5 ms·

Here's [1] Cory Doctorow's take on why this wasn't actually some capricious treatment by the CCP over some minor infraction [1] https://twitter.com/doctorow/st

Here's [1] Cory Doctorow's take on why this wasn't actually some capricious treatment by the CCP over some minor infraction [1] https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745 https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745

foerbert 6y ago
Non-twitter link, in case that would have been useful for anybody else. https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/#jack-ma https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
- SECProto 6y ago
  Thanks, I had originally seen it on twitter or else I would've sent the blog post directly. Iirc it's something like 60 tweets so the post is definitely better!
- kortilla 6y ago
  How can people stand this kind of writing? It assumes conclusions for all kinds of things that are not agreed on. It’s intellectually lazy even for people who agree with these views (“heavy slant towards finance being optimally a utility”, “Uber/Lyft ‘misclassifying’ workers”, etc). This is Fox News level opining.
  - A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
    It is an opinion. And it is interesting precisely, because it is not common and it forces you to reconcile your currently held beliefs and opinions with the authors. Frankly, I read much worse.
    - kortilla 6y ago
      It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion. That’s intellectually lazy.
      - SECProto 6y ago
        > It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion Hope you've never read the "opinions" section in a newspaper! Or the comments in the thread above mine. This one actually cites a lot more references/sources than a typical editorial. I specifically linked it as "here is Cory Doctorow's take on [the situation]". I don't endorse it wholely, but I found it very interesting. > That’s intellectually lazy. Doctorow's take is much, much, much less intellectually lazy on the causes behind Ant's IPO shutdown/Alibaba's antitrust fine/Jack Ma's withdrawal from most public facing activities than comments I was responding to (ie "[the CCP is being so capricious!]" <1> or "Look how small his offense was!" <2>) <1> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726 <2> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
hogFeast 6y ago
There are easier ways to say this: The issue was: there is no competition in Chinese banking because the state uses banks to hand out cheap loans/subsidise companies, part of this is paying depositors very low returns, Ant created competition by paying higher deposit rates, this led to a surge of money leaving Chinese banks, and the whole system would have toppled if this continued. On top of this, and something which I don't know is true but is something I have heard, Ant was taking money from depositors who are usually paid 100bps and paying them 700bps, and then they were lending that money back to banks at 700bps+ (one part of this story is, because of the point in the previous paragraph, that Chinese financial markets are largely bank-led...so if you run a money market fund, you can start out buying bonds but once you are $200bn then you have to lend to banks...it is hard to understand how Ant thought this could work). Either way, this wasn't a minor infraction. If this continued, either Ant or the Chinese banking system would have gone down. A substantial number of corporates would have gone too (China's debt levels are sky-high). The construction of the Ant MMF fund basically challenged the foundations of China's financial markets...that isn't a minor infraction.
baybal2 6y ago
That's some next level loonie conspiracy theory. Who is that Cory Doctorov?

foerbert 6y ago

Non-twitter link, in case that would have been useful for anybody else. https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-there/#jack-ma https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...

SECProto 6y ago
Thanks, I had originally seen it on twitter or else I would've sent the blog post directly. Iirc it's something like 60 tweets so the post is definitely better!
kortilla 6y ago
How can people stand this kind of writing? It assumes conclusions for all kinds of things that are not agreed on. It’s intellectually lazy even for people who agree with these views (“heavy slant towards finance being optimally a utility”, “Uber/Lyft ‘misclassifying’ workers”, etc). This is Fox News level opining.
- A4ET8a8uTh0 6y ago
  It is an opinion. And it is interesting precisely, because it is not common and it forces you to reconcile your currently held beliefs and opinions with the authors. Frankly, I read much worse.
  - kortilla 6y ago
    It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion. That’s intellectually lazy.
    - SECProto 6y ago
      > It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion Hope you've never read the "opinions" section in a newspaper! Or the comments in the thread above mine. This one actually cites a lot more references/sources than a typical editorial. I specifically linked it as "here is Cory Doctorow's take on [the situation]". I don't endorse it wholely, but I found it very interesting. > That’s intellectually lazy. Doctorow's take is much, much, much less intellectually lazy on the causes behind Ant's IPO shutdown/Alibaba's antitrust fine/Jack Ma's withdrawal from most public facing activities than comments I was responding to (ie "[the CCP is being so capricious!]" <1> or "Look how small his offense was!" <2>) <1> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726 <2> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

hogFeast 6y ago

There are easier ways to say this: The issue was: there is no competition in Chinese banking because the state uses banks to hand out cheap loans/subsidise companies, part of this is paying depositors very low returns, Ant created competition by paying higher deposit rates, this led to a surge of money leaving Chinese banks, and the whole system would have toppled if this continued. On top of this, and something which I don't know is true but is something I have heard, Ant was taking money from depositors who are usually paid 100bps and paying them 700bps, and then they were lending that money back to banks at 700bps+ (one part of this story is, because of the point in the previous paragraph, that Chinese financial markets are largely bank-led...so if you run a money market fund, you can start out buying bonds but once you are $200bn then you have to lend to banks...it is hard to understand how Ant thought this could work). Either way, this wasn't a minor infraction. If this continued, either Ant or the Chinese banking system would have gone down. A substantial number of corporates would have gone too (China's debt levels are sky-high). The construction of the Ant MMF fund basically challenged the foundations of China's financial markets...that isn't a minor infraction.

baybal2 6y ago

That's some next level loonie conspiracy theory. Who is that Cory Doctorov?