6 ms·

For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises. Alibaba, TikTok, etc are e

by fouc 6y ago

For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises. Alibaba, TikTok, etc are essentially state-owned enterprises.

powerapple 6y ago
For those are not aware of it - US is actually more akin to an enterprise-owned state. Joke aside, what this guy wrote is completely false. If Alibaba is state-owned enterprise, it does not need to stop the Ant group IPO. Yes, the state is trying to influence enterprises with the introduction of party councils in place of unions. It is not essentially state-owned when it is essentially not state-owned. EDIT: typo
- cscurmudgeon 6y ago
  Why does the IPO stopping imply independence? Is it strange if a parent org reins in a child org? TikTok may be independent as a US company or more but the IPO stopping is not proof of it.
  - beaunative 6y ago
    If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. Ownership is much more powerful in an enterprise than outside government regulations in any cases.
    - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
      > If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. No. Not really. CCP is not a big uniform entity. There are different competing entities. Also, ownership is different from control. I am not sure how this simple fact is overlooked.
      - beaunative 6y ago
        1. I'm not sure what is your point, I'm sure there are representatives/lobbyist speak for Ant financial in the government, and there are stakeholders of Ant that have political influence. 2. No one claimed ownership is the same as control, but so it happens most of the time in the business world ownership implies control. 3. Like you said, ownership is different from control. Ant is not state owned, literally.
  - powerapple 6y ago
    The way GP described it is like everything is tightly controlled. If the state controls Ant group, that would mean IPO was planned by the state, and you may already know Chinese government do regular long term plans, this incident wouldn't happen, also, it won't even happen in this way. It would be Ant group withdraw its IPO application instead. I won't say any business is fully independent in any country in this age. I am also not claiming Chinese business can be as independent as in US. It is definitely not state-owned as GP suggested.
    - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
      > For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises Please, how do you go from "State-owned" to "everything is tightly controlled." I am genuinely curious.
      - powerapple 6y ago
        Because according to GP, Chinese government wants to 'control' everything, that's why they 'own' everything. If they don't control it, would it make any difference if a company is state owned or private owned. If I own 1000 companies, and one of them is going to do the biggest IPO, I probably will still watch this one closely. I think I have become too political recently reading hacker news. Such a waste of time. I will not participate in any philosophy/political/ideology any more. Thanks for the reply. EDIT: We all have a habit to use logic to understand events, but many times, we can bend events to fit our logic. It is so natural, and we don't even notice it. I don't believe the world is black and white, or labelling makes it easier to understand the world. Everywhere you go is just a bunch of humans. When we are happy we take time and try to understand differences, when we are not, we attack differences. It is how we develop and survive in the wild.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- mochialex 6y ago
  Every company in China is essentially state owned as they need to follow whatever Chairman Xi says.
justicezyx 6y ago
Why is that?
- awb 6y ago
  China's economy is a mix of communism and capitalism
  - jacobush 6y ago
    While true, that's largely ortogonal to why China is so very much a dictatorship.
    - beaunative 6y ago
      While I agree CPC is in ultimate control over government in China, and that China is a one-party state. I don't agree it to be a dictatorship. I see dictatorship as monarchy in disguise. China's leadership as observed are not passed down within a singular family or families and the succession of which have not observed militarial coup. If the dictator can't have his/hers own blood-heir to take over, where is the dicatorship in this?
      - jacobush 6y ago
        Hm, interesting place to draw a line in the sand. Then we can’t know if a country was a dictatorship ship until a ruler dies. Also, all countries with despots ousted and replaced by others, disqualifies as dictatorships. I don’t like your definition. I’d rather look for rule of law and signs of democracy. Both of which are very scarce in China.
        beaunative 6y ago
        Sucession of power in dictatorship is what I'd think an important attribute of it, not a definition. Many of those despots have every intent and actions that we have observed to have their heirs assume office, only that it was stopped. It's about that they have that power in their form of government where they make all the calls, not them actually achiving it. On the other hand, many of Xi's predecessors are well-alive, well, two of them, if they are/were dicators, what is Xi? There are three dictators at different times in China, with one in the office and the other two well and alive? I doubt dictatorship would be an accurate account for what's really going on.
londons_explore 6y ago
And something "too big to fail" like GM or the big banks aren't...? As soon as the state decides to prop a failing business up, it's no longer capitalism and the state gets control of the companies decision making process.
- Darmody 6y ago
  No, they aren't. I'm not a big fan of governments paying up to rescue big companies that made billions and in the end went bankrupt because in a free market is unfair. But that's far, very far from not being capitalism. The action itself may not be the most "capitalistic" but after that the government doesn't take control, it's not an expropriation.
  - SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
    > in the end went bankrupt because in a free market is unfair Not exactly a 'free market' then if they're not free to fail.
    - Darmody 6y ago
      That's my point and that's why I think it's unfair. If my company goes bankrupt the government won't give me millions to stay afloat.
- vorpalhex 6y ago
  If the US were pure Libertarian-esque capitalist, you'd be right. But we're also a country with medicare and food stamps and we recognize pure capitalism isn't flawless. Had a company like GM been allowed to fail suddenly then entire major cities would have seen unemployment go up 3x or 4x, and that's a lot of people who don't have jobs in a city that just lost it's primary industry. Most of those people are not white collar professionals who can hop over to SV - there are very limited jobs building cars. As a country where we do sometimes engage in non-capitalist behavior (FDIC insurance, jobs programs, so on) it's sometimes more efficient to prop up a bad business and let it fail slowly then to entirely take a hands off approach.
- 6y ago
awongh 6y ago
If that is true, what happened with the ant financial IPO? (genuine question, I am not sure how all that happened)
- mochialex 6y ago
  The state is not a static line of code. The senior party members behind the Ant changed their mind for whatever reason, willingly or unwillingly. The result is the haunt of the IPO.
trasz 6y ago
[citation needed]
powerapple 6y ago
State owned enterprises is not a bad word. The idea of having state owned enterprises is easy, when there aren't much private investment in any country. State-owned enterprises can be a good choice, especially in capital-intense industry. The side effect of state-owned enterprises is that if the enterprises can lose competitiveness (or never gain), which means they are actually very weak when competing in domestic market. And normally the objective of state-owned enterprises in modern government is to support employment and economy. It is less about control. If I think about the future, when robots take over all jobs, people don't need to work for money, there will be either state-owned company distributing the profit amongst all citizens or company-owned state (i don't know how this is going to work)
- mochialex 6y ago
  It is bad when the state is a totalitarian empire
  - powerapple 6y ago
    Why state-owned enterprises are bad in a totalitarian empire? I mean comparing to what?
    - mochialex 6y ago
      It does not need to be relative to anything to be “bad”. A state-owned company in a totalitarian empire is part of a system that suppresses freedom of speech, uses forced labour, conducts genocide, seeks to undermine democracy overseas. That’s why it’s bad.
      - powerapple 6y ago
        No. What you said has nothing to do with the state-owned enterprise. Is a piece of bread in your totalitarian empire bad? A state-owned enterprise provide employment, food and shelter for employees, and also provide social and economy functions for the general public.
einpoklum 6y ago
Actually, for sufficiently large corporations, I would say the difference between being state-owned and private-but-state-influencing is not as clear as one might assume. (Alternatively, you could say that all sufficiently large corporations are "partially-state-owning".)

by fouc 6y ago

For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises. Alibaba, TikTok, etc are essentially state-owned enterprises.

powerapple 6y ago

For those are not aware of it - US is actually more akin to an enterprise-owned state. Joke aside, what this guy wrote is completely false. If Alibaba is state-owned enterprise, it does not need to stop the Ant group IPO. Yes, the state is trying to influence enterprises with the introduction of party councils in place of unions. It is not essentially state-owned when it is essentially not state-owned. EDIT: typo

cscurmudgeon 6y ago
Why does the IPO stopping imply independence? Is it strange if a parent org reins in a child org? TikTok may be independent as a US company or more but the IPO stopping is not proof of it.
- beaunative 6y ago
  If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. Ownership is much more powerful in an enterprise than outside government regulations in any cases.
  - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
    > If Ant is 'essentially' state owned, whereas its action reflects the will of the state, then its action need not to be controlled through government regulation or Chinese SEC. No. Not really. CCP is not a big uniform entity. There are different competing entities. Also, ownership is different from control. I am not sure how this simple fact is overlooked.
    - beaunative 6y ago
      1. I'm not sure what is your point, I'm sure there are representatives/lobbyist speak for Ant financial in the government, and there are stakeholders of Ant that have political influence. 2. No one claimed ownership is the same as control, but so it happens most of the time in the business world ownership implies control. 3. Like you said, ownership is different from control. Ant is not state owned, literally.
- powerapple 6y ago
  The way GP described it is like everything is tightly controlled. If the state controls Ant group, that would mean IPO was planned by the state, and you may already know Chinese government do regular long term plans, this incident wouldn't happen, also, it won't even happen in this way. It would be Ant group withdraw its IPO application instead. I won't say any business is fully independent in any country in this age. I am also not claiming Chinese business can be as independent as in US. It is definitely not state-owned as GP suggested.
  - cscurmudgeon 6y ago
    > For those that are not aware of it - all sufficiently large corporations in China are actually more akin to State-owned enterprises Please, how do you go from "State-owned" to "everything is tightly controlled." I am genuinely curious.
    - powerapple 6y ago
      Because according to GP, Chinese government wants to 'control' everything, that's why they 'own' everything. If they don't control it, would it make any difference if a company is state owned or private owned. If I own 1000 companies, and one of them is going to do the biggest IPO, I probably will still watch this one closely. I think I have become too political recently reading hacker news. Such a waste of time. I will not participate in any philosophy/political/ideology any more. Thanks for the reply. EDIT: We all have a habit to use logic to understand events, but many times, we can bend events to fit our logic. It is so natural, and we don't even notice it. I don't believe the world is black and white, or labelling makes it easier to understand the world. Everywhere you go is just a bunch of humans. When we are happy we take time and try to understand differences, when we are not, we attack differences. It is how we develop and survive in the wild.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
mochialex 6y ago
Every company in China is essentially state owned as they need to follow whatever Chairman Xi says.

justicezyx 6y ago

Why is that?

awb 6y ago
China's economy is a mix of communism and capitalism
- jacobush 6y ago
  While true, that's largely ortogonal to why China is so very much a dictatorship.
  - beaunative 6y ago
    While I agree CPC is in ultimate control over government in China, and that China is a one-party state. I don't agree it to be a dictatorship. I see dictatorship as monarchy in disguise. China's leadership as observed are not passed down within a singular family or families and the succession of which have not observed militarial coup. If the dictator can't have his/hers own blood-heir to take over, where is the dicatorship in this?
    - jacobush 6y ago
      Hm, interesting place to draw a line in the sand. Then we can’t know if a country was a dictatorship ship until a ruler dies. Also, all countries with despots ousted and replaced by others, disqualifies as dictatorships. I don’t like your definition. I’d rather look for rule of law and signs of democracy. Both of which are very scarce in China.
      - beaunative 6y ago
        Sucession of power in dictatorship is what I'd think an important attribute of it, not a definition. Many of those despots have every intent and actions that we have observed to have their heirs assume office, only that it was stopped. It's about that they have that power in their form of government where they make all the calls, not them actually achiving it. On the other hand, many of Xi's predecessors are well-alive, well, two of them, if they are/were dicators, what is Xi? There are three dictators at different times in China, with one in the office and the other two well and alive? I doubt dictatorship would be an accurate account for what's really going on.

londons_explore 6y ago

And something "too big to fail" like GM or the big banks aren't...? As soon as the state decides to prop a failing business up, it's no longer capitalism and the state gets control of the companies decision making process.

Darmody 6y ago
No, they aren't. I'm not a big fan of governments paying up to rescue big companies that made billions and in the end went bankrupt because in a free market is unfair. But that's far, very far from not being capitalism. The action itself may not be the most "capitalistic" but after that the government doesn't take control, it's not an expropriation.
- SaltyBackendGuy 6y ago
  > in the end went bankrupt because in a free market is unfair Not exactly a 'free market' then if they're not free to fail.
  - Darmody 6y ago
    That's my point and that's why I think it's unfair. If my company goes bankrupt the government won't give me millions to stay afloat.
vorpalhex 6y ago
If the US were pure Libertarian-esque capitalist, you'd be right. But we're also a country with medicare and food stamps and we recognize pure capitalism isn't flawless. Had a company like GM been allowed to fail suddenly then entire major cities would have seen unemployment go up 3x or 4x, and that's a lot of people who don't have jobs in a city that just lost it's primary industry. Most of those people are not white collar professionals who can hop over to SV - there are very limited jobs building cars. As a country where we do sometimes engage in non-capitalist behavior (FDIC insurance, jobs programs, so on) it's sometimes more efficient to prop up a bad business and let it fail slowly then to entirely take a hands off approach.
6y ago

awongh 6y ago

If that is true, what happened with the ant financial IPO? (genuine question, I am not sure how all that happened)

mochialex 6y ago
The state is not a static line of code. The senior party members behind the Ant changed their mind for whatever reason, willingly or unwillingly. The result is the haunt of the IPO.

trasz 6y ago

[citation needed]

powerapple 6y ago

State owned enterprises is not a bad word. The idea of having state owned enterprises is easy, when there aren't much private investment in any country. State-owned enterprises can be a good choice, especially in capital-intense industry. The side effect of state-owned enterprises is that if the enterprises can lose competitiveness (or never gain), which means they are actually very weak when competing in domestic market. And normally the objective of state-owned enterprises in modern government is to support employment and economy. It is less about control. If I think about the future, when robots take over all jobs, people don't need to work for money, there will be either state-owned company distributing the profit amongst all citizens or company-owned state (i don't know how this is going to work)

mochialex 6y ago
It is bad when the state is a totalitarian empire
- powerapple 6y ago
  Why state-owned enterprises are bad in a totalitarian empire? I mean comparing to what?
  - mochialex 6y ago
    It does not need to be relative to anything to be “bad”. A state-owned company in a totalitarian empire is part of a system that suppresses freedom of speech, uses forced labour, conducts genocide, seeks to undermine democracy overseas. That’s why it’s bad.
    - powerapple 6y ago
      No. What you said has nothing to do with the state-owned enterprise. Is a piece of bread in your totalitarian empire bad? A state-owned enterprise provide employment, food and shelter for employees, and also provide social and economy functions for the general public.

einpoklum 6y ago

Actually, for sufficiently large corporations, I would say the difference between being state-owned and private-but-state-influencing is not as clear as one might assume. (Alternatively, you could say that all sufficiently large corporations are "partially-state-owning".)