LVMH’s Empty Chinese Megastore Signals Deepening Luxury Crash
www.bloomberg.com
Upmarket brands are scrambling to adjust strategy after being wrongfooted by the rapid downturn in Chinese spending.
  • eatCasserole@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
    0·
    12 hours ago

    It’s interesting how the heading includes “potentially dangerous” but the article never follows up on that bit. I guess any story about China just has to sound scary.

      • eatCasserole@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
        0·
        9 hours ago

        True true, the moment they realize rules actually do apply to them would be a bit unsettling I’m sure.

        I suppose “cracking down on corruption” is a scary phrase for some of these people too.

    • -6-6-6-@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      3 hours ago

      Jack Ma has a property in the middle of New York adirondacks. Anyone know any information about that?

      Apparently it was owned by one of the Rockefellers and had some crazy creepy shit going on there from what locals said; both in the past and during the present.

    • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
      0·
      14 hours ago

      I remember that, too. Though unfortunately, I’ve read he is still a member or associate of the CPC. I don’t know if that is true or not, but at least the party pulled the leash.

      • EnsignRedshirt [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
        0·
        13 hours ago

        I doubt they have a problem with him in general, just that they obviously made it clear that they’re not going to allow him a soapbox to try and drum up support for western style liberalism. If they wanted him gone, he’d have died in an unfortunate helicopter accident. I’m guessing that they made that clear to him in so many words shortly before he went on hiatus.

    • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
      0·
      14 hours ago

      Did they even imprison him, or did they just tell him to tone it down and he followed the law because he lives in a country where billionaires aren’t above it? Was it just like an American judge ordering Trump or Musk to not tweet about this or that, except for the fact that there’s actually rule of law in China so Ma obeyed the court order?

      I don’t actually remember the details.

      • cayde6ml@lemmygrad.ml
        0·
        14 hours ago

        I’ve read that he is unfortunately a member or associate of the CPC, but I’m not sure how true that is. At least the party pulled the leash.

        • MarxMadness@lemmygrad.mlEnglish
          0·
          12 hours ago

          Reminds me of part of a Mao speech (albeit from 1957):

          In our country, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie comes under the category of contradictions among the people. By and large, the class struggle between the two is a class struggle within the ranks of the people, because the Chinese national bourgeoisie has a dual character. In the period of the bourgeois-democratic revolution, it had both a revolutionary and a conciliationist side to its character. In the period of the socialist revolution, exploitation of the working class for profit constitutes one side of the character of the national bourgeoisie, while its support of the Constitution and its willingness to accept socialist transformation constitute the other. The national bourgeoisie differs from the imperialists, the landlords and the bureaucrat-capitalists. The contradiction between the national bourgeoisie and the working class is one between exploiter and exploited, and is by nature antagonistic. But in the concrete conditions of China, this antagonistic contradiction between the two classes, if properly handled, can be transformed into a non-antagonistic one and be resolved by peaceful methods. However, the contradiction between the working class and the national bourgeoisie will change into a contradiction between ourselves and the enemy if we do not handle it properly and do not follow the policy of uniting with, criticizing and educating the national bourgeoisie, or if the national bourgeoisie does not accept this policy of ours.

          I see a lot of this echoed in Dengism and more generally the last ~40 years of Chinese economic policy. If the national bourgeoisie doesn’t seek to overthrow the government or take power over the state, it can make some money and serve its role of helping develop the country’s means of production. But if it gets out of line, it’s not running the show and will he held to account.