Alibaba has lost $344B market cap in the past year
economictimes.indiatimes.com
economictimes.indiatimes.com
In many western countries this divide is increasing and it doesn't look like it's stopping anytime soon unless measures are taken.
As an example, in the UK, where I live, the median yearly salary is roughly £31k, which means you take home about £2k each month. Start subtracting rent/mortgage, car/public transportation, bills, groceries, toiletries, and just stuff necessary for living and you won't be left with much for pleasure and entertainment, i.e., for living beyond surviving.
Which is btw why I find some HN users are sometimes in such a bubble when they make comments about how they despise ad-supported websites and would love for them to be paid instead; that's lacking empathy, not realising that soooo many people wouldn't be able to afford a system like that, or if they did they would have to give up a bunch of other things instead.
I think reducing inequality is great. But do you think Mr. Xi's initiative will meaningfully reduce inequality, or will it mostly be used to bolster Mr. Xi politically?
Do you have any worries about Mr. Xi keeping companies on a tight leash with the threat of regulatory hassles if they don't appease him? I think it is a mistake to view these coerced donations as independent from Mr. Xi curtailing the independence of tech companies. Mr. Xi views keeping party leadership over all forms of work in China as essential to the survival of his politically repressive regime (see a summary of "Xi_Jinping_Thought."). No doubt having the headline cause making the tech companies submit being reducing inequality is more politically palatable than, say, further crushing criticism of the government, although reduced corporate independence seems likely to lead to that too.
I do understand (and agree) with the fact that chances are Xi is not doing this out of the goodness of his heart but mostly due to self-interest to strengthen his position. However, if we separate the person from the action I still believe this measure will potentially benefit more people than it hurts and is in my opinion a positive one. Companies should always come second to people, and not just when it comes to monetary policies, but also environmental, etc.
[Hint: the Chinese language has a word for President - which they use for Biden, Macron, etc. They don't use it for Xi].
But maybe I'm not really understand your point. Are you saying there is another English word that would better describe Xi than President, or that English should add one? Are you thinking "President" is insufficient to capture his power, and something like "Dictator" would be better? That has such negative consolidations that I would be hesitant to use it.
Yip, mainstream media gets it wrong. :)
Here you go: https://qz.com/1112638/xi-jinping-title-xi-jinping-is-not-th...
But yeah, its not a big point to squabble over.
I think this is a valid criticism, but I would like to note that there's a massive gap between what sites make off of me from ads vs. what they are requesting I pay to get rid of ads. So if there was truly a drop-in replacement for ads that came at the same cost as what the advertisers would otherwise be paying for my eyeballs, that'd be great. That's not the choice consumers are being given though.
But even in the fair payment scenario you're suggesting, how many people do you reckon would be able to afford paying per whatever metric ,e.g., video watched, article read, MB downloaded, search queried, etc. for all/most sites they currently use like facebook, google, youtube, reddit, tiktok...? And how many would be willing?
On top of that, how would the Internet change as a result of that? Imagine in this hypothetical new setting someone who wants to make a decision about what film/series to watch: currently they may check all of imdb, letterbox, metacritic, rottentomatoes, justwatch, etc. Would they still do that if all those sites required some sort of payment (let's assume they may be different, some may require subscription, another charges per query... the point is they would all cost money to use)? I'm not so sure, and I don't think I'd like that Internet any more than the one we currently have.
That take on 'common prosperity' is very optimistic; most policy realists think that 'common prosperity' is just a tactical component of Jinping's strategy to centralize power in the central government (and Communist party).
thats prob closer to euphoria.
But Alibaba got really hammered down ( the stock ). No position for me but I follow the Company
https://www.wsj.com/amp/articles/xi-jinping-aims-to-rein-in-...
> Xi Jinping’s campaign against private enterprise, it is increasingly clear, is far more ambitious than meets the eye.
> The Chinese President is not just trying to rein in a few big tech and other companies and show who is boss in China.
> He is trying to roll back China’s decadeslong evolution toward Western-style capitalism and put the country on a different path entirely, a close examination of Mr. Xi’s writings and his discussions with party officials, and interviews with people involved in policy making, show.
> For most of the 40 years after Deng Xiaoping first unleashed economic reforms in China, Communist Party leaders gave market forces wider room to flourish. That opening helped lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty and created trillions of dollars in wealth, but also led to rampant corruption and eroded the ideological basis for continued Communist rule.
> In Mr. Xi’s opinion, private capital now has been allowed to run amok, menacing the party’s legitimacy, officials familiar with his priorities say. The Wall Street Journal examination shows he is trying forcefully to get China back to the vision of Mao Zedong, who saw capitalism as a transitory phase on the road to socialism.
> Mr. Xi isn’t planning to eradicate market forces, the Journal examination indicates. But he appears to want a state in which the party does more to steer flows of money, sets tighter parameters for entrepreneurs and investors and their ability to make profits, and exercises even more control over the economy than now. In essence, this suggests that he aims to rewrite the rules of business in what could someday be the world’s biggest economy.
I previously held BABA. I exited at roughly break-even. Furthermore, I won't re-enter for the same reason I exited, the Chinese government can and have ruined Chinese-born companies at the flick of a pen.
I think BABA has a good business. If the Chinese government leaves it alone it would be a great investment, but the more influential BABA is the less likely that seems.
PS - Plus do the risks and gains actually balance? The risk could be as much as your entire investment, and the returns are far lower than that.
You don’t really own any of the operating corp if you buy its shares, so you have both regulatory risk and contract default risk with ??? recourse.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-and-chinese-regulators-are-...
But apparently, most of their growth since IPO has come from mainland sales. Which seems to go against the narrative I just stated. Their Edgar SEC filings don't break out revenue as much as I would like. [0]
So are they a scam? The very opinionated Deep Throat IPO seems to think so. [1]
[0]: https://otp.investis.com/clients/us/alibaba/SEC/sec-show.asp...
[1]: http://www.deepthroatipo.com/alibaba-december-quarter-2020-r...