Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses China Transportation

City of Beijing Said To Seek Taking Didi Under State Control (bloomberg.com) 62

Posted by BeauHD from the isn't-every-Chinese-company-under-state-control? dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Bloomberg: Beijing's municipal government has proposed an investment in Didi Global Inc. that would give state-run firms control of the world's largest ride-hailing company, according to people familiar with the matter. Under the preliminary proposal, Shouqi Group -- part of the influential Beijing Tourism Group -- and other firms based in the capital would acquire a stake in Didi, the people said, asking not to be identified discussing private information. Scenarios under consideration include the consortium taking a so-called "golden share" with veto power and a board seat, they added.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

City of Beijing Said To Seek Taking Didi Under State Control More

City of Beijing Said To Seek Taking Didi Under State Control

Comments Filter:

  • Totalitarians want to control transportation?! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by memory_register ( 6248354 ) on Saturday September 04, 2021 @08:08AM (#61762597)
    I am shocked, shocked I tell you!

    In all seriousness, this should come as no surprise that a successful company is slowly being eaten by the state in China. Success is allowed there, but only as long as it is fully under the control and auspices is of the party.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Public transport is often owned by the state, or heavily regulated with the state determining fares and the like, in Europe.

      • The key word there is Public. These are privately owned vehicles. Ride hailing and ride sharing are not the subway.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They aren't taking the vehicles though.

          Conditions and pay for the drivers will probably improve.

          • If you own a thing but have no control over it... do you really own it? That's just fascism.

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I dunno, ask Uber drivers.

              • ISHKA: He's got you there, Yelgrun.

              • Uber drivers choose to contract with Uber. I'm pretty sure that such choice does not exist for Didi.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Why are you "pretty sure"?

                  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                    • You seem to have a very, very ignorant view of what Americans think about socialism. We don't imagine that China - an ostensibly communist by in realist a fascist totalitarian oligarchy - controls the minutiae of each person's life. However, any sufficiently large or powerful organization, business, or individual in China will be monitored and controlled. Look up Zhao Wei if you don't believe me. She was their Scarlett Johanson two years ago, now completely erased from the Chinese internet for minor infract

                    • Re: (Score:2)

                      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                      The idea is to have a government that is sufficiently devolved and with democratic safeguards in place so that it can be trusted to represent the constituents.

                      Some European countries have done quite well in that regard, with coalition governments and systems that ensure all views are represented. Other have done really badly, e.g. the UK.

                  • Sorry, that was for rhetorical effect. I'm sure Didi had no choice. If the CCP can disappear Jack Ma and Zhao Wei, you can be sure they told Didi exactly how this was going to go, and Didi's leadership said "thank you sir, may I have another?"
      • Normally when I think of public transportation it's city busses or a subway system or above ground light rail. There are some private bus companies, but the others are expensive enough that it takes someone with city-sized pockets to build in the first place.

        Ride-hailing is really stretching the notion of public transit though. No one considers a stretch limo rental company to be public transportation, but what's the difference between them and a company like Uber/Didi other than size?

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I guess it's really down to how popular they are. If they are taking significant numbers of riders away from buses and trains then the arguments for public ownership of public transport apply.

          • So, if GM or Ford sells enough cars, then there is an argument for local governments to seize control of of all those cars? Fascinating notion.

            I'm not utterly sure, but it sounds like you're in favour of fascism....

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              Do you understand what Didi is?

              It's like Uber. The drivers own their own cars, use an app to get jobs.

              If Uber was nationalized the cars would still belong to the drivers.

              • It's like Uber.

                Sorta. But there are major differences.

                The drivers own their own cars

                Many of them do not.

                In America and Europe, Uber competes with taxis.

                In China, taxis are incorporated into the Didi system. The easiest way to get a taxi is to use the Didi app. If you request a ride from Didi, the car that responds will often be a taxi.

                This means that taxi drivers get individual ratings just like other drivers. So, unlike in the West, taxis in China are clean, and the drivers are polite.

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  Yes, and in that sense it's similar to Uber too. Taxi companies use it too. Anyway the point stands and hopefully the GP understands now that the cars are not owned by Didi.

                  • We are talking about China. Ownership of property can change rapidly; besides, if you own the car for your own personal use but must sign over its use to the state if you intend to use it in any professional capacity AND you only bought the vehicle for ride-sharing, do you truly own the car? No, no you do not. Your name might be on the title, but you have no say in how you use it.

                • So, unlike in the West, taxis in China are clean, and the drivers are polite.

                  I think you have may confuses whichever part of the west you are in with the entirety.

                  I can't recall a taxi I've been in ever being dirty enough for it to be memorable.

            • There's a difference between a company manufacturing vehicles, individual people owning vehicles for their own personal use and people hired by a company to provide a public service.

              I don't know how Uber, Lyft and Didi work - do the people own the vehicles or are they supplied by the company? If so, what makes them different from taxis?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by Anonymous Coward

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]

          Wiki seems at least to think public transport includes taxis. After all they are TRANSPORTATION SERVICES OFFERED TO THE PUBLIC IN WHICH E.G. ONE CANNOT DENY DUE TO RACE, SEX, ETC.

          • But they can deny services when you have no money, which is MONETARISM, i.e. discrimination based on your wealth!!!1

      • Maybe with the difference that this isn't public transport but rather some cab equivalent.

        • Ride hailing services blur the lines of what is and isn't public transportation, for which there is no hard definition.

          Perhaps Beijing has decided to set a hard definition for their own purposes.

          • Ride hailing services can be a stopgap service for areas underserviced by public transport because there isn't enough traffic to warrant running frequent busses, but in Beijing?

            I could see some backwater area where the handful of people who'd want to travel per day don't warrant running public busses but ... BEIJING?

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You aren't exactly averse to supporting communist policies such as nationalisation, are you? I use the term "communist" descriptively rather than as an insult.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by SpzToid ( 869795 )
      Has it occurred to anyone in this thread the CCP is interested in mining that rich data environment [npr.org]?

  • are there government owned taxis in other citys?
    As that is what ride-hailing companys are A taxi

  • You can of course open a business in China, but if it becomes profitable beyond a certain threshold, don't expect it to remain yours.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Anonymous Coward

      I guess they are now taking over businesses that now DON'T make a profit, or BARELY just made profit for just one quarter, but likely did some accounting wizardry to do so, since UBER has NEVER made a profit.

      I suppose they found out that such systems aren't really that profitable, but are EXTREMELY useful to general public, and therefore it would be better to take over it, and subsidize it with government funds.

      • If that was the case, they wouldn't need to tapdance around it by wanting "golden shares" and forcing a party member into the board, they'd simply get it dumped onto them by the current owner.

        • they'd simply get it dumped onto them by the current owner.

          A company can be very valuable despite having no profits.

          Amazon has the highest valuation of any company in America yet had no profits for many years.

          Uber has a current market cap of $76B yet is losing money.

  • Itâ(TM)s the logical next step for the ccp in their suppression of successful capitalism. Cant have companies getting TOO successful when the ruling party insists on keeping ALL the control. Itâ(TM)s a tad different than the kleptocracy that ended the USSRs run, but really just a slightly different flavor of the same plate of crap. China SAYS it wants to avoid the mistakes of the soviets, but their trajectory is looking mighty similar to me so far. Nationalization of their promising, successful co

  • Control of travel (Score:3, Insightful)

    by PPH ( 736903 ) on Saturday September 04, 2021 @09:44AM (#61762829)

    Common in many socialist countries. Internal passport systems or travel permits give the government control over who is permitted to go to various places. Private taxi or ride hailing services bypass this so the government keeping their hand on the switch of such companies, so to speak, is to be expected.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      What socialist countries do that?

      Certainly not any of the European ones.

      I'd say it's common in dictatorships and authoritarian states.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by hdyoung ( 5182939 )
        Im pretty sure there are exactly zero socialist countries in Europe? Check out the Nordic countries - government type: democracy. Economic system: capitalist. A slightly higher tax rate and more social services does not equal “socialist”. A mistake MANY leftists make.

        Cube, Venezuala, and North Kora are socialist. Not a good model to aspire after.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          The Nordic countries are socialist. In Denmark a third of all workers work for the government. They have strong social safety nets, social healthcare, high union membership and in some of them the government collectively bargains in behalf of all workers. State ownership of companies is high.

          Many other European countries have socialist aspects. Social healthcare is pretty universal, Germany is also very big on union membership and strong employment laws, for example.

          Socialism is not the opposite of capitali

          • Nope. Fully 100% dead wrong. Denmark is the âoeNordic modelâ which is clearly, explicitly NOT socialism. The Nordic governments continually shout this with a megaphone. They are market economy and democracy government. The antithesis of socialism.
    • China has the worlds cheapest efficient holidays, 100% vertical integration. Contractors and minibusses to get you to the airport. Private tour buses (Chinese only). Hotels, yep Chinese owned. Stops at break points(yep Chinese owned). Exchange Conversion - done in house f**k local laws. To some extent, Japan and Korea have package holidays nearly on par. A lot of airports rely on transportation taxes, and surcharge on taxis etc. To the extent that 16 seat minibuses were used to break monopoly profiteering
  • It’s totally great that in China, the State has sufficient wealth that it can invest in companies in order to ensure that they do not do anything that would be detrimental to the population.

  • So, they not only remove competition from public transport, but they also get to dip into the "cookie jar" by taking over a large business. Actually it does not even end there, they get to monitor and control people's movements, and also send a message to other upstarts, who want to challenge the party's rule.

    It is more then two birds, it is like an entire nest with a single stroke.

Slashdot Top Deals

You know you've landed gear-up when it takes full power to taxi.

Close