Summary of Key Points
This article begins with the case of Beijing Galaxy SOHO shops, which were purchased for 40 million yuan but struggled to be sold for 6 million yuan, highlighting a fatal issue in commercial real estate: the sale of properties divided into smaller units without unified management. This leads to disordered business formats and reduced value. It then compares two approaches—pursuing short-term capital gains (as exemplified by Pan Shiyi) versus adhering to long-term strategic operations (as represented by the author)—and reflects on the challenges faced by long-termists in a context of a bursting real estate bubble and a contracting economy. Finally, drawing from the literary perspective of Homer’s epics, the article emphasizes that the meaning of personal choices is not defined by success, but rather by one’s own beliefs and perseverance.
I. The Truth Behind the Decline of Galaxy SOHO Shops: The Sin of Dividing Property Rights
Why have the shops at Galaxy SOHO become less valuable? The fundamental reason is that the entire building was divided into hundreds of smaller units for sale. A commercial complex (such as a shopping center or office building) requires unified planning: deciding where to locate restaurants, clothing stores, and how to maintain common areas, all of which need to be managed by a professional team. After the division, each small owner acts solely in their own self-interest—someone opens a hot pot restaurant with heavy smoke, another a training center with loud noise, and yet another an escape room with mixed customer traffic, resulting in a chaotic environment that discourages visitors. Over time, the building loses its structure, and when it deteriorates, no one is willing to invest in repairs, turning it into an unsolvable problem in the city. In simple terms, it’s like cutting a cake into pieces and everyone grabbing their own piece, causing the entire cake to spoil.
II. The “Choice” Between Pan Shiyi and the Author: Quick Money vs. Long-Term Value Preservation
The difference between Pan Shiyi and the author is not about intelligence, but about the time frame they consider:
- Pan Shiyi focuses on how to make the most money quickly by dividing the property and selling it, disregarding what might happen in twenty years.
- The author considers whether the building will still be useful in twenty years and chooses to hold onto it for long-term management.
In the short term, Pan Shiyi seemed to win—selling the properties at a high price during the real estate boom. However, now that the bubble has burst, the divided shops are unsold, while the author’s property can still be renovated and reused. It’s like someone selling saplings for quick profit versus someone waiting for the trees to grow, even if the results come later.
III. Is Long-Termism Still Worth It in a Contractionary Era?
The author is currently puzzled: if the entire era is contracting (e.g., declining consumer demand or AI transforming businesses), even excellent management may not be enough to counter the trend, just as Pompeii was destroyed by a volcanic eruption. Young colleagues suggest that cycles will eventually return, but the author worries that by then, he might be too old. This is a common dilemma for long-termists: when the world changes so rapidly, what seems “long-term” becomes uncertain, leading some to question whether it’s better to pursue immediate short-term gains.
IV. The Answer from Literature: Meaning Lies in the Choice Itself
The author finds comfort in Homer’s epics. Heroes like Hector fought for Troy in vain, Odysseus wandered for ten years, and Aeneas continued on despite losing his home—none of them knew if their efforts would be successful, but they chose to persevere. Literature tells us that meaning is not about the rewards the world offers (such as wealth), but what we give it ourselves. For example, the author did not buy or sell the divided shops twenty years ago, not because he was certain of success, but because it reflected the person he wanted to be—a person who does not exploit others and takes responsibility for the future of the buildings.
In conclusion, the article avoids complex financial theories and uses a real-life example to discuss the conflict between short-term interests and long-term value, ultimately leading to a philosophical question about how one should live: even in an uncertain world, sticking to what one believes is right is what gives meaning to life.