ะะฐะณััะทะบะฐ ะฒะธะดะตะพ...
ะะต ัะดะฐะปะพัั ะทะฐะณััะทะธัั ะฒะธะดะตะพ
๐๐ก๐๐ซ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ญ๐ข๐ฆ๐ ๐ฐ๐ก๐๐ง ๐๐๐ซ๐ซ๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ ๐๐๐ฌ๐ก ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ ๐ฆ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ. ๐๐จ๐๐๐ฒ, ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฉ๐ก๐จ๐ง๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐ฒ๐จ๐ฎ๐ซ ๐ฐ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐ญ. ๐ฑ From chai stalls to college canteens, villages to big businesses, UPI has made payments ridiculously simple. Scan. Tap. Pay. Done. A few taps, a few seconds, zero hassle. Thatโs the India weโre... show more
86,611 ะฟัะพัะผะพััะพะฒ โข 4 ะดะฝะตะน ะฝะฐะทะฐะด โขvia X (Twitter)
ะะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะธ: 0
ะะตั ะดะพัััะฟะฝัั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะตะฒ
ะะดะตัั ะฟะพัะฒัััั ะบะพะผะผะตะฝัะฐัะธะธ ะธะท ะพัะธะณะธะฝะฐะปัะฝะพะณะพ ะฟะพััะฐ
![๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐๐] ๐๐จ๐๐ฅ๐๐ญ๐ฌ๐ข ๐๐๐๐ค๐ข: ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐๐ฆ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ๐ฆ๐๐ง๐ญ ๐๐๐ก๐๐ฆ๐ ๐๐๐ฌ ๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ญ ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฏ๐ ๐๐จ ๐๐ฅ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ง๐ ๐๐จ๐ง๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐๐ง๐ฌ; ๐๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐๐๐ซ๐ ๐๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐๐ซ๐๐๐ญ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐; ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ ๐ข๐ง ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ก๐๐ฏ๐ ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซโฆ ๐๐ฎ๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐งโ๐ญ ๐ช๐ฎ๐ข๐ญ๐ ๐ค๐ง๐จ๐ฐ ๐ก๐จ๐ฐ ๐ญ๐จ ๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐ฉ๐จ๐ฐ๐๐ซ; ๐๐ก๐๐ง ๐ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐ญ ๐๐๐๐๐๐, ๐ ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐ ๐ ๐๐ฌ๐ญ๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ฒ ๐ฌ๐๐ญ ๐ฎ๐ฉ ๐ ๐๐๐ง๐ค ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ข๐ซ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง ๐๐๐๐๐๐ (๐๐๐ง๐ค), ๐๐๐๐๐ฎ๐ฌ๐ ๐๐๐๐๐๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐๐ง ๐ก๐๐ ๐.๐ ๐ฆ๐ข๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐ฆ๐๐ฆ๐๐๐ซ๐ฌโฆ ๐ฉ๐๐ฒ๐ข๐ง๐ , ๐๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ฒ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ค, ๐ฌ๐ฎ๐๐ฌ๐๐ซ๐ข๐ฉ๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง (๐ฎ๐ง๐ข๐จ๐ง ๐๐ฎ๐๐ฌ). ๐จ๐ฏ๐๐ซ๐ซ๐ฎ๐ฅ๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐ฆ๐ฒ ๐๐จ๐ฌ๐ฌ, ๐ฐ๐ก๐ข๐๐ก ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐๐๐ฒ ๐๐๐ข๐๐จ๐จ; ๐๐ก๐๐ญ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ง๐จ๐ญ ๐ข๐ง ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ง๐๐ ๐จ๐ญ๐ข๐๐ญ๐ข๐จ๐ง๐ฌ ๐ฐ๐๐ฌ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐๐๐จ๐ง๐จ๐ฆ๐ข๐ ๐ฌ๐ข๐๐ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ข๐ง๐ ๐ฌ; ๐ ๐ฅ๐จ๐ญ ๐จ๐ ๐ญ๐ก๐ ๐ฐ๐๐๐ฅ๐ญ๐ก ๐จ๐ ๐๐จ๐ฎ๐ญ๐ก ๐๐๐ซ๐ข๐๐ ๐ข๐ฌ ๐๐๐ญ๐ฎ๐๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฒ ๐จ๐ฐ๐ง๐๐ ๐๐ฒ ๐๐ฅ๐๐๐ค ๐ฉ๐๐จ๐ฉ๐ฅ๐ NtsikiMazwaiMedia delivering more ๐ for the nation. Fascinating chat! ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐ฅ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ๐๐พ โThe ANC had the power, and it still has the power, to come up with economic policy that benefits everybody but, as I pointed out, through things like Black Economic Empowerment, a lot of its leaders have been co-opted, to just leave things as they are.โ โThese guys who are in these BEE schemesโฆThatโs one of the main drivers of this corruptionโฆ these BEE schemes. [But] for big business โ as long as you donโt touch my business โ when you steal, actually, a lot of this corruption is stealing taxpayersโ money.โ โthey (big business) chose black leadersโฆ These guys set up Black Economic Empowerment. Many people naively think that Black Economic Empowerment is there to advance Black people. Actually, itโs there to do the opposite.โ โLetโs take one step Back. The wealth of S Africa was largely created by Black South Africans. First, they own the land. So it was their land. It was taken from them; and the minerals under the land were also taken from themโฆ They became the workers to build the mines. So, in real terms, the profits and the capital belongs to them as well. So, when weโre talking about capital in S Africa, itโs actually a national asset. [But] people think itโs a white man this, white man thatโฆ When you start to look at who owns these big companies in South Africaโฆ Many people naively think that the white managers own them (big companies). They donโt. Actually, a big part of some of these companies are owned by the Black people through their pension funds, their medical aid, their savingsโฆ but they donโt understandโฆ how to get the profits and have a say in how these companies are managed. They just give it to fund managersโฆ You are actually a co-owner of Anglo Americanโฆ If you donโt ask, they wonโt tellโฆ Your money, your savings are in Sanlam, in Old Mutual. You are a co-owner of this. So we have to be careful about who owns the wealth of S Africa. A lot of the wealth of South Africa is actually owned by Black peopleโฆ but they are not in insisting thatโฆโ โBlack people in South Africa have a lot of powerโฆ but they donโt quite know how to use their power and, of course, the other side is not gonna tell youโฆ They say, leave it to us, we will invest the money and, now and then, pay your pension, or whatever it is; the profits that comeโฆ Thatโs what our trade unions were supposed to do - One of the things they were supposed to do. In fact, when I was at COSATU, I suggested that they set up a bank of their own COSATU (Bank), because COSATU then had 1.8 million membersโฆ paying, every week (dues). I said letโs setup a commercial bank, which will finance black entrepreneurs, which will finance housing for our members, who were living in the shanty townsโฆ but I was overruledโฆ ๐๏ธ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1747872282997866541/amplify_video_thumb/1747870936844419072/img/lY2m-f1QviA2Exw4.jpg)
![A TRUST FUND FOR EVERYONE: How to create a Monetary Commons that socialises money and funds a basic dividend without new taxes or debt [At a time Donald Trump, Big Tech and Wall Street deploy stablecoins to privatise the dollar, usurping the decentralising power of blockchain to enrich themselves at everyone elseโs expense, here is an alternative use of blockchain that harnesses its decentralising powers to benefit everyone equally โ to pay everyone a substantial, non-inflationary, basic dividend โ without the need to tax or borrow. Read on and/or watch the video] Here is an idea that can make a real, urgently needed, difference to our awfully divided, exploitative societies. Imagine a trust fund for everyone paying a personal dividend to each. Now imagine a common, a public digital platform, letโs call it a Monetary Commons, that harnesses our collective capacity to create the money needed to fund this personal dividend for all. The idea of a personal or basic income is not new, of course. People have sung its praises for decades. But they were stifled. The majority doesnโt want to pay higher taxes, or the higher interest rates more public debt would bring, to deliver a personal payment to others, including to the already stinking rich. But what if it is now possible to pay a decent personal dividend without new taxes or new public debt. How? Not by magic or hocus pocus economics but by reclaiming from private bankers our societyโs power to create money. Today, we have the digital tools to take back the power to create money, use that power to create a common trust fund, and pay each a personal dividend. These tools are here already. And if we do not use them for benefitting everyone, the bankers and Big Tech will use them to print more money for themselves. So, letโs get cracking! Letโs build a new Monetary Commons to pay a personal dividend to each! How would it work? Technically, it is ever so simple. You download an app, letโs call it Monetary Commons Pay (or MCPay). MCPay is provided by your central bank (the Fed in the US, the ECB in Europe, the Bank of England in Britain etc.). Essentially, the central bank has opened a digital account for you which you can use to receive and pay money, the way you use your normal bank account app. How is this MCPay app helpful? In three fabulous ways, which I shall present in ascending order of importance. First, because with MCPay you can send and receive money for free, avoiding the terrible, inexcusable, fees charged by private banks โ even the โfuel feesโ of crypto. The second, even greater, benefit is that the money you keep in your MCPay grows at the central bank interest rate โ which is always higher than the measly rate private banks pay for your savings. Free transactions and higher interest on your savings would be good enough reasons to have the MCPay app. But, the truly mesmerising, hugely exciting benefit is the third one: The new app makes it possible for the Central Bank to pay you, and everyone else, a substantial personal dividend. Pay attention to see where this money will come from, why it is not inflationary, why it requires no new taxes, no new debt and no magic: You have heard of how private banks create loans from thin air, right? How they can turn, on average, $3 of new deposits into a new $100 loan? [Yes, lest we forget, only 3% of the money in our advanced economies come from the central bank โ the rest is conjured up by private banks.] But this works in reverse as well! If bankers turn $3 into $100, were you to transfer $3 from your normal bank to your MCPay, to take advantage of free transactions and the higher interest rate, you will have annulled your bankerโs opportunity to create $100. In other words, as you transfer $3 from your bank to your new MCPay account, the total quantity of money in the economy would fall by, $100 minus $3, $97. Would this not be bad for the economy? It sure would be if nothing was done about it. But wait. Suppose the central bank were to create $97 for every $3 transferred to someoneโs MCPay and credit that extra $97, equally, to everyoneโs MCPay account. Bingo! Do you see now how a personal dividend was made possible without new taxes, new debt or potentially inflationary increases in the quantity of money? Now, please do not think that this a theoretical discussion. Yes, our governments, in the pockets of financiers as they are, are not interested in giving you the option of an MCPay app. But, with Donald Trump at the helm and his GENIUS Act on the statutes, they are busily handing over this incredible power to create money not to society, not to a Monetary Commons, but to Big Tech and Wall Street. How? By shunning the MCPay app that would benefit you, everyone, equally, and pushing instead for so-called stablecoins issued by privateers, mainly Big Tech and Wall Street, for their benefit. But how much money could we expect to receive as a personal dividend if we were to create a monetary commons? The answer is: a lot! The US Treasury recently predicted that around worth $6.6 trillion of US bank deposits will be transferred to stablecoins - the private version of MCPay from which you will benefit not at all. Yes, $6.6 trillion, that is more than six thousand billion dollars. If such a sum were to be transferred to the monetary commons, to our MCPay accounts, keeping the quantity of money in the US constant would require that the Fed credits $213 trillion to everyoneโs MCPay accounts. Thatโs considerably more than $600 thousand for each woman, man and child resident in the US! And similarly in Britain, Europe, Japan etc. A sizeable trust fund for everyone. This is a remarkable opportunity for making a difference to our awfully divided societies. We must seize it. For the benefit of the many, not the few. Of course, the few โ beginning with the bankers โ will scream blue murder. They will do their utmost to stop this from happening. They will fearmonger like crazy, eager as they are to usurp the lionโs share of the money that society generates collectively. They will try to terrorise you with tales of calamities that will befall you if this Monetary Commons were to be created. They will prognosticate cataclysmic inflation โ even though the whole point of the personal dividend is to keep the money supply constant. They will terrorise you with the prospect of new taxation and new public debt โ even though they understand that there is no need for new taxes or new public debt to pay you a substantial personal dividend. To appeal to your social conscience, they will tell you that a Monetary Commons is Elon Muskโs and the libertariansโ way to dismantle social security โ even though there is no reason to cut social security in any way to fund everyoneโs personal dividend. They will bombard you with the spectre of Big Brother, likening the Monetary Commons to a Chinese Communist Party ploy to have the central bank follow your every transaction โ even though they know that MCPay can easily be built on distributed ledger technology that guarantees privacy to each while preventing the authorities from manipulating the money supply without the public noticing. As they scream and shout and terrorise you, you will know: Bankers just hate the idea of going back to the role of intermediaries, of borrowing from Jack to lend to Jill. They are only interested in maintaining their monopoly over the money system โ and to extend it now that digital money enhances societyโs capacity to create even more new money, a capacity that they want to privatise when we should want to share equally. So, let us ignore the shrieks of the moneymen and let us use new tech to share better the benefits from our collective capacity to create money. Letโs make building a Monetary Commons our common goal. It wonโt cure all of our deeply exploitative societyโs ills. But it will go a long way to cure many and, perhaps more importantly, it will give the many a sense of their power. FOR MORE ON THE MONETARY COMMONS, VISIT Raphael Arar Hirad Sab DiEM25](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1976538948781400403/amplify_video_thumb/1976530183273254912/img/gV3pzVf2scFTSo_3.jpg)
![We know that the incident that happened at present in Zambia has attracted a little attention, but particularly the use of a fraud gang leader, Hopewell Chinโono, and Emmanuel Mwamba. I think people have seen me in the past, in the last few years. Iโve confronted these two characters on matters that I was able to demonstrate were matters of fact, but there are also matters of accountability in a very big way. They were matters relating to money, movement of money across countries. How many people have seen my documentaries? How many have seen the Gatwick Airport hacking documentary that features a man called Hopewell Chinโono? In the last two years, I personally, physically recovered over a million British pounds in a property that had been robbed from a British man. Two years ago, in 2024, and the person who was singularly behind that scam is a man called Hopewell Chinโono. Brian Mundubile, the opposition leader, and Emmanuel Mwamba, the opposition spokesperson โ Iโm not sure what title he has in Zambia. If youโre watching right now in Zambia, please let me know which title he carries, because I know that there have been entities and institutions that have switched names, switched sides, or switched shape. So Iโm not aware what title Emmanuel Mwamba now has, but Emmanuel Mwamba and Brian Mundubile, as the opposition leader, have been using this man who will lead a fraud gang, and is [a] fraudster, I would be [saying]. So Iโm going to say it in Zimbabwean English, okay? Accent, Zimbabwean and Zambian, for I would beโฆ [Speaking in a local language.] And on Hopewell Chinโonoโฆ [Speaking in a local language.] A million-pound property from him and his friend and his colleague, called Jennifer Bangurรฉ, in East Midlands. I think people have seen him sometimes posting a picture of him dressed in very, very buttoned trousers, boasting that heโs got a house in East Midlands. Right there in East Midlands, two years ago, I had a copy of [the] property, but he himself and the colleague of him had taken off, unlawfully taken away from a British man. And so Hopewell Chinโono has been used by Mundubile and Mwamba with the two knowing well that he is a fraud gang leader. Some people have been claiming, โOh, Brian Mundubile,โ and the likes of him that this man is a journalist. This person is a fraud gang leader, just using the face in the front of journalism. There is no person who is law-abiding who uses Hopewell Chinโono for anything. But what was happening was that Brian Mundubile and Emmanuel Mwamba were using this shady character for their communications, which were not factual at all. I mean, people were following over the time, every post that this man has been posting โ this character that Brian Mundubile has been using to make communications. In every single post, thereโs always been some falsification, some misleading. This is not a character that anyone would want to sit having tea with, because heโs well known for more than 30 years for being dodgy, shady and engaging in some of the most horrible [activities]. Iโve done thorough investigations over the years. Iโve done more investigations on this man than Iโve done on all my other documentaries and stories over the years. And so, what were they discussing? What were they doing? But mainly, โ what have they been posting around the elections, not just today? Over several years, by the way: this whole operation didnโt start today. Even during the Edgar Lungu death days last year, I think people remember โ how many people remember? Thereโs a dossier that I presented to South Africa, to the courts, where I was arguing, and I was even taking the SABC, the South Africa Broadcasting Corporation, to court. Very soon I will, for them using this type โ this character. And this is a big, big scam. Itโs not a small scam. So, what has happened right now, thereโs another operation that law enforcement have done in [Zambia]. Iโm not going to talk about that because itโll be sub judice, and Iโm not aware of the full circumstances of what that is. But I am aware. Iโm fully aware. I think people saw me a few years ago. I was in Lusaka physically, and I was on live camera. Iโm fully aware that Brian Mundubile and his crop were cooking some activity. Thatโs how I was there. I saw it physically. They were doing something there that I canโt say right now because it would be sub judice. People understand what the law says. I am aware of certain things that were happening around that time that were not clean. And thatโs how suddenly I was in Lusaka around the same period in August 2023, which was the first time Iโd been to Lusaka before, a few years before. My work โ I investigate, I investigate, I investigate matters relating toโฆ Excuse me, sorry, I apologise. Iโm just getting distracted. Just two seconds here. Those are coming right now live. I am just two seconds, just two seconds, folks. I think itโs me, love. Yes, itโs me. Walter. Yes. Okay, so just two seconds, folks. Okay, so what I was saying was that a few years ago, I was in Lusaka, Zambia. And the things that I witnessed there โ Iโm not going to talk about the rest and things that have happened today because itโs sub judice. I canโt do that. And Iโm not aware of the full circumstances. But there are definitely things that I know, and people have seen over the years. When Edgar Lungu died, there was one character who Emmanuel Mwamba started using. Many of the people started using. And they were firing an algorithm. And if you are in law enforcement here in Zambia, and if you are in law enforcement in any other country, I hope you can hear this tidbit that Iโm dropping here. I investigate wrongdoing by notorious people, particularly people who target crowds. And so this person that Brian Mundubile has been using has been fronting the face and the badge of journalism. But, in actual fact, he leads a fraud gang โ a whole gang of people, some who were fully convicted and served prison sentences. This is all public record, by the way. So itโs not what Iโm saying here, so people listening โ itโs not something from a special investigation that I guess, of course, there are things that Iโve done, that Iโve done. But this is public record. There is no person who is law-abiding. Thereโs no person who follows the law who uses a man called Hopewell Chinโono for anything. For anything. [Speaking in Shona.] This is a record that is over 30 years old โ 30 years running, every year. Every year, this man called Hopewell Chinโono has a repeating incident, or for high-profile โ weโre talking high-profile crime here. And one of them involves a million-pound property that I personally reversed in a documentary called โGatwick Airport.โ โGatwick Airport.โ So if you Google โGatwick Airport,โ you see it. I mean, this is a whole broad, multi-million-pound property, massive property that I investigated and helped to reverse two years ago. And the records are all there. They are replete. Thereโs also an article that was published that is on the New Statesman website, that is titled โJournalism Rarely Generates Excessive Wealth.โ Well, this is not my work now. This is the work of the only investigative journalist of our time by the name Geoffrey Nyarota. Itโs a very interesting piece. He died in March last year. And Geoffrey Nyarota published this article, investigated this character called Hopewell Chinโono, and published this article. If you see it, it audits money that he used โ money that he took from the United Kingdom and then used it to buy property in Zimbabwe. This is an article that is over four years, five years, in fact, in the public domain. Five years in the public domain. And the man called Hopewell Chinโono even responded, so he passed comments on that article in the article. That article is on a publication that Iโve got nothing to do with. Itโs another major, major big independent newspaper that publishes in Zimbabwe. Itโs on the internet, so if you Google โJournalism Rarely Generates Excessive Wealth,โ thatโs an article that has been available that Brian Mundubile, the opposition leader of Zambia, knows. And Emmanuel Mwamba, his spokesperson, knows that article. For over five years, he knows that Hopewell Chinโono is not a practising journalist, that he is doing his practising disguise. He is a disguiser. How does a person who has won an election use a disguiser? How do you go on video and say, โI won this electionโ? Number one, you donโt show, you donโt present any tabulation. You say that youโve got a tabulation that youโre reading, but you donโt show people that tabulation. Show people so that they see that you truly have won. Okay, letโs just assume that you are avoiding this disclosure because maybe you donโt want to get into trouble. Certainly, people around you, if you have those millions of followers, certainly those people could just present the tabulation. Not WhatsApp screenshots. No. The tabulation. The tabulation and those forms. Show the tabulation and then you also show the forms, which are a public record. The forms become public record at the polling station. So you donโt even need to wait for the Electoral Commission Chairperson of Zambia to make the announcement. The announcement has already been made at the polling station. You donโt need to record a video and pronounce yourself a leader. Because if you have won the election, that pronouncement has already been made at the polling station. And so the youngest child, a Grade One child, can do their maths. During the first hour of those results being placarded at the polling stations, you donโt need to come out yourself. Because itโs already there. If you have won the election, itโs already there. Why did you do that? Why did you record this video? Whatโs the point? Whatโs the game? Whatโs the hurry? Because itโs already there. Itโs a public record. Itโs already there. Itโs in the forest, itโs there โ right at the polling station. So Brian Mundubile did not need to do that. Who was the point? Maybe other people have done it before. But what was the point? Iโm trying to ask here. I donโt know how I could say it in Bemba, in Nyanja. I donโt know which language, folks. If those people will see you speak the language in [unclear], in Zambia, please click the video link and talk to me. And maybe say it to people, ask questions: Mr Mundubile, what was the point when you announced yourself, pronouncing yourself, on video? And then you get someone who leads โ who practises disguise. Whoa, whatโs the point? Does not practise journalism? He practises disguise. Who doesnโt know that if thereโs a public record out there? So you used someone whoโs engaged in some of the most dodgy things on earth, including election vote-tempering that he has been doing in other jurisdictions. You used that character. For what purpose? For what purpose? Because you didnโt press a vote, Brian Mundubile knew that you did not need to go on video. Because if you won the election, you were already politically โ you would have already been proclaimed at the polling station. So any person who has got a small GCSE certificate can do their maths. They would have already known that they would have made the announcement for itself. Where is the regulation? So this is a big investigation because all watching on, as I said, I myself have recovered a million-pound property in the United Kingdom in the last two years, and the documentaryโฆ](https://image.24vids.com/tw-2089573258790121505/amplify_video_thumb/2089571916835160064/img/y3V7RsYdmIXswCnG.jpg)
![HYBE and Min Hee-jin NewJeans Controversy from the Perspective of a 20-Year Entertainment Industry Expert | Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Overseas Economic Research Institute of the Export-Import Bank of Korea #1 [Investment Insight] ์ฆ์๊ฐ๋๊ธฐTV HYBE has shown a somewhat immature side throughout this process. The essence of the issue has become less important. Hello, viewers and investors of Stock TV. Recently, there has been a lot of societal concern about the entertainment industry. Last year, it did well, but the question remains about how it will fare this year. Weโre joined by Kim Yoon-ji, Senior Researcher at the Korea Eximbank Overseas Economic Research Institute, to discuss this. Welcome. Today, I brought a drink because this topic is not easy to discuss soberly. The situation between HYBE, Min Hee-jin, and NewJeans has escalated, and unfortunately, itโs no longer just management fighting but the artists have joined the fray. Iโve heard from someone in the industry that the close relationship between a producer and an artist is inevitable. In the past, there have been similar cases where producers and artists were tightly knit. Now, something similar has happened with Min Hee-jin and HYBE. Most people outside the industry donโt know the exact terms of the contract between Min Hee-jin and HYBE. As my own son works in the entertainment field, Iโm well aware of how important it is to work with a good producer. For a company like HYBE, which has invested tens or even hundreds of billions of won, itโs unthinkable that they would allow NewJeans to separate and go independent after establishing their position. Many in the industry agree that this doesnโt make sense. To the general public, NewJeans might seem like the underdogs, and people might feel they should be allowed to leave. But from the perspective of the entertainment industry, which requires substantial capital to grow, the relationship between investors and artists is key. You canโt discuss this industry without acknowledging the role of investors. This case is different from situations where individual members leave, as seen in the past with groups that had Chinese members. This isnโt about a single member leaving; itโs more about the fact that, in this industry, the producers are as important as the artists themselves. From the beginning, NewJeans has been marketed as Min Hee-jinโs girl group, so the idea of them continuing without her feels different. We need to approach this from a different angle. That said, it doesnโt mean HYBE should completely cut ties. Many people have different initial thoughts about the situation, but the core issue here is the importance of the relationship between producers and the company, especially when substantial investment is involved. From my perspective, the fundamental question is: what exactly was attempted? I still find this unclear. In any company, it's common to hear people say, "I want to quit, I can't work with this boss, I'm leaving tomorrow." We all talk about this with friends or colleagues. Sometimes, we even ask others to let us know if thereโs a good opportunity elsewhere. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue. But in the new premise, I still wonder what exactly they were trying to do. What exactly was attempted? We always talk about it at work, right? "I'm going to quit. I can't work with that boss anymore. I'm leaving tomorrow." We always have those conversations. We talk about it with our friends, with team members, and even ask friends outside of work to let us know if they hear of any good positions. But actually submitting a resignation is a whole different issue, isn't it? Looking at how the situation first unfolded, it seems like HYBE was the one to bring things to light. They shared a lot with the press, and Min Hee-jin, the CEO, responded with a strong counterstatement. HYBE was saying, "Min Hee-jin is trying to do this and that," but CEO Min was like, "What else have I done apart from that message on KakaoTalk?" The court also judged that they weren't sure what actions had actually been attempted. To me, this seems like the fact of the matter. Clearly, HYBE's relationship with CEO Min Hee-jin might not be good. There could have been friction about how a subsidiary operates so independently from the parent company. There were likely various issues internally, but they should have been resolved within the company without making the problems visible externally. The fact that they let it spill outside before resolving it was a huge mistake on HYBE's part, revealing weaknesses in their management abilities. In my view, this has greatly devalued HYBE, becoming a powerful force that has dragged down their valuation. Throughout this process, HYBE displayed a level of immaturity, and the core of the issue became less important. The real concern for investors now is whether the company can effectively handle issues like these. Once this problem is resolved, can the remaining HYBE groups continue to grow securely? This business is all about reputation. HYBE is now seen as a company that ousts female CEOs simply because she didn't follow their orders. That perception leaves a lasting impression on people's minds, damaging the company's future operations. From an investor's perspective, two major incidents have happened in quick succession. The first was the boost in value during 2020 when HYBE sold a huge number of albums during COVID-19, creating the sense that the entertainment industry was Korea's next big sector. But then, this recent issue with Min Hee-jin, alongside BLACKPINK's contract situation, has put a serious damper on things. BLACKPINK didn't renew their contract as a group, and though they claim to continue working together in some capacity, it's not the same as before. YG Entertainment's profitability has plummeted, revealing how dependent they were on BLACKPINK. This has left investors wondering whether the entertainment business is just a limited-time, seven-year affair. If BLACKPINK had carried on smoothly into the next generation, it would have seemed like a sustainable business, and investors would have continued to trust in the long-term future of Korean entertainment. But now, we're seeing the cracks in that perception. Itโs become a question of how to invest in a business with a lifespan of only seven years, when even the manufacturing industry lasts longer than that. The BLACKPINK incident and the NewJeans situation have both severely harmed investor confidence. HYBE's struggles with its artists are analogous to a manufacturing company facing a revolt from its workers. When investors look at this instability, they start questioning whether the business is even viable. The concept of sustainability has been seriously undermined, and the fact that the seven-year contract issue has been a long-standing concern doesnโt make it any easier to deal with. What used to reassure investors was the belief that when a seven-year contract ended, the company would already have the next seven years planned out, ready to sustain their business. That faith in the big entertainment companies has been shaken. Achieving the kind of success that BTS or BLACKPINK did is incredibly difficult, and passing the baton to the next generation is no simple task. Even though investors had faith that YG would produce another BLACKPINK-level group, now that trust is faltering. However, I do think people are now looking at contracts a bit differently. In the past, when a group disbanded, the members would scatter. But now, groups like BLACKPINK continue to work together even while pursuing solo projects. This shows that they understand the importance of sticking together, and I thought that this might help extend the longevity of these groups. But in reality, very few cases of disbanded groups have seen much success with individual members pursuing separate careers. There arenโt many examples where groups have stayed active for long, especially when individual members run into personal issues. Take Big Bang, for instanceโtheyโve been around for a while, but their personal scandals have made it hard for the group to recover fully. In the entertainment business, itโs rare for groups to last more than seven years, and age is also a factor. Once a group surpasses the seven-year mark, the members tend to be quite a bit older. With BTS, they need to show a fresh side if theyโre to keep running strong. One of the most disheartening things mentioned by the members was that they didnโt feel respected. This ties into a larger issue in our society, as we're seeing with the national discussion around workplace bullying. If we think about how BTS achieved success, it's clear why this is such a serious issue. Back when BTS rose to fame, they shared how they werenโt from one of the top three agencies and positioned themselves as underdogs who worked hard to gain recognition. This resonated with many young people who felt that if you work hard enough, you can succeed, even without the backing of a major company. This message gave hope to many, not only in Korea but also globally. BTSโs fan base, especially in the U.S., includes many people who identify as outsiders, those who donโt feel they belong to the mainstreamโwhether in terms of race, culture, or social standing. For them, BTS was a source of inspiration, showing that you can still succeed even if you start from the margins. With NewJeans, though thereโs talk about Min Hee-jin, the allegations of bullying within the company are hitting a sensitive nerve for fans. Itโs unfortunate that the company allowed things to reach a point where such accusations were made. Even if the situation was mostly an internal conflict among the adults in charge, they should have handled it better to avoid involving the artists. In the past, we've seen similar issues, like with Big Bangโs various scandals, which were almost at the level of criminal activity. The current situation with NewJeans might not be as severe, but bullying and exclusion are still serious concerns. Ultimately, experiences like these can serve as valuable lessons for the entertainment industry. This situation has highlighted that the entertainment business is fundamentally about human relationships. From the artists to the products they create, everything revolves around people. The moment someoneโs feelings are hurt or relationships are damaged, the entire business can collapse. The entertainment business is all about personal connections, something I've always believed. Recently, I heard about Naver Webtoonโs global success, and it's fascinating to think about how it has outgrown Kakao Webtoon, despite being a later player. Many factors contributed to this success, but someone mentioned that webtoons are also a "personal connection" business. Webtoon creators are tough to manageโthey're artists, after all, and keeping them on schedule, especially with weekly deadlines, is a challenging task. CEO Kim Joong has managed to nurture relationships with these creators, making personal connections the backbone of the business. In the entertainment industry, particularly with idols, you can't overlook the importance of personal relationships. The key skill for managing this industry is the ability to connect deeply with both the creators and the artists. HYBE, for instance, doesnโt just need skilled managers who are good with finance or operations. What they truly need are people who can foster those personal relationships, especially when theyโre dealing with artists as young as 13 or 15. Itโs about ensuring that these young talents feel understood and cared for, so they can be inspired to do their best work. Managing young artists is tricky because their idea of success might be completely different from what adults think. A 13-year-old might not care about owning multiple housesโthey might just want to spend time with their family or have the freedom to eat out whenever they want. The managerโs job is to tap into what motivates them and help them thrive in a way thatโs meaningful to them. This kind of nurturing is not easy to scale. When a company grows too big, itโs challenging to maintain those close relationships. That's why multi-label approaches, like those seen in large entertainment agencies, are supposed to help. But if personal connections within those labels break down, the whole system can fall apart. This business model seems uniquely suited to Korea. Itโs hard to imagine it working the same way in Japan, where there's a more hierarchical, command-driven structure. Japan's entertainment industry often depends on strong, central producers who direct everything. In contrast, Korean idols often rise through collective effort and personal connection, like BTS did. Despite the challenges, I believe Koreaโs entertainment sector has room for long-term growth. Many of todayโs youth are drawn to this field because it allows them to express their talents and passions. If scandals like the one with NewJeans continue to arise, however, it might dissuade some young people from pursuing these dreams. When you look at what NewJeans members have said, thereโs not much to disagree with. They simply want to keep doing what theyโve always done and follow their own creative paths. Ensuring they have the freedom to do so can lead to even greater success. These days, if you ask middle or elementary school students what they want to be when they grow up, many of them will say they want to become idols or YouTubers. They believe that with enough effort, they can make it. The entertainment industry needs to be able to channel that passion and potential into something positive. If Min Hee-jin were to leave HYBE, itโs clear that many companies would be eager to work with her. She mentioned once that โeveryone is crazy about money,โ and I think thatโs why there would be a long line of people wanting to meet with her if she decided to move on. Right now, for example, there are people in the entertainment industry, like CJ, who may not have fully established themselves, or even private investors, just waiting for an opportunity. Many of them are keeping an eye on Min Hee-jin leaving HYBE. This was evident during the recent Tokyo performance, where her creativity was on full display. It was incomparable. Thatโs why this situation is even more unfortunate. Some people say, "If it wasnโt for the money, how could that group have been created?" But I believe there are people who could have made it happen with or without money. Thatโs the crucial difference in this case. While I'm not an expert, I was touched by the process of recreating a hit song from a legendary Japanese female singer from the '80s. It felt like a major event. It was amazing because I had never seen anything like it before. Even though I wasnโt familiar with the original song, just seeing it was enough to draw in so much attention and make it feel like a historic moment. Thatโs what talent isโturning something simple, like a cover song, into a major event. I remember thinking, "How do the Japanese people feel about this?" because the crowd's reaction was incredible. The enthusiasm was surprising, and I wondered what they were thinking while watching it. This is the true power of Korean cultureโitโs not just about promoting our own culture but also deeply resonating with others. The entertainment industryโs core business is making audiences happy and even obsessed. Min Hee-jin is undeniably a top-tier artist in this field. If she were to leave HYBE, there would be countless opportunities for her. But if HYBE mishandles this situation, it wonโt just be about losing one personโit could destabilize everything. They really need to handle this carefully. As for stocks and investments, that's up to everyoneโs individual decisions. We're just having a casual chat here about the entertainment industry. As someone with a child in the business and another who's analyzed the industry, weโre just relaxing with a casual discussion. So, letโs pour a drink and enjoy this conversation. Watch the full video:](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1842046662933610609/amplify_video_thumb/1842042079117246465/img/At1wmSEbkseQtgQZ.jpg)
![Appleโs iPad โCrushโ Ad Is Bleak, Ominous and Threatening I donโt know if youโve seen Appleโs just-released commercial for the โNewโ iPad Pro, but itโs pretty awful. It is dark, humorless, and feels like a not-so-thinly veiled threat to writers, musicians, game makers, developers, and artists of all kinds. โฆand children, even. Iโve watched it at least five times today alone, and Iโm left with one big question. โWho on earth approved this?โ Itโs absolutely baffling that the worldโs largest technology company, with the worldโs biggest marketing budget, thought this would be a good idea. What kind of idiotโor idiots, since dozens or hundreds of people had to be involved in the writing, staging, producing, recording, and editingโfelt this kind of ad would somehow create a positive emotional connection with consumers? Seriously, itโs terrifying. In a dank, cold warehouse, devoid of all life and humanity, an industrial crusher comes to life, and slowly starts destroying a collection of musical, philosophical, and artistic devices and instruments. For no apparent reason, everything starts getting smashed: first, a trumpet, then an arcade video game, then cans of paint, a piano, a globe, a metronome, a guitarโฆ on and on it goes, obliterating everything in sight into a colorful, gooey, explosive mess. Books, camera lenses, lamps, a guitar, a sculpture, and a typewriterโall tools of the liberal artsโget mangled into a garbage heap as Sonny & Cher cheerfully sing, โAll I ever need is you.โ In the penultimate moment, a goofy yellow smiley emoji becomes a bug-eyed scary-clown freak as it, too, is crushed to death. Worse, if you enable closed captions like I do by default, the video says: โ[POPPING] [SPLAT]โ right as its eyeballs pop out of its head when Cher sings, โGive me a reason to build my world around you.โ Itโs enough to make a child cry. It has all the comforting vibes of the burnt pink teddy bear floating in the swimming pool on Breaking Bad after two planes crash in mid-air. I have so many questions (aside from simply wondering the names of the soon-to-be ex-employees who greenlit this abomination). First of all, as a trumpet player myself, I am personally offended that they made me watch a perfectly good trumpet get smashed to smithereens like itโs no big deal. Why would they torture me like this? Second of all, what is the message here? No, not that โthe most powerful iPad ever is also the thinnest,โ as the voiceover artist states in the last few seconds of the clip. I mean: what is the message? Ostensibly, pulverizing childrenโs toys, arcade games, architectural models, and ceramic Angry Birds into a paste implies something like โWeโre taking all the best of humanity; all the collective works of Western Civilization, smashing it into pieces and putting it inside this remarkably thin device so you can have all of it in the palm of your hand.โ But my oh my, is there an elephant in this roomโฆ heโs hiding behind the monstrous destroying machine. Did anyone inside Apple realize that everyone outside Apple will recognize this imagery in a metaphorical sense, but not the one Apple intended? We donโt see a crushing machine gently consolidating the greatest output of all our artistic endeavors, simply reformatted for a digital age and consumed by everyone with instant, fingertip access. We see what is painstakingly obvious to us, and the timing couldnโt possibly be worse. We see a giant, soulless machine consuming our work in a very different way. Right now, AI models are training themselves on our intellectual property and even our very own personally-identifying data. We arenโt the ones doing the consuming. Weโre the ones being consumed. The tech industry has become one massive gaping maw, opening wide and swallowing everything in sight, chewing it up into little bits and pieces of comminuted waste, like a paper shredder or a garbage disposal. Itโs destruction in its most literal form. And for what? For a newer version of the iPad that is only slightly thinner than its predecessor? For an only marginally improved version of Appleโs tablet device that has been around for 14 years? For increased profits? This is a terrible look for Apple. They may as well be saying: โAll your work are belong to us.โ Personally, I am a fan of artificial intelligence. I am eagerly embracing our robot overlords and I welcome our new CSV god (as the actual developers of AI models like to say). I look forward to the freedom and innovation that will come as a result of humanity augmenting our intelligence with AI like a force multiplier on a battlefield. But if Apple has the same perspective I do, theyโre selling it in the worst possible way. When I see this video, I see that Apple is definitely crushing somethingโฆ but Iโm not sure what. -Crushing small companies that develop apps for the extremely heavy-handed App Store, which imposes byzantine restrictions on what they can and canโt do with their own apps? -Crushing competitors by limiting what they can do on the iOS and MacOS platforms with arbitrary and capricious rules about enabling functionalities that Apple doesnโt like, even if users do? -Crushing publishers and content creators with a punitive 30% fee on all subscriptions and in-app purchases? -Crushing choice and competition by not allowing app makers to make apps and programs that do the same thing that native apps already do, even if they do it better? -Crushing all human creativity and innovation by automating and systematizing everything? In the early days of the โGoogle vs. Appleโ fight over the web and app stores, I was really concerned that Google was becoming way, way too powerful. Specifically, in 2015, when Google came up with โapp streaming,โ they announced a desire to form a โweb of apps.โ This was concerning. Especially when coupled with Googleโs efforts to steal content from other websites and provide it to users via the โknowledge graphโ results, ending up with the creation of โzero-clickโ search results pages, which absolutely punished website owners and content creators. By taking the most valuable content off a website and showing it to Google users without them needing to click through to the website itself, Google had essentially stolen everybodyโs intellectual property with only the most minimal attribution possible (to fend off lawsuits no doubt, but with no intention of users actually visiting the website in question anymore). โGoogle is eating the internet,โ I thought, and said out loud, (although I probably wasnโt the first person to use that phrase) But what I meant was purely an analogy. It was vague and ambiguous, almost silly. Maybe I was wrong, though: maybe itโs Apple thatโs doing the eating. Maybe Apple is not only gobbling up everyone elseโs work, but also homogenizing itโand usโand forcing us to use their platform, pay their fees, abide by their rules, and constantly keep upgrading, upgrading, upgrading, to an ever-thinner iPad in order to use it. Watch the video again. This is the stuff of nightmares. To be perfectly fair, even if I were to take the commercial at face value and ignore itโs off-the-charts creepiness and just stick to its one stated claimโthat the new iPad Pro is thinnerโit still fails as a commercial. Why? Because nobody cares how thin an iPad is. Seriously. Iโve owned an iPad since 2010: that means Iโve carried around a version of Appleโs already-thin tablet every day for over a dozen years. Never once have I said to myself: โYou know what improvement Iโd really like to see in this thing? I wish it were thinner.โ Never. That thought has never crossed my mind, even once. You know what has? -Better battery life. -Iโd like my iPad to not get hot to the touch when I use the Apple Pencil to take notes. -I wish it wasnโt so fragile: I dropped my brand-new iPad 2 back in the day when it slipped out of the arm-hold I was carrying it in, it bounced on the pavement, and the screen shattered into a thousand pieces, making it unusable. -I wish it had more storage. -I wish Apple would stop changing the type of cable connector it uses: Iโve gone from the original 30-pin connector to the Lightning connector, and now to the current USB-C/Thunderbolt connector. -I wish I could view the screen in direct sunlight. -I wish it wouldnโt overheat and turn off automatically when I use it outdoors in the summertime. Those are announcements I would welcome in a new iPad Pro commercial. None of this โnow even thinnerโ nonsense nobody needs or cares about. So, back to the commercial. In my opinion, whoever made this ad should be fired. I almost never say that about other companies, especially for good-faith marketing efforts gone wrongโฆ those of us who work in marketing make mistakes sometimes, and we learn from them. But cases like this warrant a special exception. Marketing and advertising are designed to make people want to buy your products. This commercial doesnโt just not make me want to buy Appleโs products. It makes me not want to buy Appleโs products, which is something altogether different. It turns me from someone who likes iPads into someone who is almost rethinking iPads entirely. Thatโs not just a bad advertisement; itโs a harmful advertisement. Appleโs usually known for great commercials. The legendary 1984 Super Bowl commercial was, of course, their best. I thought โHello, Iโm a Macโ was absolutely brilliant. They have made some missteps along the way, but this one is really bad. Not even their nauseatingly preachy and woke โMother Natureโ ad from a few years ago was this bad. Steve Jobs once said, โTechnology alone is not enoughโitโs technology married with liberal arts, married with the humanities, that yields us the results that make our heart sing.โ My goodness, that last line alone is poetry itself! This ad seems to be Apple signaling that they donโt believe in that anymore. And I donโt think all this handwringing is an overreaction to where you could say โOh, cโmon, itโs just a commercial! Whatโs the big deal?โ It is a big deal. It tells you about the values of the company, and what they intend to communicate. Really, how is this the same company that used to sell iPhones by showing grandmas using FaceTime to connect with their baby grandchildren from afar during the holidays? Everything about it is wrong: even the thumbnail they chose for it (the bulging-eyed smiley face) and the fact that they gave it the title โCrush!โ It was fun to see the reactions to the video online today. I find it fascinating that Apple shared it on YouTube but turned off the comments. On X, Tim Cook shared it Tuesday, and the video, which so richly deserves to be mocked, is getting it in spades. Some people are calling it โanti-art.โ One user called it โsoul-crushing,โ which was about as literal and logical a response as youโd expect. It turns out Apple actually made an announcement about the commercial. In response to the (apparently unexpected) poor welcome it got, Apple wrote: โWe missed the mark with this video, and weโre sorry.โ Lame response from a tone-deaf tech behemoth, but still, they hopefully got the message. Cโmon, Apple. I have seen the future, and this ainโt it.](https://image.24vids.com/tw-1788740167194579387/media/GNLjSOOaEAAZ6VT.jpg)
