[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.