191–200 of 321 posts
Isn't seven the most powerfully magic number? Wouldn't it be better, make Alibaba stronger...to split the soul into seven pieces?
although the rule of threes seems to be a universal constant. Just something about it.
It’s always hard for me to understand the why when it comes to China’s government. “Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China’s tech crackdown” If this is government action then why would this be the “end” of government involvement?
When we talk about anti-trust and tech industry policy in the US, we know by default that means that it's going to involve the FTC (M&A), SEC (Accounting/Financing Practices), and the House+Senate Judiciary Committee (review M&A, Financing, and Accounting Practices decided by FTC+SEC)
The Chinese tech industry in the 2010s had a number of competing regulators - China Securities Regulatory Commission, China Banking and Insurance Regulatory Commission, State Administration of Foreign Exchange, Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, Cyberspace Administration of China, State Administration for Market Regulation, People's Bank of China, etc.
Because there are so many regulators/agencies stepping on each others toes, there was a lot of intrigue and bad practices in the Chinese tech industry from 2000-2020 (eg. Crypto companies like FTX and Binance bribing PBOC officials and AntPay arguing that as a FinTech it should be regulated as a tech company/by the MIIT and not financial regulators)
During 2019-2022, there was a massive regulatory reform across the board that divvied up the roles of individual agencies and created the norms that startups and companies needed to follow.
The resolution of Ant Group's whole saga is basically setting precedent on which agencies/regulators within the PRC do what, and now investors have an easier time understanding how to vet investment risks in the tech sector.
It’s always hard for me to understand the why when it comes to China’s government. “Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China’s tech crackdown” If this is government action then why would this be the “end” of government involvement?
Upon settling in the countryside, I saw firsthand the power of dripping water drilling through rock. That image, which captured the spirit of persistence, has stayed with me all these years. It has become a well-worn source for contemplating life and movement.
Rock and water are two opposing elements that are used to symbolize dogged stubbornness and gentle fluidity. Yet despite being “gentle,” water will drill through “solid” rock over time.
As a metaphor for people, this is the embodiment of a certain moral character: it is the willingness to rise to fight each time one falls and the courage to sacrifice oneself. A single drop of water is small and insubstantial. It will die a cruel “death” in any battle with a rock. Yet in that brief moment of “sacrifice,” even though it cannot see its own value and achievement, it is embodied within the countless drops of water that have already fallen, and the triumph of finally drilling through the rock. From the perspective of history or development of an economically disadvantaged area, we should not seek personal success and fame. Instead, we should strive to make steady progress one small step at a time and be willing to lay the groundwork for overall success. When everyone doing our work models themselves on a droplet that is ready to sacrifice for the greater good, we need not worry that our work is not important enough to make lasting change!
As a metaphor for things, dripping water is a demonstration of dialectical principles that use softness to overcome hardness, and the weak to control the strong. I believe in the invaluable spirit of that drop of water, which bravely goes into the breach with no thought of retreat. Those of us who are involved in economic development will inevitably encounter complications in our work. We can either rise to the challenge or flinch and run away. It all depends on whether we have the courage to adhere to philosophical materialism. If we allow ourselves to be filled with trepidation, the kind of fear that comes from standing at the edge of an abyss or treading on thin ice, we will lack the courage to do anything. We will accomplish nothing. Nevertheless, courage alone is not enough.
When dripping water takes aim at a rock, each droplet zeroes in on the same target and stays the course until its mission is complete. The drops of water fall day after day, year after year. This is the magic that enables dripping water to drill through rock! How can it be that our economic development work is any different? Just look at areas where the economy is lagging. Historical, environmental, and geographical factors have all played a part in holding back development. There are no shortcuts. Nothing can change overnight. Instead, we need to focus on the long haul by turning quantitative changes into qualitative changes. We need to be the dripping water that drills through rock. When talking about reform and opening up, we cannot assume that help will be coming from left and right, nor can we afford to wait until conditions are perfect enough to ensure success. Instead of building palaces in the air, we need to square our shoulders and get down to work. When talking about economic development, we cannot simply race to build high-rises and open up big factories, nor can we focus on dramatic results at the expense of necessary infrastructure. Otherwise, success will be elusive, and opportunities will be easily missed.
Instead of daydreaming about overly ambitious or flashy projects, we need to have a firm footing in reality as we take concrete steps to reach long-term goals. Instead of “setting three fires” in the hope they will succeed, we need to work steadily and make solid progress. Our work calls for the tenacity to keep chipping away. Working by fits and starts will not get us anywhere.
When I describe my awe upon seeing the power of droplets drilling through rock, I am praising those who have the willingness to rise each time one falls, and the moral character to sacrifice for overall success. I am expressing my admiration for those who develop a solid plan and then have the tenacity to see it through to the end.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So people are hoping that now the worst of it is done What is the basis of this hope?
Well, the problem was that Jack Ma was getting so powerful by being in charge of a massive tech empire he was threatening the CCP's power. The remaining split up companies are no where near as big or powerful, are staffed largely by people who have been put in by the CCP, and now know what happens to people who criticise the government. They've made their point, so the question is... why not ease up a bit and let pro…
Nope. There is absolutely nothing (other than whatever good judgement they might have) that would prevent them from flying the entire craft straight into the ground.
Agree that the problem for Jack Ma was he was becoming a threat to CCP power. He may have been able to pull it off and make a new countervailing power, but he spoke up too soon and CCP/Xi figured out the threat and took action. Maybe another player will be smart enough to stay below the radar for much longer, but it'll be years if not decades
How is this a breakup if Alibaba is just going to become a holding company owning those six new companies?
But as it has always been on the U.S.-dominated English-speaking Internet and media, facts and objectiveness do not matter when it comes to any topic related to China. Anyone can twist, spin, or literally invent anything to fit their own narrative about China and people will believe it without question as long as it leans on the antagonizing side.
It's interesting to contrast China's approach of not allowing business to operate within the plane of power in which the government does, vs. the United States, which has companies whose power is certainly on the level of many state governments.
It's 2 different takes on Power. The US ensures its continuation and longevity via the small group of Elite families and new wealth that is continuously being generated. They control the media and so many more, which keeps populism at bay. If democratic forces were left on their own, it would have reached the state of decline that happened to many e.g. social democratic states. China guards the power so that it stays…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you want until they're the only player you're way way too late and huge damage has already been done.
That both doesn’t answer my question nor is it actually true. In fact, splits almost always happen when it’s actually a monopoly not some vague hand-wavy goal-shifting “monopolistic behaviors”.
Our antitrust over the last few years is crazy lacking.
Wouldn't you want the burst of innovation and competition before the five to ten years of status quo monopoly if you wait to act?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not an expert on this, but from what I gather this all leads back to a power struggle between Jack Ma and Xi Jinping. Ma was ready to go public with AliPay and in the build up to it made a speech that criticised the government regulation as being out of date. This was viewed as a challenge to the governments power. Over the next few months the government moved to tighten regulations on companies like AliPay and d…
Also, one of Ma’s last public appearances was at an American conference, maybe TechCrunch but I’m not sure, where he said in an on stage interview something to the effect of, “I’m not afraid of the CCP”, in relation to recent revelations he was a CCP member. Then he got disappeared shortly after. He was really clueless about what kind of org he was dealing with.
It could be as simple as he disagrees with the CCP policy.
For example, we don't typically look at human rights or anti-war protesters and call them Clueless, even when governments Crackdown on them
It’s always hard for me to understand the why when it comes to China’s government. “Investors cheer the move as signalling the end of China’s tech crackdown” If this is government action then why would this be the “end” of government involvement?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One doesn't need to be clueless in order to lose a power struggle. He might have been betrayed, he might have overestimated the resources he could fully count on, he might have simply been backing a faction in the party that ended up losing. Xi Jinping went as far as kicking out of the public congress a previous president, which was unprecedented; who knows what else he's capable of.
Correct, he is/was backed by a different faction. Most startups of that era are.