Group 1 - President Xi Jinping announced China's new round of Nationally Determined Contributions at the UN Climate Change Summit, aiming for a 7%-10% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2035, with non-fossil energy consumption exceeding 30% of total energy consumption [3] - The total installed capacity of wind and solar power is targeted to reach over 360 million kilowatts, six times that of 2020, and forest stock is expected to exceed 24 billion cubic meters [3] - The national carbon emissions trading market will cover major high-emission industries, and a climate-adaptive society is to be fundamentally established [3] Group 2 - Premier Li Qiang emphasized China's commitment to maintaining an open trade and investment market during a meeting with the President of the European Commission, urging fair competition and adherence to WTO rules [5] - The Chinese government will not seek new special and differential treatment in current and future WTO negotiations, reinforcing its role as a responsible developing country [5] - The People's Bank of China announced a 600 billion yuan MLF operation on September 25, marking a net injection of 300 billion yuan for the month, continuing a trend of high liquidity [5][6] Group 3 - Alibaba announced a collaboration with NVIDIA on Physical AI, with plans to invest 380 billion yuan in AI infrastructure and the launch of seven large model products, including Qwen3-Max, the largest and most capable model to date [4] - The Chinese Ministry of Commerce introduced 14 measures to promote digital consumption, including trials for smart connected vehicles and drone delivery services [6] Group 4 - The A-share market saw significant gains, with the Shanghai Composite Index rising 0.83% to 3853.64 points, and the ChiNext Index increasing by 2.28% [8] - The Hong Kong Hang Seng Index rose 1.37%, with notable gains in tech stocks like Alibaba and SMIC, while medical stocks faced declines [8] - Chery Automobile announced its H-share final offering price at 30.75 HKD per share, set to officially list on September 25 [8] Group 5 - The State Administration for Market Regulation is seeking public opinion on new standards for food delivery platforms, addressing issues like competition and delivery personnel rights [11] - The National Press and Publication Administration approved 145 domestic games and 11 imported games in September, indicating a positive trend in the gaming industry [12] Group 6 - The global crude steel production in August was 145.3 million tons, a year-on-year increase of 0.3%, while the cumulative production from January to August saw a decline of 1.7% [23] - The UK government faced challenges in issuing new bonds, with the latest five-year bond auction seeing the lowest oversubscription rate in nearly two years [20]

南方财经记者程浩 东莞报道 9月24日下午，东莞市防汛防旱防风指挥部发布《关于在全市范围内分批解除"五停"措施的通告》，鉴 于今年第18号台风"桦加沙"对东莞影响逐渐减弱，风险可控，东莞市三防指挥部于9月24日16时将防风 Ⅰ级应急响应调整为防风Ⅲ级应急响应。经综合分析研判并报东莞市政府同意，东莞市三防指挥部决定 于9月24日17时起分批解除全市"五停"（停课、停工、停产、停运、停业）措施，有序恢复生产生活。 自9月25日起，东莞全市中小学、幼儿园、中等职业学校（含技工学校）和托育机构、校外培训（托管 机构）、体育学校、高等院校及各类户外培训机构有序复课。 自9月25日起，东莞全市在建工地等施工单位有序恢复施工。其中，渔业船舶、海上施工、高空施工暂 不恢复作业，具体解除时间由市行业主管部门另行通知。 （原标题：东莞分批解除"五停"，商超、外卖恢复营业） 自9月24日17时起，东莞各公路、水上交通、公交客运、高速公路等交通方式有序恢复运行。轨道交通 自9月25日起恢复运行。 自9月24日17时起，东莞各类市场、商场、商业步行街、超市、餐饮场所、娱乐场所、公园、旅游景 区、会展及外卖、快递等企业有序恢复营业。 据 ...

新华社北京9月24日电（记者赵文君）记者24日从市场监管总局了解到，由市场监管总局组织起草 的《外卖平台服务管理基本要求（征求意见稿）》，24日向社会公开征求意见。 【纠错】 【责任编辑:施歌】 征求意见稿聚焦平台收费、促销行为等重点问题，帮助外卖平台企业规范服务管理、提升服务质 量，减轻商户经营负担，引导平台企业公开有序竞争。 据介绍，国家标准计划《外卖平台服务管理基本要求》由全国平台经济治理标准化技术委员会归 口，主管部门为市场监管总局，主要起草单位有中国标准化研究院、中国网络安全审查认证和市场监管 大数据中心等。 ...

新浪科技讯 9月15日上午消息，美团外卖宣布将为餐饮新店提供免费线上店铺装修、新店专属扶持、免 费AI经营工具、助力金现金扶持等多项"无忧开店"服务，支持更多新开业餐饮小店顺利起步、长久经 营。 美团外卖相关负责人表示，未来将进一步追加资金和资源投入，努力帮助餐饮商家规避行业低价、无序 竞争的侵害，让更多商家有精力沉下心来专注于产品和服务，把生意做得更长久。美团此前已宣布启动 小店助力金计划，将为餐饮小店发放最高5万元的助力金，今年秋季首批助力金已经陆续送达商家手 中。 责任编辑：杨赐 为了帮助商家更便捷地上线运营，今年7月起，美团外卖基于大模型能力，推出了全链路智能入驻服 务。"智能入驻帮手"以对话交互形式，与业务经理"手把手"引导操作一样，一步步引导商家上传资质等 信息。此外，在"大模型智能应答+人工服务"的帮助下，商户在入驻中遇到任何问题，可快速收到解决 方案。 新商家入驻后，门店的视觉效果在吸引顾客、提升用餐体验方面起着重要作用，而绝大多数中小商家往 往不具备专业的线上运营能力。为此，美团外卖推出了免费装修服务，自该服务推出以来，已累计帮助 百万中小新商家免费升级了店铺形象。据了解，美团也是行业内唯一 ...

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, termed "Supply-Side Reform 2.0," highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as the core contradiction driving economic challenges in China [5]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are characterized by structural imbalances in supply and demand, leading to decreased capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increased economic downward pressure [7]. - Industrial capacity utilization has significantly declined, with a drop from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 during the supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 in the anti-involution phase [7]. - Industrial prices have seen substantial declines, with the Producer Price Index (PPI) entering negative growth for 54 months during the supply-side reform and continuing negative growth for 34 months since October 2022 in the anti-involution phase [9]. - Corporate profits have decreased, with a 2.3% decline in industrial profits in 2015 during the supply-side reform, and a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 during the anti-involution phase [12]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with GDP growth slowing from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, and stabilizing around 5% during the anti-involution period [14]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-Involution and Supply-Side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs, with anti-involution facing more severe demand shortages due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market, while supply-side reform had resilient demand supported by post-crisis recovery [18][22]. - Industry characteristics vary, as supply-side reform focused on traditional industries like steel and coal, whereas anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies [25][27]. - The underlying causes differ, with supply-side reform driven by excess capacity from previous stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a range of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including real estate adjustments and technological shifts [36][37]. - Implementation paths diverge, with supply-side reform relying on administrative measures to cut excess capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [45][49].

Group 1 - The "anti-involution bull" is seen as a crucial opportunity for the market to switch between the two halves of the bull market, with the first half driven by financial re-inflation and the second half by real asset re-inflation, leading to a return of blue-chip stocks driven by both valuation and performance [2][11][12] - The recent policy shift from the central government marks a significant turning point for "anti-involution," which is expected to drive inflation recovery and facilitate the transition between the two halves of the bull market [2][11][14] - The improvement in local government finances has provided the central government with the confidence to implement policies effectively, as evidenced by the recovery in land auction activities and the narrowing decline in land transfer revenues [2][11][14] Group 2 - The recent two months have seen a strengthening of policy determination from the top down, alongside an increase in corporate willingness to cooperate from the bottom up, alleviating previous market concerns regarding the execution of "anti-involution" policies [3][28][29] - The central government's intervention has shifted from industry association-led self-regulation to more direct involvement, with significant policy announcements aimed at curbing irrational competition in key sectors such as photovoltaics and new energy vehicles [3][29][32] - Corporations, particularly in the photovoltaic sector, have begun to respond positively to "anti-involution" initiatives, with major companies committing to production cuts and inventory control to align with industry-wide efforts [3][33][34] Group 3 - Industries that are expected to benefit from "anti-involution" include glass fiber, coal, energy metals, cement, commercial vehicles, and wind power equipment, identified through various criteria such as state-owned enterprise ratios and industry concentration [3][38] - The report emphasizes the importance of monitoring price elasticity and tax implications in identifying potential beneficiaries of the "anti-involution" strategy, with a focus on cyclical resource products [3][38]

Core Viewpoint - The article discusses the concept of "anti-involution" as a new phase of supply-side reform, highlighting the structural imbalance between supply and demand as a core issue, leading to declining capacity utilization, falling prices, shrinking corporate profits, and increasing economic downward pressure [5][15]. Group 1: Similarities between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - Both anti-involution and supply-side reform are driven by structural supply-demand imbalances, resulting in significant declines in industrial capacity utilization. For instance, industrial capacity utilization fell from 76.8% in Q4 2013 to 72.9% in 2016 before supply-side reform, and from 77.4% in Q4 2021 to 74.0% by Q2 2025 during the anti-involution phase [5][6][13]. - Industrial prices have also seen substantial declines. During the supply-side reform period, the Producer Price Index (PPI) experienced negative growth for 54 consecutive months starting from March 2012. Similarly, the PPI has been in negative growth since October 2022, continuing for 34 months as of July 2025 [6][10]. - Corporate profits have declined due to falling demand and prices. In 2015, industrial profits fell by 2.3%, marking the first negative growth since 1998. In the anti-involution period, industrial profits have been in negative growth since 2022, with a 1.8% decline in the first seven months of 2025 [7][10]. - Economic downward pressure has intensified, with declining capacity utilization and industrial prices leading to reduced corporate revenues and profits, which in turn decrease investment and increase unemployment. GDP growth fell from 8.1% in Q4 2012 to 6.9% in Q4 2015 during the supply-side reform, while the growth rate has stabilized around 5% during the anti-involution period [13][19]. Group 2: Differences between Anti-involution and Supply-side Reform - The macroeconomic environment differs significantly. While both periods face demand shortages, the anti-involution phase is characterized by a more severe demand shortfall due to population decline and a downturn in the real estate market. In contrast, the supply-side reform period saw resilient demand supported by post-financial crisis recovery and real estate market upturns [16][19]. - The industry characteristics also vary. Supply-side reform primarily targeted traditional industries like steel and coal, while anti-involution encompasses a broader range of sectors, including emerging industries and platform economies. This shift indicates a new phenomenon where "involution" competition is prevalent across various industries [21][24]. - The reasons behind the two phases differ. Supply-side reform was largely a response to overcapacity resulting from stimulus policies, while anti-involution is influenced by a wider array of macroeconomic and industry-specific factors, including the deep adjustment in the real estate sector and the transition to new production forces [30][32]. - The implementation paths diverge as well. Supply-side reform focused on traditional industries with administrative measures to cut capacity, while anti-involution emphasizes legal and market-based approaches to regulate competition and foster innovation [40][43].

Core Viewpoint - The ongoing "takeaway war" among major platforms, characterized by high subsidies and discounts, has led to record-breaking order volumes but raises questions about its long-term sustainability and impact on the restaurant industry [2][10]. Group 1: Market Dynamics - Since April, platforms have collectively invested nearly 1 trillion yuan in subsidies, creating a "catfish effect" that initially benefits consumers and merchants but may not lead to sustainable profits for smaller businesses [2][3]. - The competition has shifted from a marketing strategy to a prolonged battle, altering the market landscape and creating a complex "butterfly effect" where many restaurants report losses despite increased sales [2][3]. Group 2: Impact on Small Businesses - Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) face an unequal competitive environment, where participation in subsidy programs erodes profits, while non-participation risks marginalization [3][4]. - The reliance on single platforms for revenue limits the operational autonomy of these businesses, and the ongoing price wars may force unique local eateries out of the market [3][4]. Group 3: Consumer Choices and Market Diversity - The apparent increase in consumer choices may actually lead to a reduction in market diversity, as smaller brands struggle to compete against large chains offering standardized products [4][10]. - The heavy reliance of many businesses on a few platforms diminishes the overall resilience of the restaurant retail system, raising concerns about the long-term health of the industry [4][10]. Group 4: Long-term Industry Implications - The "takeaway war" is not just a battle for market share but also a test of platforms' social responsibility and their role in fostering a healthy ecosystem for all business sizes [4][11]. - A shift from a "traffic-driven" mindset to a "symbiotic" approach is necessary for sustainable growth, ensuring that all types of businesses can thrive while providing quality service to consumers [4][11]. Group 5: Challenges of Price Competition - Price-based competition leads to management challenges for restaurants, as increased order volumes can strain resources and result in higher operational costs without corresponding revenue growth [8][10]. - The focus on low prices does not incentivize quality improvements among merchants, potentially harming innovation and customer satisfaction [8][10]. Group 6: The Need for Structural Change - The current "involution" competition model, characterized by short-term survival tactics, risks long-term industry decline and inefficiency [11][12]. - Emphasizing technological innovation and management efficiency is crucial for sustainable growth, rather than relying on aggressive price competition [12].

Group 1 - The core issue in the food delivery industry is the ongoing battle among platforms, leading to increased order volumes but insufficient profits for merchants due to high commission fees and delivery costs [2][3] - The State Administration for Market Regulation has introduced the "Guidelines for Compliance of Charging Behavior of Online Trading Platforms" to regulate excessive fees and promote fair competition among platforms and merchants [3][4] - The guidelines emphasize transparency in fee structures and prohibit unreasonable charges, such as duplicate fees and mandatory participation in promotional activities without prior agreement [4][5] Group 2 - The implementation of the guidelines aims to enhance the bargaining power of small and medium-sized businesses, fostering a healthier business environment and promoting quality over mere scale in the platform economy [6][13] - The regulatory shift reflects a broader trend towards normalizing governance in the industry, moving from rapid expansion to sustainable development [7][14] - Despite potential impacts on platform revenues and valuations, the long-term outlook for platform economies remains positive, as they integrate advanced technologies and contribute to economic growth [14]

Group 1 - The competition among food delivery platforms in China has intensified, leading to a "subsidy war" characterized by extremely low prices, such as 0 RMB milk tea and 1 RMB hamburgers, but recent regulatory actions have started to cool this competition [1][3] - Delivery riders and merchants are experiencing increased pressure; while order volumes and incomes have surged temporarily, the intense workload is causing physical strain, and the exit of subsidies may lead to challenges for new riders [3] - A medium-tier fast food company's management reported a 12%-15% decline in dine-in customer traffic due to delivery subsidies, with delivery orders increasing from 15% to 22% of total sales, resulting in losses of approximately 8 RMB per order [3] Group 2 - The phenomenon of "involution" in platform economics is twofold: platforms compete for user traffic through substantial subsidies, while merchants are compelled to offer discounts to gain visibility on these platforms [4] - Experts emphasize the need for regulatory measures to prevent "involution" in competition, suggesting that the government should utilize existing laws to regulate predatory pricing and promote fair competition [4] - Recommendations for companies include avoiding short-sighted subsidy wars and instead focusing on differentiated development through improved service quality and technological innovation to gain competitive advantages [4]