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

Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

bloomberg.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 125 posts

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#51

Post by refurb »

oreally wrote: post #47
refurb wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is an incredibly generous take on the situation. In China the corruption of government officials is several orders of magnitude higher. We’re talking wholesale theft of govt assets in the billions of dollars. Chinese leaders also have a much more tenuous hold on power. They aren’t smacking down Jack Ma because they are looking out for the Chinese commoner (though they might benefit), their top priority is lookin…

To put it this way is too much of a simplification. There is good and bad. For now their priorities intersect with the chinese commoner, ie. Protecting themselves via serving the chinese commoner. Another bonus to this is the ability to make harder decisions now for the sake of the future. The fact of the matter is that with this 'aligned interests' dictatorial style you can more done and plan for the future - so lon…

Authoritarian decision making is great until the authority starts making the wrong decisions.

The bipartisan politics of the the US is not a bug, it’s a feature. It was entirely intentional that power was split and broad consensus was required to get anything done.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#52

Post by exporectomy »

DubiousPusher wrote: post #21
asdfsfkwqe wrote: post #3

They failed to realize the root cause of all these after school tutoring. There are just not enough proper schools for them to attend. They have to compete for the spot to get an education. And all these elite colleges/high schools are located in Beijign, Shanghai, etc. They usually take in local students first. So you see the problem. They will always be some form of private tutoring as long as there are immensive c…

But why are people so set on getting a fancy "educatiom" at all? I mean, I'm not against it by any means. Education has dome alright by me. But maybe part of the problem is also a divergence in quality of life for the educated or a rampant credentialism whoch tells people their worth is tied to credential attainment? Obviously educating citizens is good for a nation. And if it is really what people want to do, that's…

> But it would also be good to ensure people can make a good living and self actualize without a formal education.

How? Wanting magic to be true doesn't make it possible. If your economy is already strong enough to provide a good living to anyone who wants to be a noncontributing poorly educated self-actualizer, then OK, let them enjoy that. But what if it's not? Who supports them? Even developed countries with good social welfare usually make it hard to be voluntarily unemployed and receiving welfare just because you'd rather play on your hobbies than work for others' benefit. It's meant for people who want to work but can't, not those who don't want to but can.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#53

Post by chii »

reader_mode wrote: post #40

I feel like investing in market pathologies has become too common and modern democratic governments are far too slow at doing there roles and curbing such behaviour. Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto), but there are so many examples coming up daily, if there was ever any faith in institutions it's eroding quickly, and once you remove that…

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto)

not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't call for a ban.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#54

Post by bhawks »

tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

China's parliament is a literal billionaires club.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/business/china-parliament...

There is no altruistic motivation to better the lot of the common person. The only motivation is to maintain control.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#55

Post by [deleted] »

naveen99 wrote: post #32
mattmanser wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because such calculus what ? Why don't they teach calculus, i'm genuinely interested, you've left us hanging! Edit: thinking on it a little, I'm guessing the missing sentence is 'because such calculus is not on the test '.

Something doesn’t add up. It’s not like there is a shortage of challenging material to learn and test on. I don’t know why tests are easy and then the people who can’t ace the watered down tests compete amongst themselves for the less less able titles. why don’t they just put some general relativity, quantum field theory, regular expressions, group theory, Elliptic curves, taxes, sec regulations, emacs, vim, options…

[deleted]

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#56

Post by dirtyid »

tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

Pretty much. Deluded people who think Xi and politburo fears tech billionairs when actually dangerous rival factions and unreliable military brass have already been managed / purged. And TFW all of these supposedly desperate moves for survival just happens to meet needs of commoner or improve comprehensive national power. Generic whining about Xi being authoritairan overlooks possiblity of him also being a generally benevolent dictator. Complaints of Xi's CCP is generally not mutually exclusive with the fact that his actions are mostly benefitial to PRC interests.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#57

Post by ithkuil »

h8hawk wrote: post #48
tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

How massive censorship and state surveillance have anything to do with need of Chinese commoner?

To protect them, of course /s

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#58

Post by tedk-42 »

chii wrote: post #53
reader_mode wrote: post #40

I feel like investing in market pathologies has become too common and modern democratic governments are far too slow at doing there roles and curbing such behaviour. Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto), but there are so many examples coming up daily, if there was ever any faith in institutions it's eroding quickly, and once you remove that…

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto) not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't…

It's the scale of the wastefulness of bitcoin that matters.

If a car burnt through a months worth of electricity for your home just so you could drive to the shops to get groceries and come back, then that would quickly be banned. Bitcoin and other currencies have a lot of money being pumped into the system by people who refuse to account for the wastefulness that is crypto and instead, want to drive up their investment.

There's no replacement of traditional digital payments by cryptocurrencies.

Going back to the article, I'm glad China priorities it's people (funny to say that given the Xinjiang situation) over the profits of big corporations.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#59

Post by sgt101 »

chii wrote: post #53
reader_mode wrote: post #40

I feel like investing in market pathologies has become too common and modern democratic governments are far too slow at doing there roles and curbing such behaviour. Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto), but there are so many examples coming up daily, if there was ever any faith in institutions it's eroding quickly, and once you remove that…

> Bitcoin is the obvious example of something that should have been banned years ago (and all proof of work crypto) not that i would invest in bitcoins (or any crypto), but i don't see it as an obvious ban. The only reason i can deduce from your "obviousness" comment is that proof of works "wastes" energy. But then it is hypocritical to argue this when other modern conveniences also "waste" energy, and yet you don't…

Bitcoin uses energy without providing substantial utility unavailable from other vastly less wasteful alternatives. Additionally it provides a place for the rich and ruthless to prey on the weak and gullible with endless washtrades and exchange scams. It should be banned.

Re: Xi Jinping’s Capitalist Smackdown Sparks a $1T Reckoning

#60

Post by sgt101 »

dirtyid wrote: post #56
tmule wrote: post #20

In America, politicians are controlled by billionaires. This comes at the cost of national interest, given that winner-takes-all systems are gini coefficient maximizers. In China, politicians control billionaires. At least in theory, especially given how much the Chinese political establishment is attuned to the needs of the Chinese commoner, this does protect the national interest.

Pretty much. Deluded people who think Xi and politburo fears tech billionairs when actually dangerous rival factions and unreliable military brass have already been managed / purged. And TFW all of these supposedly desperate moves for survival just happens to meet needs of commoner or improve comprehensive national power. Generic whining about Xi being authoritairan overlooks possiblity of him also being a generally…

Hang on, what about all the people he's had executed? What about their interests? Shooting people doesn't seem benevolent to me.
Post reply on HN