Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 63 posts

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#31

Post by rolltiide »

It would be nice if Hong Kong citizens had a choice of where to emigrate outside of China but Hong Kong should be integrated into the Greater Bay Area.

Hong Kong’s economic relevance to the story of China has fallen to almost negligible levels, it doesn't make sense to identify it as separate from the 8 megacities that surround it which are economic marvels and productivity houses.

Our news should be populated by the numerous things occurring in the 8 larger, more populated, higher GDP outputting cities in the Guangzhou region. Shenzhen alone, bordering Hong Kong, is likely more interesting this decade and into the future.

Hong Kong functions as a mere administrative convenience for circumventing customs duties to the rest if the world.

Any nation in a similar situation would look at all avenues of integration, no matter how skeptical people were. Is that inaccurate?

I think this perspective isn't presented.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#32

Post by coliveira »

dantheman wrote: post #23
coliveira wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are buying the American democracy through lobbying and campaign contributions. The disastrous decision of the supreme court called "Citizens United" puts the US in a similar situation as Hong Kong. That's why the flow of foreign money (including Russian money) will not stop to influence US politics in the foreseeable future.

Citizens united was about people not losing their individual rights when they group together. Do you have a problem with someone writing a book about a presidential candidate? If not, why would you have a problem with a movie being released? Do you think newspapers and tv shows should endorse candidates? Or choose which ones to cover and how much to cover? Citizens united is incredibly misunderstood. If anything, the…

That's nonsense. People don't lose their rights when they control a company. They continue having the ability to contribute to whomever they want as an individual.

> there is so much money being spent by the federal government that it makes sense to try and and get it.

The money spent by the federal government is people's money. Trying to get it is called stealing.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#33

Post by spaceribs »

seibelj wrote: post #28
coliveira wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies are buying the American democracy through lobbying and campaign contributions. The disastrous decision of the supreme court called "Citizens United" puts the US in a similar situation as Hong Kong. That's why the flow of foreign money (including Russian money) will not stop to influence US politics in the foreseeable future.

Citizens United was the an extremely beneficial ruling IMO. Your opinion on it being a “disaster” is not a fact, it is an opinion. Citizens United allows everyone who wants to, whether its corporations or unions or groups of people, to make their case directly to citizens. This is a Good Thing. It also isn’t the case that spending hundreds of millions of dollars guarantees you a victory, as the recent example of bill…

The difference is that billions of dollars tends to make a "better case" than those ideas without billions of dollars. Why do you think that money accumulated by the greedy should be given an advantage in the marketplace of ideas?

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#34

Post by spuz »

paganel wrote: post #30
spuz wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obvious in what way? The protestors are not the same people who run these companies as far as I am aware so not sure what you're referring to.

Not the OP, but I guess that most of those protesters work for said Hong Kong companies and when your new politically-appointed boss tells you that you either fall in line or you can go and look for another job I think most of those protesters will choose to fall in line.

I guess that makes sense but aren't the protestors already risking their jobs by continuing to protest? I've heard of people having "sick" days and "working from home" in order to plausibly skip work in order to protest. If the goal is to fire protestors from their jobs, I don't think China buying controlling shares in a few companies makes much sense. The other comment in this thread about buying votes in the government seems to be more plausible.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#36

Post by trazire »

daddylonglegs wrote: post #17
steveooo wrote: post #5

A significant number of the seats in Hong Kong government are voted/belong to "industry/corporations", and these have been able to decide the Government recently. China buying control of the corporations will further subvert the democracy.

Rather like the City of London then [1] - not the only similarity between the two places. I think the system dates to British rule in Hong Kong, which became partly democratic rather late in the day. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_London#Elections note: this is the City of London (~1 square mile) not the metropolis. Edit: ninja'd by louthy and djcapelis

As I see it, it's mainly because not that many people live in the City, and this enfranchises employees.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#37

Post by bpodgursky »

ethbro wrote: post #24
dantheman wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Citizens united was about people not losing their individual rights when they group together. Do you have a problem with someone writing a book about a presidential candidate? If not, why would you have a problem with a movie being released? Do you think newspapers and tv shows should endorse candidates? Or choose which ones to cover and how much to cover? Citizens united is incredibly misunderstood. If anything, the…

Let's not pretend corporations are groups of people.

Let's not pretend the Sierra club and ACLU are _incorporated_ entities whose speech could (and would) be throttled by restrictions on "corporate" spending.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#39

Post by sangnoir »

cominatchu wrote: post #38

I see almost all comments on this article are sympathetic to China. I have not dug deeper but I wonder if the accounts making these comments are all real, or could they be part of China’s propaganda apparatus?

Kindly re-read the HN guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data.

Re: China Seeks to Buy Control of Hong Kong Companies

#40

Post by tony »

I find a lot of parallels with the French Enlightenment and HK.

It caught my attention because I'm listening to Living the French Revolution and the Age of Napoleon by Suzanne M. Desan on Audible.

Soon the course will cover the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Storming_of_the_Bastille. Apparently it's common in history for societies facing extreme tension to have groups rise up and loot military garrisons (lest they starve). Thankfully, this doesn't happen as often because societies let their people participate in the future of their country by voting.

Backing up though, in last weeks audible lesson, I learned coffee shops were popular in pre-Enlightenment France for people to discuss their disapproval of the rulers and ideas for a new system (Voltaire loved coffee). During this time, plain clothes police would write dossiers on the speakers. The French had a name for them, "flies". This reminded me of claims on /r/hongkong spotting infiltrators blending in with protesters.

I hope HK protesters don't suffer unnecessarily for being targeted for political disagreements. From the news, protesters are interpreted as a national security / subversion concern, if this is true, doesn't that sort of contradict the 2 systems concept?

If HK can have their system, how can the law be improved if citizens can't communicate their feelings without harassment / surveillance? Wouldn't chilling of expression / speech spoil a system where the people rule?

The French Revolution had many differences, but the core of it is people were allowed to think, have self-rule, and wouldn't be bullied when they communicated displeasure it sucked they starved while aristocrats ate well (among a trove of other things).

In HK, wouldn't having more direct rule by the people result in new laws to ease the housing costs and make people feel pride, inclusion in their own region?

With this enthusiasm for liberty and democracy surging through HK, it's only a matter of time until they are granted universal suffrage forever, since PRC agreed that they are a separate system and always intended this level of freedom and flexibility for them.

Post reply on HN