• FuckBigTech347@lemmygrad.ml
    2·
    17 hours ago

    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.

    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.

    xi pointing at the screen Hilarious shit. It’s almost as if it’s impossible to get rich through honest and ethical means.

  • ☭ Comrade Pup Ivy 🇨🇺@lemmygrad.ml
    14·
    2 days ago

    Honestly this has become the funniest article written to be serious I have ever seen “Oh no the billionares cannot control the government or do whatever they want, feel bad for them” is hilarious to me

  • pancake@lemmygrad.ml
    29·
    3 days ago

    Rare FT “China good” moment /s

    Or so it would be if people wouldn’t personally relate to billionaires for some reason.

  • comrade-bear@lemmygrad.ml
    17·
    3 days ago

    Man my brain hurts as I start to read the article and it says that the writer has a chair in the rockfeller institute and wrote a book called what went wrong with capitalism, which is just about the weirdest thing ever

    • buckykat [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
      17·
      3 days ago

      Excerpted from the blurb for this “what went wrong with capitalism” book:

      What went wrong with capitalism? Ruchir Sharma’s account is not like any you will have heard before. He says progressives are right, in part, when they mock modern capitalism as “socialism for the rich.” For a century, governments have expanded in just about every measurable dimension, from spending to regulation and the scale of financial rescues when the economy wobbles. The result is expensive state guarantees for everyone—bailouts for the rich, entitlements for the middle class, welfare for the poor.

      He thinks what went wrong with capitalism is that’s it’s not as laissez-faire as the robber baron era anymore.

      • anarcho_blinkenist [none/use name]@hexbear.netEnglish
        11·
        3 days ago

        Ruchir Sharma’s account is not like any you will have heard before.

        proceeds to say the same monotonous sleight-of-hand changing-the-name-of-things-and-thinking-you’ve-changed-the-thing-itself garbage every bourgeois economist left of Murray goddamn Rothbard has shit out then re-shit out from their overpaid university institutions in a nauseating cycle for a hundred years

        This is literally the same “road to serfdom” (also a terrible book) mont perelin garbage that has been bandied about by liberal bourgeois economists for a century, and is still as detached from the material reality and interests and the actual nature of political-economy and the state behind these inevitable realities. I’m unreasonably pissed at that blurb for being so goddamn bad and historically illiterate. gulag

        both of them. author and blurb-writer. go to the gulag and be reeducated. You must transcribe Marx’s Captital by hand 3 times, with select chapters chosen by the central committee to be transcribed 10 times each.

      • comrade-bear@lemmygrad.ml
        3·
        2 days ago

        About what I was expecting. Cause the correct content for this book would be: we, we(Rockefeller institute) made it go bad