【推荐3】Fractional ownership is a percentage ownership of a specific asset (资产）. It has often been used to share the ownership of expensive assets such as expensive boats, private planes and so on. When the value of the asset increases, the ownership shares do as well. Co-owners also share equally the costs carried by the asset. Most recently, the same concept of fractional ownership was applied to art as well. The logic is the same. Multiple people own one artwork and share the benefits and the costs of the asset. Galleries and artists, instead of selling one artwork to one person, they can sell it to more than 1000 art lovers.

Co-ownership of art gives the possibility to everyone to participate in the art market. The potential market for artworks is suddenly way bigger. Only a few people can afford artworks that cost more than £100,000. But everyone can afford to buy some shares priced at £10 each. On top of this, all co-owners share the costs involved with the acquisition of an artwork. For art lovers that are just starting to collect art for investment (投资） reasons, co-ownership of art can be a great tool to start learning and understanding the market without risking too much capital. For big collectors instead, sharing the ownership of an artwork is an easy way to diversify their portfolio (投资组合） without having the burden of managing the asset.

For many years only wealthy people could afford to buy expensive artworks. Because of this, most artworks are hidden in private collections and dark storages since decades where the public has no access to. And, if we think that art is supposed to deliver important messages and topics and is the representation of our past and present, it seems incredible that art has become something that few people can fully enjoy. Fractional ownership of art, by giving everyone the possibility to co-own art, has the power to greatly change this. Suddenly, art becomes an asset available to everyone and, by being more accessible, it starts to attract way more people.

【推荐3】The pink and green buoys（浮标）moved gently over the surface of the water as Catherine Puckett steered（操纵）her boat towards them. Underneath the area, Ms Puckett plants kelp-a type of seaweed-on long ropes that are like washing lines. In a good year she harvests about five tonnes of the stuff.

Seaweed has long been a mainstay(支柱)of Japanese cuisine, but it is now catching on in America. Dieticians(营养师)praise kelp's high nutritional value and its many uses in the kitchen. Restaurants offer kelp salads.

Seaweed also owes its rising popularity to something else. Research has shown that it restores underwater habitats and helps to reduce the effects of climate change.

Seaweed farming is attracting newcomers, especially women, to the seafood industry. GreenWave, a non-profit, has a waiting list of about 8, 000 people for its ocean-farming programme.

People, such as Suzie Flores, are switching careers. Before opening her kelp farm in 2017, she was a manager at a higher-education software company. Bren Smith, founder of GreenWave, says one reason ocean faming attracts newcomers is that starting a seaweed farm is easier than becoming a commercial fisherman, which requires permits that come in limited numbers and can cost hundreds of thousands of dollars.

For kelp farmers, however, getting the required permits can be a process involving numerous state agencies. Ms Flores says that outside of Maine(缅因州), plants to process the seaweed crop are limited. Ms Puckett has to harvest her crop within a five-hour window to get it on a ferry(渡船)before noon(she hopes to build her own processing plant on the island). And farmers sometimes have to deal with people who complain that the farming gear, though mostly underwater, spoils the view from their seafront villas(别墅).

The kelp industry is still young and farming seaweed is not always profitable. But, says Ms Flores, “I find it to be very fulfilling. You are growing food that is healthy for the environment and healthy for people. ”

【推荐1】China-chic is a term that describes the trend of China-centric design. It demonstrates the rise of Chinese brands. Before we discuss whether or not the term is accurate, and reasons thereof, it is important to first figure out who are the main consumers of these Chinese brands.

Generation Z, the young consumers born between the mid-1990s and the early 2010s, have been raised on the Internet and social media. They are gradually moving toward maturity. They have naturally become the main force that drives China’s consumer market.

Most young people earn their own incomes. Even if they don’t, their parents and family members will support them financially. So their purchasing power is stronger than prior generations of youth.

Besides, today’s young people have had access to various domestic and foreign brands since they were born. For them, global brands such as KFC. McDonald’s, L’Oreal and Nike are just everyday consumer goods. Unlike the previous generations in China, they do not look up to global brands with admiration.

As members of Generation Z are taking the center stage in the consumer market, full of confidence, personalities and awareness of investing in themselves, they almost determine its present and the future. This factor plays a key role in the global economy. That is to say, whichever brand, domestic or global, that pays attention to Generation Z first and satisfies the group’s needs will get a head start.

It is the Chinese companies more than others that truly respect the uniqueness of Generation Z’s demands. A typical example is Chinese sportswear brand Li-Ning. Although the domestic sportswear market is still dominated by global brands like Nike and Adidas, Li-Ning has succeeded in using “China-chic” as a way to show self-confidence of the Chinese young people. By wearing Li-Ning’s products, a consumer is telling others: “I’m different from you. I have my own personality traits.”

Inspired by Li-Ning, other Chinese brands including Anta and Feiyue also launched products to satisfy the demands of the new generation of consumers.

【推荐2】Give the Senate (参议院) some credit: in shaping the current immigration-reform bill, it has come up with one idea that almost everybody hates. That’s the plan to create a new class of “guest workers” — immigrants who would be allowed to work in the U.S. for three two-year stretches, at most, provided that they return home to stay for a year after each visit. Conservatives dislike the plan because they believe that the guest workers won’t return home after their visas expire. Liberals dislike it because they believe the program will depress American wages and trap guest workers. The only supporters of the bill are businesses that rely heavily on immigrant labor, and they’re probably just looking out for themselves.

With the broader concerns about the effects of illegal immigration, the hostility to the new plan is understandable. However imperfect, the guest-worker program is better than any politically feasible alternative. Opponents of immigration sometimes imply that adding workers to a work-force automatically brings wages down. But immigrants tend to work in different industries than native workers, and have different skills, and so they often end up complementing native workers rather than competing with them. That can make native workers more productive and therefore better off.

According to a recent study by the economists Gianmarco Ottaviano and Giovanni Peri, immigration actually boosted the wages of most American workers; its only negative effect was a small one, on the wages of workers without a high-school diploma. And if by increasing the number of legal guest workers we reduced the number of undocumented workers, the economy would benefit even more.

Guest workers are also, paradoxically, less likely than illegal immigrants to become permanent residents. The U.S. already has a number of smaller—and less well-designed—temporary-worker programs, and there’s no evidence that workers in those plans routinely overstay their visas. One remarkable study found that after border enforcement was stepped up in 1993 the chance of an illegal immigrant returning to his homeland to stay fell by a third.

In fact, whatever benefits the guest-worker program brought to the U.S. economy or to particular businesses, the biggest winners would be the workers themselves. There are few, if any, foreign-aid programs that do as much for people in developing countries as simply allowing them to work in U. S. legally. This program’s costs to American workers are insignificant, the gains for the guest workers are enormous, and the U.S. economy will benefit. This is that rare option which is both sensible and politically possible.

【推荐3】Sprite has been recognized for decades by its green cans and bottles, but it is retiring its green plastic bottles after more than 60 years.

Starting Aug. 1, the Coca-Cola Co., which produces Sprite, will package the lemon-lime drink in clear plastic bottles in North America, the company announced Wednesday. Sprite’s current plastic contains green polyethylene terephthalate(PET)(聚对苯二甲酸乙二醇酯), an additive(添加剂) that can’t be recycled into new bottles, a key choice for the company as it looks to reduce plastic waste.

“When recycled, clear PET Sprite bottles can be remade into bottles, helping drive a circular economy for plastic.” Julian Ochoa, CEO of R3CYCLE, a plastic group helping Coca-Cola improve its recycling, said in a statement.

Customers will also notice a revised logo and packaging design on the Sprite bottles that aims to provide a more “consistent look around the world,” the company said. The well-known green color will still be used on Sprite labels. Other beverages that use green bottles in Coke’s portfolio(系列产品), including Fresca. Seagram’s and Mello Yello, will also be replaced with clear containers in the coming months.

Coca-Cola reported higher-than-expected second-quarter earnings Tuesday, citing strong demand, and lifted its revenue forecast for the full year.

The beverage giant has often been criticized for contributing to environmentally damaging plastic waste. In 2020, the company was named as the world’s No. 1 plastic polluter by the environmental firm Break Free From Plastic. Its logos and branding were found on 13, 834 pieces of discarded plastic in 51 countries, often in public spaces such as parks and beaches.