Hacker News Reader

Comment by bpodgursky | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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

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...

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

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.

That's some next level loonie conspiracy theory.

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.

> 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?

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.

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.

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

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.”

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.

"Punish one, teach a hundred"

- 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.

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_...

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...

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.)

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

Reply on news.ycombinator.com