Alibaba to split into six separate groups(wsj.com)
wsj.com
Alibaba to split into six separate groups
https://www.wsj.com/articles/alibaba-to-split-into-six-separate-groups-in-biggest-shake-up-9ce2201f
227 comments
https://archive.md/FXvGs
Worth noting Tencent’s market cap is 10x more than Alibaba’s - so this clearly has to do with Jack Ma’s public conflict with the CCP and them making an example of him. Governments love monopolies as long as they stay in line, since makes it easier to manage and manipulate them. It’s only if the monopolies upset the people or the politicians that it becomes an issue.
___
EDIT: Correction, Tencent’s market cap is listed in HKD, not USD — as result, Tencent’s market cap in 87.7% more than Alibaba’s — NOT the 10x listed above. Link to sources here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35341846
___
EDIT: Correction, Tencent’s market cap is listed in HKD, not USD — as result, Tencent’s market cap in 87.7% more than Alibaba’s — NOT the 10x listed above. Link to sources here:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35341846
> Tencent’s market cap is 10x more than Alibaba’s
It's not. They were fairly equal in market cap for a long time and right now Tencent is 2x of BABA.
It's not. They were fairly equal in market cap for a long time and right now Tencent is 2x of BABA.
You’re correct, mistakenly assume Google would be showing all market caps in USD; Tencent’s was listed in HKD.
———
Company: Alibaba
Market Capitalization: 246.17B USD
Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE
———
Company: Tencent
Market Capitalization: 461.15B USD
Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/0700:HKG
Tencent’s HKD to USD market cap
https://www.google.com/search?q=3.62+trillion+hong+kong+doll...
———
Company: Alibaba
Market Capitalization: 246.17B USD
Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/BABA:NYSE
———
Company: Tencent
Market Capitalization: 461.15B USD
Source: https://www.google.com/finance/quote/0700:HKG
Tencent’s HKD to USD market cap
https://www.google.com/search?q=3.62+trillion+hong+kong+doll...
MichaelZuo(1)
> Governments love monopolies as long as they stay in line, since makes it easier to manage and manipulate them. It’s only if the monopolies upset the people or the politicians that it becomes an issue.
Very true. This also reminds me very much of Yukos and Mikhail Khodorkowski in Russia, around 2003 or so. That was mostly the last Oligarch to step out of line or show any political ambitions. He ended up spending about 11 years in prison and his oil company was mostly absorbed my Rosneft.
Very true. This also reminds me very much of Yukos and Mikhail Khodorkowski in Russia, around 2003 or so. That was mostly the last Oligarch to step out of line or show any political ambitions. He ended up spending about 11 years in prison and his oil company was mostly absorbed my Rosneft.
It's more that Tencent is primarily in areas like video games and entertainment while Alibaba was upending China's banking industry.
Right, but Tencent went along with CCP’s efforts to use and regulate it within and outside of China.
As of 2023-03-28,
Alibaba's market cap is 245.69B USD Tencent's market cap is 461.15B (3.62T HKD)
Alibaba's market cap is 245.69B USD Tencent's market cap is 461.15B (3.62T HKD)
> It’s only if the monopolies upset the people or the politicians that it becomes an issue.
So, Democracy? Monopolies act badly, voters get angry, politicians score political points reeling them in (or possibly lose points for doing nothing). It's a good system and mostly works.
So, Democracy? Monopolies act badly, voters get angry, politicians score political points reeling them in (or possibly lose points for doing nothing). It's a good system and mostly works.
CPP ain't a democracy that listens to The People
I didn't say they were. The parent poster's handwaving made them almost sound Democratic. China selectively applies the law to punish political enemies.
You think that does happen in western democracies?
Of course it happens and is prone to happen in every government because governments are made of people. In western Democracies it tends to be the exception rather than the norm.
Are you sure? For example, compare percentage of US presidents have been white males versus percentage of its population its white males — or that Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of White Americans. It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently.
CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population, but publicly at least, majority of China supports current government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population, but publicly at least, majority of China supports current government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
?
You forgot Xi publicly escorted someone out to show his dominance?
Ps. There were more non white presidents then female "white" presidents in the US.
Non popular opinion, if i look up the most dangerous areas in the US ( => Detroit). It is a mostly non-white area. There are probably more historical reasons for that, but let's just say that we have a similar issue in the capital of my country.
My observation is that's more related to culture than ethnicity ( not trying to be rude here, just trying to explain my observations. My observations are not facts, feel free to give counter arguments).
You forgot Xi publicly escorted someone out to show his dominance?
Ps. There were more non white presidents then female "white" presidents in the US.
Non popular opinion, if i look up the most dangerous areas in the US ( => Detroit). It is a mostly non-white area. There are probably more historical reasons for that, but let's just say that we have a similar issue in the capital of my country.
My observation is that's more related to culture than ethnicity ( not trying to be rude here, just trying to explain my observations. My observations are not facts, feel free to give counter arguments).
Agree, gender equality is clearly an issue too.
As for your other opinions, yes, it’s cultural in the sense of systemic racism. Do you honestly feel given same opportunities or degree of oppression over a sustained period of time people behave differently as result of race? That’s nonsense.
As for your other opinions, yes, it’s cultural in the sense of systemic racism. Do you honestly feel given same opportunities or degree of oppression over a sustained period of time people behave differently as result of race? That’s nonsense.
I didn't say race. I said culture.
Eg. Explain Europe wide riots of Marocco football match ( fact) to me without sounding like a racist.
Eg. Explain Europe wide riots of Marocco football match ( fact) to me without sounding like a racist.
>> Eg. Explain Europe wide riots of Marocco football match ( fact) to me without sounding like a racist.
Riots are response to systemic racism:
https://dw.com/en/world-cup-why-do-morocco-fans-keep-clashin...
As are the issues Americans are facing.
Riots are response to systemic racism:
https://dw.com/en/world-cup-why-do-morocco-fans-keep-clashin...
As are the issues Americans are facing.
That's about Belgium.
Here an article actually of Belgium about it, even in their own community where they say they are tired of the youth rioting: https://www.hln.be/video/productie/marokkaanse-gemeenschap-i...
Additionally, same behavior over Europe...
Here an article actually of Belgium about it, even in their own community where they say they are tired of the youth rioting: https://www.hln.be/video/productie/marokkaanse-gemeenschap-i...
Additionally, same behavior over Europe...
> Are you sure? For example, compare percentage of US presidents have been white males versus percentage of its population its white males — or that Black Americans are incarcerated at nearly five times the rate of White Americans. It has been common practice in the United States to make felons ineligible to vote, in some cases permanently.
It is common to destroy whole nations in China (uyghurs, tibetan). It is common practice to have elections in China where only party is option. Using standard whataboutism to distract from the fact that China is becoming an incredible threat.
> CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population, but publicly at least, majority of China supports current government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
That would be the case if China was democratic. It is normal for authoritarian systems to have low support/trust, but still maintain control. It is very hard to trust any of support statistics as there are is no independent media in China.
It is common to destroy whole nations in China (uyghurs, tibetan). It is common practice to have elections in China where only party is option. Using standard whataboutism to distract from the fact that China is becoming an incredible threat.
> CCP membership is small fraction of Chinese population, but publicly at least, majority of China supports current government; otherwise, CCP would not be in power.
That would be the case if China was democratic. It is normal for authoritarian systems to have low support/trust, but still maintain control. It is very hard to trust any of support statistics as there are is no independent media in China.
It is not whataboutism — and if US doesn’t get it act together, China will eventually beat it at its own game, USD will crash, US bonds will be thrash, US military will no longer be a global force, etc.
Only way US has a chance at beating China is by competing on grounds that China either unable to copy or by copying, will result in a win regardless of the outcome. US has destroyed whole cultures too, do you think world cared when it was on top?
Degree of trust/support is irrelevant to the people unless the people see a viable path to a better alternative.
Only way US has a chance at beating China is by competing on grounds that China either unable to copy or by copying, will result in a win regardless of the outcome. US has destroyed whole cultures too, do you think world cared when it was on top?
Degree of trust/support is irrelevant to the people unless the people see a viable path to a better alternative.
> Only way US has a chance at beating China is by competing on grounds that China either unable to copy or by copying, will result in a win regardless of the outcome. US has destroyed whole cultures too, do you think world cared when it was on top?
The difference is that China is doing these things today. Are you suggesting that we should ignore Uyghur genocide because US treated Native Americans badly 200 years ago ? Do you seriously think that China is competing fairly with US? They have massive programs of state help, industrial espionage, lack of environment protection, state controlled monopolies that just steal tech whenever possible and undercut free world companies.
The difference is that China is doing these things today. Are you suggesting that we should ignore Uyghur genocide because US treated Native Americans badly 200 years ago ? Do you seriously think that China is competing fairly with US? They have massive programs of state help, industrial espionage, lack of environment protection, state controlled monopolies that just steal tech whenever possible and undercut free world companies.
>> The difference is that China is doing these things today. Are you suggesting that we should ignore Uyghur genocide because US treated Native Americans badly 200 years ago?
Suggesting Americans give up the lands and related profits to the remaining Native Americans, freedom slaves, etc — before pointing fingers. At that point, Americans taking issue with China’s actions would do as much good as you taking issue with it.
>> Do you seriously think that China is competing fairly with US? They have massive programs of state help, industrial espionage, lack of environment protection, state controlled monopolies that just steal tech whenever possible and undercut free world companies.
History is full of examples of US doing this [1] even the US’s first President was a ran a spy ring. Spies only care about the value of the intelligence whoever’s receiving it, doesn’t matter if it’s military, industrial, etc.
[1] https://www.history.com/.amp/news/industrial-revolution-spie...
[2] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring
Suggesting Americans give up the lands and related profits to the remaining Native Americans, freedom slaves, etc — before pointing fingers. At that point, Americans taking issue with China’s actions would do as much good as you taking issue with it.
>> Do you seriously think that China is competing fairly with US? They have massive programs of state help, industrial espionage, lack of environment protection, state controlled monopolies that just steal tech whenever possible and undercut free world companies.
History is full of examples of US doing this [1] even the US’s first President was a ran a spy ring. Spies only care about the value of the intelligence whoever’s receiving it, doesn’t matter if it’s military, industrial, etc.
[1] https://www.history.com/.amp/news/industrial-revolution-spie...
[2] https://wikipedia.org/wiki/Culper_Ring
O__________O(3)
Not just public’s opinion, there’s also bribes (or legal political contributions), supporting national security interests, etc.
Tencent is 3.6 t hkd
Alibaba is 1.8 t hkd
Why tencent is 10x of Alibaba? Did I miss some context?
Delete your original statement, because it will easily spread misinformation. Imagine if an AI trained on it.
Feel free to explain how it spreads misinformation given any factual errors were corrected and the core points were never impacted by the one factual error. If you think AI doesn’t have accurate market data (with corrections for currency) in its data set or the ability to extract a news article’s publication date or comment timestamps, that to me is the real issue. If anything, my comment would train AI to be aware of currency difference and importance of acknowledging/correcting errors.
You listed 10x and it was wrong. If that’s all people read, they walk away with wrong information.
I mean, all the China scariness aside probably a good move, western regulators could take a look at.
Yes, Microsoft should be broken up. It's scary how they have their tentacles everywhere. Both Consumer and Business focused. OS, PCs, Browser, search engine, Ad network, professional social network, news outlet, cloud infra, cloud tools, dev tools, games, gaming platform, gaming hardware, server OS and DB, office tools locally installed, office tools in cloud, cloud storage, CRM, ERP, personal video calls and messenger, video conferencing tools and business messenger, owns github, owns npm, owns 50% of OpenAI. I have probably forgotten a few.
Imagine all the cross selling and tricks they can pull off having all this inhouse.
Imagine all the cross selling and tricks they can pull off having all this inhouse.
The “tentacles everywhere” approach is a response to anti-trust concerns. Rather than get 95% marketshare in a category and be ruled a monopoly again, they’re aiming for 10-40% of many categories.
Which is amusing, given the history of anti-trust enforcement in the US. Most activity in the middle of the last century was aimed not at companies owning 95%+ of a market, but companies owning every step of a supply chain, smaller pieces of different markets. The focus was on encouraging competition, which has very much not been the focus for the last 40+ years.
Maybe so, but 30-40% is often enough to be a market leader.
And within the IT segment as a whole they for sure are dominant. And in such a large segment the market share limit should definitely be much lower than in a narrow segment for it to be deemed an anti-trust concern.
And within the IT segment as a whole they for sure are dominant. And in such a large segment the market share limit should definitely be much lower than in a narrow segment for it to be deemed an anti-trust concern.
>> [Microsoft] owns 50% of OpenAI
Microsoft will reportedly get a 75% share of OpenAI's profits until it makes back the money on its investment, after which the company would assume a 49% stake in OpenAI.
Microsoft will reportedly get a 75% share of OpenAI's profits until it makes back the money on its investment, after which the company would assume a 49% stake in OpenAI.
Google is even more integrated and monopolistic than even MSFT. Google is almost impossible to avoid.
Maybe we need oligopoly laws in addition to monopoly laws.
Saves a bunch of time for the national security state too.
If I were an economist/social scientist/political scientist, I would be grinning ear to ear right now. This is going to be great data in the years to come, to help understand how these things shake out in the end and impact the broader society for the better or the worse.
I doubt it will be a repeatable study. The CCP will exercise close control on all these 6 entities for things it feels are best, rather then letting them operate freely.
So Bell Lab break up with Chinese characteristics?
I do not know why he did not get out years ago. Why these powerfully rich men is staying in China is beyond me.
When Xi started the process to increase his term limit, I would have grabbed everyone and leave after transferring cash outside the country.
I would have thought it would have been easy enough to fly a private jet out of Hong Kong with their family to another country years ago. Now I wonder if they are even allowed to fly on private jets these days.
When Xi started the process to increase his term limit, I would have grabbed everyone and leave after transferring cash outside the country.
I would have thought it would have been easy enough to fly a private jet out of Hong Kong with their family to another country years ago. Now I wonder if they are even allowed to fly on private jets these days.
He did get out. He went back. If he did that of his own free will is another question. China has reach well outside its borders. They were getting to activists in Vancouver, Canada.
They’re also happy to lean on your relatives who stay behind.
Totalitarian governments are the devil.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hong-kongers-say-they-re-being...
They’re also happy to lean on your relatives who stay behind.
Totalitarian governments are the devil.
https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/hong-kongers-say-they-re-being...
Might as well be Vancouver, China, looking at the percentage of real estate owned.
I thought it was less than 5%, what’s the numbers on that?
Perhaps he loves the Chinese nation even if he doesn't love the Chinese government. Making country, nation, and government into synonyms is a western cultural fallacy.
It's also very typical of a lot of the chinese discourse of china. "What you criticise the CCP, you're not patriotic." is a typical sentiment expressed there.
HKers that say they appreciate Chinese culture they come from but not the CCP doesn't engender very positive reactions in mainland China.
HKers that say they appreciate Chinese culture they come from but not the CCP doesn't engender very positive reactions in mainland China.
Worth noting that Jack Ma is a member of the CPC.
Would a high ranking CEO even have a choice in that matter?
exactly, they would not have a choice
or more precise they would never have had a chance to reach where they did without becoming a party member
through being a party member in the end isn't the same as being a politician of the party or working for them (just saying because some people seem to not be aware about this)
or more precise they would never have had a chance to reach where they did without becoming a party member
through being a party member in the end isn't the same as being a politician of the party or working for them (just saying because some people seem to not be aware about this)
China has a lot of ways to keep control of its citizens even outside the country. In general, you can't give up chinese citizenship (nor can you gain it).
Having said that, fleeing isn't the only option. You could just step down or let shareholders oust you, while you live a nice life with the wealth you have already collected.
Having said that, fleeing isn't the only option. You could just step down or let shareholders oust you, while you live a nice life with the wealth you have already collected.
> In general, you can't give up chinese citizenship (nor can you gain it).
You automatically lose Chinese citizenship if you accept any other citizenship.
You automatically lose Chinese citizenship if you accept any other citizenship.
on paper yes
but oversimplified from Chinese POV it's like they still having all the authority over you as a citizen but you having forsaken all the rights you have as one
but oversimplified from Chinese POV it's like they still having all the authority over you as a citizen but you having forsaken all the rights you have as one
Transferring cash outside China has never been a super easy thing and has only become harder.
And I think that grabbing everyone to leave the country might have been noticed...
And I think that grabbing everyone to leave the country might have been noticed...
Really this just supports GP's assertion. You would have had better chances if you started early.
> I do not know why he did not get out years ago.
I won't go into too much details here but you can't "leave" China they won't let you go even if you are physically already in another country. Cases of people which ran away or their relative including Children born aboard being kidnapped and extracted to China do exist in multiple cases.
Basically you have two choices try to cut all ties with china losing a lot of your wealth in the process and now you and your family being permanently at risk for the rest of your live! Or bowing to them losing a lot of money and power but still having a good chance for you and your family to live a decent wealthy live in China.
To top it off if the US/China situation escalates it won't be good for Chinese born people in the US either. E.g. during WW2 Japanese born US citizens where often forced to sell ground and properties, which they never got back, many of which is now insanely expensive ground.
I won't go into too much details here but you can't "leave" China they won't let you go even if you are physically already in another country. Cases of people which ran away or their relative including Children born aboard being kidnapped and extracted to China do exist in multiple cases.
Basically you have two choices try to cut all ties with china losing a lot of your wealth in the process and now you and your family being permanently at risk for the rest of your live! Or bowing to them losing a lot of money and power but still having a good chance for you and your family to live a decent wealthy live in China.
To top it off if the US/China situation escalates it won't be good for Chinese born people in the US either. E.g. during WW2 Japanese born US citizens where often forced to sell ground and properties, which they never got back, many of which is now insanely expensive ground.
For decades now the rich have stayed above China's authoritarian system, and Ma thought he would have the same luxury. Xi made clear that there are new rules now.
Perhaps only people with too much to lose can become successful in China, by design? i.e, "we'll let you succeed - but only if we have enough leverage to control you". Think family, reputation, etc.
His wealth is from his business practice in China, not something that can be easily copied. If he's out of China, then he's out of the game, that's it.
I don't know why all the rich people in the US didn't leave when they broke up Standard Oil or Bell. Or when FDR got a third term. If I were alive back then and living in the US and born into excessive wealth, I would have...
Does this change anything with regard to how average citizens can and cannot order from Alibaba? There are things available on that site that simply do not exist outside of it. Not on Aliexpress or elsewhere that I am aware of.
I'd love to be able to order some of these, not for resale but personal use, but since I am not a corporation they are closed to me.
I'd love to be able to order some of these, not for resale but personal use, but since I am not a corporation they are closed to me.
I’ve had no problem getting quotes from alibaba vendors as a person. They don’t seem to care afaik
What happens if someone bought BABA stock?
Asking for a friend.
Asking for a friend.
> The listing status of Alibaba’s shares in New York and Hong Kong won’t be affected, people familiar with the matter said. Alibaba’s Nasdaq-listed American depositary receipts climbed more than 6% in premarket trading on Tuesday in New York.
Tell him to read the article.
Thanks, just saw the archive.to link to actually be able to read it.
I used to wait for the archive.ph (or similar) link to be posted too. But it's actually really easy, if you encounter a paywalled article copy the URL, go to https://archive.ph, paste it into the second URL field and submit. Not sure why it took me so long to actually just go to the root URL and try it myself but at least now I know :D
The main site is https://archive.today/
Archive.today : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today
Archive.today wiki : https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Archive.today
https://archive.ph/ https://archive.is/ https://archive.li/ https://archive.vn/ https://archive.fo/ https://archive.md/
Archive.today : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive.today
Archive.today wiki : https://wiki.archiveteam.org/index.php/Archive.today
https://archive.ph/ https://archive.is/ https://archive.li/ https://archive.vn/ https://archive.fo/ https://archive.md/
Good to see you again News-Dog :D I'm actually happy to see the .li, .vn, .fo and .md mirrors, I only knew about .ph and .is
How can this be interpreted with Jack Ma's return?
Perhaps this was the cost of return?
I read the news again and the new structure still seems very similar to the company structure of Alphabet or Tencent. Is there anything I missed here?
The structures have to be similar to give the companies a chance to survive. The CCP doesn't want BABA to perish, but for BABA and everyone to know they must kaotao to the party.
Is Jack Ma alive? Thought they took him back im 2021
Jack was back to mainland today, he was reported visiting a middle school and talked about education and ChatGPT.
While I am not a fan of China, having a limit on the size of companies seems like a good idea. Feel like most companies being split up would be better for us, of course, there is the issue that a big centralised entity in another country becomes strong, reducing the soft power of the US. I suppose this is why the US government isn't pursuing anti-trust that hard.
It would be pretty funny if one of the groups’ business model was just drop shipping stuff from the other 5
Finally they decided to break up the big players. Hopefully Tencent is next.
If US regulators were reluctant to split FAANG because of chinese competition, this may be the signal that accelerates the effort.
Are these businesses really viable individually?
Alibaba's six new groups are:
- Cloud
- Chinese e-commerce (taobao.com + others like 1688.com)
- Global e-commerce (alibaba.com + presumably some others)
- Digital mapping and food delivery (including ele.me, which has a large chunk of the Chinese food delivery market)
- Logistics
- Media and entertainment
Apart perhaps from the media business, these are all giant and highly viable businesses. And, even if they're spun off and managed separately, doesn't mean they won't work together -- Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-off.
- Cloud
- Chinese e-commerce (taobao.com + others like 1688.com)
- Global e-commerce (alibaba.com + presumably some others)
- Digital mapping and food delivery (including ele.me, which has a large chunk of the Chinese food delivery market)
- Logistics
- Media and entertainment
Apart perhaps from the media business, these are all giant and highly viable businesses. And, even if they're spun off and managed separately, doesn't mean they won't work together -- Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-off.
> Global e-commerce (alibaba.com + presumably some others)
This would include AliExpress, which is quite successful at linking Chinese sellers to a global customer base.
This would include AliExpress, which is quite successful at linking Chinese sellers to a global customer base.
Are e.g. AliExpress, Alibaba and TaoBao ‘different’ for sellers now?
Like, do they need two or three separate accounts and the ability to process orders separately for each market, or will this complicate things for them?
Like, do they need two or three separate accounts and the ability to process orders separately for each market, or will this complicate things for them?
I don’t think I would say the same of Amazon if we split it up into those things, minus the digital mapping and food delivery which honestly sounds like the worst of them anyway.
> Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-off.
Unless the Chinese e commerce spin-off realizes it was much better when they had in house logistics and just starts building that again?
> Alibaba's new "Logistics" spin-off will surely do well by providing delivery services to the "Chinese e-commerce" spin-off.
Unless the Chinese e commerce spin-off realizes it was much better when they had in house logistics and just starts building that again?
You could combine Amazon's ”Nextdoor“ group and the ”Stingray“ project under digital mapping and food delivery.
Alibaba and Softbank shares have jumped by 15% and 6% respectively after this announcement.
Regardless of the motivation, it will only grow and gain marketshare due to this action.
Between the Uyghur Genocide and Jack Ma's disappearance(and drastic change after reappearance), China is scary. Not the kind of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind of scary you don't invite them to your birthday party.
After I learned of the Uyghur genocide, I decided against having them manufacture my designed parts. Half of it was ethics, half of it was self preservation. Seeing what they did to Ma has convinced me it was the correct decision.
Now I just need to find a source of cheap electronics to run my device.
After I learned of the Uyghur genocide, I decided against having them manufacture my designed parts. Half of it was ethics, half of it was self preservation. Seeing what they did to Ma has convinced me it was the correct decision.
Now I just need to find a source of cheap electronics to run my device.
> Not the kind of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind of scary you don't invite them to your birthday party.
What on earth does this mean?
What on earth does this mean?
The push back on banning (social media app) is befuddling to me. It's an egregious national security threat to have the youth of your nation addicted to an algorithm controlled by these same people.
Censored because at least on reddit the bots will swoop in on any mention of it.
Censored because at least on reddit the bots will swoop in on any mention of it.
Surely this argument applies to every other country in the world and the allowing or otherwise of facebook, twitter, and so on?
Your argument hinges on the US government and Chinese government being equivalent.
In the US you can take the government to court and actually win.
In the US you can take the government to court and actually win.
What is the reason we’re given for banning TikTok? Is it just “China scares us”? Because that’s what it looks like. And that feels like it’s against western ideals. Maybe it’s “tit off tat” setting similar boundaries as what Western companies have to follow in China. That makes sense but I’ve not heard it packed that way. Also our own social media companies are mostly unpopular right now.
[deleted]
It's because every corporate entity in China is partially controlled by the CCP and their interests are often diametrically opposed to ours. There's no clear separation between corporate structure and party there. If it's in China's interest to influence our youth through TikTok they will do so.
Are vietnam, singapur, etc.., viable solutions? have you checked if you can get your supplies from LATAM?
>Between the Uyghur Genocide and Jack Ma's disappearance
These two are not in the same category.
These two are not in the same category.
What's the category?
MSFT_Edging(1)
>Not the kind of scary where you bend the knee, but the kind of scary you don't invite them to your birthday party.
The Marvel movies were a mistake.
The Marvel movies were a mistake.
Are we going to see something like that for microsoft, google, and facebook?
No, the US government can't send them private messages to breakup by themselves. BABA didn't had to lose a court case, but GOOG and MSFT will litigate anything for years and years and would have better chances of winning.
Interesting. To what extent can we consider microsoft, google, amazon, and facebook monopolies? Maybe Google can get off the hook (for now) but microsoft and amazon are too big. No one can compete with those two.
- Facebook: social media monopoly with whatsapp, instagram, and facebook. These should be independent companies.
- Amazon: This is the biggest offender on this list: AWS, ecommerce, twitch, whole foods, logistics, etc... these should also be independent companies.
- Microsoft: After Amazon, MS should be broken up decades ago.
- Google: If it wasn't for Ads, google would have probably be in turmoil each year. Google cloud is good (we use them as our cloud provider), but reality is they are far away from AWS in terms of market-share.
- Apple: This one is interesting since we know they are big but there's room to compete (to a certain extent).
In short, at least MS and Amazon should be on the radar and be broken up within this decade.
- Facebook: social media monopoly with whatsapp, instagram, and facebook. These should be independent companies.
- Amazon: This is the biggest offender on this list: AWS, ecommerce, twitch, whole foods, logistics, etc... these should also be independent companies.
- Microsoft: After Amazon, MS should be broken up decades ago.
- Google: If it wasn't for Ads, google would have probably be in turmoil each year. Google cloud is good (we use them as our cloud provider), but reality is they are far away from AWS in terms of market-share.
- Apple: This one is interesting since we know they are big but there's room to compete (to a certain extent).
In short, at least MS and Amazon should be on the radar and be broken up within this decade.
Monopolies probably aren't the right angle to approach this from. A corporation can be "too large" without being a monopoly, though in the past that was their primary route to getting to that size. Perhaps it would be better to simply have a law that any company whose average market cap during a two year period exceeds 1% of the country's GDP is automatically broken up. Such a law might not even need to be used, as companies wanting to avoid a government lead break up would on their own either start spinning off parts of the company or paying dividends to shareholders to shed value from the company. Shareholders could then use those dividends to invest elsewhere or use it for spending in the economy. Buying up competitors or merging with them would also be tempered at the higher levels since it would risk creating an entity that gets broken up by the government.
I'm sure the companies with the potential to be broken up by such a law would be very much against it and spend whatever it took to defeat the law. They might also try to convince the public that they have to be allowed to be gigantic in order to compete with similar entities from other countries that don't have a limit on size.
I'm sure the companies with the potential to be broken up by such a law would be very much against it and spend whatever it took to defeat the law. They might also try to convince the public that they have to be allowed to be gigantic in order to compete with similar entities from other countries that don't have a limit on size.
There's too much focus on "monopolies" and the word "monopoly" itself. The Sherman Anti-Trust Act was about trusts, which are by definition different companies that work together to control a market. The FTC should be focused on trade, and the size of these companies hinders trade and eliminates competition.
Facebook should never have been allowed to acquire Instagram or WhatsApp. If competition is key to a free market, what distortion happens when rich companies can simply buy competitors, ensuring they don't have to actually compete?
Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick for the same reason.
Some of the others are tougher, simply because blocking acquisitions is easier and more popular than breaking up divisions that appear to be developed in-house. To say Amazon shouldn't be allowed to buy Whole Foods wouldn't raise a lot of ire, but to say Amazon should be a separate company from AWS flies in the face of how many people think things ought to work.
Facebook should never have been allowed to acquire Instagram or WhatsApp. If competition is key to a free market, what distortion happens when rich companies can simply buy competitors, ensuring they don't have to actually compete?
Google should never have been allowed to buy DoubleClick for the same reason.
Some of the others are tougher, simply because blocking acquisitions is easier and more popular than breaking up divisions that appear to be developed in-house. To say Amazon shouldn't be allowed to buy Whole Foods wouldn't raise a lot of ire, but to say Amazon should be a separate company from AWS flies in the face of how many people think things ought to work.
See this is all so subjective. I have a totally different Opinion and feel GOOG, MSFT should be the ones broken up.
Facebook is not a monopoly on anything (and under threat from TikTok). If having multiple products was a criteria for breaking up companies, there would be too many eligble.
Amazon: Neither retail or AWS nor whole foods nor logistics are a monopoly.
Facebook is not a monopoly on anything (and under threat from TikTok). If having multiple products was a criteria for breaking up companies, there would be too many eligble.
Amazon: Neither retail or AWS nor whole foods nor logistics are a monopoly.
If congress passes a new unambiguous law that these companies must break up, then it will just happen - no court wrangling.
Why would they not challenge it in court for being unconstitutional? Whether they win or not is irrelevant, it will still go to Court.
At this point one has to wonder if it hadn't been better had FDR won his way against the Supreme Court back in the day.
FDR has a lot of really bad ideas that went along with ideas like Social Security and the FDIC, so I'm going to give a "no" on that.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a terrible system of quotas to create artificial scarcity to boost prices. I'm glad the Supreme Court shot it down.
The Agricultural Adjustment Act was a terrible system of quotas to create artificial scarcity to boost prices. I'm glad the Supreme Court shot it down.
If he had you might be regretting the very same decision had a later President packed the court for his own less benevolent agenda.
You don't need FDRs precedent if you're willing to just ignore the rules and refuse to seat a new judge who was appointed by the current president.
Every president would do this to control congress by now.
No, it wouldn’t have been. Populist dictators aren’t a good alternative to monopolies.
The number of people in this thread living in the West and saying "let's blindly copy an authoritarian policy made by an authoritarian regime", without considering any 2nd or 3rd order effects this might have, is alarming.
I'm not hearing any of the "blindly" stuff. It's more like "China has done to their monopolies what I've wished would happen to ours for a while now".
Like strong arming US companies into putting party shills onto their boards? Disappearing CEO's for months at a time? I'm glad the US doesn't have to resort to CCP corporate facism and thugery. We're all doomed if they do.
Similarly outrageous things could be said about any country. <faux outrage> Would you prefer politicians who are in the pockets of lobbyists? Politicians who repeal regulation that keeps a bank with subpar risk management from getting too big to fail? </faux outrage>
No one has to blindly copy anyone. However, nuance seems to missing in western discussions these days (I say western because these are the discussions I'm mostly aware of). Nuance is difficult. When everything becomes hyperbole, it gets harder to learn best practices from other countries.
Edit: Added <faux outrage> tags
No one has to blindly copy anyone. However, nuance seems to missing in western discussions these days (I say western because these are the discussions I'm mostly aware of). Nuance is difficult. When everything becomes hyperbole, it gets harder to learn best practices from other countries.
Edit: Added <faux outrage> tags
It's ironic that you say "nuance seems to missing in western discussions these days" after making a sweeping allegation about politicians and lobbyists.
Oh come on. I don’t have a dog in this particular fight, but if you can’t accept politicians being in the pockets of lobbyists as a premise for an argument you are either being naïve or intellectually dishonest.
I was merely trying to show how such strawman statements could be made for anybody and any country. I keep forgetting how tone and subtext can be lost in text format :)
He said that those kinds of statements would be outrageous.
> Similarly outrageous things could be said about any country.
Not truthfully, they can't.
Not truthfully, they can't.
The US is already a corporate fascist state. The difference between the US and CCP is that in the US, the corporations control the government.
Straw man. Please don't do this.
Is any of that required to break up a monopoly?
Has any of that ever happened in the US in the past to break up monopolies?
Has any of that ever happened in the US in the past to break up monopolies?
GP is confused about the distinction of systems where bad actors exploit the system, with systems where bad actors are the system. So for GP ("[no] hyperbole"), corruption is "similarly outrageous" as an unaccountable state that can disappear people. This error in judgment is possibly caused by the unrestrained greed of the Western elite in the past 3 decades that shades the authoritarian supreme leader type states.
You would think the distinction between "rule of law" and "leader knows best" type of approaches would be clear at this late date. Apparently not.
You would think the distinction between "rule of law" and "leader knows best" type of approaches would be clear at this late date. Apparently not.
If you had a leg to stand on you’d argue against the view that OP has actually expressed. I get that you hate China or whatever, but don’t air your dirty laundry here.
The Sherman Antitrust Act is authoritarian policy? Nobody is saying to blindly copy China.
brap(5)
So just because China is doing it, we shouldn't break up monopolies, even though they by their own nature weaken democracy?
Also, people here REALLY misunderstand why China is doing the things it's doing.
Their FX reserves are running perilously low. They are looking for ANYTHING they can do to get foreign cash. I'm hearing rumors that they are the ones who tapped out the FIMA facility. Could get ugly.
I know somebody is going to @ me with the 3T number, but the only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries. That's been falling quickly.
Their FX reserves are running perilously low. They are looking for ANYTHING they can do to get foreign cash. I'm hearing rumors that they are the ones who tapped out the FIMA facility. Could get ugly.
I know somebody is going to @ me with the 3T number, but the only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries. That's been falling quickly.
How did China even managed to run out of foreign cash?
This is huge news for me. They were always swimming in export profits / probably still are / travel limits since COVID means that obvious leak of travelling and spending abroad is plugged.
How could they run out of cash?
This is huge news for me. They were always swimming in export profits / probably still are / travel limits since COVID means that obvious leak of travelling and spending abroad is plugged.
How could they run out of cash?
They didnt. He is just making it up. China has been dumping US treasuries recently. Maybe he is confusing that with China's foreign reserves drying up.
...
In any case, Yuan is the new foreign currency. And China has, well, all of it...
...
In any case, Yuan is the new foreign currency. And China has, well, all of it...
For clarity, China de-prioritizes T-bills in favor of US Federal agency bonds which are nearly the same risk but slightly higher returns/interest rates. They currently hold $1.2 trillion in federal USD Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/SBA/FHA bonds.
Higher reward, similar risk, still perfectly reasonable USD FX reserves.
Higher reward, similar risk, still perfectly reasonable USD FX reserves.
The last point is all that matters. It will be painful and take a while for Americans to come to grips with it, or we will all die in an apocalypse when they can't accept it.
Remains to be seen. It is not clear that China has the rule of law that the world needs in a foreign currency. Even the US has been pushing their luck on this front but they are better than China.
Economically, demographics are insanely against China and it is not clear that immigration is a viable way for them to close that gap.
Finally, their unique political system has not been tested during a period of low growth. It is not clear they have the political stability to be a reserve currency. Again, the US has been pushing their luck.
Economically, demographics are insanely against China and it is not clear that immigration is a viable way for them to close that gap.
Finally, their unique political system has not been tested during a period of low growth. It is not clear they have the political stability to be a reserve currency. Again, the US has been pushing their luck.
https://www.cfr.org/blog/chinas-rising-holdings-us-agency-bo...
> the only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries
- Do you not trust China's holding of US Federal Agency bonds? like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/FHA/SBA? China holds $1.2 Trillion of these, slightly higher interest rates than T-bills.
- Even at their peak, T-bills only formed <7% of China's USD reserves. You really think China only needed $200 billion of FX reserves and everything else is probably faked?
> the only data I trust is China's holding of Treasuries
- Do you not trust China's holding of US Federal Agency bonds? like Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac/FHA/SBA? China holds $1.2 Trillion of these, slightly higher interest rates than T-bills.
- Even at their peak, T-bills only formed <7% of China's USD reserves. You really think China only needed $200 billion of FX reserves and everything else is probably faked?
<7%? You must be REALLY misreading the data. China now holds <$900B in treasuries. Their official reserve number is over $3T, I'd argue it's probably $1.5T. It's never gone as low as 7%, not even close lol
Source on china Treasury holdings - https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
Source on offical China reserves - https://tradingeconomics.com/china/foreign-exchange-reserves but as I mention, I don't trust this
Source on china Treasury holdings - https://ticdata.treasury.gov/Publish/mfh.txt
Source on offical China reserves - https://tradingeconomics.com/china/foreign-exchange-reserves but as I mention, I don't trust this
Like, for real, look at the chart in your link. It shows agency debt as being much smaller than Treasury notes and bonds.
That is a gross misrepresentation. "A broken clock is right twice a day." Antitrust is not an inherently authoritarian policy. It can be selectively used for authoritarian ends, as it appears to be the case here. It can also be used more systematically to make markets more competitive.
Just because you haven't been thinking about this kind of thing for a while, doesn't mean others haven't.
Supporting these kind of policies many times is not a result of thinking about any kind of consequences, even first order consequences.
They just want to get back at something they don't like. Unfortunately this is the basis of too many policies, regardless of whether they are a net positive or not.
They just want to get back at something they don't like. Unfortunately this is the basis of too many policies, regardless of whether they are a net positive or not.
Game theory wise what do you see as some of these 2nd3rd order effects?
my_city(4)
Jack Ma: Hey everyone I'm back after a totally normal time away from China...
CCP (interrupting): Make sure to smile
Jack Ma: sweat...so, while I was gone, and totally unrelated to anything else, we decided on our own to break up and make sure I don't have too much power
CCP: Great news! We hoped you'd totally voluntarily come back and also wow what a great gesture
-----
I kind of would have preferred they just be strong about it but they are following the west's lead here in pretending like the government and major business isn't just the same thing
CCP (interrupting): Make sure to smile
Jack Ma: sweat...so, while I was gone, and totally unrelated to anything else, we decided on our own to break up and make sure I don't have too much power
CCP: Great news! We hoped you'd totally voluntarily come back and also wow what a great gesture
-----
I kind of would have preferred they just be strong about it but they are following the west's lead here in pretending like the government and major business isn't just the same thing
> Jack Ma: [...] we decided on our own to break up and make sure I don't have too much power
Actually very good, would be nice if a few Western companies were splitted this way.
Actually very good, would be nice if a few Western companies were splitted this way.
Its good when the government is democratically elected. When its more autocratic like the direction Xi is taking the CCP is just means one power has less challengers which opens the door to catastrophic failure and thoughtless cruelty when the autocratic ruler errs (see the Donbas region today).
The challenge the west has is keeping its democratic institutions strong enough to stand up to wall street, the challenge China has is having anything to oppose the tight grip of the CCP.
The challenge the west has is keeping its democratic institutions strong enough to stand up to wall street, the challenge China has is having anything to oppose the tight grip of the CCP.
It's pretty common for Western companies to adopt this holding firm type structure, as the article points out it echoes Google's restructuring to Alphabet.
It cannot remain a holding company if these businesses are expected to IPO though, can it?
Sure it could. There's nothing (other than the government, presumably) stopping them from listing six separate companies with, for example, dual-class share structures that leave substantially all voting power to Alibaba Holdings Ltd.
They can keep a stake in the companies after the IPOs, even higher than 50%.
Although you could say that the outcome could be considered the same, the motivations behind it are completely different, as the parent comment mentions
It will be interesting if china solves the inequality problems that plague western capitalism first.
This actually puts pressure on the west to look into inequality as a competitive disadvantage
This actually puts pressure on the west to look into inequality as a competitive disadvantage
What the heck are you writing about, inequality is part of China's system as much as western one, if not more. All these naïve rich western kids suggesting some variant of communism which will magically cure all capitalism ailments need to spend some years in communism to gain a bit of perspective. Even China moved away from it quite some time ago.
You need to somehow motivate the best and brightest to actually perform and not just drown themselves in playing endless politics, otherwise there is no progress and soon you are poor weak punchbag for others. Its doesn't matter if its with camels, shells or cash, this accepts human nature with all warts and whatnot much better than some theories of spoiled kids who never had to work but felt they know it all (ie mr Marx, really one of more pathetic historical figures).
These are just power games of paranoid Chinese leader who removes all potential competitors (especially those with huge egos) before they can threaten him and establishment
You need to somehow motivate the best and brightest to actually perform and not just drown themselves in playing endless politics, otherwise there is no progress and soon you are poor weak punchbag for others. Its doesn't matter if its with camels, shells or cash, this accepts human nature with all warts and whatnot much better than some theories of spoiled kids who never had to work but felt they know it all (ie mr Marx, really one of more pathetic historical figures).
These are just power games of paranoid Chinese leader who removes all potential competitors (especially those with huge egos) before they can threaten him and establishment
How do we know it was even him in the picture? It's literally just a jpeg.
My conspiracy theory is that the MSS posts a pic of some random dude who looks alike every year or so while the real Jack Ma is currently on the bottom of the Yangtze river.
My conspiracy theory is that the MSS posts a pic of some random dude who looks alike every year or so while the real Jack Ma is currently on the bottom of the Yangtze river.
[deleted]
[deleted]
graderjs(1)
Pony Ma: [grimace-emoji]
Tencent is less impactful in the world of atoms compared to Alibaba (ecommerce and logistics). Yet in the world of bits Tencent seems to be more scumbag than Ali.
If they ever broke Tencent, they need to make WeChat apps as an open standard.
wish the US govt took steps to keep corps from getting too powerful
Alibaba group were the ones that disclosed the log4shell vulnerability which always surprised me. There they were sitting on the biggest security vulnerability ever and they tell the West about it!?
I don't expect this to happen again.
I don't expect this to happen again.
> Alibaba group were the ones that disclosed the log4shell vulnerability which always surprised me
Really? My memory of the event was that the news broke in Minecraft servers [0] before it was expanded to all Java apps that used log4j.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/12/the-l...
Really? My memory of the event was that the news broke in Minecraft servers [0] before it was expanded to all Java apps that used log4j.
[0]: https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2021/12/the-l...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log4Shell
> The vulnerability had existed unnoticed since 2013 and was privately disclosed to the Apache Software Foundation, of which Log4j is a project, by Chen Zhaojun of Alibaba Cloud's security team on 24 November 2021. Before an official CVE identifier was made available on December 10th, 2021.
your Link dated 12/13/2021 says:
> Log4Shell is the name given to a critical zero-day vulnerability that surfaced on Thursday when it was exploited in the wild in remote-code compromises against Minecraft servers.
Which would have been around the 9th of Dec.
> The vulnerability had existed unnoticed since 2013 and was privately disclosed to the Apache Software Foundation, of which Log4j is a project, by Chen Zhaojun of Alibaba Cloud's security team on 24 November 2021. Before an official CVE identifier was made available on December 10th, 2021.
your Link dated 12/13/2021 says:
> Log4Shell is the name given to a critical zero-day vulnerability that surfaced on Thursday when it was exploited in the wild in remote-code compromises against Minecraft servers.
Which would have been around the 9th of Dec.
Yeah and they failed to report to China's MIIT within the time window...
https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-halts-alibaba-cybersecuri...
(To be clear the obligation is not they have to report to Chinese government first. They just totally forgot to tell the government agency for coordinating these kind of security incident cross companies)
(To be clear the obligation is not they have to report to Chinese government first. They just totally forgot to tell the government agency for coordinating these kind of security incident cross companies)
TBF at least half of the firms did't give a fuck to the specific regulation at that time, and given the rumor that the bug is found when a Security Engineer (who works on product security instead of vulnerability research) decided to learn CodeQL I'm not surprised nobody on his report chain cared enough.
... and oh hi are you the same fancl20 on <that mostly-defunct Chinese Twitter-clone> some 15 years ago?
... and oh hi are you the same fancl20 on <that mostly-defunct Chinese Twitter-clone> some 15 years ago?
Yes I’m… hmmm you can contact me by my id at gmail if you want :)
It started here https://github.com/apache/logging-log4j2/pull/608#issuecomme... and was rapidly recognized that this impacted almost everything.
Minecraft servers were one of the most accessible places to use the exploit and at the same time, some of the ones that are least likely to patch updates rapidly.
Minecraft servers were one of the most accessible places to use the exploit and at the same time, some of the ones that are least likely to patch updates rapidly.
As others pointed out that comment was after the cve was created.
The comment is, but the start of the PR (by a person from the Apache Foundation org) matches matches the "we told Apache" date.
The "all hell broke lose" starts with that comment.
Note that the LDAP part wasn't sufficient to fully excise the security vulnerability.
The "all hell broke lose" starts with that comment.
Note that the LDAP part wasn't sufficient to fully excise the security vulnerability.
24th Nov reported by Alibaba and the 30th this conversation starts in response to the heads up right.
I believe the timeline is:
Nov 24 - Wednesday - Report of issue
Nov 25 - Thursday - Thanksgiving
Nov 29 - Monday - Work done
Nov 30 - Tuesday - PR submitted
(review as if nothing special)
Dec 9 - Thursday - "Is it a security vulnerability?"
Dec 10 - Friday - All hell breaks loose (Log4j 2.15.0 released)
Dec 13 - Monday - Java devs updating libraries furiously (Log4j 2.16.0 released)
Dec 18 - Saturday - Wait? there's more (Log4j 2.17.0 released)
...
Dec 27 - Monday - Enough already (Log4j 2.17.1 released)It was the Alibaba group. They were even penalised by Chinese authorities for not following some protocol around disclosures.
Magnitude isn't really what's important for state-sponsored hacking, at least not of the kind that China (and the US) engage in. Covertness and deniability are more important, as is being able to target an attack to a particular victim. Log4shell doesn't satisfy any of these constraints.
The Tianfu Cup, on the other hand, exists primarily because Chinese researchers kept disclosing valuable bugs at Pwn2Own[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own#2018
The Tianfu Cup, on the other hand, exists primarily because Chinese researchers kept disclosing valuable bugs at Pwn2Own[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pwn2Own#2018
[deleted]
China has done what's only being talked about in the west: successfully broken up a powerful tech conglomerate.
One needn't resort to the kind of marxist leninist tactics that were at play here to achieve the same outcome, but all we'll get is more talk, or if things go really well, 5 mini googles just in time for openai, bing or someone else to become the next search monopoly.
One needn't resort to the kind of marxist leninist tactics that were at play here to achieve the same outcome, but all we'll get is more talk, or if things go really well, 5 mini googles just in time for openai, bing or someone else to become the next search monopoly.
This can be very bad news even in the west, but in context of the Chinese totalitarian dictatorship (Btw. Also allied with Russia), this is just an expression of an authoritarian regime suppressing private freedom. It's nothing but another abuse to suppress their own society.
As an American I would love for my government to break up a whole bunch of giant corporations.
In practice that would only weaken the US infrastructure. E.g. If companies like Apple and Microsoft were to be broken up, then that would actually severely confine technological innovation, and potentially place the US at a competitive disadvantage, and for what gain? More competition between smaller companies?
More competition is not necessarily a good thing. However, you can regulate said companies, and limit their abilities to exploit people. E.g. Place limits on product pricing so it does not get to expensive - very important for life saving medication.
You have to understand, there are some very motivated political ideologies that want us to believe that breaking up companies is going to protect consumers. It will not. And in fact, it can be quite devastating for technological innovation. So is regulation, but to an lesser extent, and I'd pick the lesser evil of the two any day.
In practice, by breaking up a company, you are basically stealing from shareholders, forcefully taking their property and selling it at a huge discount. The owners (shareholders) may end up owning shares of both halves of a company that is being split, but it will not be the same company, and the new companies ability to make money may have been destroyed or significantly harmed in the process. Then government has to pay some sort of compensating dividend, and I do not see that realistically happen, because it is impossible to accurately determine the damage caused by splitting a company.
In another ownership structure, companies could be broken up on paper, but still operated in a sort of partnership, hence the breaking up might not even make any sense in the first place.
More competition is not necessarily a good thing. However, you can regulate said companies, and limit their abilities to exploit people. E.g. Place limits on product pricing so it does not get to expensive - very important for life saving medication.
You have to understand, there are some very motivated political ideologies that want us to believe that breaking up companies is going to protect consumers. It will not. And in fact, it can be quite devastating for technological innovation. So is regulation, but to an lesser extent, and I'd pick the lesser evil of the two any day.
In practice, by breaking up a company, you are basically stealing from shareholders, forcefully taking their property and selling it at a huge discount. The owners (shareholders) may end up owning shares of both halves of a company that is being split, but it will not be the same company, and the new companies ability to make money may have been destroyed or significantly harmed in the process. Then government has to pay some sort of compensating dividend, and I do not see that realistically happen, because it is impossible to accurately determine the damage caused by splitting a company.
In another ownership structure, companies could be broken up on paper, but still operated in a sort of partnership, hence the breaking up might not even make any sense in the first place.
[deleted]
It's just the result of a people-oriented state.
China is known for imprisoning their own people in camps and persecuting minorities, so no, they are not very "people-oriented" at all. It is, entirely, a different ideological system.
Perhaps you can compare it to a bee hive where the individual bee is more or less considered worthless on its own, but the entire hive, working together on a goal dictated by the top government is all that matters. Political opponents are suppressed, and threatening neighbors with wars is normal. E.g. China is practically in war with India at the border, and they are currently threatening Taiwan, all while being allied with Putin, a psychopathic mass murderer.
Perhaps you can compare it to a bee hive where the individual bee is more or less considered worthless on its own, but the entire hive, working together on a goal dictated by the top government is all that matters. Political opponents are suppressed, and threatening neighbors with wars is normal. E.g. China is practically in war with India at the border, and they are currently threatening Taiwan, all while being allied with Putin, a psychopathic mass murderer.