Trump Tax Bill if passed favor primarily rich, white, top 20% American at the expenses of the majority taxpayers 川普稅改法案如果通過，將主要惠及富人、白人、最富裕的 20% 美國人，而犧牲大多數納稅人的利益.
Wealthier taxpayers appear set to receive more benefits from this bill than poorer ones, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. 耶魯大學預算實驗室稱，富裕納稅人似乎將從該法案中比貧窮納稅人獲得更多利益.
Taxpayers in the lowest-income quintile will see a 2.5% ⬇️ decrease in their incomes, largely due to the Snap and Medicaid cuts, while the highest earners will see their incomes grow by ⬆️ 2.4%, the Budget Lab estimated. The impact could change based on which amendments the Senate adopts. 預算實驗室估計，收入最低的五分之一納稅人的收入將減少 ⬇️ 2.5%，這主要是由於Snap和醫療補助的削減，而收入最高的五分之一納稅人的收入將增加 ⬆️ 2.4%。具體影響可能會根據參議院最終通過的修正案而有所不同.
Is China stablecoins (CBDC ) with Government oversights safer than US Stablecoins without Government oversight could turned into another 2008 world financial crisis when private issuers went bankrupt? What is the fundamental difference between US stablecoins verses China Stablecoins (CBDC)? 受中國政府監管的中國穩定幣（CBDC）是否比不受政府監管的美國穩定幣更安全? 後者可能像2008年引發了全球金融危機是因爲私人發行機構破產是原因的所在! 美國穩定幣和中國穩定幣（中國主權央行數位貨幣）的根本差異是什麼?
Is China stablecoins safer than US Stablecoins? Why? 中國穩定幣（中國主權央行數位貨幣）比美國穩定幣更安全嗎? 為什麼?
That’s an insightful question, but it requires careful framing because China doesn’t have “stablecoins” in the traditional sense – it has a sovereign Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the e-CNY (digital yuan). Comparing the “safety” of US stablecoins (like USDT, USDC) versus China’s e-CNY is complex because they serve different purposes, have different structures, and face different risks. Here’s a breakdown:
Why China’s e-CNY is Structurally “Safer” in Some Ways
Sovereign Backing: The e-CNY is legal tender issued by China’s central bank. It carries zero credit risk – if you hold e-CNY, you hold a direct claim on the PBoC, just like physical cash. US stablecoins rely on private entities to hold sufficient, high-quality reserves.
Regulatory Immunity: China has banned all private cryptocurrencies, eliminating competition. The e-CNY operates under full state control, with no risk of regulatory shutdown (unlike US stablecoins facing uncertain laws).
Stability by Design: The e-CNY cannot depeg because it’s not pegged to anything – it is the digital form of the yuan. Its value is identical to physical CNY. US stablecoins maintain a 1:1 peg via reserves, which can break under stress.
Why US Stablecoins May Be “Safer” in Other Ways
Transparency (Increasingly): Major US stablecoins (like USDC) publish monthly audited reserve reports. While not perfect, this offers more transparency than the PBoC’s opaque monetary operations.
Financial Freedom: US stablecoins can be used pseudonymously globally, without state surveillance. The e-CNY is designed for state financial control, with transaction data accessible to authorities.
Decentralization Buffer: US stablecoins on public blockchains (e.g., Ethereum) aren’t reliant on a single technical system. The e-CNY’s centralized infrastructure creates a single point of failure (e.g., for cyberattacks).
Global Utility: US stablecoins are widely accepted in DeFi, exchanges, and cross-border payments. e-CNY is largely restricted to China’s domestic ecosystem.
Conclusion: It Depends on Your Definition of “Safe”
For Credit/Default Risk: e-CNY is safer. Sovereign money beats private promises.
For Value Stability: e-CNY is safer. It can’t depeg because it is the currency.
For User Privacy & Freedom: US stablecoins are safer. e-CNY enables state surveillance.
For Global Liquidity & Utility: US stablecoins are safer. e-CNY is geographically constrained.
For Regulatory Survival: e-CNY is safer. It is the regulator.
In short: China’s e-CNY is “safer” as a store of value (sovereign guarantee, no depeg risk) but “less safe” for financial privacy and autonomy. US stablecoins are “safer” for censorship-resistant transactions but carry counterparty risk and regulatory uncertainty.
ℹ️ Remember: e-CNY isn’t a stablecoin – it’s sovereign digital cash. Comparing it to USDT/USDC is like comparing a dollar bill to a bank-issued IOU for a dollar. Their “safety” depends entirely on what risks matter most to you.
What is the fundamental difference between US stablecoins verses China Stablecoins (CBDC)? 美國穩定幣和中國穩定幣（中國主權央行數位貨幣）的根本差異是什麼?
Yes, there are fundamental differences between US stablecoins and China’s approach to digital currencies, primarily because China does not have private stablecoins like the US. Instead, China has launched a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), the Digital Currency Electronic Payment (DCEP), commonly called the e-CNY (digital yuan).
Here’s a breakdown of the key differences:
Key Differences Explained:
Nature & Issuer:
US Stablecoins: Issued by private companies (e.g., Circle for USDC, Tether for USDT). They are crypto assets pegged 1:1 to the US dollar (or other assets) held in reserve.
China (e-CNY): Issued directly by the People’s Bank of China (PBoC), the central bank. It is sovereign digital currency (a CBDC), equivalent to digital cash. It is legal tender, just like physical yuan.
Regulatory Environment & Existence:
US Stablecoins: Operate within a regulatory framework (though evolving rapidly). They are considered private money transmission instruments/payment stablecoins (e.g., under new legislation like the Clarity Act). Private stablecoins exist and thrive alongside the potential future US CBDC (digital dollar).
China (e-CNY):China has banned all private cryptocurrencies, including stablecoins. The only legal digital currency is the e-CNY, centrally controlled by the PBoC. The regulatory environment is designed to eliminate competition to the sovereign currency.
Technology & Design:
US Stablecoins: Primarily operate on public blockchains (Ethereum, Solana, etc.) as tokens. Transparency of reserves is a key focus (audits, attestations). Access is permissionless via wallets.
China (e-CNY): Uses a hybrid centralized/permissioned architecture. While it uses some blockchain concepts, it’s not a decentralized public blockchain like Bitcoin or Ethereum. The PBoC has full control over the ledger, issuance, and transaction validation. Access is managed through authorized financial institutions (banks, payment platforms like Alipay/WeChat Pay).
Privacy & Surveillance:
US Stablecoins: Offer varying degrees of pseudonymity on public blockchains (transactions are visible, linked to wallet addresses, not necessarily real identities by default, though KYC applies at exchanges).
China (e-CNY): Designed with state-monitoring capabilities. While offering “controllable anonymity” for small transactions, the PBoC and authorities have significant visibility into transaction data, enabling enhanced financial surveillance and control. This aligns with China’s broader social governance goals.
Goals & Purpose:
US Stablecoins:
Provide stability within the volatile crypto ecosystem.
Facilitate trading, lending, borrowing in DeFi.
Enable faster/cheaper cross-border payments.
Extend the reach of the US dollar digitally.
China (e-CNY):
Modernize the domestic payment system (reducing reliance on private platforms like Alipay/WeChat Pay).
Enhance monetary policy transmission and financial stability control.
Increase financial inclusion (works offline).
Counter the dominance of the US dollar and private stablecoins globally.
Improve anti-money laundering (AML) and counter-terrorism financing (CFT) capabilities through traceability.
Strengthen state control over the financial system and capital flows.
Cross-Border Use:
US Stablecoins: Widely used internationally for cross-border crypto trading and remittances.
China (e-CNY): Primarily focused on domestic use. Cross-border pilots are happening (e.g., mBridge project with other central banks), but widespread international use faces hurdles and is tightly controlled by the state, aligned with capital account restrictions.
Impact on Monetary Policy:
US Stablecoins: Could potentially impact monetary policy transmission and financial stability if they become very large systemic parts of the payments system (a key regulatory concern).
China (e-CNY): Directly integrates with and enhances the PBoC’s monetary policy tools, allowing for more direct intervention and real-time data.
In Summary:
US Stablecoins = Private, dollar-pegged crypto assets operating (with increasing regulation) alongside the traditional financial system and potential future CBDC.
China’s e-CNY = Sovereign digital currency issued and controlled by the central bank, designed to replace some physical cash and dominate the domestic digital payments landscape while enhancing state control. It is NOT a stablecoin.
The fundamental distinction boils down to private innovation within a regulatory framework (US) versus state monopoly and control (China) in the realm of digital money. They serve different masters and have vastly different underlying philosophies regarding privacy, control, and the role of the state versus the private sector.
As a Republican if we passed the ‘Big beautiful bill’ currently stalls in US House as Trump battles Republican rebellion, our country is heading to disaster. 作為共和黨人，如果我們通過目前在美國眾議院因川普與共和黨反叛作鬥爭而受阻的“大美麗法案”，我們的國家將走向災難.
WESTERN DOMINANCE IS FINISHED, Finland President Alexander Stubb told the NATO Summit in the Netherlands yesterday. A “change in the world order” is under way. 芬蘭總統亞歷山大·斯塔布昨天在荷蘭舉行的北約峰會上表示，西方主導地位已經終結。 「世界秩序的改變」正在進行中.
“We need to sort things out and understand the time of Western dominance is over,” he said.
Like other European heads, except Spain, the Finnish leader signalled his vassalage to Donald Trump by endorsing the EU’s massive increase in weapons spending—but could not hide his long-held position that the world was in transition, becoming more “transactional, multipolar and disorderly”.
XI MORE TRUSTWORTHY During Trump’s first presidency, the Finnish thinker caused a stir with an essay titled “Goodbye USA, welcome China?” in which he said he found Xi Jinping more believable than Donald Trump in terms of achieving his goals of governance.
Printed in 2017, it said the US was moving away from open international competition—while China was moving towards free trade.
While greeted negatively at the time in the west, Alexander Stubb’s words now look remarkably prophetic, with the US becoming isolationist and protectionist—while China has become the world leader in e-commerce and exports.
CHINA MISSING President Stubb officially visited China himself in 2024, where Xi Jinping reminded him that Finland was “the first Western country to sign an intergovernmental trade agreement with China”.
Stubb said that the two countries were in line on key matters including the One China Principle.
So the speech President Stubb gave at the NATO summit yesterday was no surprise.
In his talk, he said that the military alliance was returning to its original mission, which was to act as a barrier against Russia.
The unspoken message was the absence of “China” in that definition. So NATO should leave China alone?
SCMP: Another smart top Chinese scientist returned to China. Julian Cheng Zhizhen, a global expert in optical and radio frequency wireless communication, has left his position in Canada to join the newly established Great Bay University (GBU) in southern China. There is no future for Chinese scientists in North America 《南華早報》：又一位聰明的中國頂尖科學家回國了。光學和射頻無線通訊領域的全球專家朱利安·程志真已離開加拿大，加入中國南方新成立的大灣區大學（GBU）。中國科學家在北美已無出路
China has banned power banks lacking the mandatory “3C” certification from being carried on domestic flights. This ban, which took effect on June 28, 2025, is a direct response to a series of safety incidents involving lithium batteries on aircraft. Power banks without the “CCC” mark, those with unclear markings, or those on recall lists are prohibited. 中國已禁止未獲得強制性「3C」認證的行動電源在國內航班上攜帶。該禁令於2025年6月28日生效，旨在直接應對一系列涉及飛機鋰電池的安全事故。未獲得「CCC」認證、識別不清晰或被列入召回名單的行動電源均被禁止攜帶.
The “3C” certification mark on power banks, also known as the China Compulsory Certification (CCC) is a mandatory safety and quality certification required for products sold in China, including power banks. It signifies that the product meets specific safety standards and is safe for consumers. Recently, China has implemented stricter rules, requiring power banks on domestic flights to display this 3C mark, with some airlines even banning those lacking the certification.
Here’s a more detailed explanation: • What it is: The 3C certification is a mandatory safety and quality certification system in China, similar to other international certifications like CE.
• Purpose: It ensures that products like power banks meet safety requirements, protecting consumers from potential hazards like overheating or fire.
• Why it matters for power banks: Due to incidents involving malfunctioning power banks, China’s Civil Aviation Administration has made it a requirement for power banks on domestic flights to display the 3C mark.
• Consequences of non-compliance: Power banks without the 3C mark, with unclear markings, or that have been recalled may be confiscated at airport security checkpoints and prohibited from boarding flights.
• How to identify it: The 3C logo is a specific mark that is printed on the product or its packaging. It may be accompanied by a unique code that can be used to verify its authenticity.
• Scope: This applies to both domestically manufactured and imported power banks sold in China
The Economist: Ten charts to explain Trump’s big, beautiful bill. The overhaul of taxation and spending would spell trouble for America 《經濟學人》：十張圖表解讀川普那份宏大而華麗的法案。稅收和支出改革將給美國帶來麻煩.
On july 1st, after 27 hours of non-stop voting and debate, America’s Senate passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (obbb), the most consequential legislation of Donald Trump’s second term. The House of Representatives—which passed its own version of the bill on May 22nd—must now reach agreement with the Senate on the bill before Mr Trump can pass it into law. (He has demanded that it reach his desk before Independence Day celebrations on July 4th.)
The Senate fiddled with the bill right up until the end. In the days before the final vote, a variety of forecasts were released suggesting that a combination of unfunded tax cuts and spending reforms in the bill would widen America’s budget deficit, slow long-term economic growth and hurt the poorest Americans. The charts below show by how much.
chart: the economist
The Trump administration insists that the obbb would reduce borrowing. But that is true only if you assume that tax cuts during Mr Trump’s first term, which were due to expire at the end of this year, are already permanent (even though they were costed as temporary measures the first time around). Preliminary analysis by the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (crfb), a think-tank, estimates that the House version of the bill would add $3trn to America’s public debt over the next ten years, using normal accounting methods. The Senate version, which among other changes proposes higher relief from state and local taxes, is even costlier.
In the Senate most laws need 60 votes to pass. But majority parties often use a shortcut known as reconciliation, which allows certain budget-related bills to pass with a simple majority. It requires each provision in the bill to focus on fiscal issues and not to raise the deficit beyond the ten-year budget window being considered. Republicans modified the rule to allow their new scoring method.
chart: the economist
In the days leading up to the final vote, the crfb assessed that the measure would add between $3trn and $4trn to the deficit. It includes a smorgasbord of tax cuts whose fiscal effects are only partially offset by other reforms. The tax cuts include Mr Trump’s campaign promises to remove tax on tips and overtime pay. In theory those are temporary and will elapse when Mr Trump leaves office. In practice, once taxes are cut they often stay cut (as Republicans’ new accounting method implies). The bill would also set up “Trump accounts” for newborns, including one-off payments to new parents for the next three years. It would give big boosts to spending by the Department of Defence and to Immigration and Customs Enforcement, which the administration wants so that it can increase the number of people deported from America.
chart: the economist
Modelling the effects of any legislation on economic growth is hard. But the tax cuts should provide a small boost in the short term. That might help to explain the current exuberance of the stockmarkets. Over a longer timeframe the picture is different (see chart 3). The House’s original bill would shrink America’s gdp by 2% by 2050, according to the Budget Lab at Yale, a research centre. That mainly reflects the impact of a bigger debt load leading to higher interest rates, which squeeze the private sector. Some other forecasters are more optimistic, thinking that the tax cuts will push more workers into the jobs market and incentivise investment, offsetting that impact.
chart: the economist
America’s debt surged after the financial crisis of 2007–09 and the covid-19 pandemic. The ratio of debt to gdp is already close to the level reached after the second world war. By extending tax cuts that were set to lapse, without offsetting savings, the obbb will drive it higher still. According to the crfb, the Senate’s version as of June 30th would push debt to between 125% and 130% of gdp by 2034—well above the 117% forecast if the 2017 tax cuts were allowed to expire, and higher even than the 124% expected under the House bill (chart)
chart: the economist
The clearest reason why this matters concerns interest payments. Interest rates rose sharply in response to post-pandemic inflation and have stayed elevated ever since. Higher rates plus a higher stock of debt mean much higher debt-repayment costs. Last year these were 3% of gdp, but the obbb could push them sharply higher over the coming decades. At some point, those repayments will become unsustainable and the federal government will have to cut spending, raise taxes, default or inflate away its debt. How far off that day is remains unclear, but the bill brings it closer.
Changes to household income
Average % change in after-tax-and-transfer income from
the House OBBB proposals, by household income group
First quintile, $0-17k
Second quintile, $17k-51k
Middle quintile, $51k-93k
Fourth quintile, 93k-174k
80-90%, $174k-263k
90-95%, $263k-388k
95-99%, $388k-988k
99-99.9%, $988k-4.325m
Richest 0.1%, $4.325m+
Source: Penn Wharton Budget Model
Despite Mr Trump’s talk of helping the least well-off, the bill’s biggest beneficiaries would be the rich. Analysis of the House version by scholars at the University of Pennsylvania suggests that Americans earning less than $16,999 would lose about $820 a year—a 5.7% reduction in median income for that group. The richest 0.1%, earning more than $4.3m, would gain $390,000, a 2.8% increase.
map: the economist
One way the House and Senate bills cut spending is to cut programmes that benefit poorer Americans. Food stamps or, to give the programme its full title, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Programme (snap), is one such programme. Analysis of the House bill by the Commonwealth Fund, a think-tank, shows that this would particularly affect some states where Mr Trump won very high shares of the vote, such as Mississippi.
map: the economist
The biggest change to social policy, though, is in health insurance. Through a mixture of tax changes and cuts to Medicaid, health insurance for the poor, the number of Americans without health insurance will rise. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the House bill would increase the number of uninsured Americans by nearly 12m by 2034.
chart: the economist
Republicans are also using the obbb to gut the Inflation Reduction Act (ira), Joe Biden’s signature climate law. The House bill included measures that critics say will choke off clean-energy investment. Analysis by the Rhodium Group, a research firm, suggests that under the ira America was on course to cut greenhouse-gas emissions by 40% from 2005 levels by 2035. A de facto repeal would reduce that by more than ten percentage points (see chart)
The changes could hit utility bills, too. The Senate version adds taxes on wind and solar projects that fail to comply with rules that limit the use of materials from certain foreign countries, such as China. Rhodium reckon that could raise the cost of renewables by 10-20%, on top of the loss of ira tax credits.
Early drafts proposed a rate as high as 3.5% but the Senate’s version pulled the tax rate down to 1% and narrowed the types of transactions that it applies to. Modelling by the Centre for Global Development, a think-tank, found that the impact on El Salvador, would be equivalent to just 0.6% of gross national income, down from more than 1% under the House bill. Still, after the deep cuts to foreign aid earlier this year, the obbb will be another squeeze on some of the world’s poorer countries.
Even if the bill clears the Senate, several House Republicans have said they will oppose the latest version, citing concerns about cost and content. Whatever its eventual shape and ultimate fate, the obbb is a test of the Republican majority’s fiscal credentials—and of its loyalty to Mr Trump. ■
SCMP: Huawei Technologies is set to open-source its self-developed programming language, Cangjie, marking the latest step in the company’s pursuit of technological self-sufficiency. 華為技術有限公司即將開源其自主研發的程式語言“倉頡”，這是該公司追求技術自給自足的最新一步.
Horrible experience with China Airlines from HK-Taipei-San Francisco on June 30 2025. 2025 年 6 月 30 日搭乘中華航空從香港-台北-舊金山出發的糟糕經歷
I have been taken at least 18 round trips from SF to the Pacific destinations by air each year for the last 19 years. I am also a graduate from University of Hawaii with a degree in Hotel and Restaurant Management, minor in Transportation management. I will probably not takes China Airlines again!
China Airlines has given me one of the worst experiences yesterday compared to Eva, Cathay Pacific and Singapore Airlines. The plane from HK to Taipei was delayed by 1 hr and 15 minutes. connecting flight from Taipei to SF scheduled to takeoff within 10 minutes when we touch down in Taipei due to the delays. HK to Taipei flight landed at Terminal A, Taipei to SF flight takes off at Terminal D.
All the passengers on the HK to Taipei flights were on panic mode as we see the plane was scheduled to takes off in less than 10 minutes when we landed in Taipei. In normal situations the plane doors were closed, we probably missed our flight.
China Airlines staff did not tells us our flight to SF at Terminal D when we landed in Taipei from HK. We had to look it up ourselves meant more delays and panic for us. Terminal A to D is at least 7-8 minutes walking distance. I ran it took me 5 minutes. I have not even mentioned we need to pass through another security check point for screening in order to get out of Terminal A to enter the long road to Terminal D.
When we arrived at Terminal D, according to the departing time of 23:30, the plane should have taken off. Apparently China Airlines intentionally delayed the departure time of the Taipei to SF flight by 45 minutes to wait for us.
That made all of us even more mad. They should have told us when the plane landed in Taipei that the Taipei to SF flight was delayed by 45 minutes to wait for us with the Gate number! But they did not.
If this is the way how China Airlines treated its customers. I wish them best of luck.
Business Blog 