6 ms·

Maybe the headline's a bit misleading, but what you're saying is almost exactly what the article is talking about. (The article immediately refutes the notion o

Maybe the headline's a bit misleading, but what you're saying is almost exactly what the article is talking about. (The article immediately refutes the notion of "smashing its tech industry" right away)

xchaotic 5y ago
but they're 'smashing' the likes of Ant Financial who were doing predatory, unsecured lending on an unprecedented scale. So IMO the thesis of smashing 'Internet' companies is incorrect - they're just making sure economy doesn't go into bubble territory (lending fuels spending) and the likes of Jack Ma, who are detached from the party don't get too much power/money.
- viscanti 5y ago
  Or Didi who had the nerve to IPO outside of China on the NYSE on a date the CCP thought was too close to a party anniversary.
  - sudosysgen 5y ago
    The Chinese central government was always really ambivalent about foreign IPOs. DiDi has too much control over domestic markets for the Chinese to be comfortable with foreign influence. I don't think it has anything to do with the anniversary. Actually, the CCP never formally accepted the foreign stock ownership structure, for example. It was always a grey area.
polote 5y ago
>Maybe the headline's a bit misleading Nah, a lot of people just don't read the articles before commenting, whether it is on HN or anywhere else
ZeroGravitas 5y ago
The article is mostly weird kremlinology of what the chinese leadership are up to. Which seems unnecessary if they're widely publishing 5 year plans that tell you what they're doing. Similar to Tesla's secret plan to produce cheaper and cheaper vehicles at larger scale, the boring truth isn't a big click winner.
- seanmcdirmid 5y ago
  Most people, especially in the west, aren’t reading Chinese 5 year plans very closely.
  - viscanti 5y ago
    What part of the 5 year plan outlined the strategy behind why the CCP went after DIDI? I'm genuinely curious and it might be more useful to link to the relevant parts. Some people might actually be interested in reading those and better understanding this.
    - thujlife 5y ago
      anti monopoly?
      - ghomrassen 5y ago
        Didi doesn't have a monopoly in China. Meituan is also a large player in the space along with hundreds of tiny ones.
        beaunative 5y ago
        Meituan has only just entered the market. Where did you get your information from?
      - danieltanfh95 5y ago
        Didi was caught selling user data without prior consent. Think if Equifax got pulled for "leaking" user data
  - paganel 5y ago
    For what it's worth those 5-years plans used to get changed regularly, at least when my country, Romania, was doing them. For those that can read Romanian I recommend this book [1] about the 5-year plans from the 1970s Socialist Romania. [1] https://www.librariaeminescu.ro/ro/isbn/606-020-215-8/Vlad-Pasca-Oprisiu__Cincinalu-n-patru-ani-si-jumatate-1971-1975-Nicolae-Ceausescu-si-economia-Romaniei-socialiste-de-la-tentatii-tehnocratice-la-primatul-politicului.html https://www.librariaeminescu.ro/ro/isbn/606-020-215-8/Vlad-P...

xchaotic 5y ago

but they're 'smashing' the likes of Ant Financial who were doing predatory, unsecured lending on an unprecedented scale. So IMO the thesis of smashing 'Internet' companies is incorrect - they're just making sure economy doesn't go into bubble territory (lending fuels spending) and the likes of Jack Ma, who are detached from the party don't get too much power/money.

viscanti 5y ago
Or Didi who had the nerve to IPO outside of China on the NYSE on a date the CCP thought was too close to a party anniversary.
- sudosysgen 5y ago
  The Chinese central government was always really ambivalent about foreign IPOs. DiDi has too much control over domestic markets for the Chinese to be comfortable with foreign influence. I don't think it has anything to do with the anniversary. Actually, the CCP never formally accepted the foreign stock ownership structure, for example. It was always a grey area.

polote 5y ago

>Maybe the headline's a bit misleading Nah, a lot of people just don't read the articles before commenting, whether it is on HN or anywhere else

ZeroGravitas 5y ago

The article is mostly weird kremlinology of what the chinese leadership are up to. Which seems unnecessary if they're widely publishing 5 year plans that tell you what they're doing. Similar to Tesla's secret plan to produce cheaper and cheaper vehicles at larger scale, the boring truth isn't a big click winner.

seanmcdirmid 5y ago
Most people, especially in the west, aren’t reading Chinese 5 year plans very closely.
- viscanti 5y ago
  What part of the 5 year plan outlined the strategy behind why the CCP went after DIDI? I'm genuinely curious and it might be more useful to link to the relevant parts. Some people might actually be interested in reading those and better understanding this.
  - thujlife 5y ago
    anti monopoly?
    - ghomrassen 5y ago
      Didi doesn't have a monopoly in China. Meituan is also a large player in the space along with hundreds of tiny ones.
      - beaunative 5y ago
        Meituan has only just entered the market. Where did you get your information from?
    - danieltanfh95 5y ago
      Didi was caught selling user data without prior consent. Think if Equifax got pulled for "leaking" user data
- paganel 5y ago
  For what it's worth those 5-years plans used to get changed regularly, at least when my country, Romania, was doing them. For those that can read Romanian I recommend this book [1] about the 5-year plans from the 1970s Socialist Romania. [1] https://www.librariaeminescu.ro/ro/isbn/606-020-215-8/Vlad-Pasca-Oprisiu__Cincinalu-n-patru-ani-si-jumatate-1971-1975-Nicolae-Ceausescu-si-economia-Romaniei-socialiste-de-la-tentatii-tehnocratice-la-primatul-politicului.html https://www.librariaeminescu.ro/ro/isbn/606-020-215-8/Vlad-P...