I find it puzzling that our elites are shocked by Xi's actions. China is a communist state bordering on a dictatorship since Xi's take over of all relevant institutions. The actions of the state are completely in line with their vision of China’s future, a equalitarian nation under communist ideology. With that in mind, these corporations were a direct threat by creating social disparity, educating outside the purview of the state and individual wealth that could challenge authority. Xi reminded all who is in charge. China encourages small business and mid size enterprise, but they have a radar on anything that could challenge or simply flourish outside the system, at the local, regional and national level. As long as one stays small, there will be no-one knocking on the door, but stand out and soon a government official will pay a visit. But this has been China for 5000 years and transcends ideology. It the power of the hierarchy.
This is true so long as the word "supposed" is in there. And Soros would agree with this statement so long as "supposed" is included. On the other hand, Soros is famous for recognizing that real markets do not reflect reality most of the time, even though they are "supposed" to. According to Soros markets out of balance are more likely to move further out of balance then they are to spontaneously correct.
Except the equalitarian goal, managing of business reminds me of how the mafia works in their own territory. Anyway, I am long some Chinese stocks.
Xi Jinping has a more socially responsible definition of Free Markets than the typical businessman. Xi's definition is the same as what you'd likely get from a person you stop randomly on the street and ask for a definition of the term "Free Market." They are more likely to stumble around and say something like "a free market is where there is free competition", or perhaps "a market where both buyer and seller are equally free to turn down a deal." But ask any businessman what he/she means by "Free Market," and you're more likely to get something like, "a market that the government stays out of," or "a market without government interference." Or said another way, "a market toward which government has adopted a laissez faire attitude." It's this dichotomous definition of "free market" that has caused no end of misunderstanding and confusion. It's the first definition, the one common to the man on the street, that is responsible for some of us maintaining that, "there is no such thing as "a free market." An exception might be the kids lemonade stand. In recent years, however, kids have begun to run afoul of local zoning and licensing ordinances, which would make their lemonade business not so free by the businessman's definition; yet presumably the requirements of the layman's definition would still be fulfilled.
Ooops. I should have said, ..."It's a combination of the two definitions that lead us to conclude there is no such thing as a free market, for if a market is free by one definition it is likely to not be free by the other.
Well there is no "socially responsible" version of free markets. The market is either free, meaning free of undue and unnecessary interference by the government or it's not. That "socially responsible" is just an excuse for control. And the non-businessmen's definition of "free market" is not in contrary to what a businessman's definition really, it's just one reflection of it. Without government's interference, a free market is where there is free competition", or "a market where both buyer and seller are equally free to turn down a deal."
Again, you over simplify things, particularly when talking about China. There is an inherent love hate relationship between business and government in all countries. Ideally, business wants no competition, no government oversight, low paid labor but a huge market that can afford its products. Business cares about nothing but bottom line. Government is more complicated because there are various types. In democracies, government is elected by the people and meant to protect and further the interests of society as a whole against special interests, like business, military, clergy and foreign powers. In dictatorships, society is under the control of one or more of the special interest groups, sometimes simply to drain the resources of the state for their sole benefit, but also to set the direction for the nation, as in most populist dictatorships from the right and the left. In China's case, you think it's an excuse for control but Chinese society in general wants their government to exercise that control. Ask the Chinese on the street and they would generally agree with their government's intervention in western China, to fight separatism and kill those who kill Han Chinese. To the common Han or Cantonese Chinese, Uyghur Chinese must learn to integrate and, if it means re-education camps? then reeducate. The nation as a whole is more important than the special interests of some. The Chinese government projects itself as the righteous conscience of the nation with a stick. The citizens aren't duped but they prefer order to disorder and the government has significantly increased their standard of living. China is still far from modern. For a communist country boasting paternalistic oversight, it still has no consumer mechanism to protect buyers from scammers. When harm is grievous, scammers are hung or spend 30 years in jail and that is supposed to scare others from doing the same and it works for about a month before things go back to the way things were. There is no impartial legal system because the judicial is government and scams frequently involve low level officials. But China's incredible success is undeniable. In my opinion, it is because of the efficiency of central planning and it frightens Americans capitalists to the core, because in America nothing is planned, everything is left to negotiation between government, business, judiciary and various other special interest groups. Beside the anarchic consequence of this, everything takes very long to reach agreement, everything become very expensive and ultimately the result is not necessarily better than if the decision was made by central planning with only the greatest benefit in mind. Europe is a good example of nations setting central planning agenda while also taking local considerations in the decision mix. The pace of development is faster than in the US where today little gets done and most everything is reactive.
Maybe read, my post#15 again? The phrase following the last comma is, "...for if a market is free by one definition it is likely to not be free by the other."
Well you are over-complicating things, my friend as usual with your great wall of text again. LOL It is very simple when it's very clear. China just doesn't know how to keep things in balance and wants everything all at once. It wants prosperity and flourishing of art and economy and yet is paranoid about people having their own individuality and ideas that it cannot control so it keeps everybody in a straitjacket. And one thing though, it's NOT the government that has significantly increased their standard of living; it's the West's over-obsession of material things and Chinese people's own hard work that's increased the Chinese people's standard of living. Now with the West withdrawing their business with China, let's see how much the standard of living will keep increasing.