WeChat suspends new user registration for security compliance

Also, billions of dollars of value didn't disappear overnight. No jobs are or will be lost, and very little utility is lost, except being able to sign up for 1-2 weeks.

I'm not absolutely thrilled by the rise of China either, but we gotta stop lying to ourselves. Not every single action by the Chinese government is a stupid and reckless calamity that will cause untold harm. We're often blind to the good and to the utility of these decisions, and on the balance a government that's not scared of the stock market is going to be more effective assuming they're competent to begin with.

A China with a stable regulatory regime is probably preferable over a China that is prepared to do short-term self-harm in return for its long-term strategy objectives. This just reinforces that there is no transparency in policy-making, and there is no room for capital to act as a tempering voice. Moreover, Taiwan's economy is heavily linked to China - China is Taiwan's biggest trading partner. If China has no regard for domestic or foreign capital and industry, it almost certainly doesn't care about disrupting Taiwan economically and forcing it to submission without firing a bullet.

OT: I see a lot of Chinese experts rationalize recent moves by saying it's all foreshadowed in CCP's public policy goals and so on. If that was the case, I would expect at least domestic investors to have priced-in the impact of the recent changes well ahead of time.

The legal/regulatory regime should be reasonable and predictable, but that should mean human judgement rather than blindly following coded rules like a smart contract. If you're a corporation that's large enough to be impacting society, you should expect society to have a say in what you're doing, and that means that as you do new and surprising things, there will be corresponding regulatory changes.

Net neutrality is a great example. Paying telecoms to build infrastructure that they don't build and just pocket. The case in Ohio recently where their energy company bribed officials to give them a 1 billion dollar bail out.

Another is any regulation that's not done for the greater good. Like in my state you have to be a licensed bartender and have graduated from a bartending school. Guess who pushed for that requirement? It wasn't the public.

MSM tried to paint such picture.

Mr. Ma put that show, because of he knows that the regulators are coming to ANT IPO. And he disappeared because a lot of people are going to be very angry after Mr. Ma failed to push the IPO through. Think a bit, who are those angry men. I guarantee you'll never find the names of these people, thinking them like political power that collectively can rival the infamous Mr. Xi.

CCP is bully.

But when it's bullying the one who romanticize 996 [1], hell, yeah, I enjoy that Mr. Ma gets bullied...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/996_working_hour_system

Ant has China's most dominate online and mobile payment system, alipay. It has consumer lending products like huabei. Ant ties its payment product with lending product, say if you a colleague student buying a $500 shoes on Taobao, you get to the checkout screen, you are like hey $500 is too much for my monthly budget, can't afford this, Alipay then says oh check this out, through Huabei you can get your shoes now only have to pay back a small portion each months. Ant loan money to consumers, then take a bunch of loans lump them together and divide into securities and sell them to other investors, i.e. classic ABS scheme. Ant even says "since we know the consumer spending and payment habits, we have big data algorithm to calculate the rating of the securities and credit score of the consumer". Consumer credit score is supposed to be a check and balance to prevent lending to high risk individuals, security rating allow investors to be confident about the security they are buying. Now Ant financial is the check and balance to itself in both cases.

Through ABS, Ant externalizes all the risk of lending to outside investors. Financial institutions might include Ant's ABS in other securities. A middle class person might buy retirement investments, which have exposure to Ant's ABS. If you own shares of financial institutions that owns Ant's ABS or securities exposed to Ant's ABS, you are also exposed to Ant's ABS. The exposure is everywhere, can't be isolated. From Ant's perspective, they earn a profit from each dollar they lend, so they got all the positives and none the downsides. This could be a reason why Ant lends to consumer who are much riskier than traditional banks in China lends to, and through my experience, riskier than US credit companies lend to. US credit card companies require a stable job, a home or rent, or a dependent with good credit score. Ant lends to colleague students in China that have non of that. Nor do they check the credit rating of the dependent(parent). If the lending goes bust, for example, triggered by an economic down turn, these ABS will drag down everyone exposed to them. Basically how US financial crisis happened, causing suffering 10s of millions of people. The government's action didn't ban Huabei, and Ant. They are just treating Ant as a financial institution, subjecting it the same rules and standards another financial institution (e.g. a bank). The goal is to reduce financial risks. Why is this a bad thing?

The regulators wanted to use existing financial regulation standards, based on Basel Accords, on Ant. But they were on the fence about it because they didn't want to limit a new form of business emerging, or want to limit what a "private" business want to do. But Jack Ma's statement basically called existing financial regulation, and the Basel Accord itself "stupid, out dated, incompetent". In my opinion, that is unacceptable because while Basel accords has its downsides, it's learnings from many financial disasters that caused suffering to millions of people. Its like airplane safety regulations, are they a hassle? yes. But they are there for a reason. And of course a business person will advocate for reducing the rules that limit their ability to earn money, but reducing the rules will increase the risk the entire society will be harmed, especially the under-privileged. A financial crisis triggered by Ant's reckless lending might leave Jack Ma and Ant's executives slightly less wealth, but they sill got all the other cash in the bank. But for a middle class person, the financial crisis will cost them their jobs, their mortgaged home and their retirement savings. And that middle class person didn't do the things that caused the financial disaster in the first place.

Business people will brand their advocacy as something for good, brand things they are against as something old, outdated, cumbersome, use marketing or media power to sway public opinion. Unless you are well versed in financial theory, how can you tell the truth? Most likely that was the final straw. Regulators finally had to gut to required Ant to be regulated as a financial institution similar to a bank. In my opinion, Ant should be regulated like so from the beginning. They lend money, they issue ABS, of course they are a financial institution, subjected to the same rules, same capital requirements like everyone else. Why should they get preferential treatments, not obey by the same rules. The regulators aren't hard liners, they are too weak. They were probably held back by the public opinion about Chinese government is against private industries, so they are afraid to do things that other might say "limit their freedom, hinder private business development, ccp controls private sector etc", including holding business accountable for legitimate reasons. Now these regulators finally have the gut to do the right thing.

It's kind of typical socialist thinking that you can have forever revolutionary songs and chants, forever reconstruction and forever community activism (for the party of course). Obviously, that can work in tightly controlled environments such as North Korea, and it looks like they are taking some of that social control back so they can better dictate what they population should do (for its own good as they see it, obviously).

I am no expert, but I disagree and I think this is the kind of thinking that has failed the west for the last thirty years. I think the idea started with the fall of the Soviet Union. That culture and ideology was bankrupt. So a lot of western people thought that when there was a free exchange of ideas with China, the Chinese would eventually reject the CCP.

My experience of people in China-- admittedly a long time ago-- was they are generally very patriotic or nationalistic, like Americans. They appreciate the CCP and what it has accomplished. They have a strong domestic arts industry making movies, books, games. Sure lots of people disagree with the party, but that doesn't that they want a western liberal democracy. So lots of people will speak in favor of a benevolent elite and against populism or what they see as western chaos or oppression. When people are against the government, they aren't wishing for a different government system, just less corrupt or more benevolent authoritarians.

Anyway, that is the way I am thinking about these days. But I could be very wrong and I would love to hear from people who are from or spend time in China.

There's more penetration of western media and products in PRC, but vast majority of consumption is still domestic even among educated. And trends show the young are more nationalistic than ever, especially among those with more exposure to the west.

>North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.

Yeah, folks are embarassed at the style of propaganda, ran by old cadres from for a bygone era. Not the idea of propaganda itself. They want better, modernized propaganda that effectively reinforces nationalism, especially abroad.

What now? China has a pretty extensive film and television industry, and as far as I know it's very popular.

> And they find the North Korean style propaganda embarrassing. The disconnect really cannot be understated.

And in that case, the most logical reaction is political disengagement, which is completely A-OK in the CCP's book.

Factions exist in the ccp and having outside concentrations of power can lead to dangerous fragmentation that can also affect the internal politics of the ccp

Ant's case: treating Ant like an financial institution. Setting standards on capital requirements, lending standards etc. Perform financial pressure tests similar to banks. Ant lends money, issues ABS, of course they are a financial institution, should subject to the same rules as anyone else. Upside: reduce financial risks, especially if there is economic downturn. If a financial crisis like the 07 crisis happens, the wealthy might be fine, but the middle class people might lose their jobs, their mortgaged house, their retirement investments into companies that are bankrupt. So preventing a financial crisis is protecting people's livelihoods. The government action shows its not afraid to halt a multi-billion dollar IPO to do this.

Alibaba: establishing Alibaba had "dominate position" in E-commerce industry based on market data between 2015 and 2019 and as such, require seller exclusivity is against anti-monopoly law. Upsides: Make this scenario as a precedent, deter future cases from happening. Reduce the dominate player's ability to bend the rules to hinder competition. Allow more choices for sellers, the majority of which are small businesses. Alibaba's seller exclusivity harmed both competition and the sellers.

Tencent: Establishing Tencent's taking majority of controlling stake in 中国音乐集团, resulted in Tencent being dominate position in online music service. It is illegal under anti-monopoly law for not reporting such transaction for review. And by anti-monopoly law, state council can order the entity to take action to reduce its market consolidation. The action ordered is Tencent cannot sign exclusive music licensing with upper stream suppliers. After Tencent's transaction, it signed exclusive music licensing with Warner, Sony and Universal. This has been devastating to competing music services, Netease cloud music, Xiami music, etc. Upside: Establish precedent. Ensure there is room for competition. Good for competitors.

The advisory on Meituan and food delivery platforms: Attempt to address some key public concerns about food delivery platforms. Food delivery workers extremely overworked by delivery platforms, low pay, lack of safety, insurance protection, and practices such as penalizing delivery workers for late deliveries while over stuff them with orders. Upside: good for delivery workers or other gig workers. Also good for companies because the government is not making drastic changes that destroy the fundamentals of their business. Instead, it is issuing a sensible plan of action that are not too costly for the companies. Also calls for them to investigate different approaches to solve delivery workers pain points.

The advisory on K12 education outside of school: This is a lot more controversial. The background is that most Chinese students spent their time outside of school, during weekends and summer break, in some kind of prep classes, it could be English, math, etc. Chinese parents sent their kids to these prep classes hoping their kids can get ahead of others. When I was growing up, as a primary schooler, my Saturday is Violin class, a English class, my Sunday was a math class and a English class. My summer weekday is all English and Math classes. I heard parents would sent their kindergarten kids to prep class teach grade 2 material. The thing is the prep classes is now a huge industry. Prep class companies market to parents and kids, telling them things like you can get ahead others, you need come to us to learn to get good grades to go to university. Parents spent huge amount of money on "out of school" classes. Another issue is, as these "out of school" classes and companies earn a lot of money, they can pay their teachers much more than public school. So good teachers are leaving public schools, resulting in decreasing quality, more kids have to take "outside" classes, creating a vicious cycle, adding to kids time burden and parents financial burden. The most dangerous thing this creates is segregation of education quality based on economic class. Parents with money can send their kids to place with best education resources, while parents without money send their kids to public school with lower education quality. The new k12 education advisory is about trying to return education to its public, universally benefiting nature, reducing the profit seeking tendency. It is also trying to reduce parents and kids access to "out of school" education and strengthen public school education in order to give kids more non-study time. But time will tell the impact of these policies, what are the positives, are the negatives too harmful, and unintended side effects. "advisory" in China are different than laws. They are kind of best effort, are negotiated and discussed about during actual implementation. And these advisories are updated frequently when they need changing. This is a big reform of education scene, if it is successful it will create a more healthy atmosphere for Chinese kids to grow up in and less burden on families.

Regulations should cause as much damage to stock price as possible. We should measure the effectiveness of regulations by how much they tank the stock of affected companies. Real change often affects the profits of corporations. If nothing happens, then I doubt the new rules are actually gonna change anything for the better.

Membership (2021) 95,148,000

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Communist_Party

Seems to scale pretty well.