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

Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 204 posts

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#61

Post by dvfjsdhgfv »

Kbelicius wrote: post #27
dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason why communism is always associated with authoritarianism is mainly the process by which it is introduced: it is impossible that all citizens agree that a state becomes communist so it has to be introduced by force. And once you get this power over the lives of all your citizens, you don't want to give it back (which also makes sense because they could overthrow communism). The only societies where communis…

> The reason why communism is always associated with authoritarianism is mainly the process by which it is introduced: it is impossible that all citizens agree that a state becomes communist All new systems are introduced by force, even capitalism. Do you think that at one point in the past everybody in Britain decided that the state should be capitalist and so everyone, on their own accord, moved from communal land…

As a counter-example, the fall of communism in Eastern bloc was (mostly) a very peaceful process. A notable exception was Romania where the ruler was particularly cruel but in several other countries the system changed without one shot being fired, even though surely there were quite a few proponents of the old regime.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#62

Post by ametrau »

red-iron-pine wrote: post #58
ametrau wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair it wasn’t actually retarded because no one could foresee China stealing arm’s IP.

is that sarcasm? China and stealing IP are like cookies and milk

Yes it is sarcasm.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#63

Post by Retric »

janalsncm wrote: post #41
WrongAssumption wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are over 100 billionaires in the Chinese parliament, the US congress has zero billionaires.

Just like it’s better to have a friend who has a boat than to own a boat, it’s better to buy a politician than to be one.

Depends on the level of corruption.

At low levels people buy politicians, at high levels politicians shake down the wealthy.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#64

Post by seanmcdirmid »

throwaway4good wrote: post #10

I was listening to Nicolai Tangen's interview with Alibaba co-founder Joe Tsai: https://www.nbim.no/en/publications/podcast/alibaba-co-found... Alibaba co-founder and Chair: China, Jack Ma, AI and basketball And while smart and sympathetic, I cannot help to think that Alibaba is a company of the past belonging to a time of a certain US-China order that is no more. The future of Chinese tech belongs to companies that…

> The future of Chinese tech belongs to companies that are much more fast moving, fearless, and aggressively deep tech than what Alibaba aspires to be.

Being all of that is exactly why Jack Ma got beat down by the party. The party doesn't want fast moving, fearless, aggressively deep tech, they want control, compliance, and stability.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#65

Post by seanmcdirmid »

WrongAssumption wrote: post #34
maxglute wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is safe to build wealth in the US It's safe to build OBSCENE wealth in the states. It's safe to build wealth in PRC, plenty of 10-100 millionaires. It's also safe to build OBSCENE wealth in PRC, but it comes with more political caveats. Like not trying circumvent regulators by launching irresponsible fintech. Which system is better depends on how much you value checking billionaires.

There are over 100 billionaires in the Chinese parliament, the US congress has zero billionaires.

Someone in US congress can earn millions from their offices. But that is amateur money compared to the vast swaths of the Chinese economy controlled by China's red families. Even Wen Jiabao's mom was in on it with a massive jewelry empire (heck, I remember being surprised she was still alive in the 2010s), and the Chinese government only gave credibility to the story that outed this by blocking the NyTimes over it.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#67

Post by vondur »

daghamm wrote: post #4
roenxi wrote: post #2

Just going by appearances, the story at the time looked a lot like Jack Ma fleeing the country for a bit. One minute he was disturbing the tranquillity in China then the next he was picking up some Zen among the cherry blossoms. It is interesting to compare-and-contrast Jack Ma and Elon Musk who seems to me the nearest analogue in the US. How their host countries treat them says a lot about the real cultural differen…

China is still ruled by communism, the goverment has a majority share in every company. That's bad for entrepreneurs, but also means that they can have the entire power of CCP behind them. There are tons of example where a small company started by stealing from western competitors then suddenly produced a huge pile of cash out of nowhere to bought those competitors and took over their marketshare in the west.

I would argue that the CCP is basically fascist at this point.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#68

Post by seanmcdirmid »

gscott wrote: post #33
maxglute wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> it is safe to build wealth in the US It's safe to build OBSCENE wealth in the states. It's safe to build wealth in PRC, plenty of 10-100 millionaires. It's also safe to build OBSCENE wealth in PRC, but it comes with more political caveats. Like not trying circumvent regulators by launching irresponsible fintech. Which system is better depends on how much you value checking billionaires.

Building wealth in China you have to keep it there due to tight capital controls. In the USA you can transfer it out of the country if you want to. https://www.scmp.com/business/china-business/article/3212414... https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/china-s-rich-are... https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/china-banks-waits-072... https://harris-sliwoski.com/chinalawblog/getting-money-out-o... https://www.afr.…

Chinese transferring wealth out of China to buy American and Canadian real estate is actually a popular way of protecting themselves and laundering money from non-legit enterprises in the mainland.

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#69

Post by ethbr1 »

defrost wrote: post #38
blackeyeblitzar wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

Were , not Are ... from your own link: > Marxism–Leninism was the first official ideology of the CCP. Mao Zedong Thought was some time ago and since then various directions the CCP has taken have been criticized as being un-Marxist and a betrayal of basic Marxist values. The Authoritarian edge has always been there in the CCP, ebbing and flowing with the years .. but that part is distinctly un-(classical)-communism.…

[flagged]

Re: Jack Ma steps out from the shadows with morale-boosting post

#70

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

dvfjsdhgfv wrote: post #61
Kbelicius wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The reason why communism is always associated with authoritarianism is mainly the process by which it is introduced: it is impossible that all citizens agree that a state becomes communist All new systems are introduced by force, even capitalism. Do you think that at one point in the past everybody in Britain decided that the state should be capitalist and so everyone, on their own accord, moved from communal land…

As a counter-example, the fall of communism in Eastern bloc was (mostly) a very peaceful process. A notable exception was Romania where the ruler was particularly cruel but in several other countries the system changed without one shot being fired, even though surely there were quite a few proponents of the old regime.

The institution of whatever came after the fall of communism was done by force, just like the institution that came before it, for the reason you describe: it's impossible to get literally everyone in an entire country to agree on a government, so the government must be imposed by force.
Post reply on HN