis period: quantitative easing and post-Keynesianism

This period of history is more familiar to everyone. With the loose monetary policy and the relaxation of regulatory policies, the U.S. economy driven by financial and technological innovation has entered a stage of rapid expansion of globalization. Financial institutions have adopted innovative products ( Such as asset-backed securities) spread risks around the world, and the global financial system is highly interconnected. At the same time, the U.S. real estate market experienced sustained price increases in the early 2000s and was considered a safe investment area, attracting large amounts of capital.

Under this dual resonance, the United States created a huge asset bubble based on subprime loans represented by high-risk housing mortgage loans, combined with numerous financial derivative designs. However, the end of the story is already clear. As subprime loan defaults surged, the value of collateral fell, causing the value of a large number of asset-backed securities to shrink. The dominoes began to collapse, and eventually Lehman Brothers, the fourth largest investment bank in the United States, filed for bankruptcy protection, marking the climax of the crisis and triggering turmoil in global financial markets.

The impact of this financial crisis is far-reaching. The American people are extremely dissatisfied with the Republican government's laissez-faire attitude toward capital, which has caused such a crisis. This has also affected the readjustment of mainstream economic doctrine in the United States, and post-Keynesianism has announced its return. A core argument of neoliberal economists' criticism of Keynesianism has always been based on the assertion of rational economic man. If monetary and fiscal policies are predictable, economic agents will adjust their behavior in advance to offset the policy effects. So fiscal policy to boost the economy is ineffective.

In response to these doubts, Keynesianism has also made new revisions, of which price and wage stickiness (Price and Wage Stickiness) and imperfect competitive markets are the most influential. The former explains why fiscal policy has a lagging effect on the economy. , and the latter clarifies that there is an oligopoly problem in the market, and the impact on the equilibrium price under imperfect competition in a monopoly market type. Of course, post-Keynesianism also incorporates the most important theory of neoliberalism, which is to jointly influence the economy through monetary policy and fiscal policy. At the same time, post-Keynesianism goes a step further and proposes rational expectations management to solve the lag of monetary policy relative to economic crises. That is, based on the neoliberal rational economic man's judgment, through the forward-looking guidance of relevant officials, it affects the expectations of rational economic man in the market, and then has the effect of intervening in the market in advance, thereby improving the efficiency of monetary and fiscal policies. Therefore, the features we are familiar with, such as the control of 2% inflation and the observation of forward guidance from Federal Reserve officials, are all products of this background.

Of course, during this cycle, as the executor of post-Keynesianism, the Democratic government mainly used three arrows to address the impact of the financial crisis, namely, large-scale fiscal spending and unconventional quantitative easing policies, extremely loose monetary policies, and Tightening financial regulatory measures. Helped the United States escape the impact of the financial crisis. The story has also come to the present.

**The return of neoliberalism in the United States under Trump’s

leadership** , Web3 will carry the banner of financial innovation in the new cycle of the United States

Throughout the history of the evolution of mainstream economic doctrine in the United States, it is not difficult to find that this is a process of continuous exploration of the relationship between the government and the market. Affected by different historical events, policies continue to swing between the government and the market. The theory that emphasizes the former emphasizes the effect of government intervention in the economy, while the theory that emphasizes the latter emphasizes that the market is more efficient in allocating resources. Considering Trump's own life experience, the stage when his important outlook on life was formed coincided with the low ebb of Keynesianism in the 1970s. The United States relied on President Reagan's promotion of neoliberalism to help the United States get out of trouble. Therefore, Trump’s original intention of helping America become great again through similar strategies becomes easy to understand.

In Trump’s argumentative framework, the Democratic Party’s economic policies have created three fatal problems:

lThe large-scale fiscal stimulus bill and quantitative easing policy have plunged the United States into a debt crisis;

l Protective policies towards high-tech industries in Silicon Valley have led to a misallocation of resources, over-allocating to high-tech industries and completely abandoning traditional industries, weakening American industry;

l The massive information gap caused by the government's active intervention has led to horizontal capital redistribution between different industries, widening the gap between rich and poor across industries, and exacerbating inequality;

Therefore, in this context, the author believes that Trump’s issuance of coins two days before he officially took over as president is not just for the purpose of making money, but to send a signal, that is, he hopes to provide Web3 with a supply side that he will not regulate. During the reform process, it has set a tone for becoming the core position of a new round of financial innovation. The benefits of doing this are also obvious:

1. It can bypass the constraints of complex interest groups formed in the traditional financial field by the Democratic Party for many years;

2. The open, transparent and trustless nature of the Web3 technology paradigm coincides with neoliberalism. By eliminating the intervention of all authoritative organizations and completely adjusting the distribution of interests by market mechanisms, it will be more conducive to the implementation of neoliberalism.

3. At present, most assets in the Web3 world are still priced in US dollars, so promoting related assets is also of positive significance for maintaining the hegemony of the US dollar;

4. The anti-censorship feature of Web3 makes the flow of capital more efficient, and can bypass the financial policy restrictions of other sovereign countries and give full play to the financial advantages of the United States;

Of course, the impact of this is also obvious. The most direct negative impact must be similar to that of 2008, and it is bound to be greater and more far-reaching than the impact of the 2008 financial crisis. Higher financial systemic risks, and the relationship between the rich and the poor. Vertical wealth redistribution is inevitable. But the time period in which this risk occurs must be medium to long term. To sum up, the author is very interested in the direction of financial innovation based on Web3 and traditional American industries in the next two years, and will continue to pay attention. Interested friends are also welcome to discuss with the author.