Alibaba slapped with record $2.7B antitrust fine(zdnet.com)
zdnet.com
Alibaba slapped with record $2.7B antitrust fine
https://www.zdnet.com/article/alibaba-slapped-with-record-2-7b-antitrust-fine/
111 comments
Is it similarly forbidden in the US? i.e. Is it legal for Amazon to practice similarly?
Feels like a slap on the wrist in the grand scheme of things. I expect this to be a catalyst for Alibaba’s stock since the cloud of uncertainty over how severe the CCP punishment would be has now been lifted and that’s very much been weighing the stock down the past 5-6 months.
Someone makes this comment every time a fine happens. What number do you want? 10B? 100B? A trillion?
A fine based on the profitability of the crime weighted by the probability of getting caught. For example, if Alibaba profited 1 billion from this, and the probability of getting caught is 10%, then the compensatory damage would be 10 billion dollars, and the punitive damage would be 2-3x that amount (based on what the Supreme Court has ruled to be constitutional), for a total fine of 30-40 billion dollars. This would ensure no company even considers doing something like this while still keeping the law constitutional [1].
I understand that this fine is from the Chinese government against a Chinese company, so take my comment as what I consider to be a just fine for a U.S. company.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#United_States
I understand that this fine is from the Chinese government against a Chinese company, so take my comment as what I consider to be a just fine for a U.S. company.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punitive_damages#United_States
This is very accurate. I always describe fines as "bimodal" in how they're considered by companies
a) big enough that they could significantly damage a company's bottom line b) small enough that they are considered to be "the cost of doing business" and factored into the risk of a decision just like supply chain issues, SLA violations, or delivery date violations (e.g. having to pay when one doesn't deliver a product on time)
Only fines in category a) actually work. I really wish countries would issue more of these types of fines
a) big enough that they could significantly damage a company's bottom line b) small enough that they are considered to be "the cost of doing business" and factored into the risk of a decision just like supply chain issues, SLA violations, or delivery date violations (e.g. having to pay when one doesn't deliver a product on time)
Only fines in category a) actually work. I really wish countries would issue more of these types of fines
So interesting that people assume that companies will stay in punative enviroments. If there is a risk that a country is going to fine me 30b instead of 2b, I will just go to another country. Just like everyone does with taxes (Apple to Ireland, etc).
You could say, well, everyone should be issuing fines like this, but then all it takes is ONE country to NOT do this and they get all of the worlds corporate taxes.
Policy is not so simple. Just go through the downstream consequences of what you're saying.
You could say, well, everyone should be issuing fines like this, but then all it takes is ONE country to NOT do this and they get all of the worlds corporate taxes.
Policy is not so simple. Just go through the downstream consequences of what you're saying.
That's the entire point. If you're running a company and can't comply with U.S. laws, then you simply shouldn't operate in the U.S. and will need to find another country that allows you to engage in your business practice.
It's not important whether other countries issue fines. Other countries are free to implement laws that suit their population. What's important is that companies operating within a respective country obey the laws of that country.
It's not important whether other countries issue fines. Other countries are free to implement laws that suit their population. What's important is that companies operating within a respective country obey the laws of that country.
It's a relatively tiny fine compared to the upside of a monopolistic advantage for several years. People were speculating the ccp would lay down a 10bn+ fine. To give some perspective, alibaba did $80Bn in 2019 alone. We're talking about a monopolistic accusation since 2016. This is less than 1% of revenue earned from then to now.
anyone willing to put a static value on criminal activity misses the point.
the value of the fine should be greater than the payout for the activity. If it isn't the fine only represents a back-step in profits and doesn't really serve to drive away the activity in any meaningful way.
the value of the fine should be greater than the payout for the activity. If it isn't the fine only represents a back-step in profits and doesn't really serve to drive away the activity in any meaningful way.
Someone makes this comment every time someone makes a comment about the size of the fine. I don't think the parent comment cares. They're just pointing out the expected outcome.
Given the antitrust investigation was ongoing it was clear something would come out of it and a tiny fine is definitely far better than a ton of possible outcomes. I expect the shares to move up on the news but not too materially.
Unfortunately it still doesn’t clear up the Ant IPO issue.
Unfortunately it still doesn’t clear up the Ant IPO issue.
I suspect it will actually result in a big move up in the share price, just not explosively so.
The reasoning is basically this. Share price was $320 all time high preceding ANT IPO which ANT being valued approximately $300B.
ANT IPO cancellation dropped 10% off BABA market cap, followed by a further tumble on news Jack Ma appeared to be missing/lying low and culminating with a single day drop of 13% when the anti-trust probe was announced.
All in all we are talking about a drop of ~30%+ and 100B in market cap.
If we can assume that BABA no longer relies on Pick One of Two and it's elimination as a practice doesn't materially affect sales (this is consensus) then there is really only 2 major financial impacts associated with this remaining: The reduction in the value of ANT following restructuring and elimination of it's credit products and the fine itself.
The fine isn't material, it's less than 10% free cash flow/5% net cash on hand.
ANT IPO was revalued recently at about $200B, so it lost 33% of it's value.
BABA holds a stake of 30% in ANT so it's investment value went from $100B to $66B, material but not drastic.
So material damage is about ~$70B. However that shouldn't be deducted directly from market cap because the company isn't valued on it's net cash - that would be insane for a growth company. Instead it's generally valued using a method called Discounted Cash Flow. Effectively you estimate future cash flows and discount it by cost of cash.
If you reduce net cash by $70B and run the numbers conservatively it still shows that BABA should be valued at $300-400 if trading at similar multiple to it's peers that face similar regulatory pressure, potential credit tightness and US trade relationship issues.
The reasoning is basically this. Share price was $320 all time high preceding ANT IPO which ANT being valued approximately $300B.
ANT IPO cancellation dropped 10% off BABA market cap, followed by a further tumble on news Jack Ma appeared to be missing/lying low and culminating with a single day drop of 13% when the anti-trust probe was announced.
All in all we are talking about a drop of ~30%+ and 100B in market cap.
If we can assume that BABA no longer relies on Pick One of Two and it's elimination as a practice doesn't materially affect sales (this is consensus) then there is really only 2 major financial impacts associated with this remaining: The reduction in the value of ANT following restructuring and elimination of it's credit products and the fine itself.
The fine isn't material, it's less than 10% free cash flow/5% net cash on hand.
ANT IPO was revalued recently at about $200B, so it lost 33% of it's value.
BABA holds a stake of 30% in ANT so it's investment value went from $100B to $66B, material but not drastic.
So material damage is about ~$70B. However that shouldn't be deducted directly from market cap because the company isn't valued on it's net cash - that would be insane for a growth company. Instead it's generally valued using a method called Discounted Cash Flow. Effectively you estimate future cash flows and discount it by cost of cash.
If you reduce net cash by $70B and run the numbers conservatively it still shows that BABA should be valued at $300-400 if trading at similar multiple to it's peers that face similar regulatory pressure, potential credit tightness and US trade relationship issues.
There was a statement after Ant IPO incident that the government ask Ant to have 30% in reserve for all the loans it is making, basically the whole business model of Ant would change. I would think it will never be the same for Ant, the valuation has changed forever now. Ant marketed itself as a technology companies, this regulation however ask Ant to register as a financial company.
Actually no, this marks the beginning the decline of power for Alibaba and the rest of the Chinese megatech companies like tencent and baidu.
The chinese government goal for the next 5-10 years is stability, control and state companies, not innovation nor private sector growth. They fear the end of CCP. That's why the recently 5 year plan stresses stability, and doesn't set a growth goal
That's why they cracked down on Hong Kong and basically gave up a conduit of western capital/talents as well as letting Hong Kong citizen's wealth escape abroad.
That's why they are becoming alarmingly nationalistic and lashes out on US/EU politicians and encourages its citizens to boycott foreign brands like H&M.
That's why they are building artificial islands in the south asia sea despite Vietnam/Phillipine's angry protests, to shore up their maritime power.
The chinese government goal for the next 5-10 years is stability, control and state companies, not innovation nor private sector growth. They fear the end of CCP. That's why the recently 5 year plan stresses stability, and doesn't set a growth goal
That's why they cracked down on Hong Kong and basically gave up a conduit of western capital/talents as well as letting Hong Kong citizen's wealth escape abroad.
That's why they are becoming alarmingly nationalistic and lashes out on US/EU politicians and encourages its citizens to boycott foreign brands like H&M.
That's why they are building artificial islands in the south asia sea despite Vietnam/Phillipine's angry protests, to shore up their maritime power.
I think it’s more likely the companies will thrive, but that the CCP will keep them on a tight leash. Jack Ma will be marginalized and replaced with a CCP insider. The company will continue to be a monopoly with de facto support from the CCP. I think the only reason they’re even in the current predicament is that Ma publicly insulted other well-connected financial firms, and Xi started to believe that Ma was stepping out of line, and wanted to make an example of him. Alibaba itself is too important to China, but Ma is mostly expendable.
Just to expand on this a bit.
>Jack Ma will be marginalized and replaced with a CCP insider.
Jack Ma is an CCP insider. I think it would be better described as "trusted" CCP insider.
Alibaba ( And Tencent ) already has those CCP insider within the company. ANT less so before, but will now surely get it if that is not already the case.
>Jack Ma will be marginalized and replaced with a CCP insider.
Jack Ma is an CCP insider. I think it would be better described as "trusted" CCP insider.
Alibaba ( And Tencent ) already has those CCP insider within the company. ANT less so before, but will now surely get it if that is not already the case.
Jack Ma had already stepped away from Alibaba. Which is also why the crackdown isn't that harsh on Alibaba itself but is rather focused on ANT which Ma is much more actively involved with. Additionally ANT is the point of contention as the CCP finds anything that muddles with credit or deposits to drastically undermine the iron fist on monetary policy.
I agree in broad strokes that tech firms will thrive now. This fine shows both the intent and the level of severity of policy now which were both previously unknowns. Market hates unknowns and often very pessimistically prices in risk.
I agree in broad strokes that tech firms will thrive now. This fine shows both the intent and the level of severity of policy now which were both previously unknowns. Market hates unknowns and often very pessimistically prices in risk.
Jack Ma retired completely from Alibaba in 2018....
How can small corps survive when Alibaba and Tencent bullying people around?
Why stability is conflicting with innovation? Are you saying that somehow the innovation has to be destabilizing the society? That's never the case in the human history. Any innovation make human more united and more understand and easier get across each other.
Why stability is conflicting with innovation? Are you saying that somehow the innovation has to be destabilizing the society? That's never the case in the human history. Any innovation make human more united and more understand and easier get across each other.
It is always the case that any kind of change or growth is destabilizing. The most stable state is not to grow, after all.
Usually the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but there's no point pretending that there are never any individuals or groups who lose out as a result of an innovation.
Usually the benefits outweigh the disadvantages, but there's no point pretending that there are never any individuals or groups who lose out as a result of an innovation.
> The most stable state is not to grow, after all.
Well, the assumption has to be that there were no external impact to that system, which was never the case.
A strong stable and healthy mainstream, plus moderate amount of innovation seem the most stable, under normal circumstances, to me.
Well, the assumption has to be that there were no external impact to that system, which was never the case.
A strong stable and healthy mainstream, plus moderate amount of innovation seem the most stable, under normal circumstances, to me.
This is not true. Plenty of innovations have destabilized the world. Look at all of WW1’s weaponry. Look at Facebook allowing mass brainwashing to rip the United States apart.
But more to the point, even if it were true, the CCP isn’t interested in the stability of humanity. They’re interested in the stability of their own power.
But more to the point, even if it were true, the CCP isn’t interested in the stability of humanity. They’re interested in the stability of their own power.
Overall FB had helped the world move to more open and more understanding.
Citing weaponry is misleading, we are not talking about military here. Alibaba and Tencent do into stifle military innovation.
Citing weaponry is misleading, we are not talking about military here. Alibaba and Tencent do into stifle military innovation.
Whoa. You are from planet earth, right?
If you are a FB employee or shareholder you should probably disclose that if you're going to make such a comment
If you are a FB employee or shareholder you should probably disclose that if you're going to make such a comment
FB is only hated in US ( and in UK ). Especially in the Tech sector and media. Most part of planet earth actually enjoys Facebook. ( Despite all of its flaws )
It is a contrarian view, but an objective truth. Especially with Small Business. So Mark Zuckerberg do have a point with its ads, although I think he should have kept his mouth shut during that time when he is clearing in the wrong doing in tracking.
It is a contrarian view, but an objective truth. Especially with Small Business. So Mark Zuckerberg do have a point with its ads, although I think he should have kept his mouth shut during that time when he is clearing in the wrong doing in tracking.
Oddly enough, many people in Cambodia and Laos (Chinese next door neighbors) think the internet is synonymous with Facebook and YouTube.
Yes I should have given more context. In English speaking sphere you see attack on Facebook. While places in SEA and many parts of the world enjoy what it brings to them. And of course there are many using Facebook without complaining in "Western World".( Sorry for the lack of better Term, NZ and AUS aren't in the west and most EUR aren't really English Speaking but you get the idea )
So it is not all bad and all evil. While I agree with Facebook "deepens" the division between US or in general any politics, I dont believe it is the cause of division. I am still unsure what causes the divide in the first place.
So it is not all bad and all evil. While I agree with Facebook "deepens" the division between US or in general any politics, I dont believe it is the cause of division. I am still unsure what causes the divide in the first place.
Nope, we also hate FB over here in Germany.
I live in NZ, previously in Italy and Mexico. My comments weren't related to the US or UK
building artificial islands (creating conflict) and having a goal of stability (not conflict) are opposites. you are contradicting yourself
Actually it's not. For instance cleptocracy of Russia was ever trying to sell "stability" to the masses while creating conflicts in foreign policy. Apparently it's essier to sell this BS of being protectors of stability by creating image that world is full of enemies whose only goal is to destoy your homeland.
CCP regime is different, but I guess it's the same playbook. 1984 in action.
CCP regime is different, but I guess it's the same playbook. 1984 in action.
It's just pragmatic. They are a useful global competitor and economic tool, so it's important to keep them in line without necessarily damaging your own useful asset. A public dressing down and slap on the wrist to remind them of their station.
It is. Given the fact that the illegal practice has been going on for years, and the fine was only applied to 2019. But we have to consider the fact that companies have been behaving badly for years, and there was no enforcement from legal department. It will take a while for Chinese companies to adapt to it.
And this is what it looks like the the CCP needs to take down an overzealous businessman. It’s not a traditional make him disappear in the night. It’s a slow devolving of his assets via fines and state directives. It’s been interesting to watch the CCP dismantle what was it’s arguably biggest capitalist/communist success story. Sends a pretty dire message to anybody thinking they can grow bigger then the CCP.
"It’s not a traditional make him disappear in the night."
Well, they also do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao_Jianhua
Well, they also do that: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiao_Jianhua
It's pretty wild how small his offense was too. Very subtle veiled criticism of CCP fiscal policy, and now he's being completely dismantled.
Here's [1] Cory Doctorow's take on why this wasn't actually some capricious treatment by the CCP over some minor infraction
[1] https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745
[1] https://twitter.com/doctorow/status/1324391639628959745
Non-twitter link, in case that would have been useful for anybody else.
https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
https://pluralistic.net/2020/11/05/gotta-be-a-pony-under-the...
Thanks, I had originally seen it on twitter or else I would've sent the blog post directly. Iirc it's something like 60 tweets so the post is definitely better!
How can people stand this kind of writing? It assumes conclusions for all kinds of things that are not agreed on. It’s intellectually lazy even for people who agree with these views (“heavy slant towards finance being optimally a utility”, “Uber/Lyft ‘misclassifying’ workers”, etc). This is Fox News level opining.
It is an opinion. And it is interesting precisely, because it is not common and it forces you to reconcile your currently held beliefs and opinions with the authors. Frankly, I read much worse.
It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion. That’s intellectually lazy.
> It’s treated like an accepted fact though, not an opinion
Hope you've never read the "opinions" section in a newspaper! Or the comments in the thread above mine. This one actually cites a lot more references/sources than a typical editorial.
I specifically linked it as "here is Cory Doctorow's take on [the situation]". I don't endorse it wholely, but I found it very interesting.
> That’s intellectually lazy.
Doctorow's take is much, much, much less intellectually lazy on the causes behind Ant's IPO shutdown/Alibaba's antitrust fine/Jack Ma's withdrawal from most public facing activities than comments I was responding to (ie "[the CCP is being so capricious!]" <1> or "Look how small his offense was!" <2>)
<1> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726
<2> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748
Hope you've never read the "opinions" section in a newspaper! Or the comments in the thread above mine. This one actually cites a lot more references/sources than a typical editorial.
I specifically linked it as "here is Cory Doctorow's take on [the situation]". I don't endorse it wholely, but I found it very interesting.
> That’s intellectually lazy.
Doctorow's take is much, much, much less intellectually lazy on the causes behind Ant's IPO shutdown/Alibaba's antitrust fine/Jack Ma's withdrawal from most public facing activities than comments I was responding to (ie "[the CCP is being so capricious!]" <1> or "Look how small his offense was!" <2>)
<1> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766726
<2> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26766748
There are easier ways to say this:
The issue was: there is no competition in Chinese banking because the state uses banks to hand out cheap loans/subsidise companies, part of this is paying depositors very low returns, Ant created competition by paying higher deposit rates, this led to a surge of money leaving Chinese banks, and the whole system would have toppled if this continued.
On top of this, and something which I don't know is true but is something I have heard, Ant was taking money from depositors who are usually paid 100bps and paying them 700bps, and then they were lending that money back to banks at 700bps+ (one part of this story is, because of the point in the previous paragraph, that Chinese financial markets are largely bank-led...so if you run a money market fund, you can start out buying bonds but once you are $200bn then you have to lend to banks...it is hard to understand how Ant thought this could work).
Either way, this wasn't a minor infraction. If this continued, either Ant or the Chinese banking system would have gone down. A substantial number of corporates would have gone too (China's debt levels are sky-high). The construction of the Ant MMF fund basically challenged the foundations of China's financial markets...that isn't a minor infraction.
The issue was: there is no competition in Chinese banking because the state uses banks to hand out cheap loans/subsidise companies, part of this is paying depositors very low returns, Ant created competition by paying higher deposit rates, this led to a surge of money leaving Chinese banks, and the whole system would have toppled if this continued.
On top of this, and something which I don't know is true but is something I have heard, Ant was taking money from depositors who are usually paid 100bps and paying them 700bps, and then they were lending that money back to banks at 700bps+ (one part of this story is, because of the point in the previous paragraph, that Chinese financial markets are largely bank-led...so if you run a money market fund, you can start out buying bonds but once you are $200bn then you have to lend to banks...it is hard to understand how Ant thought this could work).
Either way, this wasn't a minor infraction. If this continued, either Ant or the Chinese banking system would have gone down. A substantial number of corporates would have gone too (China's debt levels are sky-high). The construction of the Ant MMF fund basically challenged the foundations of China's financial markets...that isn't a minor infraction.
[deleted]
That's some next level loonie conspiracy theory.
Who is that Cory Doctorov?
Who is that Cory Doctorov?
I think there is a version of the story that the West somehow doesn’t hear a lot about.
In Mainland China, the sudden interference of the government is attributed to the discovery of the stake of Jiang Zemin’s faction in Ant Group. It’s not a direct stake, but obfuscated through a chain of ownerships.
JZM’s faction is nowadays widely seen in Mainland China as being full of corruption and selfish agenda. Naturally, President Xi doesn’t want to see the influence of JZM’s faction over something as large as Ant Group, so the government decided to halt the IPO before it got too big.
In Mainland China, the sudden interference of the government is attributed to the discovery of the stake of Jiang Zemin’s faction in Ant Group. It’s not a direct stake, but obfuscated through a chain of ownerships.
JZM’s faction is nowadays widely seen in Mainland China as being full of corruption and selfish agenda. Naturally, President Xi doesn’t want to see the influence of JZM’s faction over something as large as Ant Group, so the government decided to halt the IPO before it got too big.
> I think there is a version of the story that the West somehow doesn’t hear a lot about.
The east doesn’t hear a lot about your version too. Do you have proof about the elderly’s stake in Ant Group?
The east doesn’t hear a lot about your version too. Do you have proof about the elderly’s stake in Ant Group?
Here is one source (in Chinese though): https://tw.appledaily.com/international/20210217/2TSNJAXQZRG...
Are there any news sources corroborating this alleged corruption? The only links i see for "Jiang Zemin Corruption" are epoch times, which I guess is weird in itself falun gong owns it; sounds like Zemin was instrumental in their persecution...
My point is Xi's crackdown to consolidate power has been widely reported and 'corruption' has been used to silence critics and anyone opposing Xi's power play.
I definitely do know not much on this topic but I also can't find any legit sources.
My point is Xi's crackdown to consolidate power has been widely reported and 'corruption' has been used to silence critics and anyone opposing Xi's power play.
I definitely do know not much on this topic but I also can't find any legit sources.
Actually, there is a Wall Street journal article about it. You can google it.
"China Blocked Jack Ma’s Ant IPO After Investigation Revealed Likely Beneficiaries"
There has been wild speculation about the source behind this story, including that Xi's faction provided details to WSJ since no one else had all the details.
"China Blocked Jack Ma’s Ant IPO After Investigation Revealed Likely Beneficiaries"
There has been wild speculation about the source behind this story, including that Xi's faction provided details to WSJ since no one else had all the details.
Thank you! That was an interesting read
It's so hard to get to the actual truth where CCP is involved. I'm sure there is actual corruption - hear about it on the low level personal stories of manufacturing businesses working with HN commenters. But it's also used as an excuse to sideline potential opposition.
The byline starts it off ha: "Well-connected Chinese power players, including some with links to political families that represent a potential challenge to President Xi" "Mr. Xi has used the antigraft crusade to target both actual corruption as well as to strengthen his own hold on power."
The article gave me some new insight I think in showing how corruption could be viewed by the party as anything that threatens the party's power and their all important stability - a different definition than my perspective; like the kind of nouveau riche spend bragging and Saudi 'prince' instagram type behavior alluded to in the article
It's so hard to get to the actual truth where CCP is involved. I'm sure there is actual corruption - hear about it on the low level personal stories of manufacturing businesses working with HN commenters. But it's also used as an excuse to sideline potential opposition.
The byline starts it off ha: "Well-connected Chinese power players, including some with links to political families that represent a potential challenge to President Xi" "Mr. Xi has used the antigraft crusade to target both actual corruption as well as to strengthen his own hold on power."
The article gave me some new insight I think in showing how corruption could be viewed by the party as anything that threatens the party's power and their all important stability - a different definition than my perspective; like the kind of nouveau riche spend bragging and Saudi 'prince' instagram type behavior alluded to in the article
Why wouldn't the west want to see this? If a former politician the government dislikes owns shares in a company, the government should not simply punish the company - including all the other shareholders, many of whom are small retail investors and pension funds! If a former corrupt politician is the real issue, it needs to prove in an independent court there is corruption; and not punish some third party.
> If a former politician the government dislikes owns shares in a company, the government should not simply punish the company - including all the other shareholders, many of whom are small retail investors and pension funds! If a former corrupt politician is the real issue, it needs to prove in an independent court there is corruption; and not punish some third party.
The only thing I can say is: “That’s just not the way politics works in China.”
The only thing I can say is: “That’s just not the way politics works in China.”
I will add to this a parahrase from a person I personally dislike: John Bolton. It goes something like this. When presenting their case, communist dictatorships tend blame things on mythical hardliners. Here too we have a scapegoat. The theme is different, but the tone is so familiar.
That's not a shot at communist dictatorships. They do it, because as a negotiating tactic it tends to work. It is not unlike telling salesman you need to run something by your wife.
That's not a shot at communist dictatorships. They do it, because as a negotiating tactic it tends to work. It is not unlike telling salesman you need to run something by your wife.
"Punish one, teach a hundred"
- Mao Tse-Tung
- Mao Tse-Tung
Don’t address A’s words to B.
“Punish one, teach a hundred” is from the Book of Han, long before the born of Chairman Mao.
“Punish one, teach a hundred” is from the Book of Han, long before the born of Chairman Mao.
I've never heard this saying, although along similar lines there is 'kill the chicken to scare the monkey'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kill_the_chicken_to_scare_the_...
Thanks - I was aware there was a Latin precursor but I didn't know about the Book of Han!
Also Voltaire in Candide:
> ".. in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.”
https://wordhistories.net/2016/10/22/pour-encourager-les-aut...
> ".. in this country it is found good, from time to time, to kill one Admiral to encourage the others.”
https://wordhistories.net/2016/10/22/pour-encourager-les-aut...
I'm pretty sure it was a convenient way for them to show that no one is above Xi Jinping and his reach, even for a relatively minor infraction in the eyes of the CCP.
Maybe it was more than the critism. They might have wanted more competition all along.
I don't know enough to debate though.
Why do I feel the CCP is happy with the world's view of their system of a few guys with big egos whom pull are the strings.
(I purposesly didn't use question marks. I don't want to debate. I'm suprised any system with Communism intrgrated in its name is doing great economically, and on other stages. I will never just assume any polital system that incorporates Communists are destined to fail, and of all nations, China worries me the most.)
I don't know enough to debate though.
Why do I feel the CCP is happy with the world's view of their system of a few guys with big egos whom pull are the strings.
(I purposesly didn't use question marks. I don't want to debate. I'm suprised any system with Communism intrgrated in its name is doing great economically, and on other stages. I will never just assume any polital system that incorporates Communists are destined to fail, and of all nations, China worries me the most.)
China has a huge workforce to exploit, and its a lot easier to catch up then to lead the way. That's the main reason their doing well economically
My guess based off my readings is that this view is what gives them their place in society not to be questioned.
If the economic and social outcomes most people are happy with, faith in the party is maintained.
It is an interesting contrast with the political system in the west where it feels like politicians don’t like to take responsibility for actions and blame it on large corporates... who work within the frameworks they have designed
If the economic and social outcomes most people are happy with, faith in the party is maintained.
It is an interesting contrast with the political system in the west where it feels like politicians don’t like to take responsibility for actions and blame it on large corporates... who work within the frameworks they have designed
Jack Ma is an absolute moron anyway, they built him up and gave him his 'power' so they can take it away.
"I think it is a huge blessing that we can work 996."
- Jack Ma on 996 working hour system (9 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week = 72 hours per week).
I think it's a huge blessing that he does not have a platform to make stupid comments like that anymore.
- Jack Ma on 996 working hour system (9 am to 9 pm, 6 days a week = 72 hours per week).
I think it's a huge blessing that he does not have a platform to make stupid comments like that anymore.
Doesn't the startup world fetishize that kind of schedule?
Leaders in startup world fetishize that kind of schedule. Workers want a normal life.
BTW, Alibaba is not a startup.
BTW, Alibaba is not a startup.
Startups fetishize selectively "maximizing the work not done", e.g.: low quality except on the surfaces the customer can see.
IDK what fetishes currently run in the startup community, but simplyfing design is a good thing. A component that has been left out of the system cannot introduce bugs and vulnerabilities into the system.
Of course, it only holds up to a point, but "the best part is no part, the best process is no process".
Of course, it only holds up to a point, but "the best part is no part, the best process is no process".
This comment is either neither a constructive criticism of him, nor does contribute anything substantive to the discussion. Please review the site guidelines against name calling: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26687330
Polite rewrite:
“The events that have transpired demonstrate that Jack Ma experienced a disconnect between the power, freedom, and relevance he believed himself to have had and the reality exerted by the Chinese government. This could be viewed as a lack of foresight, exceptional hubris, and inability to interpret ground truth on Ma’s part.”
“The events that have transpired demonstrate that Jack Ma experienced a disconnect between the power, freedom, and relevance he believed himself to have had and the reality exerted by the Chinese government. This could be viewed as a lack of foresight, exceptional hubris, and inability to interpret ground truth on Ma’s part.”
I must add that OP asserts the Chinese authorities iniquitously and deliberately allowed Jack Ma to acquire power through the success of his enterprise which was struck down swiftly as we are witnessing today. Thus, OP's insight is that the CCP employed an insidous tactic of bait-and-switch, exemplified by the unfolding situation, in order to further their authoritarian interests. Jack Ma's inability to excogitate his own demise is why OP thinks that his mental state is abnormal.
Personally I believe it just took CCP some time to figure out how to deal with these uppity billionaires. They couldn't use their normal playbook on how they deal with political opposition, because he wasn't opposing the politics of CCP, or how they deal with the powerless, because he wasn't powerless.
Now that they do, heads will roll quickly. The smarter ones will come voluntarily hat in hand and offer tributes. The dumber ones will disappear for a month, and then offer tributes.
Now that they do, heads will roll quickly. The smarter ones will come voluntarily hat in hand and offer tributes. The dumber ones will disappear for a month, and then offer tributes.
For the most part, the world is run by billionaires. They’ll look to China with even more caution.
Didn't Jack Ma go missing for like 3 months while this was playing out? I think right after he made a few comments critical of the Chinese gov.
This is hysterical.
The Chinese government is their key partner, and is mainly responsible for their actions. They direct the company and then get mad and fine the company.
The Chinese government is their key partner, and is mainly responsible for their actions. They direct the company and then get mad and fine the company.
[deleted]
As CCP does more and more of this, rich Chinese will start feeling agitated about their government. If they only revolt and elect their own government where actions of thuggery are not ok, they will finally be free.
I know a lot of chinese don't care about the government but such actions of stealing wealth is literally how a lot of revolutionary democracies were formed.
I know a lot of chinese don't care about the government but such actions of stealing wealth is literally how a lot of revolutionary democracies were formed.
Rich Chinese did already see the writing on the wall. They have been aggressively buying real-estate in western cities in the last few years.
Decades. Also passports. Wealthy Chinese are known to buy significant investor (which is not that significant) citizenship in several countries, not to move there but have an exit option.
Also to be fair I think a fair portion of this is not fear of China changing the rules, often if the wealth was gained corruptly this is a way to protect it and move away from repercussion.
Also to be fair I think a fair portion of this is not fear of China changing the rules, often if the wealth was gained corruptly this is a way to protect it and move away from repercussion.
Don't most extremely wealthy people around the world already do this? Look at all them who ran and hid in New Zealand within the past year.
Related: https://www.google.com/search?q=ft+Beijing+forces+elite+Jack..., first result.
(Sorry for the indirect link, the page doesn’t load without it.)
(Sorry for the indirect link, the page doesn’t load without it.)
Would people downvoting please leave a comment saying why? I thought this was helpful.
what about tencent?
SAMR already fined Tencent, Baidu, etc along with Alibaba for monpolistic investment practices. i.e basically unapproved M&A.
I think it's most likely other anti-monopoly fines will follow for the other megacap techs in China.
I think it's most likely other anti-monopoly fines will follow for the other megacap techs in China.
Don't understand why such a good question is downvoted. Tencent is essentially doing the same thing as Alibaba in Chinese market.
Peak Xi. Anyone with any get up and go will get up and leave.
But if you are high profile enough they will just apply pressure on you indirectly by applying pressure on your family members who remain.
Then come to the US where we allow patent trolls to rip you apart. Where we allow frivolous shareholder lawsuits every time the stock falls 5%. Where we humiliate you in front of congress at every opportunity. Where we allow innumerable types of lawsuits for all sorts of reasons that conflict with innovation. Europe is even worse.
I think this fine, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively modest compared to the crap that other countries make you put up with.
I think this fine, in the grand scheme of things, is relatively modest compared to the crap that other countries make you put up with.
None of the three things you mentioned matter that much? Don’t hear of serious companies dying because of those scenarios much.
The Alibaba fine also comes with an iron fist playing puppeteer.
The Alibaba fine also comes with an iron fist playing puppeteer.
In the same vein, a $2.7b fine doesn’t matter much either. But I’d take a 0.3% of market cap fine every ten years over the BS the US doles out to its corporate giants.
xwdv(1)
What I have really read from crumbs collected is that Jack Ma is in Hu Jin Tao camp which is apparently is an "opposition" to Xi camp - hence the brash speech at the forum that got him disappeared a bit and now this.
While it's normal to cry that US cannot touch a bit on the big corps, when CCP successfully delivered concrete blows to monopoly, everyone is crying that it was politic driven...
Sigh
Sigh
Funny people think entrepreneurs in China will no longer create companies because of this when in fact startups all hate Alibaba.
Can't wait for a similar fine on Tencent.
Can't wait for a similar fine on Tencent.
Yes, everyone hates the big boys in China. Alibaba tencent are the worst bully one can imagine worldwide in the corporate worlds. They were enjoying great monoply from bullying competitors and supply chain.
For instance, Tecent had 94% winning rate in its local court, while only around 50% in Beijing. [1] (unfortunately that's in Chinese)
Tencent is also well known for copying small competitors products. In fact, almost all major products from tencent are copies. And a lot of the original firms that pioneered those products were forced out of the market because of Tencent's strong hold through Qq and we chat [2]
[1] https://finance.sina.cn/2021-02-23/detail-ikftssap8206412.d....
[2] https://www.bilibili.com/read/mobile/1181581
For instance, Tecent had 94% winning rate in its local court, while only around 50% in Beijing. [1] (unfortunately that's in Chinese)
Tencent is also well known for copying small competitors products. In fact, almost all major products from tencent are copies. And a lot of the original firms that pioneered those products were forced out of the market because of Tencent's strong hold through Qq and we chat [2]
[1] https://finance.sina.cn/2021-02-23/detail-ikftssap8206412.d....
[2] https://www.bilibili.com/read/mobile/1181581
Edit to the parent (non longer editable):
Everyone meant to refer to everyone inside mainland China.
Some replies below mentioned other corps like Amazon fb Google etc. Which are not considered in my parent post.
Everyone meant to refer to everyone inside mainland China.
Some replies below mentioned other corps like Amazon fb Google etc. Which are not considered in my parent post.
Sounds like this is a world wide problem and the idea of a company that does 'good' is nothing more than a CSR/PR play. Everything you have described can also be said for Google, Facebook and Amazon.
Depends on the incentives, doesn't it? Most companies are for-profit, they don't have any incentive to do good beyond what PR requires. If you set a company up as a cooperative, you'd likely see different results. It's pretty common for housing in Germany, I'm a member of one and am living in one of their apartments. I pay below market rate, they take great care of the project, are super responsive to issues and they usually pay 4% dividend to all members.
I don't know of many cooperatives that do "normal" business, but I don't see a reason why e.g. a cellular provider couldn't run on the same model, being perfectly aligned with their customers' interests, because the customers are also the owners. Mondragon Corporation in Spain comes to mind, but I have no idea whether they're friendly to smaller competitors.
I don't know of many cooperatives that do "normal" business, but I don't see a reason why e.g. a cellular provider couldn't run on the same model, being perfectly aligned with their customers' interests, because the customers are also the owners. Mondragon Corporation in Spain comes to mind, but I have no idea whether they're friendly to smaller competitors.
No, it can't. Google and Facebook are not really famous for copying the products of smaller companies. They tend to buy those companies instead.
Amazon is also not really famous for "bullying" its supply chain. We have heard such stories about Walmart and to some extent Apple, though you can argue that hard bargaining is not bullying and shouldn't be described that way. But Amazon has famously thin margins in retail. If they were really exploiting their suppliers so badly we'd expect to see fatter margins.
As for companies doing good, they do good every time they sell someone a useful product or service. More abstract conceptions of good are all problematic and often very biased.
Amazon is also not really famous for "bullying" its supply chain. We have heard such stories about Walmart and to some extent Apple, though you can argue that hard bargaining is not bullying and shouldn't be described that way. But Amazon has famously thin margins in retail. If they were really exploiting their suppliers so badly we'd expect to see fatter margins.
As for companies doing good, they do good every time they sell someone a useful product or service. More abstract conceptions of good are all problematic and often very biased.
Why would a company do "good"? A company's job is to make money, with some using whatever it takes while others being more gentle, but it's what a company is for. If you are looking for good, you'll have to check for non-profits.
I wonder why do they tolerate big boys like CCP then and state sanctioned genocide under its nose.
Western discussion about China is not nuanced. It assumes complete adherence to Beijing and completely effective coercion due to incestual ownership of all private enterprise.
There is alot of discontent, and alot of flying under the radar, not different than leading western economies.
There is alot of discontent, and alot of flying under the radar, not different than leading western economies.
The difference is that discontent is necessarily under the radar in China while it is not under the radar at all in leading western countries. That extra transparency makes things a bit more predictable in the west, while in China you really have to pay attention to rumors.
It’s also not hard to notice.
Good! Now also make them pay it!
This hurts a lot of small and individual businesses who are very much depend on diversity of channels to boost sales, because they don't have much sales and marketing skills or capital for that.
[1] https://amp.scmp.com/tech/enterprises/article/3115300/alibab...