[offsign_p]

Not saying he's wrong here but... I'm curious why the world puts so much weight in the opinions of investment billionaires on topics they seemingly have no formal experience in.

There seems to be this implicit believe in society that wealth implies superpowers across a spectrum of topics, especially politics. Personally getting tired of all the opinions from guys like Soros, Dalio, and Ackman -- the cynic in me can't help but wonder whether these types of articles are an earnest attempt at public policy, or just a veiled bull case for their next investment thesis.

[trompetenaccoun]

Soros has divested more and more from China recently. He's since become openly critical of the regime, whereas previously he didn't have much to say about it. So you definitely have a point in terms of billionaires promoting their investments. The likes of Dalio do the same, but in his case he's bizarrely doubled down on the CCP.

I do agree with you that people shouldn't listen to others simply because they're rich, that's not a basis for a logical argument. That said though if I were a Westerner with no idea about China, I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet. Listening just to Soros may not be smart but you might check where most of the money goes, what most of them are saying - where the wind blows, so to speak. I don't see any billionaires moving to China In general more wealthy Mainlanders leave than the other way around. Also the government is getting stricter and stricter with their currency and exchange controls in China. Why would they need this if money weren't trying to leave? In most other countries, you can exchange as much local currency for foreign currency as you like.

All this should tell a keen observer something about the direction the Xi regime is headed, if other developments like the concentration camps aren't enough of a hint.

[concinds]

> I would consider the opinion of people with skin in the game, and would value it over that of random others on the internet

Soros has zero skin in the game. He expects Xi to no longer be in power by the end of the year; and will suffer zero consequence if he's wrong.

[trompetenaccoun]

He shifted his investments away from China to the US and elsewhere, and that's exactly what he's advertising now. See for example:

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-08-17/soros-joi...

Investors don't generally bad-mouth their own holdings for obvious reasons. They'd usually sell or go short first. Look at it like this: You can't look up to them for moral guidance because they have their own money on the line and will not give you neutral advice. Case and point is that Soros apparently didn't have issues pouring millions of dollars into CCP controlled China earlier, despite already questionable ethics of such investments. But now it's gotten to a point where even people like him are pulling out and have started criticizing the Communist Party - because Xi has gone full dictator and not even billionaires and their holdings are safe anymore.

[concinds]

Sure, but disinvestments are not skin in the game. Terms like that should not be used colloquially where they don't apply. He has personal reasons to now oppose China, given the current anti-China sentiment and the fact that his progressive agenda is opposed by Chinese interests. It's not meaningful.

[trompetenaccoun]

We may have different games in mind. The game I'm talking about is geopolitics/global power. The topic of the article is how they're turning Hong Kong, which used to be one of the main financial hubs of the world, into a police state.

It's not only about Soros, he's just an example the other guy brought up. A theoretical billionaire who only has investments in the US would also have skin in the game, that would be a clear stance. Not sure if such a person exists, when you have that much wealth it's generally globally distributed, at least to some degree. Some of it for tax reasons, some because there might be a good opportunity somewhere, but in the above mentioned case it's clearly political. We could also look at someone like Jack Ma. He quite literally risked his skin speaking out, and ended up losing most of his wealth. In a way he's lucky to only have lost his money.

[ToDougie]

My thoughts on this are:

Billionaires like Soros have access to experts that they can call upon at a whim. An intelligent creature like Soros would know his limitations, and would either ponder deeply and thoroughly research a subject before delivering his conclusions, or he would skip to the end and regurgitate the current trendy things to say. Or a combination of both.

I agree and disagree with things Soros says and does. I'm no sycophant. But I think he's probably in a different caliber as the common celebrity.

[markdestouches]

It's not so much that they are investors or extremely wealthy. It's more that they are celebrities and the way the news media works. Few people would read an interview with some obscure expert, but they do tend to listen to who they already know or who they perceive as an authority. The fact that that authority says little beyond some commonplace everybody already knows about does not seem to matter, unfortunately.