I’m not sure how you arrived at this conclusion. My take away was the Chinese government fears tech companies that might take power away from the Chinese government. This is more about the Chinese government maintaining its own power and full control, and less about the value add or anti trust stance for keeping a competitive market.
https://danwang.co/2020-letter/
> While promoting the status of science and technology with one hand, the Chinese government has with its other hand reined in the activities of consumer internet companies. I’ve never stopped lamenting the marketing trick that California pulled off to situate consumer internet as the highest form of technology, as if Tencent and Facebook are the surest signs that we live a technologically-accelerating civilization. The “tech” giants are highly-capable companies that print cash. But they’re barely engaged in the creation of intellectual property, excelling instead on business-model innovation and the exploitation of network effects. It’s become apparent in the last few months that the Chinese leadership has moved towards the view that hard tech is more valuable than products that take us more deeply into the digital world. Xi declared this year that while digitization is important, “we must recognize the fundamental importance of the real economy… and never deindustrialize.” This expression preceded the passage of securities and antitrust regulations, thus also pummeling finance, which along with tech make up the most glamorous sectors today. The optimistic scenario is that these actions compress the wage and status premia of the internet and finance sectors, such that we’ll see fewer CVs that read: “BS Microelectronics, Peking; software engineer, Airbnb” or “PhD Applied Mathematics, Princeton; VP, Citibank.”
Read the whole letter, it is very informative, unlike most coverage in the Western business press that leans towards the caricatural. Xi may be evil and ruthless, but that does not mean he is stupid, or insincere in his nationalism. It would be a grave mistake to underestimate him and think of him as just another Putin.
Coverage of China in the US business press is abysmal, which is kind of surprising given how important the bilateral relationship is, but then again the US is so big, so central to the world economy and so powerful it could survive for a long time with an insular point of view, a luxury it no longer has. You will get much better coverage in Japan's Nikkei, and in specialized blogs.
but destalizie the financial system would be undesirable by any government, hardly to say it's a CCP problem.
I keep the claim that the explanation is even more simpler: whomever becomes a big man in a country like China eventually goes down, and that's the whole story.
There can only be one "big man" in such system, and he tolerates no competition.
This consistently held true through the whole 40 years of modern China: whomever attains too much of the social, political, economical, cultural, moral, or even genealogical prominence consistently gets taken down. This is why most mainland Chinese have that fear of publicity, and standing out almost bordering on panic disorder. And this is why people attaining any level of prominence there keep leaving the country for the West.
What about their wrong simply being "getting too rich, and successful," and causing somebody a burst of jealousy?
Becoming richer than a partyman in some small village is very much a challenge to the party. What changed now is that the entire China has become that village.