Hong Kong at 28: growth, integration, and what’s next
53:10 Share

Daily news and analysis. We keep you informed and inspired. This is World Today.

Hong Kong marked the 28 years since its return to the motherland, celebrating growth and integration. French President Emmanuel Macron denounces tariffs by powerful country as blackmail. Welcome to Road Today, a news program with a different perspective. I'm Ge'Anna in Beijing. To listen to this episode again or to catch up on previous episodes, you can download our podcast by searching Road Today. ♪

We begin today's show in Hong Kong, where a flag-raising ceremony was held to mark the 28th anniversary of the city's return to the motherland. Chief Executive John Lee, senior officials and community leaders took part in the event, highlighting not just a political milestone but also deepening economic ties.

Since 1997, trade between the Chinese mainland and Hong Kong has more than quintupled, rising from nearly 60 billion U.S. dollars to over 300 billion last year. The momentum continues into this year. In the first five months, trade surpassed 130 billion U.S. dollars, up more than 11 percent compared to a year ago. So for more on this, joining us on the line is Dr. Yao Shujie, Changhong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University.

Let's start with the big picture. This year marked the 28th anniversary of Hong Kong's return to China. Over nearly three decades, the city has climbed to third place globally in terms of international competitiveness and foreign direct investment. So what do you think this

saying about the institutional strength of the one country, two systems framework. And in today's uncertain global economy, how can Hong Kong continue to reinforce its position as a leading international financial hub? Before in Hong Kong in 1997, there's a lot of changes and some of the changes are not very smooth. But in retrospect, over the last 28 years, Hong Kong has turned out to be highly resilient,

And it is very pleased to see that Hong Kong is still in very high competitive conditions in the international major cities. This is a very encouraging news.

In terms of economic growth, the financial development in Hong Kong, and also the bilateral relationship between the mainland and Hong Kong, particularly in the southern part of the country, Guangdong province, Macau and Hong Kong have formed very dynamic economic circles there, the so-called Great Bay Area.

And this is reflected by the very strong performance of bilateral trade. Over the last 28 years, the average annual growth of trade is over 6% per year. So this is very remarkable.

And also Hong Kong economy structure, social structure have changed fundamentally. People become more receptive for mainland connections, politically, also business-wise.

and the financial market, they are now deeply intertwined. And it laid a fairly solid foundation for Hong Kong to continue the prosperity, continue the key position in the international financial market and for attracting foreign capitals, for the talent exchange, and also for innovation in particular.

I think it's a great, successful story about the one country, two systems mechanism promoted by the leader, Mr. Deng Xiaoping. Professor, now looking at governance, back in 2022, President Xi Jinping delivered an important speech

outlining a long-term vision for Hong Kong's development. Since then, what major reforms has the Hong Kong SAR government introduced as it shifts from stability to prosperity? And how have key changes like updates to the national security law and the restructuring of district councils helped lay the groundwork for long-term stability and growth?

President Xi gave the guidelines about the national security, which include the security of Hong Kong and the national security of the mainland, and also the bilateral relationship in terms of safeguarding Hong Kong's stability and prosperity.

Because we saw some episodes before 2022, there's some volatility there, some mistrust between some segments of the populations. But with the presidency's stance on the security issue, I think there are two fundamental changes in Hong Kong. The first change is that Hong Kong security should be part of the national security and Hong Kong's political stability

is the top priority of everything else. And secondly, the legislation structure, especially the council compositions, they got to be pro-China, got to be patriotic, got to be pro-growth and pro-prosperity rather than violating

the general interest of the citizens in Hong Kong. And this has been very well received. And over the last three years, it has proved that the presidency's guidelines have been working very effectively. And it has won the support of not only the council members, but also the support of the general public in the island.

So this is a very important foundation. It is a cornerstone for Hong Kong to continue the prosperity without too much interruption by some undesirable forces.

Then beyond governance, Hong Kong has also been quite active on the global stage, whether it's advancing Belt and Road cooperation, hosting high-level financial forums, or establishing new institutions. How do you see Hong Kong's evolving road as a gateway between the Chinese mainland and the international community? And more broadly, what unique value can Hong Kong today offer in helping drive forward China's path to modernization?

You know, before and after China's economic reform and openness, Hong Kong played a very, very important role in terms of international gateway for China to be open to the outside world in terms of international trade, international investment, and also trade practices, legal system, and the facilitation of China's trade to the outside world through Hong Kong.

Now, this window getaway road played by Hong Kong, although in absolute terms it seems it has been declining, but in relative terms, and also in the long-term connection between mainland and Hong Kong, this important road has never been diminished. And even nowadays, Hong Kong still provides a very important example for China's openness policy.

And the bilateral trade between Hong Kong and mainland is still a very critical component for China's export, especially for China's export surplus.

and also a lot of Chinese businesses, particularly the big enterprises, they are listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, which have mutual beneficial effect. From the Hong Kong's point of view, with the mainland company listed in the Hong Kong Stock Exchange, it provides a very stabilization effect for the financial center position of Hong Kong.

And on the mainland side, I think Hong Kong provides a very effective and very efficient way of listing the major companies on the mainland, especially when China is facing a lot of challenges from the United States and from some Western countries about financial openness and also about investment and trade.

Hong Kong is playing a very inkling effect in consolidating China's open policy and China's resilience to the external shock, as we just mentioned. Now, by continuing in different ways,

in terms of exchange of goods and services, in terms of financial support, financial services, and also the bilateral investment between the two financial markets and also people's exchange, talent gathering and so on. These are very important parts of Hong Kong in providing stability effect on China's long-term economic development and stability.

Then let's turn to some of the recent numbers. In 2024, Hong Kong's GDP surpassed 3 trillion Hong Kong dollars. The city is now home to 4,700 startups and nearly 210,000 professionals have relocated there. How would you assess Hong Kong's appeal when it comes to nurturing new productivity drivers and attracting global talents?

And going forward, how can the city tap deeper into greater Bay Area to unlock even more momentum? You know, economic statistics indicate Hong Kong's economy is highly healthy and very dynamic. In terms of GDP growth, it's been very steady. Hong Kong is still one of the highest income economies in the Asian region or even in the world.

And also Hong Kong is highly open in terms of trade and investment. The financial market, as we just mentioned, is still very important in Hong Kong. It's still one of the largest financial centers in the world.

Now, this technological innovation, the attractiveness of talents, and also the setup of new business, these statistics are very impressive. It means Hong Kong is still a very attractive place for attracting foreign investors and business.

By working with the local cities in Guangdong and Macau, forming the so-called Greater Bay Area, it will become a fairly strong economic cluster that provides the so-called cluster effect and also the scale effect of economic efficiency and also economic development.

So Hong Kong proactively promoting herself into this Great Bay area provided a solid foundation for further economy prosperity and development.

This is very important because Hong Kong's prosperity is now declining more and more, not only on mainland in general, but also on Guangdong and Macau in particular, because Guangdong is the biggest economic powerhouse in the Peel River Delta, Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and many other metropolitan cities.

They are fully dynamic and prosperous. They provide a lot of economic momentum for Hong Kong to consolidate her key international position in further economic development and the general improvement of the people's livelihood on the island. Thanks, Professor, for those valuable insights. That was Dr. Yao Shujie, Chang Kong Professor of Economics at Chongqing University. This is Road Today. Stay with us.

Hello, my name is Alessandro Golombievski Teixeira. I'm a professor of public policy and management at Tsinghua University in Beijing. I am a great listener of The Wall Today. In my opinion, The Wall Today is one of the best China radio programs. In The Wall Today, we can get the best news and analysis in what is happening now in the world. So please, come to join us. Welcome back.

French President Emmanuel Macron has called tariffs imposed by powerful countries a form of blackmail. He made the comments during a speech at the International Conference on Financing for Development in Spain. The remarks came as the European Union negotiates a trade deal with the United States ahead of the July 9 deadline.

U.S. President Donald Trump unveiled sweeping global tariffs in April, ranging from 10% to 50%, though he later reversed course and mostly lowered them for 90 days. White House rejected Macron's characterization, insisting that tariffs were an effective tool to rebuild U.S. manufacturing. So for more on this, my colleague Zhao Ying talked to Professor Zhang Gong from the University of International Business and Economics.

What is at stake in these EU-US tariff negotiations? And given how little time remains, is the comprehensive deal by July the 9th even realistic? Or maybe is an outline the best we can hope for? Well, there's a lot of money at stake here. The total trade between the United States and the European Union amounts to over $2 trillion. So it's a lot of money at stake.

So I think both sides are taking very strong position. President Trump at some point said that the European Union is even worse than China in terms of what he described as ripping off the United States. So I think it's a big chunk of money at stake here. I'm not sure whether they can be able to reach an agreement with the deadline, July 9th, which is only about a week away from now.

So we have to wait and see what's likely to happen. So is this July the 9th deadline? Is it a firm red line or do you think it's perhaps more of a pressure tactic by the Trump administration? Well, I think it's a pressure tactic by the Trump administration for sure. But on the other hand, I think Trump's deadline should be taken very seriously.

And I'll give you an example. You know, Trump was talking, the Trump administration was in talk with the Iranian government about the nuclear program. And he said, you know, there's going to be 60 days. And after 60 days,

60 days, believe it or not, the Israeli side just bombed Israel. So I think overall we should take the deadline pretty seriously. But I think there's not much report about what's going on right now between the two sides. We don't even know whether a negotiation is currently in the process right now. But it's only a week away. But with respect to the Trump administration, anything can happen. So we don't know yet.

Okay, well, Bloomberg reports that the EU was prepared to accept a 10% universal tariff on many of its exports to the U.S. while pushing for lower rates or exemptions in some key sectors. I mean, if that is the case, does it signal a position of weakness in the negotiations? Or is it a pragmatic move to avoid a more damaging escalation with the U.S.?

well i think i'm very skeptical about whether the european union side can be able to achieve that i mean a 10 universal tariff is the bare minimum of the tariff lay of the tariff rate that the trump administration is going to impose on every country so uh given you know the very sizable

trade surplus the European Union enjoys with the United States. I don't think the Trump administration would be happy with just a 10%. Let alone, the EU side was talking about in some sectors even less than 10%. I would expect in some sectors above 10% and at least

10% for every sector, for any sector. I think it's understandable that the European Union is trying to show some position of strength. It's trying to signal it's taking a tough stance. But I'm skeptical that at the end of the day, any country will be able to achieve a tariff rate that is less than 10%. Okay, but if there is a deal that, you know, it materializes

Would that institutionalize the inequality in trade between the EU and the US? And does it risk reinforcing the perceptions of the EU as a weaker player in this transatlantic relation? Well, I think the idea of equality in trade is a

It's an elusive idea. What do we mean by that? President Emmanuel Macron was talking about inequality, but what does it mean by that? Does that mean a balanced trade? Does that mean more or less no trade deficit or trade surplus? We don't know yet. I think from purely an economics point of view, I mean, even the

the trade data collected from the customs office is not an accurate characterization of each country's contribution to trade. It's a complicated matter. I mean, you have to go back and look at the value added creating a country for exports.

big debate about accurate calculation of that portion, if it can be calculated at all. So I think, you know, the idea of inequality or equality of trade, it's not a very well defined concept. So,

But I can understand what President Macron is coming from. He wants sort of a balanced and equal position in this dialogue, in this negotiation. But in terms of the end results for equality, I don't know what he's talking about, to be very honest. Yeah, but I think unilateral tariff is obviously not a sign of equality.

That's for sure. It's not just a unilateral imposition of tariffs on the country. This is actually bypassing the entire rules-based international order here. We have a WTO framework regulating tariffs imposed by countries.

member states have commitment to the WTO regarding the tariff regime, but Washington is entirely bypassing that. It's doing something in total contradiction, in total violation of the trade rules as being worked out at WTO. I think absolutely, in that sense, you can call this total inequality.

Okay, but do you see the logic behind Trump's tariff-first negotiation later approach? Like, has it produced more leverage for the U.S. side or does it simply bring more volatility in global trade? It's the logic behind

Belonging to the Manhattan construction contract space, this is coming from Trump's previous background. This approach absolutely doesn't make sense at all. In a diplomatic way of doing this, would it be in consultation with different countries and negotiating a sort of a tariff rate? But you know, Trump

President Trump wants to do things like this. I mean, he always starts with something outrageous and then water down, negotiate down from that position. So that's what he's coming from. He's putting these very high tariff rates out first and then negotiate from there.

I'm not sure whether it's going to create a leverage for the US side. I think the experience, at least for the China-US negotiation, indicates otherwise. I think in that deal reached in London, it doesn't indicate anything that Washington is gaining any leverage vis-a-vis China.

Okay. Well, Emmanuel Macron called tariffs instruments of blackmail. Do you think that message resonates within Brussels or do member states have diverging stakes in these talks? I think it resonates with many

European Union member states. I think among many countries, especially what the US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld used to describe as the old Europe, there's going to be a lot of resignation. But there are a few countries I think would prefer to have more of a considerate relationship with Washington. Hungary comes to mind. And this is a union encompassing 27 countries.

Each country definitely has a divergent interest. So I think in general, this blackmail characterization resonates well, but definitely there are a few countries that are not very happy with this kind of a characterization.

But Macron has also warned against asking Europe to boost defense spending while launching a trade war. So do you think this tension is exposing some deeper fractures in this alliance, especially when trade and security are being tied so closely together? Macron is essentially complaining. He's saying, what he's saying means that, you know, he said, you know, Washington on one hand is asking us to increase defense spending up to 5% GDP,

on the other hand it's imposing these high tariffs in a very imposing manner right so you know he's complaining about this um you know this is something i understand full well where he's coming from um but i think you know this boils down to the question of how much of a bargaining power the european union has i don't think they have a lot of

negotiation space here. The defense requirement is pressing and pacing need against the backdrop of this still ongoing war in Ukraine. On the other hand, on the trade side, Washington takes a very tough position. It's a very difficult situation for the European Union side. I think what Macron is saying is merely characterizing that

dilemma here, and he's complaining about it. Other than that, I don't expect drastic measures will be taken by him. The European Union still very much depends on the United States, and in the end, I think they will reach some kind of a compromise.

I don't see a strong position taken by the European Union that leads to some kind of a breakdown of the relationship. That's not going to happen. That was Professor Zhang Gong. You're listening to Road today. Stay tuned.

You've been listening to Road Today with me, Ge'Anna, in Beijing. Former U.S. Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush have issued a rare public criticism of the Trump administration over its decision to dismantle the U.S. Agency for International Development. In a farewell video, Obama called the move a "clausul mistake."

Monday marked the final day of the agency, established by President John F. Kennedy more than six decades ago. USAID was tasked with advancing U.S. geopolitical interests worldwide, often through ideological infiltration and so-called democratic reforms.

Beginning Tuesday, the agency will be absorbed into the State Department under an order by Secretary of State Mark Rubio. So to delve into this, joining us on the line is Professor Joseph Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University.

Professor, USAID has been around for more than 60 years and it has played a significant role in how the U.S. engages with the world. So in your view, how should we evaluate this institution, especially given the complex controversies surrounding its mission and methods over the decades? Well, let me start by noting that in 1994, I received some modest funding from USAID for research related to my first master's degree thesis.

which was conducted at the World Health Organization supported cholera hospital in Dhaka, Bangladesh, evaluating a nutrition rehabilitation program for severely malnourished children. Now, more generously, in the past, USAID also gave millions to many countries around the world, including to China, to support various efforts, including programs associated with climate change.

However, in China's case, starting in 2011, such support was increasingly politicized in the U.S. as, quote, feeding the dragon and curtailed.

Now, although the humanitarian work and development associated with USAID has long been praised, it's also, I think, clearly attracted criticism, above all from Trump, whose White House has posted scathing critiques of the agency for waste and abuse and for supporting what it contends are American enemies. Now, it's demonstrably true that USAID has long been guilty of excessive overhead and cost.

for also funding failed projects and lacking accountability. The agency has been accused of funding efforts to destabilize foreign governments, meddling in foreign elections, and fostering color revolutions, all in the name of promoting democracy.

Now, interesting, one of the most strident accusations is that USAID funded the production of radical jihadist textbooks to support the rise of the Taliban as an insurgency against Soviet forces in Afghanistan.

And then decades later funded the construction of a power plant that many regard as a failed project during the US occupation of Afghanistan following the invasion of that country after 9/11, which displaced the Taliban from government.

although once the US left that government has returned. Now, despite the positive benefits that I received from the agency and despite some of the good work it's done through the years, the amount of good support it's actually given to various peoples and countries is probably very small. And thus, the agency's negative consequences probably far exceed its benefits.

As you said, with time, USAID has taken on different roles and meanings. Now, the dismantling of USAID has been officially framed as part of Washington's efforts to cut the federal deficit. But when you consider that USAID's budget makes up just about half a percent of total U.S. spending, far less than defense's,

Some critics have called this making a mountain out of a molehill. Do you think deficit reduction is really the driving factor? Or are there any deeper political or strategic motivations behind this reform?

Well, around February of this year, Elon Musk, Trump's former right-hand man and Doge head, described USAID as a criminal organization, quote. That quote needs to die, promoting the idea that the agency was not only wasteful and unaffordable, that it was also part of a partisan deep state that supports left-wing causes around the world. And Trump agreed with this assessment.

Now, for context, I think, however, we should compare the attacks on USAID as being similar to those that we see on Harvard and other U.S. universities, which Trump has also long regarded as using U.S. tax dollars in ways that run contrary to conservative values and politicians.

Consequently, killing the agency is part of a broader culture war, one that's long been fought in the U.S. but is now accelerating under Trump. But it also represents a fundamental shift in how the White House conceives international engagement and fiscal responsibility.

Now, it's certainly the case that the U.S. does have a national debt problem, which Trump has weaponized to cut government programs in unprecedented ways, and certainly those at odds with his ideology. At the same time, we've also seen Trump offer a trillion dollar record, trillion dollar defense budget, indicating he cares more about the stick than the carrot when it comes to advancing U.S. initiatives and hegemony overseas.

Then, Professor, do you believe that the political role of USAID has played, especially in terms of U.S. interference and ideological infiltration abroad, will end simply because the agency no longer exists in its previous form? Well, it's clear that Trump prefers a more direct style of meddling, whether trying to influence elections as he tried, albeit unsuccessfully recently in Canada, or

or waging a global trade war via tariffs, or threatening countries with regime change and attacking them, as he has done against Iran, or questioning the legitimacy of leaders like Zelensky, exploiting Ukraine's vulnerabilities, which the U.S. was responsible for creating in the first place, as he himself has admitted.

to in turn extract benefits favorable to the US. So while it's arguable that the USAID did do some good things in the past, it was also a veneer the US used as a mask to hide and advance what were sometimes certainly darker causes. Now, the fundamental difference is that Trump doesn't care what other countries think of him. He doesn't care or need

the mask or veneer. He's not trying to build coalitions or alliances based on shared values or humanitarian support. Consequently, he doesn't need an agency like USAID to support this foreign policy agenda.

Then from July 1st, the agency will officially be absorbed into the State Department under a new name, American First Foreign Assistance. What kind of message does this rebranding send to the international community in your opinion? And how do you see this new agency shaping U.S. foreign assistance going forward?

Well, you know, some previous agency functions likely will be rebranded and advanced hand in hand with MAGA ideology. But, you know, given Trump's broader disdain for global well-being, which we can see in his decisions to again abandon the World Health Organization and the Paris Agreement,

And similarly, given his 2026 budget, which indicates he will reduce or eliminate U.S. funding to the United Nations and several of its affiliated organizations, we should expect U.S. assistance going forward will be highly selective and perhaps entirely different than the past

probably with less emphasis on humanitarian support than advancing Trump's political objectives around the world. Now, we might also see reversals of fortune. For example, the agency previously provided some humanitarian assistance directly to Palestinians, but with no direct support for Israel.

Perhaps that will be inverted, given the privileged role Israel plays in Trump's foreign policy, and likewise his lack of concern for Palestinians. Many thanks, Professor, for your in-depth perspectives. That was Professor Joseph Mahoney, Professor of Politics and International Relations at East China Normal University. This is Road Today. We'll be back.

Hello, I am Dr. Digby James Wren, a political analyst and international relations scholar specializing in China area studies. World Today offers unmatched in-depth perspectives on China's politics, economics, business, technology and society. World Today's team of reporters and contributors provides valuable information from all of the world's major economies. I hope you can join me on World Today for the very best insights and news from China, on China, and help to build a better understanding of China's role in the world today.

Stablecoins, once viewed as fringe crypto tools, are now drawing serious interest from the most traditional corners of finance. Wall Street giants from BlackRock to JP Morgan are not just watching from the sidelines anymore. They are building, investing, and preparing for a future where money doesn't just move through banks and wire transfers, but flows instantly and globally.

At a major money market found conference recently in Boston, stablecoins took center stage not just as a crypto trend, but as a real force shaping demand for U.S. government debt. So what's stablecoin and what does it mean for markets, monetary policy and financial stability? For more on this, my colleague Zhao Yang spoke with Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University.

So, Yan, first, what exactly is stablecoin? In your view, are stablecoins simply another form of money or something fundamentally different like a financial product? Well, I think this is a great question and I like the way you bifurcate sort of the definition because I think that is exactly the debate. Some people believe that stablecoin is simply a digital dollar, it's a digital currency. But in my view, I think it really resembles a financial asset, a crypto asset.

For one very simple reasons to be money, you need to first to be the unit of account. But right now the stable coin is basically packed with dollar. And so the way you describe a stable coin or measure its value is still in terms of the US dollar. So it is not really a money in the sense it's not a unit of account. And most of the time you still need to use the US dollar to purchase

stablecoin. And a lot of times you also need to convert a stablecoin into the US dollar in order to make purchases. So in that sense, stablecoin is really a crypto asset rather than a form of money. And why do we need it now? I mean, who needs them for what purpose and will the benefits actually outweigh the risks?

I think this is a great question. I think the reason that the so-called we need it, many people believe this blockchain technology is going to help to improve the payment system. It will make the payment more convenient, secure, and also less costly. Because right now, some Americans, they don't have bank account. They have to rely on cash transactions or other ways of making payments.

But the silver coin does not require having a bank account. You could just download an app or use the online platforms for the kind of transactions. So for some of the unbanked or underbanked individuals, this could be helpful. But I think really what is most helpful is when people wanted to purchase

cryptocurrencies or crypto assets, other forms of cryptos, say you wanted to buy a Bitcoin or you want to buy other forms of tokenized assets, then having the stablecoin could help you to directly make the purchases in the various digital platforms or tokenized system. So you don't have to convert the stablecoin into dollar or dollar into stablecoin to purchase some of these crypto assets.

And other forms would be helpful is mostly for cross-border payments. Right now it is quite costly and also time consuming sometimes when you wanted to wire money to recipients overseas in other countries. So using the Stablecoin is much more convenient as long as the counterpart also has the app, you could essentially just click the button and you will send the money overseas, send the Stablecoin I should say overseas.

And last but not the least, I think some experts also believe this could open the door for some illicit transactions, some of the underground transactions, because this one does not go through some of the same kind of rigorous know your customers kinds of regulations. So you could essentially collect staple coin or use a staple coin to pay for some of the great market products using this means.

And what's behind the sudden surge of interest in the stablecoins from major Wall Street institutions? What are the business opportunities over there?

Right. So right now, this market, the stablecoin market, it's about a $200 billion worth of stablecoin issuance. I think it is a profit-making opportunity. So, for example, for any of the stablecoin holders, the stablecoin issuers don't need to pay anything for these holders. In other words, they don't pay a deposit interest.

for people to hold the coins. And at the same time, when these stablecoin issuers, when they receive the dollar payments for the stablecoin, they can invest them in the three, for example, three months treasury bills or money market funds,

Right now, with the very high short-term U.S. interest rates, the Fed funds rate is ranging between 4.25% to 4.5%. You can imagine that this could be quite profitable for the issuance to use the dollar receipts they have to invest in these short-term financial instruments. Not to mention, they are also able to charge certain fees and whatnot when people use the stablecoin system.

So, and also the barrier of entry is very low, right? So pretty much the regulation says you just need to apply for licenses. And it's not only the financial institutions, otherwise depository institutions can issue these stablecoins. But many of the fintech companies, also, you know, companies like Walmart and others, they could also issue their own stablecoins.

So, you know, it's a very low entry barrier and it's also relatively large market opportunity for profits for the so-called network effect. Because once people start using Stipplecoins, you could also start to promote certain, you know, investment products and so on and so forth. So I think this is why it becomes so attractive for not just the Wall Street, but some other, you know, non-traditional, you know, financial participants.

And the Bank of International Settlements or BIS argues that the stablecoins fail the test of singleness. So can you explain, you know, what that means and why it matters for monetary stability?

Well, yes, the BIS has made some really pointy critique of the stablecoins. So what I argue is, first of all, there's no the so-called singleness of this cryptocurrency, because what it means is basically when you think about your bank deposits,

you know, a bank deposits from, let's say, Bank of America and a bank deposit from the U.S. Bank, they're always equivalent, right? So $1 deposits in Bank A is the same as the deposits in Bank B because the Federal Reserve, when they do the clearing of the balance between the banks, they do not distinguish, you know, whether this deposit is from Bank A or from Bank B. It's $1. $1 is $1.

So this is the so-called singleness, right? And this is very important for the stable value of your currency. Now, stablecoin arguably is more stable than Bitcoin or other like cryptocurrencies.

cryptocurrencies because they are one to one backed by, you know, you either dollar deposits or like I mentioned earlier, the three months treasury bills or money market funds. So it's relatively stable. But that said, there's still the volatility. When you look at the volatility index,

they are still quite volatile compared to the always stable bank deposit one-to-one ratio. It could be something like instead of one stablecoin equal to $1, it could be one stablecoin equal to $1.0001 or $0.99997. Now, it may not sound a lot, but again, if you multiply that by billions of dollars, it could still make a difference.

So that's the idea that stablecoins still fail the test of singleness. It also failed the test of the so-called elasticity, which means when you have a monetary system, sometimes you want to expand the reserve supply and you want to increase bank deposits and lending. But stablecoin doesn't necessarily have that function. Depends on whether or not the insurer is going to increase the supply or decrease it.

And last but not least, they also criticize the lack of integrity of this market. Because you can imagine, again, if there's a run on the stablecoins, if all of a sudden

you know, holders of the stablecoins want to redeem, then this could lead to a massive sale of the treasury bills in the market. And that could, you know, discount, depress the value of these treasury bills. And so that means, you know, some of these stablecoin issuers may not be able to really redeem, may not be really honored when people are coming to demand their money back. So all of these basically pose great dangers for using, you know, stablecoin in a massive scale.

That was Yan Liang, professor of economics at Willamette University. This is World Today. Stay with us. From nickel-rich rainforests to battery plants on the rise, Indonesia is teaming up with China to chase the EV prize. A massive battery project in the Southeast Asian country promises new jobs, growth and green power. But there are also doubts and questions.

Is it a clean energy leap or a high voltage gamble? With big hopes, how could this shape Asia's green future? Find out on this week's Chat Lounge, wherever you get your podcasts, and on CGTN Radio.

You've been listening to Road Today. China is bracing for a surge in railway travel this summer. Authorities expect around 950 million passenger trips to be made over the two-month peak season from July through August. That's nearly 6% more than the same period last year. Summer is traditionally one of the busiest times for China's rail network as students head home and families head out on vacations.

So for more on this, let's have Dr. Zhou Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. Welcome. Thank you. Dr. Zhou, we're seeing a major travel boom this summer in China, with flights, bookings, visa applications and outbound travel orders all reaching new heights. So what do you think is driving this surge in both domestic and outbound travel demand in 2025?

Well, we know that China in this year and also the previous year, we have put a lot of emphasis on encouraging the consumption. The consumption doesn't only cover the consumption in the goods, but also a lot of services include the travel.

So we can see that many local governments of China are trying to do more to improve their attractiveness by the different kind of activities to create some kind of traditional festivals or trying to facilitate the travelings and build better connections

I mean the logistics to give a better support for the people to travel here in China. And that has attracted many foreigners. And I think that's the combination of the Chinese domestic consumers and the foreign travelers are creating a better integration for the better consumption ability.

But the second, I want to say that when you are looking at the outwards or outbound travel, I think that is also a very kind of a new element that people want to share some of these good scenarios in other countries. We can think that China and many countries are trying to establish the so-called travel year for both countries, trying to introduce their

nice foods and nice scenarios to the other side's consumers. And they are trying to build more the flights, direct flights to facilitate these experiences. So I think that both of these kind of actions are having more support

for the Chinese consumers to try to have a different enjoyment about the different scenarios and experience some new things. Well, another effect, I think it's also true that the social communities, those softwares are helping the people to know more about

the world. So they are attractive. So many new tourists who want to go somewhere to have a look by themselves, own eyes. So all these factors are encouraging the consumption in the tourism to have a better performance.

Speaking of that, let's look into the details of the data. Recent data shows, album travel bookings this summer have surged by more than 50% year on year, with visa applications to destinations like Italy, Norway and Germany jumping by 80%. So could you please elaborate on what this trend reveals about the evolving travel preferences of Chinese consumers?

Well, it is true that we are seeing that China and some of the European countries are establishing stronger relations between us. So maybe this year is a very important year for China and Europe because we have the 50 years of anniversaries for

establishing the diplomatic relations. I think that has attracted many tourists that are trying to experience the very nice and very different culture in the other side. For Chinese consumers, they are trying to think about the possible ways of the destination in the past.

many Chinese people want to go to the United States. They want to enjoy these sceneries there and also trying to do something to like to investigate in the very famous universities in the United States. But now we're seeing U.S. government has sent a very, I mean, it's not a

friendly signals to the world that they are trying to do more to control the borders. They are not welcoming some people from other countries. There are so many suspects about the people who go to United States. So in this regard, I think that many Chinese consumers will believe that if they are trying to choose a place, they may find some

our country or destination which is more friendly to them and in this regard i think that's the governments of the european countries are trying to use this opportunity showed visa procedures are improved some of the european countries we have with a free the procedure or requirement for

many European countries and maybe some of them have not changed their policies, but from the heart of the people, they believe that they will have a more friendly interchange of the visitings. And many European countries, people come to China and we have better connections with them. So due to these several reasons, I believe that is the reason why we see the shift of the destinations by Chinese tourists.

Beyond the numbers, we're also seeing a shift in the types of travel people are choosing. There's growing interest in high-end, in-depth experiences from Arctic cruise to train journeys through niche destinations. How do you interpret this trend? What does it suggest about evolving consumer expectations in China's tourism market?

It is a very interesting question. If you're looking at the global trade, the structure of the previous years, we are seeing that people are trying to find their own identification about the interest. So for the Nechi places or even the places you mentioned, the Arctic or even Antarctic,

So, I mean, the people are trying to experience very different experiences compared with the previous time. So they want to have better experiences based on their interest. For another kind of reason, we can see that some of these agencies of the tribals, they are trying to meet the needs

demand of the tourists. So they are creating better abilities to support, you know, the travel to be our kind of practical ways. So in this regard, I would say that is a very, very important issue for many countries, maybe in the past.

Many of these countries are not so affected by the tourism, so many of them are not able to enjoy the tourism development. As we know that tourism is one of the very important, will have not too many impact on the environment, while also give a lot of income to the local people. So in this regard, I would say that Chinese populations and the tourists from China are creating a very important support

for those countries and places. They can try to do more to improve their abilities to accommodate the Chinese people. And that is definitely one way that we can have a better connections between the different countries, I mean, from the people.

Building on that, as Chinese tourists shift from checklist-style sizing to more immersive, experience-driven travel, what new expectations or challenges does this create for the global tourism industry on the supply side? Well,

I always think that the supply will adapt itself according to the demands. As Chinese people are getting more position in the outbound travelings, I think that many countries are trying to understand the demand from China. Well, it is true that many Chinese people really are interested about the different culture experiences, but I have to say that for them, a lot of them are trying to look at whether they can get a very good, like the

dinners or the foods not so different from their home, especially after a long journey of the travelings. And then from another side, we can say that the culture exchanges are also based on the mutual respect. So we can expect many countries are trying to show Chinese consumers about their own identical characteristic of the culture, but in

On the other hand, they have to also respect the Chinese culture. So the exchange of these cultures are really are sometimes really very challenging for different people to understand each other. So I think that for the companies who or the countries who want to attract more Chinese consumers or tourists, that they have to understand that

We are well connected in China, so the people always want to show their experiences according to their understanding in the social media or other platforms to try to connect with their friends. So if they are able to have a better, a good impression for those Chinese tourists, they can expect that more people will go to their places.

So these are really good things that we have to look at. Well, on the other hand, we know that the travel always accompanied with so many different things like their buy-ins, they are trying to do more visiting and also a lot of exchanging about the viewpoints. So we have to address the differences and make it more interesting and more sustainable.

Thanks, Professor, for your time and analysis. That was Dr. Zhong Mi, a senior research fellow with the Chinese Academy of International Trade and Economic Cooperation. That's all the time for this edition of World Today with me, Gu Anna. Thank you so much for listening. Bye for now.