China plans to break up Ant's Alipay and force creation of separate loans app(reuters.com)
reuters.com
China plans to break up Ant's Alipay and force creation of separate loans app
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/china-break-up-ants-alipay-force-creation-separate-loans-app-ft-2021-09-12/
68 comments
Financial Times piece: https://www.ft.com/content/01b7c7ca-71ad-4baa-bddf-a4d5e65c5... | https://archive.fo/t90No
With a majority state-owned joint venture
Honestly - why should rando companies skim off the top of the entire country's economy? I'm surprised more countries aren't just nationalizing things that are a drain.
Why is something like PayPal not nationalized? Debit cards? The list goes on.
Why is something like PayPal not nationalized? Debit cards? The list goes on.
I agree that companies shouldn't be allowed to monopolize and rent seek, but I'm not sure nationalization is the answer. It isn't done because of the same reasons communism fails. Innovation halts, corruption creeps in, and it becomes bloated and worse for the end user than when it started.
People always say this but it's simply not true. My local water authority has been operating for decades and I've never heard a single person complain. Ditto for the municipal gas company. I can't say the same for the local electric company (owned by Exelon) or the local cable company (Comcast) or the local garbage collection service (owned by WM).
If anyone is guilty of "bloat" that harms the end user it seems to me it's the private companies.
If anyone is guilty of "bloat" that harms the end user it seems to me it's the private companies.
> People always say this but it's simply not true.
There are also cases where it does not go well, e.g. flint. Those companies you list suck because they have monopolies which I think is a separate issue. Also, a local municipal organization has a ton less bureaucracy, there is not much incentive for corruption, and the result of corruption won't tank the economy. A national bank would be a whole different ball game. If a guy gives his friend's company free water, so what. if a guy who works at a national bank gives his friend's shitty company a sweetheart loan that he knows they won't be able to pay back, that will have a lot more dire consequences if repeated over and over.
There are also cases where it does not go well, e.g. flint. Those companies you list suck because they have monopolies which I think is a separate issue. Also, a local municipal organization has a ton less bureaucracy, there is not much incentive for corruption, and the result of corruption won't tank the economy. A national bank would be a whole different ball game. If a guy gives his friend's company free water, so what. if a guy who works at a national bank gives his friend's shitty company a sweetheart loan that he knows they won't be able to pay back, that will have a lot more dire consequences if repeated over and over.
ccp is known for a lot of things, effective managment is not one of these
Capitalism and free enterprise succeed due to competition. Your local electric company and the local cable company probably are state sanctioned monopolies.
> Why is something like PayPal not nationalized? Debit cards? The list goes on.
This is a good way to not get future PayPals or debit cards. The fact that even Beijing isn't taking that path should show how extreme it is.
This is a good way to not get future PayPals or debit cards. The fact that even Beijing isn't taking that path should show how extreme it is.
What is a "future PayPal or debit card"?
Are you trying to say that publicly-funded research cannot lead to any technological advancement?
Are you trying to say that publicly-funded research cannot lead to any technological advancement?
Publicly-funded (basic) research doesn’t result in innovative, competitive and successful businesses forming to serve various needs.
In other words, society needs more than just basic research and bureaucratic administration of basic government services.
In other words, society needs more than just basic research and bureaucratic administration of basic government services.
The goal here wouldn't be to form a successful business, but to serve needs directly. Creative, innovative people will continue to create and innovate as long as they are employed specifically to those ends.
[deleted]
There are probably business journals that put this better, but the issue may not be that these creative people will vanish if we directed them to serve a need. Rather, the issue may involve willingness to take risks to try crazy new ideas because the potential reward is great. Ownership in the results may be much more powerful than a static unchanging government salary. I'm not sure how this may translate to an organization level, but suspect similar dynamics at play, along with a good amount of competition to move things along (edit: that is, when there are multiple private entities vs a single state entity doing the directing).
I don't really see how an engineer at Blue Origin is more willing to take risks or has more ownership in the results than say an engineer at NASA JPL. If anything the engineer at NASA has more ownership since their work is in the public interest, rather than making some billionaire marginally richer.
> I don't really see how an engineer at Blue Origin is more willing to take risks or has more ownership in the results than say an engineer at NASA JPL
An engineer at SpaceX or Blue Origin is incentivized differently from one at JPL. SpaceX isn't designing rovers for a Titan mission or exploring novel theoretical propulsion systems. And NASA wasn't able to turn its decades of work on propulsive landing into a competitor to the Space Shuttle, Atlas or the SLS.
Note, too, that engineers at NASA are at the whim of Congress. I know several whose life work was cut in a budget negotiation thousands of miles away. I know several more who left aerospace for better pay in other industries.
An engineer at SpaceX or Blue Origin is incentivized differently from one at JPL. SpaceX isn't designing rovers for a Titan mission or exploring novel theoretical propulsion systems. And NASA wasn't able to turn its decades of work on propulsive landing into a competitor to the Space Shuttle, Atlas or the SLS.
Note, too, that engineers at NASA are at the whim of Congress. I know several whose life work was cut in a budget negotiation thousands of miles away. I know several more who left aerospace for better pay in other industries.
>Note, too, that engineers at NASA are at the whim of Congress. I know several whose life work was cut in a budget negotiation thousands of miles away. I know several more who left aerospace for better pay in other industries.
Fair point, it does require the state to be willing to sufficiently and consistently invest in the effort for it to succeed.
Fair point, it does require the state to be willing to sufficiently and consistently invest in the effort for it to succeed.
Really depends how you look at it, but there is at very least disagreement who really has been taking the actual big innovation risks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Entrepreneurial_State
That is not to say that then companies don't need to form around it, but not as black and white.
That is not to say that then companies don't need to form around it, but not as black and white.
The Japanese managed to grow their economy quickly because they did window guidance. People will complain about central planning yet there are countless of examples of governments that "macromanaged" their economy into success.
IIRC EU has tried for decades to facilitate launching a competitive international card system as alternative to US-run Visa & Mastercard, but failed. It definitely can lead to technological advancement, however, it often can not build an organization that's competitive enough that people would actually choose use it unless forced or motivated by subsidies.
Profit-driven enterprises automatically fail when the product is not desired by the market, or the firm is not operating sufficiently efficiently. Ideas are abundant and worthless - how would publicly funded research even figure out which idea is worth implementing into a running business? So many business ventures fail. Even a decade into Uber there is still great debate into whether or not it is viable. How would publicly funded research make an Uber?
How so? Can you elaborate?
The people who create those organizations do so with an expectation that they will earn a lot of money in the (not at all certain) case if they succeed and continue to own them until they sell their ownership to whomever they want at a time and a price they feel is right. It's not just a thing they would like to have, that expectation is the only reason for trying to launch such a company.
If there is a credible threat of nationalization (e.g. the government has nationalized similar organizations lately or even asserted that they are considering such things), then people who have the will, skill and capital to start financial services will rather do that elsewhere, where they have larger chances of a positive outcome for them. Safe and predictable legal environment - an expectation that your business won't be taken away from you - is a strong influence on the amount of investment and entrepreneurship a country gets; and more investment and entrepreneurship generally does result in more wealth for all of society even accounting for the share of the created wealth that's taken by the owners/investors.
If there is a credible threat of nationalization (e.g. the government has nationalized similar organizations lately or even asserted that they are considering such things), then people who have the will, skill and capital to start financial services will rather do that elsewhere, where they have larger chances of a positive outcome for them. Safe and predictable legal environment - an expectation that your business won't be taken away from you - is a strong influence on the amount of investment and entrepreneurship a country gets; and more investment and entrepreneurship generally does result in more wealth for all of society even accounting for the share of the created wealth that's taken by the owners/investors.
You haven't really spelled out the issue, though. From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money?
If the business being nationalized is one that is a drain on the economy in some sense, then why wouldn't it be good for the country to nationalize it? I say "nationalize" broadly here, not necessarily in the way China implemented things. It could even be the creation quasi-public organization like Amtrak.
Obviously the key here is not to be as heavy-handed as China and to not nationalize everything, lest we be a communist state. However there are definitely things, like banks, that should have a public competitor.
If the business being nationalized is one that is a drain on the economy in some sense, then why wouldn't it be good for the country to nationalize it? I say "nationalize" broadly here, not necessarily in the way China implemented things. It could even be the creation quasi-public organization like Amtrak.
Obviously the key here is not to be as heavy-handed as China and to not nationalize everything, lest we be a communist state. However there are definitely things, like banks, that should have a public competitor.
> From your comment it sounds like nationalizing something is bad because the entrepreneurs won't make money?
Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.
Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.
I’m not following. My original comment called for the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy.
This implies said companies have already “won,” and that they’ve made (a lot of) money.
Your comment would make more sense if I was calling for the transitioning to communism.
Uber, for example wouldn’t be nationalized because its product type hasn’t become so pervasive that a majority of Americans use it. Debit cards and their ilk have.
This implies said companies have already “won,” and that they’ve made (a lot of) money.
Your comment would make more sense if I was calling for the transitioning to communism.
Uber, for example wouldn’t be nationalized because its product type hasn’t become so pervasive that a majority of Americans use it. Debit cards and their ilk have.
I believe a lot of times in the US, those companies become public utilities [0], which are publicly owned through stock (or privately owned)[1] but are highly regulated by the government and also I think exempt from laws prohibiting monopolies[2]. I'm not sure what's the process of a company going from a regular public company to a public utility though.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility [1]: https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_utility [1]: https://marketrealist.com/p/are-utility-companies-public-or-... [2]: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/public_utility
> the nationalization of things that drain the entire economy.
Not sure how you would draw this line.
Do we nationalize the apple/google app stores because they are taking 30% cuts? Or Visa/Mastercard/Stripe because they take a cut on every transaction?
Not sure how you would draw this line.
Do we nationalize the apple/google app stores because they are taking 30% cuts? Or Visa/Mastercard/Stripe because they take a cut on every transaction?
> Nationalizing something is bad because the next entrepreneurs in that field know they won't make money, so they won't build.
There is noting implicit that means they don't make money. The process of nationalization doesn't have to result in 0 compensation, it could be run like any other buyout. That being said being government run has its own issues.
There is noting implicit that means they don't make money. The process of nationalization doesn't have to result in 0 compensation, it could be run like any other buyout. That being said being government run has its own issues.
The "buyout" is for the companies that were nationalised. But the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government.
> the next entrepreneurs in the field have to compete with the government.
So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid of public fire departments, police, schools, and roads?
So your real problem is that the government offers a service? So we should get rid of public fire departments, police, schools, and roads?
Strange that you would twist my words that way. I don't advocate for getting rid of services that the government provides, nor do I have a problem with them offering a service in general.
I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation.
Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
I do think that if you take an existing market with competition, and you nationalise one or more actors in that market, competition becomes very difficult for any remaining private actors in that market or any future entrants. The reason is pretty simple: the rule-setting body is now playing the game against you. The end result of this is that new actors are less likely to enter the market at all, which limits innovation.
Because of this (and because of the historical record of failure almost every time this kind of thing is tried) the decision to nationalise should be taken very carefully. You list several things such as fire departments and roads which are arguably best provided by the government, but I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
> I don't think it's obvious that retail financial services should be added to that list.
Neither do I especially, I was only questioning your reasoning for opposing it.
Neither do I especially, I was only questioning your reasoning for opposing it.
If you're an entrepreneur why would you attempt anything in any industry likely to be nationalised?
Why wouldn’t you? Nationalization does not imply profit is impossible.
Not to mention the purpose of the government is to serve its citizens, not just entrepreneurs.
Not to mention the purpose of the government is to serve its citizens, not just entrepreneurs.
Probably because raising money would be harder, would investors or venture firms weigh projects in industries likely to be nationalised lower? Probably.
Any industry likely to be nationalised would have an overall depressive effect on the number of risks taken on new products and services in that industry.
Any industry likely to be nationalised would have an overall depressive effect on the number of risks taken on new products and services in that industry.
Yes, which is why I mentioned in my original comment that only services that are a “drain on the economy” should be nationalized.
This assumes the ambitious are driven purely by explosive profit potential. Counterexamples are abound.
>then people who have the will, skill and capital to start financial services will rather do that elsewhere, where they have larger chances of a positive outcome for them.
Dan Wong, one the more competent China tech watchers surveying local entrepreneurs on current crackdown: "They would love to have the problems of Jack Ma" because it means they've made it really big.
China isn't a dinky market, the incentives are massive, founders will settle being 100s millionaires instead of billionaires if that's the size that keeps regulator scrutiny at bay. Also the fact that PRC is willing to break incumbents via regulatory crack down is creating opportunities not seen in markets effectively captured by huge players.
> rather do that elsewhere
Instead of "elsewhere", it's really about "do something else". PRC doesn't consider draining the best and brightest into a massive service blackhole like adtech or fintech worthwhile. It's crushing incentivization structure of soft tech to make hard tech more appealing. Beijing wants semiconductors and turbojets that can eventually be exported world wide, not a more profitable ANT pyramid scheme that will likely be a drain on domestic market.
Dan Wong, one the more competent China tech watchers surveying local entrepreneurs on current crackdown: "They would love to have the problems of Jack Ma" because it means they've made it really big.
China isn't a dinky market, the incentives are massive, founders will settle being 100s millionaires instead of billionaires if that's the size that keeps regulator scrutiny at bay. Also the fact that PRC is willing to break incumbents via regulatory crack down is creating opportunities not seen in markets effectively captured by huge players.
> rather do that elsewhere
Instead of "elsewhere", it's really about "do something else". PRC doesn't consider draining the best and brightest into a massive service blackhole like adtech or fintech worthwhile. It's crushing incentivization structure of soft tech to make hard tech more appealing. Beijing wants semiconductors and turbojets that can eventually be exported world wide, not a more profitable ANT pyramid scheme that will likely be a drain on domestic market.
> The fact that even Beijing isn't taking that path should show how extreme it is.
I think they absolutely are taking that path with their recent push towards the eYuan. If they want to replace Alipay with their nationalized, centralized system, I imagine the steps would look roughly like:
1. Create eYuan (Done)
2. Disrupt other solutions (We are here)
3. Disallow other solutions
4. Done
I think they absolutely are taking that path with their recent push towards the eYuan. If they want to replace Alipay with their nationalized, centralized system, I imagine the steps would look roughly like:
1. Create eYuan (Done)
2. Disrupt other solutions (We are here)
3. Disallow other solutions
4. Done
I am honestly a bit shocked how many folks are aware of China's digital currency push and nationalizing big fintech, and still don't see this is the endgame. Monetary policy and control of economies are power, why would you cede that control to civilians?
Citizens tend to have more say over how their countries leaders, than how a CEO of a company they consume from is elected
> I'm surprised more countries aren't just nationalizing things that are a drain.
Ask India, Pakistan, and Banglades how the era of mass nationalisations went for them in the seventies.
It went nowhere. In each respective country, the two decades of economic progress since the independence was undone.
It's a very remarkable test case for how nationalisation worked in three drastically different economies: relatively free market Pakistan, a socialism-lite India, going more hardcore, and a post-war blank sheet economy of Bangladesh.
Ask India, Pakistan, and Banglades how the era of mass nationalisations went for them in the seventies.
It went nowhere. In each respective country, the two decades of economic progress since the independence was undone.
It's a very remarkable test case for how nationalisation worked in three drastically different economies: relatively free market Pakistan, a socialism-lite India, going more hardcore, and a post-war blank sheet economy of Bangladesh.
You heard it here first: We need to privatize roads, mail, DNS, TCP, etc. These shared systems are clearly hindering progress.
This is not what gp described. Why don’t you provide an example of nationalized industry performing well?
In Europe most passenger railway companies are nationalised (or at least heavily controlled by state owned entities), and rail transport in Europe is arguably much better than in the US.
...and definitely not say, higher population density and/or government policy.
Maybe if you don't include deserts and Alaska in the density calculations you would get comparable numbers.
- Why don't big american cities have trolleybus?
- Because density , imagine putting those buses in the desert, would be stupid
- But why not put the infrastracuture starting from high density areas ?
- You are making sense now, let me find other excuse ... it is because culture/freedom/short history/ the constitution , the yellow party
- I don't have time to logicaly analize all those excuses, next time maybe
- Why don't big american cities have trolleybus?
- Because density , imagine putting those buses in the desert, would be stupid
- But why not put the infrastracuture starting from high density areas ?
- You are making sense now, let me find other excuse ... it is because culture/freedom/short history/ the constitution , the yellow party
- I don't have time to logicaly analize all those excuses, next time maybe
ralway is a natural monopoly
I think you would agree that there aren't very many nationalized industries other than weapon systems research/development ("weapons" as in cruise missiles, fighter jets, air craft carriers, etc.) I think you would also agree that the on-paper-private companies that do this work are effectively nationalized would perform much worse if they were selling to citizens rather than nations.
As far as services (rather than industries), those that I mentioned are perfect examples of nationalized (or at least "shared" as opposed to owned by a single company) services that perform well: Highways, USPS, TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP. Though, I do admit that despite being built on publicly developed shared underlying technology, the actual deployment of DNS services or of devices that use TCP/IP or similar technologies is done by private companies.
This is also sort of adjacent to the debate of whether or not broadband access should be considered a utility and how utilities should be delivered.
As far as services (rather than industries), those that I mentioned are perfect examples of nationalized (or at least "shared" as opposed to owned by a single company) services that perform well: Highways, USPS, TCP/IP, DNS, SMTP. Though, I do admit that despite being built on publicly developed shared underlying technology, the actual deployment of DNS services or of devices that use TCP/IP or similar technologies is done by private companies.
This is also sort of adjacent to the debate of whether or not broadband access should be considered a utility and how utilities should be delivered.
1) monopolies (also gov.) need to be broken or collectivazed for obvious reasons.
2) The government cant play the enterpreneurship game, except extremely fringe cases,
2) The government cant play the enterpreneurship game, except extremely fringe cases,
Pakistan had 22 families --- my mom's school was ruined by nationalization but what alternatives did you have in mind for breaking their power?
Not breaking their power?
Take a look on the Riaz case, and his estate within a state.
Clearly, he violated almost every land ownership law possible. Fine him for that only, and fine him many billion, sure, but seizing BTK from him, and having Karachi govt nincompoops trying to run BTK... — painful to even imagine, and not helping the cause at all.
Take a look on the Riaz case, and his estate within a state.
Clearly, he violated almost every land ownership law possible. Fine him for that only, and fine him many billion, sure, but seizing BTK from him, and having Karachi govt nincompoops trying to run BTK... — painful to even imagine, and not helping the cause at all.
Every Chinese would extol their low broadband prices, like 100 RMB for 300 to 500 mbps, but what they didn't care is that the prices for businesses are startlingly high, so you have to pay to get blocky 1080p or even 720p online videos, the 300 to 500 mbps you got is merely a number when you aren't torrenting.
That's what nationalization looks like, beautiful from the outside, good luck inside of it.
Don't be too harsh to your local Chinese deliverymen, they make 1 RMB per package dreaming of buying those multimillion RMB a piece socialist condos.
That's what nationalization looks like, beautiful from the outside, good luck inside of it.
Don't be too harsh to your local Chinese deliverymen, they make 1 RMB per package dreaming of buying those multimillion RMB a piece socialist condos.
India has NPCI https://www.npci.org.in/who-we-are/about-us
>nationalizing things that are a drain
Oh don't worry about that, Chinese banks have been making risk-free money for decades, propped up its stratospheric property bubble and almost exclusively lend to SOEs (these SOEs then mark up it and re-lend or bulk-buy condo towers, shadowbanking at its finest) and avoid the private sector, probably no banks elsewhere are more of a leech than them.
SOEs themselves are ruthless leeches.
Oh don't worry about that, Chinese banks have been making risk-free money for decades, propped up its stratospheric property bubble and almost exclusively lend to SOEs (these SOEs then mark up it and re-lend or bulk-buy condo towers, shadowbanking at its finest) and avoid the private sector, probably no banks elsewhere are more of a leech than them.
SOEs themselves are ruthless leeches.
[deleted]
The US is working towards Instant Payment infra that will likely end up obviating the need for Paypal and debit cards, no nationalization required.
It's a tragedy instant payments haven't been a utility for this long.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/08/31/fednow-the-federa...
https://www.pymnts.com/news/faster-payments/2021/five-banks-...
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/u...
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/instan...
It's a tragedy instant payments haven't been a utility for this long.
https://corpgov.law.harvard.edu/2020/08/31/fednow-the-federa...
https://www.pymnts.com/news/faster-payments/2021/five-banks-...
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/blog/u...
https://www.frbservices.org/financial-services/fednow/instan...
Yeah, nationalize all the innovative companies and let the bureaucrats run them. You then end up with a system designed in the 1970s and rarely updated - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ACH_Network. In the US, it takes 4-10 days to send an ACH.
I am all for competition. But only till companies reach a certain size. It is ridiculous to let private companies like Mastercard and Visa collect a percentage of every single electronic transaction.
We have had a government-run payments network[1] in India for a long time that all banks hook into and it works very well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Payments_Corporation_...
We have had a government-run payments network[1] in India for a long time that all banks hook into and it works very well.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Payments_Corporation_...
Umm... ACH is apparently private, even if it took serious inspiration from initiatives used by federal government.
I think a better question is why, for all supposed innovation that is brought by private enterprise, the country with seemingly most privatised financial sector has some of the most backwards, arse-end-of-nowhere, the devil has said goodnight few stations before payments situation?
One hypothesis is that in such situation, the vendors are not interested in cooperation if they can operate nationwide, and instead try to get as much lock-in in spite of what's better for customer, and thus aren't interested in faster general payments system.
I mean, seriously, Poland despite all the crap we had to sort out in 1990s managed to build a faster and more reliable system by using file transfer (mostly by FTPS, but used to be X.25 and optionally floppies!), scheduled jobs (essentially cron) and these days basic PKI file signing.
It worked well enough that cheques were phased out by I think 2002 (as in "no, there are no cheques supported anywhere").
And the capability floor it set means that any private alternative has to figure something that adds value - for example, instant online settlement (ever paid for pizza by wire? I do, often), shortcode-plus-phone quick transfers (essentially a common enough variant of the previous that even works at POS).
I think a better question is why, for all supposed innovation that is brought by private enterprise, the country with seemingly most privatised financial sector has some of the most backwards, arse-end-of-nowhere, the devil has said goodnight few stations before payments situation?
One hypothesis is that in such situation, the vendors are not interested in cooperation if they can operate nationwide, and instead try to get as much lock-in in spite of what's better for customer, and thus aren't interested in faster general payments system.
I mean, seriously, Poland despite all the crap we had to sort out in 1990s managed to build a faster and more reliable system by using file transfer (mostly by FTPS, but used to be X.25 and optionally floppies!), scheduled jobs (essentially cron) and these days basic PKI file signing.
It worked well enough that cheques were phased out by I think 2002 (as in "no, there are no cheques supported anywhere").
And the capability floor it set means that any private alternative has to figure something that adds value - for example, instant online settlement (ever paid for pizza by wire? I do, often), shortcode-plus-phone quick transfers (essentially a common enough variant of the previous that even works at POS).
Nationalization is expensive and inefficient though.
With nationalization, PayPal won't even be created in the first place. Because why? The purpose of nationalized institutions is not chasing profits, and let me tell you, they hate changes unless they absolutely have to.
So for Alipay, even China is not going to nationalize it to the point that it becomes a state apparatus, the Chinese government would like to enforce control when they want to, and makes it obvious to Ant's factual owners.
With nationalization, PayPal won't even be created in the first place. Because why? The purpose of nationalized institutions is not chasing profits, and let me tell you, they hate changes unless they absolutely have to.
So for Alipay, even China is not going to nationalize it to the point that it becomes a state apparatus, the Chinese government would like to enforce control when they want to, and makes it obvious to Ant's factual owners.
Is this not just the continued dismantling of Jack Ma's Ant?
This company is completely doomed because the founder is basically treated as an enemy of the state.
"China plans to break up Ant" could have been a headline nearly every week/month since Jack Ma dropped out of the public sphere.
This company is completely doomed because the founder is basically treated as an enemy of the state.
"China plans to break up Ant" could have been a headline nearly every week/month since Jack Ma dropped out of the public sphere.
>"China plans to break up Ant" could have been a headline nearly every week/month since Jack Ma dropped out of the public sphere.
Has Ma reappeared yet to publicly thank the Chinese state for breaking up his company?
Has Ma reappeared yet to publicly thank the Chinese state for breaking up his company?