Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

SPYK3O t1_j1xght8 wrote

I have my doubts on how private most of these "private" Chinese rocket companies are.

32

No-Trust-7517 t1_j1y73pv wrote

they are state controlled private space companies which are way better then whatever the hell we let Boeing turn into

17

froggythefish t1_j1y8ien wrote

Private companies in China work just like private companies anywhere else, with the only difference being the Chinese government claims partial ownership of all companies. China does this to have the benefits of private companies, while still keeping them state property, so they cannot abuse their power.

13

smithsp86 t1_j1xjxt8 wrote

Not at all private. This is nothing like spacex, blue origin, or rocket lab.

5

Uptown-Dog t1_j1y00j4 wrote

Does the government in China typically have a stronger ability to step in/exert pressure on/make demands on private enterprises within that country than their Western counterparts? Sure. But, private still means private there - they have been experimenting with letting companies be private in a wide variety of very important areas as they've found that it can lead to superior results. Make of that what you will, but China is often remarkably results driven.

5

Eric1491625 t1_j1zkxmz wrote

There's basically no company in this industry that is really independent from government, anywhere in the world.

There's a reason why the stock market classifies this sector as "Aerospace and defense". They're just so interlinked.

Almost every component and technology in this industry has a military application, much of the stuff in this industry is subject to tight government regulation, export controls, etc.

5

Augustus420 t1_j1xjuka wrote

Hopefully not at all private in an capitalist sense. Hopefully just means non-government.

−13

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1xnwlt wrote

What's wrong with private business?

6

Augustus420 t1_j1xvj3g wrote

The means of production should be owned either by the people at large or directly by the workers.

−8

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1xxec1 wrote

Just saying things doesn't make them so, but anyways:

How would the people at large own a company?

3

Maringam t1_j1ycrlb wrote

The same way it’s already done: cooperative shared ownership and board direction

3

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1yf0n1 wrote

Fun fact: publicly traded companies also fall under the "owned by the people at large" category...

5

carloselunicornio t1_j1yqznl wrote

>publicly traded companies also fall under the "owned by the people at large" category...

It's pretty obvious what they mean by "people at large", and it sure doesn't mean shareholders.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zu0dw wrote

Why doesn't it?

3

carloselunicornio t1_j1zv4w9 wrote

Because "people at large" means "most people", and most people aren't shareholders.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zw4q3 wrote

Most people actually are shareholders...

2

carloselunicornio t1_j1zxce8 wrote

You believe that most of the world's population are shareholders?

Can you substantiate that claim? Because I find it hard to believe.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j1zy1l6 wrote

By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro. Have fun with that no true scotsman type silliness.

Most people in Europe, America, and probably other places in the world, are shareholders; what currently existing "collective ownership" modeled countries do a better job of involving the general public in business ownership?

1

carloselunicornio t1_j1zzpg3 wrote

>By your logic there has never been a company owned by "people at large" in all of history... cool bro.

It is cool indeed but I didn't say that. I challenged your claim that most people are shareholders, which I'm pretty sure is not true.

The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large", but that's beside the point since you've clearly chosen this hill to die on.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j206riz wrote

>The initial commenter was obviosly hinting at communal ownership/worker collective type of ownership when he said "people at large"

And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

>It is cool indeed but I didn't say that.

I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21suhv wrote

>And my point is how are the "people at large" ownership type companies functionally different from publicly traded companies?

You can't see the difference between a workers colective and a joint stock company?

>Like, I don't know what to tell you; you're the one delving into irrelevant "gotchas"...

Yeah, sure...

>I never said you did; I drew a logical inference from the assertion in your challenge.

Yes, you extrapolated to the extreme to prop up your argument.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21u8wb wrote

A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

Lol dude, that's how you find out if someone's using good logic: find out where it takes you.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21umpz wrote

>A worker's collective isn't the public at large.

And a joint stock company is?

>Lol dude, I didn't at all, but ok, have fun building straw men to feel good I guess

Have fun with your logical fallacy check list buddy.

2

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21ut6u wrote

Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21v65p wrote

>Yes, it is... Anyone can be a shareholder. That's the whole point...

Anyone can, but are most people shareholders? You know, the public at large? That is the point.

>Being able to put a name to your behavior isn't an insult.

Waiting for the next one.

1

Aaron_Hamm t1_j21vef8 wrote

Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Sorry you didn't know that?

1

carloselunicornio t1_j21w4wn wrote

>Yes, most people are shareholders in the western world.

Can you back that up? With numbers?

>Sorry you didn't know that?

I'm loving the snark, keep it up.

1

krashlia t1_j1xxc7n wrote

That doesn't mean anything in China. That doesn't mean anything wherever there exists a government that lives by an ideology that says it wants to end private property.

−3

Augustus420 t1_j21is9z wrote

What do you think private property means in this context?

0

TheOtherAisle t1_j1xlrxk wrote

It's China. They put cameras outside bathrooms with facial recognition technology to stop people from stealing toilet paper. What do you think?

−8

King_Pecca t1_j1xppc4 wrote

Are you Chinese, living in China, or just guessing?

9