undefined | Better HN

0 pointsbilbo0s8mo ago0 comments

More an alternative way of controlling capital.

If you wanted to tax capital via equity stakes, you'd simply have demanded a much larger stake.

What we're doing is starting down the road of "capitalism with Chinese characteristics". It's a tacit admission that the Chinese model can be effective at achieving a nation's strategic economic goals. (More effective than the model we previously championed.)

The real flip side in all of this is that everyone else sees what we're doing for what it is, and they also implement capitalism with Chinese characteristics. Which in and of itself wouldn't be bad. But what if nations like India or Indonesia turn out to be just flat out better than us at it?

Or, God forbid, the nightmare scenario, which would be nations like Brazil being better than us at it?

0 comments

slt20218mo ago

10% is not a controlling stake, and US already controls Intel via regulation.

Most importantly, Intel's market cap is minuscule $100 bln, it doesnt allow control over meaningful amount of capital

Socialism with Chinese characteristics - it reduces private wealth and curbs control of oligarchs like Jack Ma. I feel like US is the opposite, where oligarchs directly control the government already

bilbo0sOP8mo ago

Sorry, I believe I've been misapprehended.

I didn't mean the intent is to control Intel's capital.

I meant controlling capital flows. In this particular case, controlling the flow of capital in a strategic sector out to TSMC et al. The idea is that regulation, state backed companies, etc etc all concert to oblige the market to keep those capital flows inside of your jurisdiction.

China does the same. It's extraordinarily difficult to exfiltrate capital from China. One of the only ways to do it is to turn the capital into products and exfiltrate those products out of China in place of the capital.

I think, long term, the US wants the same sort of environment over here.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse