At the beginning of this year, Elon Musk had a fortune of $251 billion and could almost single-handedly solve world hunger. However, Tesla's stagnant sales, the endless struggle to buy Twitter, and the volatility of Tesla's stock price meant he lost a lot of money this year. According to Forbes, Musk is the billionaire with the most losses so far this year, with his wealth shrinking at a rate of about $5 billion a month. According to the website, his wealth shrank by more than 10% from the end of 2023 to June 28, 2024. As the website explains: Between December 31, 2023, and June 28, the last day of regular stock market trading for the first half of the year, Musk's net worth fell from $251.3 billion to $221.4 billion, a bigger drop than any other billionaire tracked by Forbes, but Musk remains the richest person on the planet. The main reason for the dip in Musk's pocketbook is that a Delaware judge in January canceled Musk's then-record Tesla compensation package worth $51 billion, which led Forbes to cut the value of the equity award by 50 percent because of uncertainty about whether Musk would receive those stock options. Excluding that bonus, Musk's wealth has remained volatile over the past six months, with the value of his 13 percent stake in Tesla shrinking by about $20 billion as falling profits and car deliveries sent the stock down 20 percent. But that was partly offset by the growth of Musk's stake in his generative artificial intelligence startup xAI to $14.4 billion (Musk also has a roughly $75 billion stake in private aerospace company SpaceX, a $7 billion stake in social media company X, And smaller stakes in other companies, such as brain experimentation startup Neuralink).

More than 6,500 employees at South Korea's Samsung Electronics began a three-day mass strike on Monday (July 8), demanding an extra day of paid annual leave, higher pay raises and changes to the way performance bonuses are currently calculated. This is the largest organized strike in Samsung Electronics' more than half century of existence, and the union said that if this strike does not push employees' demands to be met, a new strike may be called. One of the core issues of the current dispute between the labor union and Samsung Electronics is raising wages and increasing the number of paid vacation days. The second demand is a pay rise. The union originally wanted a pay rise of more than 3% for its 855 employees, but last week they changed their demand to include all employees (rather than just 855). The third issue involves performance bonuses linked to Samsung's outsized profits - chip workers did not receive the bonuses last year when Samsung lost about Won15tn and, according to unions, fear they will still not get the money even if the company manages to turn around this year.

According to Chinese movie ticketing platform Taopiaopiao, the box office for the 2024 Spring Festival holidays surpassed last year's 6.766 billion yuan and entered the top two in the history of Chinese Spring Festival holidays box office. I recently watched three movies, and I think they are all good. However, their overall level is not higher than the movies from last Spring Festival holidays. The higher box office compared to last year reflects the strong potential for movie consumption in Chinese society. Our filmmakers need to make further efforts. The current development of Chinese movies has many advantages. People often complain that our film creation faces various "restricted areas," but in terms of societal topics, the space for Chinese film creation is relatively large and relaxed. For example, Zhang Yimou's film Article 20 shows protest scenes and boldly explores the issue of judicial injustice in depth. A few years ago, the film I Am Not Madame Bovary specifically discussed the sensitive issue of petitioning. Another film, Johnny Keep Walking! which was aired last year, also touches on serious social issues. The breadth and depth of these films' topics lay the foundation for their attractiveness. The improvement of China's basic film production level has played a role in boosting their success, resulting in Hollywood films being collectively pushed off the Chinese box office charts. Now, almost any domestic film can be considered "watchable." The next step is to produce world-class masterpieces and promote the collective advancement of Chinese films on the global stage. The three movies that I watched are YOLO, directed, written and starring Jia Ling, a representative of the new generation of female Chinese directors, Pegasus 2, directed by Han Han and Article 20. They are all realistic-themed films, and the actors who play the main characters have some overlap. Although each of them is good, as mentioned earlier, I personally feel that their overall quality is not as good as films screened during last year's Spring Festival holidays. So I have a feeling that Chinese movies have been spinning in place for a year in such a good market environment. Of course, I am not an expert, so what I say may not be correct, or it may be biased. The production level of Chinese films, in terms of technology, has caught up. Domestic films have surpassed Hollywood in the domestic market through competition, which is a great achievement. However, I hope that this does not mark the beginning of a "decoupling" between Chinese movies and the rest of the world, but rather a turning point for Chinese films to reach a higher level domestically and to go global. This requires Chinese realistic films to not only be loved by domestic audiences but also become increasingly "understandable" to foreigners, allowing them to empathize with us through these films. If Chinese films can gradually go global through market-oriented approaches, it will be a new process for the international community to re-recognize and understand China, and to establish common values between us. The earliest understanding of the US by the Chinese people came entirely from the shaping of news propaganda. Later, American films and TV works entered China, showcasing the rich American society. Now, Western media's portrayal of China is completely stereotyped. If Chinese films and other popular culture do not go global, and if a large number of secular elements from China do not appear on the global internet, the outside world's perception of China is likely to be dictated by Western media for a long time. So I hope that China's excellent film market can incubate outstanding works that are loved and enjoyed globally. Not only should our cultural policies provide greater space, but our internet public opinion should also be more tolerant of the interweaving and mutually influencing between Chinese and Western cultural elements. We should not restrict those elements in Chinese films that can resonate with both Chinese and foreign audiences. For example, comedies should not only make Chinese people laugh, but also be understandable to foreigners. Chinese films need to establish their own big stars, including top-tier female stars. In the past, Bruce Lee and Jackie Chan became famous in the West, but they were primarily seen as "Hollywood stars." It is a more challenging journey for Chinese stars to gain international recognition through their own films. The success of Chinese films and Chinese stars worldwide is definitely a complementary process. The backgrounds of our film stories should also be carefully selected and more diverse, enhancing the visual quality and international appeal of the films. Feng Xiaogang's film Be There or Be Square was entirely set in the US, and later, there was another film called Lost in Thailand, both of which achieved good results. Choosing such backgrounds should be encouraged as one of the approaches. In conclusion, I am delighted by the comprehensive recovery of the Chinese film market, and I also hope that the films nurtured by this market will continue to progress. To achieve this, we need to keep introducing the world's best films and collaboratively cultivate the aesthetic taste of the Chinese people alongside Chinese films. Chinese films have already stood up, but they should not monopolize this vast market. Instead, the Chinese market should serve as the stage for them to expand globally.

A couple of days ago, a Quad summit meeting in Sydney scheduled for May 24 was abruptly canceled. The US president had to pull out of his long-anticipated trip to Australia and Papua New Guinea. Instead, the heads of the four Quad member states got together on the margins of the G7 Summit in Hiroshima on May 20. The main reason for the change of plans was the continuous struggle between the White House and Republicans on the Hill over the national debt ceiling. If no compromise is reached, the US federal government might fail to meet its financial commitments already in June; such a technical default would have multiple negative repercussions for the US, as well as for the global economy and finance at large. Let us hope that a compromise between the two branches of US power will be found and that the ceiling of the national debt will be raised once again. However, this rather awkward last-minute cancellation of the Quad summit reflects a fundamental US problem - a growing imbalance between the US geopolitical ambitions and the fragility of the national financial foundation to serve these ambitions. The Biden administration appears to be fully committed to bringing humankind back to the unipolar world that existed right after the end of the Cold War some 30 years ago, but the White House no longer has enough resources at its disposal to sustain such an undertaking. As they say in America: You cannot not have champagne on a beer budget. The growing gap between the ends that the US seeks in international relations and the means that it has available is particularly striking in the case of the so-called dual containment policy that Washington now pursues toward Russia and China. Even half a century ago, when the US was much stronger in relative terms than it is today, the Nixon administration realized that containing both Moscow and Beijing simultaneously was not a good idea: "Dual containment" would imply prohibitively high economic costs for the US and would result in too many unpredictable political risks. The Nixon administration decided to focus on containing the Soviet Union as the most important US strategic adversary of the time. This is why Henry Kissinger flew to Beijing in July 1971 to arrange the first US-China summit in February 1972 leading to a subsequent rapid rapprochement between the two nations. In the early days of the Biden administration, it seemed that the White House was once again trying to avoid the unattractive "dual containment" option. The White House rushed to extend the New START in January 2021 and held an early US-Russia summit meeting five months later in Geneva. At that point many analysts predicted that Biden would play Henry Kissinger in reverse - that is he would try to peace with the relatively weaker opponent (Moscow) in order to focus on containing the stronger one (Beijing). However, after the beginning of the Russia-Ukraine conflict, it became clear that no accommodation with the Kremlin was on Biden's mind any longer. Still, having decided to take a hard-line stance toward Moscow and to lead a broad Western coalition in providing military and economic assistance to Kiev, Washington has not opted for a more accommodative or at least a more flexible policy toward Beijing. On the contrary, over last year one could observe a continuous hardening of the US' China policy - including granting more political and military support to the Taiwan island, encouraging US allies and partners in Asia to increase their defense spending, engaging in more navel activities in the Pacific and imposing more technology sanctions on China. In the meantime, economic and social problems within the US are mounting. The national debt ceiling is only the tip of an iceberg - the future of the American economy is now clouded by high US Federal Reserve interest rates that slow down growth, feed unemployment and might well lead to a recession. Moreover, the US society remains split along the same lines it was during the presidency of Donald Trump. The Biden administration has clearly failed to reunite America: Many of the social, political, regional, ethnic and even generational divisions have got only deeper since January 2021. It is hard to imagine how a nation divided so deeply and along so many lines could demonstrate continuity and strategic vision in its foreign policy, or to allocate financial resources needed to sustain a visionary and consistent global leadership. Of course, the "dual containment" policy is not the only illustration of the gap between the US ambitions and its resources. The same gap inevitably pops up at every major forum that the US conducts with select groups of countries from the Global South - Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America or the Middle East. The Biden administration has no shortage of arguments warning these countries about potential perils of cooperating with Moscow or Beijing, but it does not offer too many plausible alternatives that would showcase the US generosity, its strategic vision, and its true commitment to the burning needs of the US interlocutors. To cut it short, Uncle Sam brings lots of sticks to such meetings, but not enough carrots to win the audience. In sum, US foreign policy under President Joe Biden reminds people of a very advanced and highly sophisticated smartphone that has a rather weak battery, which is not really energy efficient. The proud owner of the gadget has to look perennially for a power socket in order not to have the phone running out of power at any inappropriate moment. Maybe the time has come for the smartphone owner to look for another model that would have fewer fancy apps, but a stronger and a more efficient battery, which will make the appliance more convenient and reliable.

There has been constant low-level sniping in the West against China's record on climate change, in particular its expansion of coal mining, and its target of 2060 rather than 2050 for carbon zero. I have viewed this with mild if irritated amusement, because when it comes to results, then China, we can be sure, will deliver and most Western countries will fall short, probably well short. It is now becoming clear, however, that we will not have to wait much longer to judge their relative performances. The answer is already near at hand. We now know that in 2023 China's share of renewable energy capacity reached about 50 percent of its total energy capacity. China is on track to shatter its target of installing 1200GW of solar and wind energy capacity by 2030, five years ahead of schedule. And international experts are forecasting that China's target of reaching peak CO2 emissions by 2030 will probably be achieved ahead of schedule, perhaps even by a matter of years. Hitherto, China has advisedly spoken with a quiet voice about its climate targets, sensitive to the fact that it has become by far the world's largest CO2 emitter and aware that its own targets constituted a huge challenge. Now, however, it looks as if China's voice on global warming will carry an authority that no other nation will be able to compete with. There is another angle to this. China is by far the biggest producer of green tech, notably EVs, and renewable energy, namely solar photovoltaics and wind energy. Increasingly China will be able to export these at steadily reducing prices to the rest of the world. The process has already begun. It leaves the West with what it already sees as a tricky problem. How can it become dependent on China for the supply of these crucial elements of a carbon-free economy when it is seeking to de-risk (EU) or decouple (US) its supply chains from China? Climate change poses the greatest risk to humanity of all the issues we face today. There are growing fears that the 1.5-degree Celsius target for global warming will not be met. 2023 was the hottest year ever recorded. Few people are now unaware of the grave threat global warming poses to humanity. This requires the whole world to make common cause and accept this as our overarching priority. Alas, the EU is already talking about introducing tariffs to make Chinese EVs more expensive. And it is making the same kind of noises about Chinese solar panels. The problem is this. Whether Europe likes it or not, it needs a plentiful supply of Chinese EVs and solar panels if it is to reduce its carbon emissions at the speed that the climate crisis requires. According to the International Energy Authority, China "deployed as much solar capacity last year as the entire world did in 2022 and is expected to add nearly four times more than the EU and five times more than the US from 2023-28." The IEA adds, "two-thirds of global wind manufacturing expansion planned for 2025 will occur in China, primarily for its domestic market." In other words, willy-nilly, the West desperately needs China's green tech products. Knee-jerk protectionism demeans Europe; it is a petty and narrow-minded response to the greatest crisis humanity has ever faced. Instead of seeking to resist or obstruct Chinese green imports, it should cooperate with China and eagerly embrace its products. As a recent Financial Times editorial stated: "Beijing's green advances should be seen as positive for China, and for the world." The climate crisis is now in the process of transforming the global political debate. Hitherto it seemed relatively disconnected. That period is coming to an end. China's dramatic breakthrough in new green technologies is offering hope not just to China, but to the whole world, because China will increasingly be able to supply both the developed and developing world with the green technology needed to meet their global targets. Or, to put it another way, it looks very much as if China's economic and technological prowess will play a crucial role in the global fight against climate change. We should not be under any illusion about the kind of challenge humanity faces. We are now required to change the source of energy that powers our societies and economies. This is not new. It has happened before. But previously it was always a consequence of scientific and technological discoveries. Never before has humanity been required to make a conscious decision that, to ensure its own survival, it must adopt new sources of energy. Such an unprecedented challenge will fundamentally transform our economies, societies, cultures, technologies, and the way we live our lives. It will also change the nature of geopolitics. The latter will operate according to a different paradigm, different choices, and different priorities. The process may have barely started, but it is beginning with a vengeance. Can the world rise to the challenge, or will it prioritize petty bickering over the vision needed to save humanity? On the front line, mundane as it might sound, are EVs, wind power, and solar photovoltaics. The author is a visiting professor at the Institute of Modern International Relations at Tsinghua University and a senior fellow at the China Institute, Fudan University. Follow him on X @martjacques.