127
submitted 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) by carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml

FT

Opinion Chinese business & finance

It’s no longer glorious to get rich in China — it’s dangerous

Why no one wants to be the nation’s top tycoon any more

Last month, Colin Huang, founder of ecommerce powerhouse PDD, attracted the usual headlines when he rose to become China’s richest man. But shortly after, PDD surprised investors with a downbeat profit forecast. Its stock plummeted. Huang lost $14bn overnight, and ceded the top spot to Zhong Shanshan, founder of beverage giant Nongfu Spring. Within 24 hours, Nongfu Spring issued its own unexpectedly depressing outlook, and Zhong, too, soon slipped from first place on the rich lists.

On Chinese social media, chatter broke out about whether corporate leaders might be competitively devaluing their own stock prices to avoid the widening crackdown on excessive wealth, which is a centrepiece of leader Xi Jinping’s “common prosperity” campaign. It is not implausible to conclude, wrote one Wall Street broker, that “nobody wants to be the richest man in China” at a time when its government is turning more assertively socialist.

Whatever the true motive for these profit warnings, the way they were spun on Chinese social media reflects a real change in the national zeitgeist. When Deng Xiaoping became paramount leader in the late 1970s, he defanged the old Maoist hostility to wealth creation. To get rich would be “glorious” in his increasingly capitalist nation.

But there was a catch. It was glorious to get rich — just not too rich. China was generating far more wealth than other developing countries, yet its largest individual fortunes remained modest compared with those in much smaller economies, including Nigeria and Mexico. Even during the roaring boom of the 2000s, an unwritten cap seemed to remain: no single fortune would rise much higher than $10bn. China’s billionaire list was also unusual for the high rate of churn in its top ranks.

By the early 2010s, at least two tycoons had seen their net worth approach that decabillion-dollar barrier, only to land in jail on corruption charges instead. That is not to say the charges were baseless, only that the choice of targets did appear to reflect a lingering, levelling tendency among China’s leaders.

That instinct flowered anew under Xi. Coming to power in 2012, he launched a campaign against corruption that reached deep into the elite. The early targets were often public sector bigwigs — bureaucrats, Communist party princelings. With China’s economy slowing, the regime seemed reluctant to scare the one private-sector goose still laying golden eggs: big tech companies. Over the years, many Chinese would build fortunes bigger than $10bn. The first three to breach that threshold, and keep rising, were tech industry founders led by Jack Ma of Alibaba.

This quiet tolerance would turn in 2020, during the stimulus-driven market boom. China added nearly 240 billionaires — twice as many as the US — but late that same year Ma made a speech that helped bring this party to a halt. In a guarded but unmistakable critique, Ma questioned the direction of Communist party rule, warning that overregulation threatened to slow tech innovation, and that Chinese banks suffered from “pawnshop thinking”.

State retaliation was swift. Alibaba’s share price collapsed. Ma tumbled down the rich lists and dropped out of public view. Early the next year, Xi launched his common prosperity campaign and the crackdown spread to any company deemed out of step with its egalitarian values.

In this new era, it’s dangerous to get too rich. Stories abound of the state launching investigations against this business figure or that financier. The pressure is drying up venture capital funds, scaring the young away from lucrative professions such as investment banking. The number of millionaires leaving China has been rising and peaked last year at 15,000 — dwarfing the exodus from any other nation.

The private sector is in retreat. Since 2021, the stock market has been sliding, but state companies have grown their share of total market cap by more than a third to nearly 50 per cent. China now has the world’s only major stock market in which state-owned companies are valued on par with those in the private sector. Individual fortunes have shrunk dramatically over the past three years; the number of billionaires has fallen 35 per cent in China, even as it rose 12 per cent in the rest of the world.

China’s super-rich increasingly choose to lie low. Become the richest tycoon in the US and you might launch your own space programme. In India, you might throw gazillion-dollar weddings for your children. In China, you might look for a way to lose your new title — and the target on your back.

xi-lib-tears

255
submitted 1 month ago by carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml
[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 18 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago)

Show me the original interview where Merkel said that.

"Hatten Sie gedacht, ich komme mit Pferdeschwanz?"

Die Zeit

7. Dezember 2022

https://archive.md/c4ZVK

Merkel: Das setzt aber voraus, auch zu sagen, was genau die Alternativen damals waren. Die 2008 diskutierte Einleitung eines Nato-Beitritts der Ukraine und Georgiens hielt ich für falsch. Weder brachten die Länder die nötigen Voraussetzungen dafür mit, noch war zu Ende gedacht, welche Folgen ein solcher Beschluss gehabt hätte, sowohl mit Blick auf Russlands Handeln gegen Georgien und die Ukraine als auch auf die Nato und ihre Beistandsregeln. Und das Minsker Abkommen 2014 war der Versuch, der Ukraine Zeit zu geben. Anm. d. Red.: Unter dem Minsker Abkommen versteht man eine Reihe von Vereinbarungen für die selbst ernannten Republiken Donezk und Luhansk, die sich unter russischem Einfluss von der Ukraine losgesagt hatten. Ziel war, über einen Waffenstillstand Zeit zu gewinnen, um später zu einem Frieden zwischen Russland und der Ukraine zu kommen. Sie hat diese Zeit hat auch genutzt, um stärker zu werden, wie man heute sieht.

(Translated): Merkel: But that requires saying what exactly the alternatives were at the time. I thought the idea of ​​Ukraine and Georgia joining NATO, which was discussed in 2008, was wrong. The countries did not have the necessary prerequisites for this, nor had the consequences of such a decision been fully considered, both with regard to Russia's actions against Georgia and Ukraine and to NATO and its mutual assistance rules. And the Minsk Agreement in 2014 was an attempt to give Ukraine time. Editor's note: The Minsk Agreement is a series of agreements for the self-proclaimed republics of Donetsk and Luhansk, which had broken away from Ukraine under Russian influence. The aim was to gain time through a ceasefire in order to later achieve peace between Russia and Ukraine. It also used this time to become stronger, as we can see today.

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 22 points 3 months ago

The quick answer is because the housing market was used for speculation and was causing real estate prices and rents to rise. China introduced "three red lines" policy to mitigate this and let the housing market crash and let the billionaire CEO Hui Ka Yan (and mostly foreign Investors) hold the bag

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 27 points 4 months ago

Nobody trusts China’s economic stats.

Except the IMF, World Bank, Moody, Standard and Poor, etc.

Meanwhile, Bitcoin

lol

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 17 points 4 months ago

Poland bro… They invaded a country together and split up. I know a bad fact for your narrative but get real here.

Two weeks after the Nazis invaded and the polish state dissolved already.

goat fuckers

Libs and being racist. Classic

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 16 points 4 months ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Munich_Agreement

Western powers collaboration with the Nazis (earlier) and the gifting of Czechoslovakia for Hitler to go east, conveniently forgotten

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 18 points 6 months ago

They've been supporting Ukraine since the first day and been encouraging peace talks. China is one of their biggest trading partners and it's in their interest. China hasn't been sending weapons because that's just putting fuel into the fire. And they also didn't do sanctions against Russia, because those haven't been decided by the UN.

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 19 points 6 months ago

The Shenzhen frenzy dovetails with Hong Kong residents’ growing willingness to work and live in mainland China. A survey of people under 40 in the city by the Hong Kong-Guangdong Youth Association conducted last year found 66% of them are now open to employment across the border, tripling from 22% in 2020.

China genocided HKs culture so that more ppl stop realizing how bad cummunism is

53
submitted 10 months ago by carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml to c/worldnews@lemmy.ml
[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 20 points 10 months ago

Still better than being indebted to Dollars, considering the interest rates and the imposition of austerity measures by the IMF imo

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 28 points 10 months ago

State Department Lawyers Concluded Insufficient Evidence to Prove Genocide in China - FP

https://archive.md/SFvMX

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 24 points 10 months ago

nuanced and realistic is when you hold other gvmts to higher standards than your own. Got it.

While I agree with the amount of CO2 being the meaningful statistic, I see China doing a lot more in that regard than the US.

  • Per Capita CO2: China is way lower
  • Produces and deploys renewables on an unprecedented scale
  • Public transport is taken serious

When the US/West exported it's treat production to China pointing the finger to the total CO2 output is just chauvinist

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 29 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

This type of comment reads really chauvinist, especially when you're defending Biden for increasing oil production in the other thread

[-] carl_marks_1312@lemmy.ml 18 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

I am curious to see what happens.

Learn history and economics and you won't need to be curious

He's devaluing the currency (apparently dollarizing it was even too radical for his supporters) and applying shock therapy and thus building an export Economy and seeling off state assets for pennies to foreign multinationals.

Basically recreating 90s Russia which worked out pretty good as we all know

view more: next ›

carl_marks_1312

joined 1 year ago