31–40 of 76 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Any pointers on why / how everything that was owned by Jack Ma is owned by CCP?
Jack Ma is on the record that this is nonsense: https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing... Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
There is rumor Bitmain (creaters of Antminer, see Ant Financial aka Alipay) was really owned by Jack Ma. Now everything that was Jack Ma is now owned by CCP I would bet Bitmain is the CCP.
First Russia with nginx just a few days ago, now this. I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason all of the big western companies left China. I'd bet money China's economy could be growing 10x faster if it had independent courts and foreign companies who become successful weren't treated like criminals. Just imagine how many of us would be moving to China to start companies and how much more VC money would be flowing in. And all of the global HQs and products and innovation that would be happeni…
Having a bunch of US companies making profits in China isn't necessarily good for China. If the choice is between, say letting AWS in and building their own. Building their own would put 5000 of their own people to work, the broad technical demographic it will take, and build up all the surrounding industries like servers, networking etc. All the profits stay within China, and they now have more skilled people who ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
First Russia with nginx just a few days ago, now this. I'm starting to think despotic regimes are bad.
As if any other country is better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason all of the big western companies left China. I'd bet money China's economy could be growing 10x faster if it had independent courts and foreign companies who become successful weren't treated like criminals. Just imagine how many of us would be moving to China to start companies and how much more VC money would be flowing in. And all of the global HQs and products and innovation that would be happeni…
> There's a reason all of the big western companies left China. Are we on the same page, here? Name two.
Given that rule of law does not exist in China, it's safe to assume this is politically motivated. Who in the government wants him out of business, and why?
I do not know how it works in China, but could someone in the government be paid by Bitmain to care enough? In the US they call that move lobbying...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's a reason all of the big western companies left China. I'd bet money China's economy could be growing 10x faster if it had independent courts and foreign companies who become successful weren't treated like criminals. Just imagine how many of us would be moving to China to start companies and how much more VC money would be flowing in. And all of the global HQs and products and innovation that would be happeni…
meanwhile Sam Altman is writing essays about how China enjoys greater freedom than America. If you think I'm kidding: https://blog.samaltman.com/e-pur-si-muove
Without fair representation in the courts and judicial independence this problem will never be resolved and China will always be taking 1 step back for every 2 steps forward.
Hong Kong is a better example, they consistently rank #1 in the world in economic freedom and their economy skyrocketed as a result.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jack Ma is on the record that this is nonsense: https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibabas-jack-ma-denies-beijing... Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'.
>Of course, conspiracy theorists would say 'of course he would say that'. That comes with the territory when you're a totalitarian state with no rule of law.
The other thing that's important to realise is that the Chinese government is incredibly complex internally. There isn't some Bond-like villain stroking his white cat all day and issuing decrees. It's a massive beaurocracy. Politics are crazy. The totalitarian state does not act as a single will -- it's a massive system of infighting and people trying to get the upper hand. Within that system, each of the players will be using their legal system against one another. It really isn't the case that there is any one entity that's just making up the rules as they go along and that can do whatever they want with impunity (as your posting implies to me).
So, I'm inclined to lean towards believing a more complex reality than "they forced him to say that".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Would the leadership rather be absolute leaders of a slower-growing, still-globally-significant economy? Or lesser leaders of a faster-growing one? I don't think the economic growth benefits outweigh their priorities.
Non-democratic, non-free China's economy has been growing 5 times faster than democratic, free India's. This is despite both countries starting from the same, largely rural, highly impoverished starting point 60 years ago.[1] So, yes, they'd rather be the absolute leaders of a faster growing economy, than the non-leaders of a slower-growing one. [1] China was even worse off, actually, since it spent the first half of…
China on the other hand is mostly free and liberal up until you start being successful.
Acting like India isn't engage in authoritarian mass intervention, even though its in a more decentralize fashion is totally wrong. The only benefit is they have more independent courts and you can succeed with influence buying without the top-down threat that the CCP does to cripple foreign competitors in domestic firms favours.
India has a different sort of economic interference - but also one that's far easier to fix. Something Modi repeatedly promised and keeps failing to do.
This video is a good overview of how the Indian gov cripples business: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVwIZzGHxwc