5 ms·

Beijing already has its direct hand so far up these firms it can reach the back of their teeth. Most likely this is Beijing offering a little liquidity to pay o

• oh-kumudo 9y ago
  Fear, it is never enough. It is laughable, how insecure those Chinese red nobles are about themselves, while in absolute terms, they might be already among the most powerful human beings on earth.
  • jiggunjer 9y ago
    There seems to be a global correlation between people with power and reluctance to lose any of it. It's practically down to a science now.
    • dforrestwilson 9y ago
      Random, but I was thinking about this in the context of the U.S. democratic system. Why do we still have representatives all going to Washington D.C. to hash out decisions when each of us has the power and ability to vote remotely on single issues every day? I think it's due to your point, and I wish I had a candidate on the slate who was serious about having constituents vote securely on single issues rather than forcing us to choose a single party docket.
      • y4mi 9y ago
        that would create a tyranny of the majority [1]. Direct Democracy is great on small scale, but a terrible idea with millions. Just imagine the damage that somebody like trump could cause within weeks with such a system. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority
        • randcraw 9y ago
          Not if combined with a Senate and Presidential veto. I agree that it's not clear that direct citizen vote is superior to Representative vote. Though given the low caliber of HoR debate and their lack of party independence (and their historical lack of accountability to serve all their constituents), I believe direct vote should be considered. Perhaps changes to law like 1) a voter calibration test to demonstrate sufficient understanding of issues (thereby scaling the value of your vote up/down) combined with 2) restrictions on corporate/lobby media ads to manipulate voters could produce better results than the HoRs? Also worth discussion, IMO.
          • wil421 9y ago
            If you’re allowing the senate or president to veto a national popular vote then it’s not really a direct democracy.
          • marktangotango 9y ago
            People forget, or don't know, that the founders had experience building lots of democracies of many types in towns, counties, and colonies/states leading up to the American Revolution. These people had more practical direct experience than anyone before or since. It behooves all of us to study what came before, only then can real improvements be made and insight gained.
        • jiggunjer 9y ago
          This assumes a naive system without a constitution. If you start with a solid set of rules that say they can only be changed by reaching a certain threshold, e.g. 80% of the population and specific timeframes for votes, it will be much harder for populists to push through evil. You could also have a weight system, e.g. engineers get double votes on technical issues in their field. This will lower the power of redneckish factions.
• adventured 9y ago
  Companies like Tencent and Alibaba have become so large and powerful - and are still growing relatively rapidly - that the political structure in China likely doesn't find it enough to just have de facto control. Can they really afford (in their own perception of what's necessary) to not directly have control over WeChat and Alipay? Alibaba will approach a trillion dollars in gross merchandise sales moving across its platform within the next two or so years. Contrast that with China's $11.x trillion GDP, and then throw in all of Alibaba's various divisions. Their rapidly growing influence over China's economy is already vast. Just go back to 2012, a mere five years ago, Alibaba's sales were only $3 billion (seven years ago they barely existed on the radar). Then extrapolate their expansion forward another five years and what that position of theoretical economic power might look like to the CPC.
  • fludlight 9y ago
    GDP is not the best measure for firms that get much of their revenue from retail, import, and export. That said, alibaba and ten cent are too big to fail/kill without causing social instability trough immediate mass unemployment which is a big no no in Chinese politics. However, the state security apparatus has always had the other options to exert power over the key decision makers at any Chinese company so this is essentially a check on the political influence of said executives.
  • justicezyx 9y ago
    Alibaba and Tencent are allowed to grow like this, not that they organically grow like this.