Why is treating guests to a meal no longer popular?

Have you noticed that in recent years, treating others to a meal has become much less common? In the past, bringing a few good cigarettes to someone's house, setting up a table at a hotel, and opening a bottle of Maotai could solve many problems. Now, such scenes are much rarer. Why is that? Has everyone simply run out of problems?

Or has society's moral climate improved, making it less fashionable to build relationships through backdoor connections or private dealings? Neither. Problems always exist, and underground transactions will never disappear. The issues that could be solved by sharing a meal before can no longer be addressed that way—it's not because young people are less interested in smoking and drinking, but because the "relative value" of meals, alcohol, and social gatherings is declining, and more mature monetization industries have emerged. When cigarettes and alcohol as social media start to lose their necessity, it, in turn, influences young people not to "must" smoke or drink—that's correct.

Is it often heard that people now say, "Who still needs a meal?" What does this indicate? It shows that in the past, it was still needed. For today's people, food and drink are already very cheap—no matter how high-end, they can satisfy themselves whenever they want, so there's no need to sell resources for exchanges. Therefore, it's not that people no longer engage in underground transactions; it's that good wine and fine food are no longer scarce, and they don't serve as valuable bargaining chips. Once a deal is negotiated and more advanced resource exchanges are completed, chatting in a teahouse or coffee shop, casually nibbling a little, can be just as effective as a big meal. What we now emphasize is eating with the "right people"—and whatever you eat tastes good. But who are the "right people"? You can judge for yourself.

Another point is that "everything can be marketized." In the past, owing favors, saving face, and helping each other were common because people were less materialistic and more human. Or were they? No, it was because they lacked safe, reliable, and quantifiable monetization channels, so they had to store "kindness" first—without a universal equivalent or mature monetization industry, they could only exchange goods or favors. But there's a huge value gap between kindness and favors. Therefore, in places with lower marketization, it's easier to cultivate a bunch of seemingly enthusiastic but actually scheming and morally binding people—everyone is very eager, helpful, and generous, but secretly holding grudges, owing favors, and hoping to exchange small things for potentially greater future value from others.