5 ms·

Yeah, the Chinese government is far more involved with it's companies than India with any of it's non nationalized companies. China got Jack Ma to spinoff Alipa

Yeah, the Chinese government is far more involved with it's companies than India with any of it's non nationalized companies. China got Jack Ma to spinoff Alipay from Alibaba, screwing the other shareholders badly. I don't think there is anyy big company in China without CCP members high up in the ranks. Ambani on the other hand, however powerful he may be, is certainly not a bigger threat than China. Companies being Ambani owned, while worse than a competitive market, is still much better than being Tencent owned.

kranner 6y ago
> Companies being Ambani owned, while worse than a competitive market, is still much better than being Tencent owned. But better how, exactly?
- enitihas 6y ago
  Much more easier to control than China. Ambani doesn't have an "Ambani liberation army" backing him up. Think of it this way, why did China spin off Ant Financial out of Alibaba? Had it been in hands of foreign investors, it would be a huge issue later on if it became big. And if it became big, it would be much harder to spin it off that way. You can't spin off 100 billions and not expect strong retaliation from the countries of the foreign investors. It was much more easier for them to control Jack Ma, and ensure he never becomes too powerful. While India is a democracy unlike China, and the government can't just get people to disappear with nobody questioning, even without such totalitarian tools, a well functioning sovereign government is always more powerful than any of it's richest people.
  - kranner 6y ago
    OK, thanks for explaining your point. I still think you're conflating Tencent with China as much as you're overestimating how well-functioning the Indian government is. In my view it is grossly incompetent beyond spreading propaganda, horse-trading MPs and MLAs to swing elections, and indeed disappearing people and killing them extra-judiciously in fake encounters. Ambani capturing everything would result in the complete demise of the dregs of Indian democracy as he will remain king-maker as long as he lives IMHO.
    - divs1210 6y ago
      We made the mistake of not conflating East India Company with Britain, and it didn't end well for us.
      - kranner 6y ago
        Who was the us in that scenario? There was no India back then, just a set of kingdoms and 'princely states' that hated each other as much as they opposed any European takeover. The present circumstances are in no way similar.
        divs1210 6y ago
        If there was no India before the British, then a) what was Christopher Columbus looking for? b) what was Vasco da Gama looking for? c) what were British/Dutch/French East India Companies looking for? d) what did Alexander's ambassador Megasthenes write about in his book Indica? e) where is Mahabharata set? Bharat is still one of India's official names. India has had a shared cultural history for a very long time. That it wasn't always called India is a moot point.
        enitihas 6y ago
        I think you misunderstood the parent poster's point. They are talking about India the nation, while you are talking of India the concept. India the concept existed. But India the concept is similar to America the concept or Europe or Africa the concept, not Germany or France. Also, before the British, the last empire to rule over almost all of modern day India was Ashoka, more than 2000 years ago.
        shankr 6y ago
        If we are being pedantic, Germany didn't exist until 1871.
        legolas2412 6y ago
        Umm, the Mughal, the Guptas? Also the pratiharas, rashtrakutas and palas collectively ruled over india too. The Delhi sultanate was pretty huge too, and so was the maratha empire. But being a single governance group isn't the point. Being culturally similar is what defines India. And it obviously is.
- divs1210 6y ago
  India does not want more East India Company - like situations, maybe?
- manuisin 6y ago
  I think GP meant that at least very with Ambani, the money stays in India and is circulated inside the country. The services are provided to Indians, we are paid to do the work, and we spend it in India. It's better because the wealth of the country isn't leaking away, or at least leaking slower.
  - kranner 6y ago
    Services provided, persons employed, employees paid etc is all the same whether Ambani owns the shares or Chinese VCs do. Ambani would no more share his profits with other Indians than Chinese VCs would. Both would be subject to the same taxes on income earned in India. Maybe Ambani reinvests some of his profits in India; but for all we know he might choose to do so outside India.
- legolas2412 6y ago
  China, an authoritarian state can and does use its financial influence to force it's interests. Do you not see how Chinese vc answer to china and not india? If you think they can just be banned, what else do you think is the Indian government doing? Ambani is still subject to Indian laws, and even if he leaves, his wealth and empire is answerable to the Indian government.
  - kranner 6y ago
    The companies that Chinese VCs have invested in, in India, are also subject to Indian laws. No I don't think the Indian government can grab Chinese shares in Indian companies. That is why I'm asking what the problem is if the Chinese invest in Indian companies. To me it seems better that investments are spread between Ambani, the Chinese and all the rest rather than letting Ambani own everything.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

kranner 6y ago

> Companies being Ambani owned, while worse than a competitive market, is still much better than being Tencent owned. But better how, exactly?

enitihas 6y ago
Much more easier to control than China. Ambani doesn't have an "Ambani liberation army" backing him up. Think of it this way, why did China spin off Ant Financial out of Alibaba? Had it been in hands of foreign investors, it would be a huge issue later on if it became big. And if it became big, it would be much harder to spin it off that way. You can't spin off 100 billions and not expect strong retaliation from the countries of the foreign investors. It was much more easier for them to control Jack Ma, and ensure he never becomes too powerful. While India is a democracy unlike China, and the government can't just get people to disappear with nobody questioning, even without such totalitarian tools, a well functioning sovereign government is always more powerful than any of it's richest people.
- kranner 6y ago
  OK, thanks for explaining your point. I still think you're conflating Tencent with China as much as you're overestimating how well-functioning the Indian government is. In my view it is grossly incompetent beyond spreading propaganda, horse-trading MPs and MLAs to swing elections, and indeed disappearing people and killing them extra-judiciously in fake encounters. Ambani capturing everything would result in the complete demise of the dregs of Indian democracy as he will remain king-maker as long as he lives IMHO.
  - divs1210 6y ago
    We made the mistake of not conflating East India Company with Britain, and it didn't end well for us.
    - kranner 6y ago
      Who was the us in that scenario? There was no India back then, just a set of kingdoms and 'princely states' that hated each other as much as they opposed any European takeover. The present circumstances are in no way similar.
      - divs1210 6y ago
        If there was no India before the British, then a) what was Christopher Columbus looking for? b) what was Vasco da Gama looking for? c) what were British/Dutch/French East India Companies looking for? d) what did Alexander's ambassador Megasthenes write about in his book Indica? e) where is Mahabharata set? Bharat is still one of India's official names. India has had a shared cultural history for a very long time. That it wasn't always called India is a moot point.
        enitihas 6y ago
        I think you misunderstood the parent poster's point. They are talking about India the nation, while you are talking of India the concept. India the concept existed. But India the concept is similar to America the concept or Europe or Africa the concept, not Germany or France. Also, before the British, the last empire to rule over almost all of modern day India was Ashoka, more than 2000 years ago.
        shankr 6y ago
        If we are being pedantic, Germany didn't exist until 1871.
        legolas2412 6y ago
        Umm, the Mughal, the Guptas? Also the pratiharas, rashtrakutas and palas collectively ruled over india too. The Delhi sultanate was pretty huge too, and so was the maratha empire. But being a single governance group isn't the point. Being culturally similar is what defines India. And it obviously is.
divs1210 6y ago
India does not want more East India Company - like situations, maybe?
manuisin 6y ago
I think GP meant that at least very with Ambani, the money stays in India and is circulated inside the country. The services are provided to Indians, we are paid to do the work, and we spend it in India. It's better because the wealth of the country isn't leaking away, or at least leaking slower.
- kranner 6y ago
  Services provided, persons employed, employees paid etc is all the same whether Ambani owns the shares or Chinese VCs do. Ambani would no more share his profits with other Indians than Chinese VCs would. Both would be subject to the same taxes on income earned in India. Maybe Ambani reinvests some of his profits in India; but for all we know he might choose to do so outside India.
legolas2412 6y ago
China, an authoritarian state can and does use its financial influence to force it's interests. Do you not see how Chinese vc answer to china and not india? If you think they can just be banned, what else do you think is the Indian government doing? Ambani is still subject to Indian laws, and even if he leaves, his wealth and empire is answerable to the Indian government.
- kranner 6y ago
  The companies that Chinese VCs have invested in, in India, are also subject to Indian laws. No I don't think the Indian government can grab Chinese shares in Indian companies. That is why I'm asking what the problem is if the Chinese invest in Indian companies. To me it seems better that investments are spread between Ambani, the Chinese and all the rest rather than letting Ambani own everything.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]