Following the previous article "Justin Sun's Lecture 9 Years Ago Went Viral on the Internet: Why Not Buy a House, Not Buy a Car, Not Get Married?," after a deep dive into Justin Sun's "Three No's Principle," we discovered that behind this set of life choices, there is actually a more profound financial wealth philosophy: his profound contemplation on the essence of wealth, societal changes, and an individual's positioning in the historical tide.

"Not Buy a House, Not Buy a Car, Not Get Married" is just the surface. What is truly worth discussing is: how does Justin Sun actually understand wealth? What insights does he have into China's wealth creation and inheritance dilemma? Why can't Chinese people get rich, and why does wealth not last beyond three generations? What are the institutional and cultural roots behind this? In his view, what kind of era transition are we experiencing? Why did he agree with Trump's election 9 years ago?

The answers to these questions are also hidden in Justin Sun's audio course from 9 years ago, "The Road to Financial Freedom Revolution," where, at a life juncture when he had just graduated from Peking University, returned from studying in the United States, and was preparing to make a big impact, Justin Sun's contemplation explained his personal wealth concept. And over these years, Justin Sun has truly validated his judgments through practice.

For easier reading, BlockBeats continues to do minimal polishing and rearranging on the original audio to present Justin Sun's wealth values comprehensively.

1. Question: Why do you say this is a new era? What kind of societal transformation are we undergoing from what kind of society to what kind of society?

Justin Sun: Previously, Li Ao wrote a book specifically criticizing the Kuomintang's so-called "power structure distribution": he called it "genital link-up." Though the words are harsh, they indeed hit the nail on the head: the closer one is to Chiang Kai-shek's genitals, the greater one's power. Why could Song Ziwen become the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the President of China Bank, and the Minister of Finance? Isn't it because Chiang Kai-shek married his sister? The reason is straightforward. On a broader level, fifty years ago, the power distribution in many parts of China often relied on this power structure logic: from governing a country to managing a city or even a family, political families were rampant. Essentially, this is related to the "industrial society based on the family unit."

Here, I'd like to quote a sentence I really like, from Oscar Wilde (also mentioned by Underwood in "House of Cards"): "Everything in the world is about sex, except sex; sex is about power." This sentence's meaning is: in traditional society, almost everything revolves around "sex and reproduction"; only "sex itself/reproduction itself" is not about sex but about power.

Why is it said that "Everything in the world is about sex and reproduction"? Because in agricultural and industrial societies organized around the family unit, the essence revolves around reproduction and family interests in resource allocation. Each person's life path: when reaching a marrying age, they should get married; after getting married, they should have children; after having children, they should arrange education, property, and inheritance for their children. Almost all of these revolve around the logic of "sex and reproduction." When you look back at every step you've taken, every penny you've earned, and every choice you've made, are they all in service of this?

At the national level, it is similar. In the feudal society of the past two or three thousand years, power distribution was not based on ability but on primogeniture — whose surname and lineage determined who would hold power. Resource allocation and power distribution are essentially a chain of "sex-bloodline-power." Even within families, the same logic applies. Recently, when I revisited my ancestral home in Shandong, women had no inheritance rights within the family and were not even allowed in the family genealogy — this is a tangible manifestation of "sex is about power": Surname is closely tied to power. The determination of who rules a family or a class is often not based on "ability or contributions" but more on bloodline and lineage, reflecting the underlying logic of society organized around the family unit.

Today, we are at a crossroads transitioning from the logic of "family, sex, power" to the logic of "individual, ability, network." Therefore, I repeatedly emphasize the need to have a sense of strategy: in this intergenerational transition, those who first understand, take action, and reconstruct themselves as "producers based on the individual and leveraged by the network" are more likely to avoid pitfalls and seize opportunities in the fluctuations of the next twenty to thirty years.

I think the shift from power-based allocation to money-based allocation is truly remarkable. So, when we return to the topic of "why this is a new era?" we are essentially transitioning from a society dominated by sex and power to a society gradually transitioning to one dominated by money and freedom.

So, I believe that if anyone deeply understands the ideas in this chapter, they will have a dichotomy: everything related to sex and power is backward and should be abandoned, while everything related to money and freedom should be encouraged as progressive. After understanding this point, when you analyze the bits and pieces and various events that appear in your life, I believe you will be empowered, including having many of your own ideas when making choices.

2. Question: What are the essential characteristics and features of this transformation?

Justin Sun: The earlier quote by Oscar Wilde: "Everything in the world is about sex; sex is about power" has already clearly explained the underlying logic of traditional society.

However, as time has evolved, this set of norms has been receding. While still a mainstream form in today's society, its specific manifestations are changing. For example, the barriers preventing women from being listed in the family tree and restrictions on women working are no longer in place; power distribution is also no longer solely based on "proximity to the core," although similar phenomena are still common. What force is driving this change? Using the style of Oscar Wilde, I'll summarize the new society:

“Everything in the world is about money, except money; money is about freedom.”

What does this translate to? It's called that everything in today's society is about money, and everyone should take note that we have shifted from following instincts and reproduction to money. Besides money, money is about freedom. Initially, you may understand why everything in the world is about money. I believe this is something I don't need to explain as you may have a deeper understanding than me. However, it's essential not to interpret this as everything being done for money, right? It's not that simple. You need to pay attention to its substitution, which has replaced reproduction and instinct. This means that various aspects of the world that may eventually determine the direction of the world have begun to shift from reproductive instincts to money.

We believe you can already see some glimpses of this shift. For example, some people spend their whole lives striving not necessarily to get married and have children but to contribute more to humanity and earn more money. Individuals who have chosen this path are already becoming evident. Do not underestimate the significance of choosing not to get married; it's substantial and fundamentally challenges the previous structure of human society. Think about it, if a person chooses not to get married, they are essentially giving up the industrial production based on the family unit and the basic functions of society. Previously, everything in the world is about sex. So, if you remove the aspect of sex, aren't you essentially shifting all your focus onto yourself? Because you don't have children, you don't have parents to care for. Therefore, you only care about yourself, about humanity, and even about the development of society as a whole. You, as an individual, take on a new meaning both for yourself and for humanity.

Here's another example from daily life: Today, many rural girls still migrate to cities to work, sending most of their earnings back home—to support their parents and pay for their younger brother's education. Why has "supporting the younger brother" become their natural obligation? From a boundary perspective, this should ideally be the responsibility of the younger brother or the parents. However, within the traditional structure, this is a typical power distribution of "female sacrifice to subsidize males": women are seen as a tradable/resource that can be used. In such situations, my advice is usually straightforward: First, clearly define boundaries with parents and siblings; our relationship should be purely based on affection without being tied to financial matters. Everyone should take care of their responsibilities; I will be filial but will not unconditionally subsidize. If this communication doesn't work, then when necessary, decisively stop the financial support.

So from this perspective, as money contributes to social allocation and becomes the mainstream resource determining the form and evaluating the mainstream way of people, everyone has unprecedentedly gained freedom. That's why we often say that money is about freedom. As for the meaning behind this phrase, just think about it: in this society, there are basically only two ways to judge people, one is based on sex, and the other can only be based on money.

Let's take a very simple example. Nowadays in the United States during election seasons, when we were in school, people might often say, "Oh, the U.S. election is manipulated by money, money manipulation is not good." But what manipulation was there before money manipulation? Before money manipulation, there was only power manipulation based on sex. So, this is an example of a shift from "sex is about power" to "money is about freedom."

3. Question: Why is it so difficult for China's poor to become rich? Even if they become wealthy, why is it that China's wealthy never stay rich for more than three generations?

Justin Sun: These two questions are indeed very interesting. At that time, when we were at Lakeside University, we discussed this at length with the school director, Professor Shen Guojun.

First, let's look at the situation in Europe and America. In Europe and America, many families not only remain wealthy for three generations but thrive for dozens of generations, even withstanding wars and economic crises without falling. The United States was founded only 200 years ago, but the prosperity history of many families is even longer than the country's history. Looking at Japan, many businesses have been passed down from the Edo period to today, and they are still thriving.

In 2006, Hurun released a list of the "world's oldest family businesses," listing 100 long-established family businesses. The first place went to the "Kongō Gumi" in Osaka, Japan, which builds temples and has been passed down for 40 generations, with a history of over 1,400 years. The enterprises on the list are mainly concentrated in Europe, the United States, and Japan, with the UK, France, and the United States ranking top three, each with 17, 16, and 15 companies, and Japan with 10 companies. Even the 100th-ranked enterprise has a history of over 225 years.

On the other hand, in China, not to mention 200 years ago, even the wealthy families from fifty or sixty years ago, such as the patriotic entrepreneurs Zhang Jian and Lu Zuofu mentioned in history books, have now mostly disappeared along with their families and businesses. Today, most of China's wealthy are self-made individuals from the "first generation of wealth," and even the "second generation of wealth" is still rare, with a few just emerging in recent years. It's quite strange when you think about it: claiming to be an ancient civilization with five thousand years of history, it's astonishingly rare to find the "second generation of wealth" in China, and the "third generation of wealth" is almost non-existent. Occasionally hearing about the "third generation of wealth," most of them are families returning from Hong Kong or overseas, while local families are still stuck at the second generation. In contrast, in Europe and America (especially continental Europe), many families have already passed down their wealth for an average of 20 to 40 generations. "Not staying wealthy for more than three generations" is truly a distinct feature of China.

Upon closer examination, the situation becomes even more bewildering: my grandfather was rich, my father was rich, I am also rich, so why does my son fall into ruin? Not to mention wealth, he cannot even secure his life. We often say, "Standing on the shoulders of giants allows us to see further," but in China, standing on the shoulders of the wealthy leads to a quicker demise. This issue has long plagued Chinese wealthy individuals. Some might say, "I am not wealthy, so isn't it a good thing for the wealthy to fall?" However, it must be understood that in a country, we are all like grasshoppers on the same rope: if the wealthy cannot hold onto their wealth, it is challenging for the poor to accumulate wealth and become rich.

China boasts a five-thousand-year civilization, and its people are very hardworking. Studies show that Chinese employees work an average of 8.66 hours per day, higher than most major economies, far exceeding developed countries such as Germany, France, and Switzerland, and surpassing developing countries like Mexico and Costa Rica. So why does China still have a large number of impoverished people, with many stuck in poverty for extended periods? Of course, in the past forty years, China has made rapid progress in alleviating poverty: four decades ago, we were among the poorest, but today, the "poorest" label has been passed on to some African countries. However, the reality remains that there are still many poor people, and the wealth gap is widening.

So, why can't hardworking Chinese people become wealthy? Why is it that even if they become wealthy, they cannot sustain it for more than three generations? These are truly two "heavenly questions." Himalaya CEO Lao Yu once chatted with me about this; he himself couldn't figure it out: why aren't hardworking Chinese people wealthy? I am only 26 years old this year, a member of the post-90s generation, so my answer may not be authoritative. However, I believe that the true answers to these two questions are of no less importance to the nation and the people than those "big questions" we often talk about—such as aerospace, aircraft carriers, reunification with Taiwan, or global dominance. The significance of when Chinese people can become wealthy through hard work, maintain that wealth long-term, is even more critical.

During a discussion at the Laka Lake University, Shen Guojun, Chairman of Intime Group, raised this question, and many classmates provided answers. I also shared my thoughts, which he highly agreed with at the time. Today, I will share my thought process.

From a macro perspective, the core reason why Chinese people cannot become wealthy and cannot sustain wealth for more than three generations is quite simple: the entire society's disregard and trampling of wealth and property rights. Think about it: if wealth is not truly valued from within, how can it be maintained in the long run? Put simply, Chinese people do not inherently treat "money" as something sacred, nor do they believe that property rights are inviolable.

So, what do Chinese people hold sacred? Clues can be gleaned from online public opinion: for example, if a woman is getting married for the second time, some people see this as a "heinous crime" and will be fiercely criticized; likewise, if Tencent creates a piece of software that is deemed "plagiarized," haters will launch a scathing attack on it; furthermore, if a natural disaster occurs in a certain area and someone fails to donate money, or like when Wang Shi proposed "limited donations," they will be heavily condemned. Those who experienced the 2008 Wenchuan earthquake know that Wang Shi was almost driven to the lowest point in his life, almost resigning from Vanke.

However, upon closer inspection of these three examples, the individuals criticized actually did not have any moral flaws, and it can't even be considered "wrong." First, whether a woman is a virgin when getting married is an exercise of her personal bodily rights; as long as both parties are willing and communicate truthfully, it is a normal expression of free love. If there is any "wrong," it is only related to deception, not the fact of whether it is the first time itself. Second, did Tencent plagiarize? Over the years, a more justifiable view has gradually emerged. We use WeChat every day, which originally drew inspiration from QQ. In the business world, the essence of product competition lies in market mechanisms; what we should truly consider is: how can we make the product better and better serve users based on originality, rather than "I did it first, so you can't." Plagiarism is, of course, unethical and illegal in academic research, but in business practice, "reference and surpass" is the norm. Companies like Tencent and Apple have honed their creativity to perfection through learning and iteration, reaching a broader consumer base. Even if Tencent were to "copy" Accompany Me in the future, it would serve as a motivation for me, proving that my product is good. I would work even harder to improve it. If I were to be defeated because of this, I wouldn't blame Tencent. Third, when faced with a natural disaster, whether to donate is a matter of personal financial freedom. While society may promote mutual assistance, insisting on "not donating" is also a form of freedom and should not be morally coerced.

From this, it can be seen that Chinese people tend to get caught up in irrelevant and trivial moral details, even elevating some actions that can hardly be considered "moral issues" to a moral high ground. The debate over whether to eat dog meat is also an example of this. Every year, the Yulin Dog Meat Festival becomes a focal point of public opinion. To say something that might lead to losing followers: despite the "nobility" of dogs, they are fundamentally pets, a type of property; they do not possess the legal concept of a "right to life" (at least not within the current legal framework). Whether to eat dog meat is a personal choice. Currently, human society explicitly protects the "not being eaten" right at the human rights level; as for whether animals are consumed, it falls more into the category of personal and societal customs. Yet, every year, there are many people trying to stop the transportation of dogs to the festival—fortunately, pigs are not considered "cute" enough, or else even pig transportation would be halted, and we might not have meat on our tables. It is evident how much energy we spend on these trivial matters, incessantly elevating unnecessary "details" to extreme heights.

Meanwhile, we often underestimate what truly deserves sacred defense—property rights. The most worthy of protection in this world is every individual's legitimately owned property. Even if it is a single copper coin belonging to someone, it should be respected and protected by the entire society; if it is ever unlawfully taken, it should evoke public outrage, as it constitutes crossing a societal bottom line, and every person involved should be held accountable. Even the occupying perpetrator should feel condemnation in their conscience and find no peace.

But is this the case in China today? Clearly not. Many people believe it is their right to take others' property, and some even take pride in it. In daily life, most of us have either borrowed money or lent it to others; perhaps you have also defaulted on a loan, promising to repay in a month, only to prolong the deadline through various excuses, or even resort to evasion. The popular online phrase goes: "I borrowed money based on my abilities, why should I have to repay?" It may sound like a joke, but in reality, there are too many such people. Essentially, these individuals do not take "money" seriously in their core, nor do they consider "not repaying borrowed money" a significant matter.

Just think, borrowing money and not repaying it is certainly not at the same legal level as "committing murder", but in terms of disrupting social order and infringing on the rights of others, the nature of the two acts is not light. Ordinary people, let alone committing murder, would shake even just slaughtering a chicken, and they would feel guilty. However, when it comes to "borrowing money and not repaying it," many people act without any remorse. What's even more lamentable is that when you tell others about being cheated out of money, you would expect understanding and support, but the result is often: "Forget it, it's just a few hundred bucks, consider it a charity; don't be so petty." Thus, what was originally about upholding one's sacred property rights is instead criticized as being "petty and lacking generosity." This is the most laughable and tragic reality today.

In Western countries, property rights are considered sacrosanct and inviolable. That's why there is a concept called "trust" in the West. What is trust? For example, as a trustee, if a friend passed away, Sun Yuchen entrusted me with his assets through a trust to take care of his children. In China, in such a situation, on the surface, one might say, "Give me the money, my brother, you can rest assured, I will definitely take good care of the children." But you never know, as soon as you leave, they might take not only your money but also your wife and children.

Would the Western trust system allow this? Of course not. The trustee has sworn an oath before God, "To accept a trust is to be faithful." They will honor their promise for a lifetime. This is why the West has trust institutions and organizations that have lasted for hundreds or even thousands of years.

Some readers may say: Doesn't China also have "trusts"? However, in this magical land, the Western concept of trust has been transformed into financial products. "Buying a trust" often refers to an 8% annualized fixed-income financial product, which is not at all about wealth inheritance and trust in the Western sense. Chinese people have almost no concept of true trust and do not trust "trusts" very much. From this perspective, fundamentally, we still do not have real trust.

In the West, money and property are as sacred as God, with belief and trust closely linked. A person's ability to earn money is the highest reward for their soul. As Max Weber said in "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," this is the essence of capitalism: by earning money, one becomes closer to God, and their morality becomes nobler.

In China, however, a different set of beliefs prevails: "It's just a paltry sum of money, isn't it? Wealth without kindness!" — thus, "robbery" becomes justified. The Chinese "logic" is often: having money itself is original sin, and you must explain "why you have money." In contrast, Europe and America believe the opposite: not having money is the original sin; the poor must confess before God: I've been too lazy in my life, not diligent enough, which is why I am poor.

Conversely, in China: wealthy individuals must confess, not to God, but to those preparing to rob them. Under this traditional moral values system, property rights have long been suppressed, and every half-century or even shorter, a large-scale "asset reshuffle" occurs. Many wealthy people not only lose their wealth but also their lives. This is no longer a matter of "wealth not lasting beyond three generations" but an issue of "not surviving beyond three generations."

It sounds scary: in this land, once you become wealthy, the most likely outcome in the end is this — if you're lucky, you die a good death; your son is also lucky enough to die a good death; by the time it gets to your grandson, the probability of a "good death" is basically close to zero. If you don't believe it, look back at history.

Taking the past two hundred years as an example: about 200 years ago in 1817, in around thirty years, the Taiping Heavenly Kingdom Uprising took place. Hong Xiuquan led that group of "joyful looters" of rebels, and nearly wiped out all the wealthy people in Guangdong, Guangxi, Jiangsu, Zhejiang, and the entire area south of the Yangtze River (Li Xiucheng and others even made a near victory march to Beijing).

Think "fortunately, I'm in the north"? You can avoid it on the first day but not on the fifteenth: the Nian Rebellion, Muslim Rebellion, White Lotus Society, and the Red Lanterns are still waiting for you up ahead. The Nian Army (1851-1868) swept across the Yellow River and Huai River basins; the Shaanxi-Gansu Muslim Rebellion (1862-1873) engulfed Ningxia, Shaanxi, and Gansu.

By the time it slightly stabilized in the 1870s, 1880s, and 1890s, there were the Eight-Nation Alliance, the Xinhai Revolution, followed by years of warlord conflicts. Between these, let alone ordinary people unable to retain their wealth, even the Xuantong Emperor couldn't hold onto his. Remember, the Xuantong Emperor's private property was explicitly written into the "Conditions Favorable to the Qing Imperial Family" — "The private property of the Qing Emperor shall be specially protected by the government." However, within a few years of this "special" treatment, Feng Yuxiang drove Puyi out of the Forbidden City in 1924, giving him a three-hour limit to leave the palace, or else they would open fire. The originally agreed "annual two million four hundred thousand taels of silver for expenses" was casually changed to "fifty thousand taels of subsidy per year."

The "Favorable Conditions" also stated: "The imperial ancestral tombs of the Qing Emperor shall be permanently sealed and protected by guards." But who took that seriously? Warlord Sun Dianying directly looted the tombs of the Qianlong Emperor and the Empress Dowager Cixi, looting all the gold, silver, and jewels. Later, he not only got away with it but also received promotions and honors all the way. At the time, he sent the stolen goods as gifts everywhere, "the law does not blame the public," and the upper-class society also readily accepted them, with few people sternly condemning, "This is robbery." The treaty became a joke. What's even more amusing is that even the one being robbed, Puyi, himself seemed unconcerned.

There's a historical photo from 1961: commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Xinhai Revolution, Lu Zhonglin, Puyi, and Xiong Bingkun stood shoulder to shoulder, laughing and taking a photo together. Puyi was the last emperor, and Xiong Bingkun was the one who fired the first shot of the Wuchang Uprising, so it's understandable they took a photo together; but Lu Zhonglin? In 1924, he was the commander of the Kyoto Garrison, who expelled Puyi from the Forbidden City on Feng Yuxiang's orders. This was a blatant "robber." Yet, the two could still pose for a photo together with their arms around each other, chatting and laughing, as if robbery was child's play.

When even the person being robbed doesn't care about being robbed, and even the Qing Emperor couldn't protect his own property, in such turbulent times, how could an ordinary person possibly hold onto their wealth? The answer is self-evident.

Earlier, we talked about the core reason why the Chinese couldn't become wealthy and couldn't sustain wealth for three generations from a macro perspective. Looking at it from a micro perspective, I think the root cause of the phenomenon lies in this: many people can't distinguish the boundaries between individuals and don't understand the value of their existence in the world. In the previous chapter on "Family Boundaries," we discussed the importance of distinguishing boundaries. Here, what I want to say is this: in a society where looting is rampant, at its core, has a lot to do with blurred boundaries. Think about it, why would someone be shamelessly robbing strangers? The core reason is too simple: they even dare to "rob" their own family members. We often tell jokes, isn't it said, "I'll fight even my own family"? If they can do it to their own, how could they not dare to harm you? Even one's own father, son, husband, or wife can turn against them without blinking an eye; robbing a stranger like you is just a matter of minutes. Therefore, this kind of looting often spreads from close ones to distant ones. The phenomenon of "loving each other to death" in Chinese families precisely illustrates this point.

Furthermore, why is property rights infringement taken so lightly? It's because many times even "human rights" are not given much importance. A considerable number of parents treat their children as their possessions, and many children also treat their parents as their possessions. You are just "part of the family" and not seen as "an independent individual" in their eyes. Therefore, trampling on your human rights becomes a very normal thing. Parents interfere in their children's marriages, simplify marriage to a costly bride price, demand their children send money every month, and children also shamelessly interfere with their parents, demanding their parents solve housing and car issues for them, or even interfering in whether their parents should remarry or divorce. Even close relatives can blatantly "compete" with each other, making infringing upon strangers an everyday occurrence. Like the crude saying we often hear: "If you don't steal, you're a fool." Everyone rushes to "steal," exhibiting a certain bravado reminiscent of the mentality in Lu Xun's "The True Story of Ah Q" when it comes to competing.

This is why we repeatedly emphasize the clear boundaries between individuals. Whether a person's basic human rights – including the right to life and property – can be respected and recognized by society does not primarily depend on outsiders but on whether their parents, spouse, children, siblings, and relatives acknowledge them. If these people do not respect your human rights, do not acknowledge your right to control your own life, then how can you expect recognition and protection from society as a whole?

Regrettably, in today's China, many people cannot distinguish the boundaries within their families and do not understand what it means to respect human rights. Let's take a nearly universal example: domestic violence. In Western countries, when domestic violence occurs – whether it's a husband hitting his wife or a father hitting his child – any victim can immediately call the police. The police will promptly arrive and handle the situation according to the law, often with the burden of proof not falling on the victim. The police, upon arriving and finding bruises on the woman, will typically arrest the man on the spot. The man must then hire a lawyer and pay a hefty bail to be released. Even upon release, the judge usually issues a restraining order against the man; during the restraining order period, the husband cannot threaten his wife even upon returning home and may even be prohibited from going home or contacting her, with immediate re-arrest for any violations. Additionally, if the woman has no income, the man may have to pay alimony. This illustrates how Western society clearly protects family boundaries.

Contrastingly, in mainland China, too many people have grown up in environments where domestic violence is prevalent. Whether it's family quarrels or physical conflicts, the police often turn a blind eye, dismissing it with excuses like "domestic matters are hard to judge for a good official." Even if they want to intervene, it's often seen as something the neighborhood committee or relatives should handle, as not to occupy "valuable police resources," with a focus mainly on education and mediation. Therefore, while Western societies treat "people as people," often here, once the person is your father, husband, or family member, you are "no longer considered a person" in their eyes. Moreover, for a long time, "marital rape" was not legally recognized as rape. If a man forces a woman into sex in bed, when the police arrive, all he needs to say is "I am her husband/boyfriend," and the matter is often dropped then and there. Even more absurdly, scammers and human traffickers abduct women on the street, and when passersby try to intervene, their frequent tactic is to say, "I am her boyfriend/husband." Sometimes they add, "She's cheating on me." At this point, bystanders not only do not help the victim but applaud, even aiding and abetting the cruelty. Such cases are so common that they have been adapted into TV dramas. For example, such scenarios can be seen in "Evil Minds," and in Liu Tao's starring role in "Next Stop, Happiness": the woman clearly does not recognize the assailant, but the crowd, believing the one-sided story of the "family member," pours their biases against the "adulterous woman," drowning out any defense and treating any legitimate resistance as the shameless act of a "bad woman."

As we can see, in the minds of many people, as long as it is a "husband/wife," they can dispose of them at will. Just search on Weibo for "publicly beating a mistress" or "live streaming catching adultery," and you'll find numerous examples; scenarios where women are stripped naked and beaten in broad daylight rarely receive intervention. Many people even believe that "isn't this the right thing to do? It aligns with one's moral values." In contrast, in Europe and America, even if the other party indeed "cheated," it is seen as a moral issue, and you have no right to violate someone else's personal freedom and right to life. The police will immediately control the perpetrator, and most passersby's first reaction is to intervene and report to the authorities.

Therefore, many feminists call for action against domestic violence. I believe their understanding of "domestic violence" can go even deeper: its essence is not just "male chauvinism" but rather a lack of societal respect for human rights and the right to life. If a person does not even respect the right to life, you cannot expect them to respect property rights.

Now, let's look at property boundaries. Many families have extremely unclear divisions when it comes to property. A few days ago, I saw a case on Zhihu: the parents, being old and unable to get a mortgage to buy a house, decided to buy one in their daughter's name. The father contributed half of the down payment, and the parents were prepared to take on the subsequent mortgage payments, with the house intended for the parents' retirement. Since the property deed was in the daughter's name, the father asked the daughter to give him an IOU. The daughter felt hurt: subconsciously, she believed that this house "originally belonged to her," and the money contributed by the parents was "essentially hers" as well. Some even asked how to "get parents to pay the down payment for themselves"? Others openly expressed resentment towards their parents: it wasn't that the parents hurt them, but that "they were two years late in giving." Originally able to live in a 100-square-meter large house, they can now only afford a 60-square-meter small apartment, and thus "I hate them very much." You see, if the parents give you money as a gift for the down payment and because it was "given two years late," you want to "eliminate them." This is the reality: a fundamental lack of respect for the rights to life and property.

Sartre said, "Hell is other people," and in such scenarios, this is not an exaggeration. We pride ourselves on being a country of propriety and righteousness, but our level of respect for individual rights and human rights sometimes may not be much better than that of some backward tribes.

In summary, we can see more clearly that the reason why Chinese people are not able to become affluent and cannot sustain wealth beyond three generations lies in the overall societal indifference towards individual rights. And those who often first trample upon your rights are usually those around you. Therefore, this program has always advocated a viewpoint: one person is a whole team. Their right to life and property is paramount, and no one, no public opinion, has the right to trample on it. The day China can truly achieve this is when China might become a civilized and mature capitalist country like Europe and America: where every poor person can become wealthy through hard work, the wealthy can effectively protect their wealth and pass it down through generations. At that time, China will become a land of prosperity and a truly strong and wealthy nation.

4. Q: What will be the main crisis of the next 20-30 years? What crises are coming?

Justin Sun: The first crisis is the endogenous structural crisis of the Chinese economy itself. Simply put, after years of high-speed growth, the Chinese economy will sooner or later enter a period of stagnation, or even temporary negative growth—just like the normal life cycle of a person. Take a look at the growth curves of developed countries like the United States and Japan, and you'll understand: when a country's GDP and GDP per capita reach a certain threshold, the growth rate will naturally decline. Therefore, we should have the expectation that China's overall environment will experience long-term stagnation, low growth, and even temporary negative growth. This is the "fundamental premise" that all Chinese adults must seriously acknowledge, as it will profoundly affect our career choices, asset allocation, and family decisions. Reflecting on the overall atmosphere of the past forty years of reform and opening up, we have grown up in a strong optimism; the future may not continue to be so optimistic. Assuming that my children, parents, and I all have to live in an environment of long-term low growth, lack of new growth points, how should we allocate assets? How should we plan our lives? This is the first issue that must be seriously considered.

The second crisis is a significant shift in the overall industrial structure. China's past main engines were industry, real estate, and the series of upstream and downstream industries driven by them, with foreign trade also being a key engine. However, these engines have phase characteristics—no need to look far, just look at Korea, Taiwan, which were ahead of us by twenty years or so. In the past, the West shifted industries to Japan, Korea, Taiwan, and then to China; next, industries will continue to move to places like Vietnam, India. Correspondingly, a large number of industrial jobs will be mass "pulled out," which is not just a problem of individual layoffs but a segmental migration of industries. At the same time, the social "safety net" (social security, pensions, etc.) will also come under pressure and face problems—this is already happening; otherwise, why discuss raising the retirement age? Don't laugh at the difficulties the United States and Taiwan are facing today; in the future, China will likely go through a similar cycle. It's a challenge for the post-90s generation, as well as for the post-70s and post-80s generations. The education we received in university and high school is basically a whole set of education under the industrial system.

For example, some people in our company study social work; many of my Peking University classmates majored in chemical engineering, petroleum, and other majors closely related to industrial production; many liberal arts students study literature, history, and work in traditional media, print media, and the party newspaper system—these tracks will all experience the intense pain of being "innovated by the Internet." Classmates in my WeChat group often ask me, "I didn't study the Internet. I majored in petroleum chemical engineering in college. What should I do now in the Internet industry? The salary in my original profession is also getting lower and lower." This is called the "projection form" of the transformation of the industrial structure falling on individuals. It's not a new term that "deceives you" at the macro level but a specific problem in your resume and job choices. It's a big challenge for national leaders, let alone individuals. But the good news is: personal adaptation and transformation are often much easier than national-level transformation.

The third, and the "opportunity within the crisis" after summarizing the previous two points: traditional society will undergo one last major transformation: from a "family-based industrial production society" to a "personal-based Internet society." Almost all the problems we will encounter in the future will be based on this main theme: the organizational unit is shifting from the family to the individual, and the production methods and collaboration logic are transitioning from industrialization to the Internet. This is not just a challenge for China, but also for developed countries. Some countries may not have fully understood this question at the national level yet. Those who do not act in the Internet field will lag behind at the national, social, and personal levels. This is also why I repeatedly emphasize "strategy": once a strategic mistake is made, the nation, society, ethnicity, and individuals will all collectively make a mistake, without exception. Based on the same judgment, I do not recommend blind immigration. China and the United States are among the few countries with a deep consensus on the importance of the Internet to national development, and I believe they will be rewarded by destiny. The transition from a "family-based industrial society" to a "personal-based Internet society" is likely to be the main theme for the next three to four decades, or even fifty, one hundred years. Take a hundred years if you need a hundred years, take fifty years if you need fifty years; this is the overarching trend.

5. Q: Discuss the legitimacy of primitive accumulation and individual striving in China, and what issues exist in Chinese society regarding attitudes toward wealth creation?

Justin Sun: This question is very important. Why? Because it is in line with what I have emphasized before, "Strategy determines everything": If the original accumulation of individual striving in China lacks legitimacy, especially moral legitimacy, how can this country or nation talk about development?

As you all know, my life itself is an inspiring story: a small-town youth from a fourth- or fifth-tier city who, through hard work, established himself in Beijing, supported thirty to forty employees, and was able to generate tens of millions of net profit in a year. This is the simplest Chinese story, and I also believe that we will only get better and better.

However, along this road, I keenly feel that although the system allows for primitive accumulation and individual striving, it often does not receive moral recognition. Even though you have solidly built your career, there are always people pointing fingers, saying you have no social responsibility, saying you only care about your own interests, only want to make money—how can you talk about nobility? Some even believe that people should not pursue personal gain—only when verbally committing to "serve the people" can be considered right. But when you honestly say, "I want to live a good life and take care of my family," they call you "selfish." Similar moral accusations are not uncommon in China.

From this perspective, I often say that in a certain sense, China is like 16th- to 18th-century Germany. In European history, there were more than a thousand years known as the "Dark Ages," the core of which was the ethics under the rule of the medieval church: not encouraging earning money, doing business was "bad." The logic was: you should spend more time serving God and helping others. It sounds noble, but the effect is quite similar to some of the arguments we hear today. So what if someone is very capable and earns a lot of money? The church would scare them with "hell." The frightened person would ask, "What should I do?" The church would say, "You can buy an indulgence." This means: I have a good connection with God, I'll help you through the back door; you give some money, and God will turn a blind eye. As you can imagine, the "indulgence" became a lucrative business. Whether God is present, or if He has an account with China Merchants Bank, that's beside the point, the money first goes into the church's pocket.

Later, Max Weber wrote "The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism," tracing the starting point of capitalism and emphasizing that it was the reform of the Protestant ethic that paved the way. Martin Luther came forward to say: no need to be scared. Calvin was even more specific: making money itself comes from transactions, and as long as it is a voluntary transaction, both parties will benefit, and society will be better for it. Therefore, "working hard and making money" was endowed with moral legitimacy—making money is fulfilling a duty, it is practicing faith; there is no longer a need to use an indulgence to take the back door.

For example: God is like an excellent CEO. As a CEO, I will see each employee's performance: perform well and get promoted, perform poorly and you get reprimanded. Employees no longer need to secretly give me gifts to ask for a promotion. Likewise, whether you "ascend to heaven" or "descend to hell" depends on whether you create value, work diligently, and make society better through transactions. Making a lot of money is not a sin but rather a realization of value; there is no need to worry about "redemption" anymore because making money itself is the pursuit of goodness.

The set of ideas of Protestant Ethic liberated the human mind and productivity, laying the intellectual foundation for the Industrial Revolution and technological leap. Prior to this, time seemed to stand still, with a thousand years passing like a day, and society making little progress. With a shift in mindset, entrepreneurs, scientists, and inventors emerged in abundance, initiating a new phase of civilization. Once everyone understood that earning money through effort was moral and a way of serving God, the dual incentive of economics and ethics fell into place. Everyone was willing to work hard, start businesses diligently, and engage in trade actively, leading to an improvement in everyone's lives.

Most of us may not be religious, but we can still appreciate the importance of "moral persuasion": earning money in a legitimate way not only results in income but also social recognition and self-fulfillment. The most dreadful scenario in a society is when those who work hard, pay taxes dutifully, and contribute to the economy feel disheartened: you work hard, support your employees, and generate tax revenue, yet you are labeled as "bad," while the idlers are considered "good." Over time, the moral standards will only decline, and the nation will suffer as a result. This trend must be corrected.

I remember when we studied history, the textbooks mentioned that the Protestant Ethic was the intellectual foundation of the Industrial Revolution. This holds true today as well. For a country to develop, for a company to grow, for an individual to succeed, they all must believe in the power of trade, capital, effort, and personal striving. As long as you conduct transactions well, run your business effectively, and perform your duties diligently, life will undoubtedly improve. Others will acknowledge you, and you can genuinely contribute to societal progress. There is no need for hypocrisy or deceit; by remaining sincere and diligent, you can become a pillar of society and share in the benefits of development. This is not only common sense in work but also possibly the cornerstone of a nation and its people.

6. Question: Why do you support Trump? Why did Trump defeat Hillary? Discuss the U.S. presidential election

(Editor's Note: This refers to the 2016 U.S. presidential election held 9 years ago, where Trump was elected as president for the first time.)

Justin Sun: By the time you hear this episode, the U.S. election has already concluded some time ago. I would like to share my overall thoughts on this election. I have been following Trump since he announced his candidacy, all the way until his official election. Let me first recap my emotional journey and then share some of my reflections. I believe that this election itself provides strong guidance for our entrepreneurial and real-life choices.

Around October 8, just before the vote, I was actually quite hopeless. As an entrepreneur, I supported Trump deep down, but as the election approached, I had little confidence. Looking back, this was quite normal. Being in China, with limited knowledge of the U.S., election predictions often take mainstream media reports, polling data, and political elites' statements as a "benchmark." Based on these dimensions, Hillary held an overwhelming advantage: the U.S. mainstream media, then-President Obama, and most official polls supported her. There were also many within the Republican Party who did not endorse Trump, especially after some "scandals" surfaced, causing some to withdraw their support. But the fact is, Trump still won. This event had a significant impact on me. It reminds us that traditional elites often overestimate the power of "connections, wealth, relationships, and endorsements" and underestimate the explosiveness of "ordinary public support." If I had to provide a central argument, this would be it.

The reason Hillary received so many endorsements is simple: she is a typical American career politician, and her most valuable asset is the recognition of the entire political system. However, it is also for this reason that she gradually lost the trust of the ordinary people. During her time as a senator and secretary of state, a series of events made the American people question her integrity and way of doing things. As a result, social division intensified: the elite viewed ordinary people as "ignorant," while ordinary people viewed the elite as "frauds." By the day of the vote, it had basically formed that the "political elite" mostly supported Hillary, even though many rich people among them liked Trump, and the control of the final outcome by the traditional political elite was far less influential than they thought.

Trump's rallies were very grassroots and had a strong infectious power; Hillary's rallies were more like "conferences," with little interaction and mostly self-speaking. Hillary is a typical traditional politician, finding it difficult to inspire the common people's identification; although Trump was born into the elite as a second-generation rich person, he was very good at understanding what the people wanted and liked during his business dealings. He was also good at self-deprecation, making it easy for him to connect with the majority of people, which was the key to his victory.

Now, looking at the public opinion field. I usually browse American websites for news and social media: 4chan, Reddit, Twitter—roughly corresponding to Bilibili, Zhihu, Weibo in China. On these platforms, the overall voice in support of Trump is louder. The reason is also simple: he is extremely grassroots, using internet language and expressions with a high degree of "online sense." If you only look at these platforms, you would think he was certain to win. However, more of the political and cultural elite still read traditional media like The New York Times and CNN—these channels almost overwhelmingly believed Hillary would win. My intuitive feeling is that Trump's election not only signifies the rise of social media but also further confirms the decline of traditional media.

When I was in the United States, I also felt the decline of traditional media. Those who know me well know that I interned at Southern Weekly in my early years. When I first arrived in the United States, I wanted to be a writer for publications like The New York Times, Time, and Bloomberg Businessweek. However, shortly after I arrived in the U.S., I saw BusinessWeek shut down and restructure due to insolvency, and then it was integrated into the Bloomberg system and renamed Bloomberg Businessweek. This event had a great impact on me: the collapse of traditional media is a real phenomenon. Today, you see the decline in influence and credibility of The New York Times, CNN, etc., is just a continuation of this trend. It can be said that the mainstream form of media in the future will definitely lean more toward self-media distributed content. Speaking of this, some readers might say "not substantial enough." In fact, the conclusion is very straightforward: if you are still working in the traditional media system, now is the best time to change careers.

Now for another controversy: many people accuse Trump of being "uncultured" and "not well-read," even spreading rumors that he did not attend college. This is completely contrary to the facts. He attended the University of Pennsylvania for his undergraduate studies, which is an Ivy League school, and he studied at the Wharton School, one of the top business schools in the U.S., with a business reputation no less than Harvard Business School. To draw a comparison in China, it would be at the level of "Tsinghua University School of Economics and Management." How could a person with such an academic background be said to be "uncultured"? Obviously, I think this is a very significant distortion and bias, of course, with my "conflict of interest" here, as I am also a graduate of the same school, Trump is my alum, and of course, he is the second president elected from our school.

Why so few? Because the University of Pennsylvania is a business school with a purely pragmatic tradition, so it has produced many successful business people, such as Elon Musk, the founder of Tesla, SpaceX, and Paypal. Our school also produced Buffett, who is known as the god of investment. From this perspective, this school has a very profound pragmatic tradition. In fact, I think Trump, to some extent, whether in this election or in his daily life, has inherited the pragmatic tradition of our alma mater, Penn, which is why he can be so successful in real life.

Why does Penn have a pragmatic tradition? This is related to the founder of Penn, do you all know who the founder is? The founder of Penn is a person named Franklin. He is not as well-known as the founding father of the United States, Washington. Perhaps many people do not know him, and most Chinese people mainly know Franklin because he invented the lightning rod and is one of the founding fathers of the United States, whose image is on the $100 bill. In fact, Franklin and Hamilton were the main leaders of many institutional developments in the United States. It can be said that the reason the United States is what it is today is due to Franklin's contributions.

So Franklin was very good at turning around a company on the brink of collapse. When a school was first established and had no money, Franklin made it vibrant and successful. Therefore, Franklin himself possessed strong business and entrepreneurial qualities. When it came to establishing a new country, Franklin also had many ways to make it thrive. So he may not have been a brave warrior on the battlefield, but he was definitely a person with great business acumen. That is why, even from the perspective of school tradition, I believe Trump can certainly govern the United States well. Having a person with shrewd business and managerial qualities run a country is similar to how Franklin ran Penn, he will definitely be able to run the school well, and most people will live very well. So from this perspective, you can see that the tradition of pragmatism at Penn has always been upheld. In fact, in my personal entrepreneurial process, I have also unprecedentedly promoted this pragmatic tradition.

Now, circling back, claiming that Trump has no culture or hasn't even read a book, or distorting that he hasn't been to college, is completely wrong. On the contrary, Trump has actually inherited the tradition of pragmatism, being down-to-earth. So we can see that Trump interacts very smoothly with the vast majority of ordinary people and the masses, and he also has a very strong ability to resonate and infect. These are things that many rigorously educated American cultural elites and political elites who study diligently every day do not possess.

Many political and cultural elites in the United States, if unable to translate their high titles and good diplomas into the ability to "solve real problems for America," especially in solving the economic and security issues for ordinary people, and the governance ability to deal with various crises for the nation, then no matter how many labels or impressive resumes they have, it is all in vain. One must understand this: this is precisely the "trap" that comes with an Ivy League experience; many people are unable to extricate themselves from the glamorous titles. Whether it's graduating from an elite school or holding various "high-end" titles, in the end, it all comes down to "whether it can give you an advantage in a real war, help you in the face of real problems."

From this perspective, Trump is clearly more practical and knows better how to "solve problems," while Hillary is not. Take a simple example: Trump repeatedly emphasizes his ability to effectively combat terrorism, deal decisively with illegal immigration issues, and solve employment problems for the American people. CNN even admits that these three issues are the most concerning topics for American voters: counterterrorism, ISIS, illegal immigration, and job opportunities. On the contrary, some cultural and political elites represented by Hillary repeatedly hype the so-called "Trump groping women" incident.

Logically, major media outlets such as The New York Times, CNN, The New Yorker should be discussing national governance seriously, rather than focusing their main firepower on "whether Trump insulted women," "whether he groped someone," "whether he pays taxes," and "his personal life" – these "personal trivialities." Hillary seems to think that people love to see this kind of gossip: I just need to tirelessly attack him for "insulting women," have a bunch of people accuse him, and the voters will abandon him. But reality is not like that at all. A truly wise nation cares more about the "big issue" than the "trivial details": who can better combat terrorism, who can better deal with illegal immigration, who can bring back job opportunities. After the election, if you look at the exit polls conducted by CNN and The New York Times, you will also find that on the three issues of "counterterrorism," "illegal immigration," and "employment," the majority of respondents believe Trump would do better than Hillary.

I think a person with a pragmatic tradition can be a great president, just like Trump was able to successfully revive his company after numerous bankruptcies; I believe he can revive his company and run it better and better. Trump is now also one of the top 200 richest people in America, although not at the very top, but being one of the top 200 richest people, I believe he can also run this country, making it better.

Welcome to join the official BlockBeats community:

Telegram Subscription Group: https://t.me/theblockbeats

Telegram Discussion Group: https://t.me/BlockBeats_App

Official Twitter Account: https://twitter.com/BlockBeatsAsia