Hacker News Reader

Comment by sumanthvepa | Hacker News Reader

I'll take a contrarian view. This is good! All investment into India is good. (Yes even Chinese investment.) We are a poor capital starved country. We need every bit of cash we can get and that $5.7B will generate employment and create another strong telecom player. I strongly supported net neutrality in 2016 in India, but circumstances have changed. Jio needs the money, as does India. The poor cannot afford principles.

View on HN

I'm partially with you - this maybe good.

But saying all investment (special reference to China ones) is good, is taking it too far. It is already proven that China is new financial colonist [1] [2], infact last week India Govt passed a notice that any investment from China would be scrutinised.[3]

[1] https://www.ft.com/content/186743b8-bb25-11e8-94b2-17176fbf9...

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/panosmourdoukoutas/2018/08/04/c...

[3] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/economy/policy/ind...

The anti-china propaganda is so self-unaware. In a post about Zuckerburg investing $5.7 billion, china is the "financial colonist". The saddest aspect of the anti-china propagandist is that they are actually arguing china's point. China limits foreign investment precisely because of "financial colonialism". So you are in fact praising china and saying india should be like china. Almost all of the world's FDI is non-chinese. Most of the world's FDI is from europe.

It can't colonise India we've nukes.

Russia/Austrlia/Malaysia and Thailand have free trade agreement with China and they've not been colonised yet.

India is a big enough power to negotiate better deals with China.

So the fear of china is unwarranted.

Furthermore, there is a paper by Indian institute of foreign trade where the assert that imposition of trade barriers on china has reduced GMV of India.

What best you can do now is to partner with china and bring them into your market, learn tricks and techniques of manufacturing and become a global leader.

CHinese investment should be taken on a case by case basis. We do not want them controlling influence by turbocharging certain apps/networks/companies they own. I am sure if you have significant Chinese money on board a valuable app, you will start seeing CCP influence sooner or later.

There was no reason why India could not create its home grown TikTok, WhatsApp , Twitter etc.

Remember what Mukesh ambani said. DATA is new oil. He asked govt to keep data in India from companies like Facebook. Now this boom lol

In an era of reverse globalization, i feel homegrown billionares and/or Govt controlling Indian data might be better than Chinese or American companies. Also i think India has the talent to build what our audiences need so we are not in the same boat as say some hypothetical small African country which does not have an option. The Indian market size will make a difference.

Poor will always seek temporary security and relief over long term damage and starvation - me

The poor cannot afford principles

??? Really how much do you get paid to shill that hard

Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to HN? It unfortunately looks like you've been doing that quite a bit, and it's not what this site is for.

If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and sticking to the rules when posting here, we'd be grateful.

Apologies if it comes out as such. My only intention is to make thought provoking comments

Sigh. I wish I was paid. I fall into the category of what Ambani would call useful idiots.

That was uncalled for: "the poor can not afford principles" is a fairly reasonable opinion to have.

It's an opinion, but "fairly reasonable" is very debatable.

Being poor doesn't mean a person doesn't have principles, just like being wealthy isn't correlated with having strong principles or morals.

It does not mean the poor don't have principles. They definitely do. They cannot afford to live by them, or they lose their livelihood. Indeed it is widely acknowledged in academia. that the poor are much more generous per $ of income than the wealthy. (Will have to search for the reference... Will edit it into the comment later.)

>Indeed it is widely acknowledged in academia. that the poor are much more generous per $ of income than the wealthy.

That seems to be saying that despite having less, the poor are exercising a far more principled life.

“Widely ack’ed in academia” That’s the problem right there. It’s a justified question to ask, does academia really know what being poor is

They aren’t saying poor people revel in their inherent immorality.

They are saying poverty forces people, against their will, to break their moral codes and principles. It’s one of the worst things about the power dynamics of money: not being able to afford an iPhone is a laughably trivial concern compared to having to work instead of spending time with your children, when you know how much of an impact your absence will have on them, for example.

I was glad to read it as a pithy and sobering comment, even if I didn’t agree with the rest of the post.

The phrase doesn't mean the poor don't have principles, it means they don't have the same luxury of making decisions purely on principle.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com