China fact of the day

by on February 25, 2016 at 6:30 am in Current Affairs, Data Source, Economics | Permalink

With 32 newly minted super-rich in the past year, China’s capital has become the billionaire capital of the world, the latest Hurun Global Rich List says, with a total of 100 to the Big Apple’s 95.

And this:

China’s growing clout in the rankings is even starker in the world of female “self-made” billionaires, according to Hurun, where the country dominates with 93 of the global total of 124.

That is from Yuan Yang at the FT.

1 rayward February 25, 2016 at 7:46 am

It seems that Red China has changed colors: to green. Russian billionaires earned their fortune the old-fashioned way: they stole it. How do Chinese billionaires earn their fortune? Are they “self-made”? What does “self-made” mean? Surely, Russia’s plutocrats are “self-made”. What would Mao think of today’s Beijing. What would Thomas Jefferson think of today’s NYC.

2 dearieme February 25, 2016 at 7:49 am

“What would Thomas Jefferson think of today’s NY?” I don’t know, but no doubt he’d drama-queen about it.

3 So Much For Subtlety February 25, 2016 at 8:18 am

If Washington DC had 100 billionaires we would all understand what that meant. If London or Paris did, it would be less obvious.

The question is which type of capital is it? I don’t think it is a natural economic powerhouse like London – or Shanghai.

4 Andao February 25, 2016 at 2:42 pm

I think your assumption is right. Real estate and tech are big on Beijing, and both require enormous government support to operate

5 jim jones February 25, 2016 at 8:23 am

“self-made” just means that they stole Western technology and ideas.

6 Ray Lopez February 25, 2016 at 8:55 am

@jj- and who stole from the original US inventors? Their employers. “Intellectual Property is Theft” as Proudhon might say in another context.

7 Axa February 25, 2016 at 9:11 am

Mr. Jones, are you aware that if you have born in Latin America you’ll blame the US and Europe for “stealing natural resources”?

It’s funny, in every country there’s some people that point at other for stealing…..even in rich countries.

8 Alain February 25, 2016 at 11:16 am

But of course in South America the charge would be baseless. The mineral rights would have been paid for, through free exchange, between the various corporations and the various governments and/or property holders in those countries.

If South Americans have issues with their governments they should take it up with them and not try to lay blame on those who’s only crime is having deep pockets.

9 Agra Brum February 26, 2016 at 2:01 pm

That requires the acceptance of a lot of priors, that the South American property holders acquired title fairly. Although I have more sympathy with the foreign concern trying to find the proper seller than the unscrupulous seller who obtained title by nefarious means or governmental corruption.

10 Jeff R. February 25, 2016 at 11:32 am

“What would Mao think…”

I ask myself that very question before every decision I make, no matter how minor. Subway Italian BMT for lunch today? What would Mao think?

11 rayward February 25, 2016 at 11:59 am

In America, there’s a political philosophy based on what Mr. Jefferson would think but it’s only a philosophy, a philosophy that is generally accepted in America but imposed only with consent. In China, the risk of asking what Mao would think is that someone might answer and demand adherence to it, consent or not. I prefer the American approach even though, or because, I admire Mr. Jefferson. I don’t expect even Jeffersonians to demand that NYC billionaires return to the farm, but I’m not so sure Maoists wouldn’t insist that Beijing billionaires return to the farm.

12 February 25, 2016 at 8:17 pm

The Chinese highest value note is red. “The Origins of the Superrich: The Billionaire Characteristics Database” table A3

% Political connections and resource related

United States 3.8

Europe 20.4

United Kingdom 29.8

China 9.2

Russia 64

13 Millian February 25, 2016 at 9:06 am

I suppose the difference is that, in China, the government decides if you get to be a billionaire or not. If they don’t like you, they shoot you for making so much money.

14 cheesetrader February 25, 2016 at 9:11 am

Very interesting list

Here’s the nongated root article:

Interesting to see 12% of billionaires are immigrants – and that the US has the most

The women in China bit is intriguing – is this a leapfrog type of effect? You’d think the US would have been higher there.

15 wiki February 25, 2016 at 9:25 am

Undoubtedly that’s because the Chinese are so patriarchal and haven’t fully adopted feminist attitudes towards women. Otherwise, they would have many more female billionaires. Right?

I mean, how can a country with female infanticide and no Title IX possibly have successful women?

16 wiki February 25, 2016 at 9:27 am

And I’m still waiting for the usual “progressives” to tell us why a generation of pro-female European policy has produced so many European billionaires and CEOs.

17 Millian February 25, 2016 at 9:41 am

Europeans do not measure social progress by number of billionaires.

18 wiki February 25, 2016 at 10:09 am

But they do care about CEOs. Which probably doesn’t matter given how few new great companies Europe has created in the last 25 years.

19 cheesetrader February 25, 2016 at 9:27 am

Hmmmm – maybe we should export more wymyn’s studies majors to them to “help” their economy? Is that your proposal?

If so, I’m in

20 8 February 25, 2016 at 10:30 am

I haven’t looked at the list recently, but there used to be quite a few divorcees on the Forbes 400.

China went for full equality and forced women into work. It’s also poorer, so women do jobs they might not like to earn money. In the wealthy West, women avoid the harder, boring jobs because they don’t need the money.

21 Nathan W February 26, 2016 at 12:01 am

Women in China are not “forced” to work, except insofar as economic necessity might do so. But since they are generally decently educated and have few children, it makes sense for them to do so.

22 Alain February 25, 2016 at 11:31 am

Clicking through the Forbes list a few do seem like founders as we would consider them in the west, for example Zhou Qunfei. However, many others seem like the face of the company while their husband/siblings run some day-to-day affairs. Perhaps it was very difficult to trust in the ‘early days’ of the modern Chinese economy and so families stuck together and for some reason, I have no guess as to why here, sometimes a woman was selected as the front.

23 Nathan W February 26, 2016 at 12:04 am

Consider that the category word for “company” in Chinese is the same word as “family”. “Yi jia gongsi”, where “jia” is the same character as “family” and “gongsi” means “company”.

The notion of family business is so embedded into Chinese culture that the language specifies it this way. This may continue to change over time though.

24 TallDave February 25, 2016 at 11:26 am

At least until the devaluation.

Still, definitely a step up from Maoism. I salute the Chinese entrepreneurs.

Watch the reserves.

25 chris purnell February 25, 2016 at 11:50 am

I love statistics which are utterly meaningless. China (1.3 billion people) compared to ‘the Big Apple’ (10 million people).

26 Moreno Klaus February 25, 2016 at 12:56 pm

“China’s capital”…. 😉

27 John February 25, 2016 at 1:32 pm

Beijing has a population of 21 million so while the reference to China’s total population was incorrect the general point stands –looking at the totals is not an apple-to-apple comparidon.

28 John February 25, 2016 at 1:29 pm

I do wonder if the term “self-made” is quite appropriate. I suspect in the US or other liberal market socieites we’re blanch at that term being applied to someone who made their fortune through rent-seeking efforts and governemnt handout. (or maybe not….)

29 Alain February 25, 2016 at 4:04 pm

In the west, self-made is generally means someone who started with means many orders of magnitude below their station today.

Most people don’t attach the number of qualifiers that you are implying. Well most people that aren’t liberal hacks.

30 Alain February 25, 2016 at 4:06 pm

As an example most people would consider everyone on this list :

self made.

The end.

31 Andao February 25, 2016 at 2:48 pm

And yet there are no female politicians at the top ranks in China, no female provincial governors. Weird disconnect

32 M February 26, 2016 at 5:30 am

Ideas on the “women” aspect, based on simple gender psychology, you could have there that:
1) not as many extent businesses to join – women may more often found businesses through lack of options, not preference.
2) many technologies and practices pioneered overseas are a safe bet, so male taste for risk is a less significant advantage.

Comments on this entry are closed.

Previous post:

Next post: