Of course, there is the (obvious) point that ~100 billionaires in government is not contradictory with capital allocations being made by smart people. How many of those billionaires inherited their wealth?

> China's parliament has ~100 billionaires, and the concentration of wealth is even more extreme than that when you count those with a net worth exceeding, say, $100 million instead.

I mean, just looking at the facts - independent observers put US wealth concentration at higher levels than China, look at the wealth gini coefficient.

> The difference is access to raw power, national unity, and a massive foundational population.

This combination has existed elsewhere. The intensive testing/promotion scheme used in the CCP has been a little less common. The difference between the US and China is that we put this "raw power" in the hands of private enterprise and management, whereas in China they sequester a lot of that talent into the party and sometimes loan it out to private industry.

It's just not clear to me what point you're trying to make. Maybe the US has more wealth concentration at the top than China, but it's clear that both countries experience this problem/symptom to an extraordinary degree. It's also clear there are tons of self-made multimillionaires and billionaires in the US, including probably a surprising number right on this very forum (well, maybe not billionaires so much). You're trying to make it seem as if the US is dramatically more unequal than China and that every wealthy or powerful person in the US inherited everything but this is far from obvious and probably false.

> The difference between the US and China is that we put this "raw power" in the hands of private enterprise and management, whereas in China they sequester a lot of that talent into the party and sometimes loan it out to private industry.

On this point I do completely agree with you.

The point I'm making is pretty clear. Obviously this analysis is entirely comparative, since we're trying to diagnose why China might diverge compared to other growth models.

China has comparatively less wealth concentration, and a comparatively much higher proportion of Chinese billionaires and multimillionaires are self-made compared to the US. Keep in mind, there weren't really any billionaires in China before 1980 for them to inherit the money from.

Your point is not at all clear to me, sorry. I think the differences you're pointing out are small at best, and while they may not have had a vast aristocratic billionaire or centimillionaire class in the past, they definitely do today.

China's system acknowledge power and classes.

Billinares have enourmous power, then putting them into the power system, is a appropriate recognition; and ensures appropriate control and management as well.

While in US, the enourmous power of billinares are masked behind an entagled web of legal and political constructs, which are so complicated that the ones involved probably dont have a clue how much power they actually have. Today they can be enoumously powerful, the next day they are suddenly under constant barrage from all sides. Like FB Google and Twitter were chanted as the beacon of free world's inevitable domination in world in the grassroot's revolutions in middle east (Arab's spring); now they were blamed for almost every instances of domestic plitical failures.

A better approach might be subject these powers into the government system, and manage and use them as tools. Instead of pretending that a free-rein systems can regulate themselves, which ends up with a swamp of complications and complexity that no one is able to remotely influence the thing with a coherent vision and strategy.