HR should be an outside lawyer versed in employment law who can set up the company nicely so there isn't problems. Not a comisar in the company who knows and acts the gatekeeps of secrets, this person made this much, this person did this with this ...
Coworkers should never know intimate details of another.
HR should be administrative. But that can be software now.

Google vs. Google: The internal struggle holding back its AI - YouTube
This is how people are talking about it (people in the investing world). They think the problem is that Google is a liberal echo-chamber where people use their product as a tool to influence the world, at the expense of the utility of the tool. The problem isn't that Google can't, it's that it doesn't want to. (That it could easily fix the issues that produced black George Washington but because of the people and culture inside the corporate building they won't.) The employees are happy with how things are.
Search is considered threatened by AI ‘search’, and is considered the best (most profitable, most moated) business in history. 20 years of it or something. I don't think Google search will fail, as search is about giving answers, not just information, not just words. And they know how to give answers and monetize use through the only large-scale acceptable monetization, ads and free use.

Government just giving (stimulus checks) money to people suspected won't work, because people will just save the money (whether because of lack of confidence or just because Chinese culturally save money), not like USA.
Confidence is really low, expectations the leadership is going to change, a rollback of regulations and pairing with the West not expected, and confidence is required for economy rebounding, perhaps. Even if government does this, it would still take a long time to convince them, because government has lost their confidence. The overall direction used to look good even when there were bumps in the road, and maybe that's not there now.

Redistributing resources means redistributing authority. Giving money now to consumers means redistributing power.
Changing the tax structure means changing the central/local government relationship. The levers to bend the local governments to their will.
They control the pillars of the economy, which sectors.
They're always fearful of major uprising in big cities. Control city populations. Never have visible inequality. Harsh policy to drive migrants out of the edges of the city.

The leaders are failed reformers, not reluctant reformers. That makes a difference.

They don't collect much tax on individual incomes (6% of their tax base, 1% of GDP), nor domestic consumption.
They collect their tax mostly on investment-led growth model: value-added tax, enterprise income tax.
They only use SOEs to stimulate the economy. Performance of SOEs should become worse. They need private sector power from now on.
Fiscal revenue as a part of GDP is 14%. Declined steadily since 2015.
Their fiscal constraints are more binding than observers think.
A transitioning economy would require a different tax base, tax system. IMF raises this issue every year with China. They've said yeah we agree, for years, but last session they said they had a just-fine tax system.
Give the market a decisive role in the economy?

'Have we been gullible?' - Antidepressants taken by 'MILLIONS' of Brits go under the microscope - YouTube

APPL down 3%, 10% this year, despite launching a new laptop ‘the best for AI’ which just has improvements to regular existing services. New $1.6b Europe fine. This week Europe regulation against Big Tech. Is APPL handing over the torch (to Microsoft, Nvidia?) It's a huge part of the market, of 401ks, etc.

China's 5% GDP target is 'really ambitious,' economist says - YouTube
Contractionary fiscal policy mostly. Require a very large infrastructure project (size of Three Gorge Dam).
They might set a higher deficit budget.
10 elements: Modernize supply chains, domestic brands, produce that supply chain. Higher quality development. Really encourage domestic consumption (consumer sentiment is not high).
China sets 2024 economic targets: Here's what to know - YouTube
Shift from mass production to high quality products, national security, social equality. A noted shift. A focus on communism.

It's more profitable for companies to cooperate on prices than compete, says Columbia's Tim Wu - YouTube
The most obviously anti-competitive deals are not gonna get through. The ones where they combine obvious competitors with the excuse that they're trying to take on other companies.
The airline merger was the first that's been blocked in history, a such a minor pairing compared with ones they've allowed in the past. 10 years ago you could get any deal by saying we're coming together because we need to fight Walmart or Amazon. The industry was allowed to consolidate. We just saw airlines merge recently and not much good happening for consumers.
There are 7 companies. Then 6 and 7 want to combine to compete with 1 and 2. They were allowed. Once there are only 3 or 4 companies, they see it's easier to cooperate on prices than to compete. Mobile, airlines. They didn't compete. T-mobile 10 years ago said they were never gonna survive, and now they're the most successful company.
How many companies need to be in each sector to ensure competition? And how big can any one be allowed as a percentage of total sector share, before it makes it impossible for smaller ones to compete?

Investors Beware: China's factories are moving. But not to Mexico or Vietnam. - YouTube
Inland smaller cities.
Much of Mexico manufacturing is China too.

Weighing down the taxpayer: Why weight loss drugs could cost taxpayers over $1 trillion per year - YouTube
44m people at $15k each, $1t gross, minus savings of $200b. $800b per year, equivalent of entire medicare program.
IP theft? ... As public payers paying that much, you do have leverage, and you should be able to use that leverage in the marketplace. It could get to the point it represents a direct transfer from US taxpayers to shareholders of these companies. There is an opportunity here (they have 35% versus need-to-have-10% profit) to come to a more reasonable price for the taxpayer without discouraging innovation. We're moving toward a place, already, where we're going to blow a giant hole in the budget. But that's not the way free markets work, that's the way central planning works. Negotiating a ‘fair’ price. That fair word again. But doesn't that work both ways? The company might be developing and pricing based on the expectation of advantage in dealing with nationwide public purchase.

Lots of cryptcoins are way up.
BONK coin. $15b in volume in 24 hours.
Like last time people will buy at the top these meme coins. But this time people know, everyone's in on it, but they want to play anyway. It's a game.
Coinbase and Robinhood are up.