The ‘Resilient’ Rally of Chinese Stocks

To the Editor:
Very interesting article, but it’s a bit temerarious to claim that the rally in Chinese stocks could be more “resilient” than that of their U.S. counterparts (“China’s Stocks Are Flying as Beijing Doubles Down on Tech. Why the Economy Is Still Struggling,” Cover Story, Nov. 7). One must factor in issues regarding an opaque system, blurry accounting practices, a birthrate that historically has been controlled by the government, a disregard for democracy and human rights, no shareholder rights/rule of law for insider trading and other corrupt practices, the whims of a draconian government that can snap up “private” companies at will, et cetera. Moreover, the small investor doesn’t have the key institutional network apparatus within China that the likes of Jim Rogers and Howard Marks have.

David Nordlund
On Barrons.com

Witless Protection

To the Editor:
In “It’s Not Just Mamdani. Big Brother Is Coming for the Stock Market” (Up & Down Wall Street, Nov. 7), Ben Levisohn writes that “some deals make strategic sense. The U.S. does need to move chip manufacturing back home.” I have no problem with trying to keep certain (not many) industries protected, as we need to ensure that other countries can’t put a stranglehold on those products. However, having significant tariffs on coffee as well as some other products makes zero sense.

Edward Troup
On Barrons.com

No. 1 in Solar

To the Editor:
I read years ago that Corning invested more dollars in research and development than any of its peers (“Inside Corning’s Bold Bid to Revive the U.S. Solar Industry,” Nov. 7). I have a lot of faith in this company. It’s hard to believe that Corning would put that kind of cash into a business that’s destined to fail. I’m thinking of throwing some of my own cash into Corning stock. If management pulls it off, Corning would probably be the No. 1 solar manufacturer in the U.S.

Harris Malkin
On Barrons.com

In Search of a Problem

To the Editor:
Why does anyone think that stablecoins will become the internet’s version of the U.S. dollar? (“How 3% Inflation Became the New Normal,” Other Voices, Nov. 7.) Even if issuers like Circle eventually cover blockchain transaction costs (“gas” fees), which discourage most people from using stablecoins, U.S. law bars them from paying interest. They pocket nearly all of the yield from the Treasuries backing their coins—a rich rent for doing very little. Stablecoins may have limited uses for cross-border transfers or reaching the unbanked, but for most payments, Fed-linked real-time systems such as Zelle and Venmo already do the job. Stablecoins look like a solution in search of a problem.

Michael A. Rogawski
Sacramento, Calif.

Send letters to: mail@barrons.com. To be considered for publication, correspondence must bear the writer’s name, address, and phone number. Letters are subject to editing.