The difference between Chinese billionaires and American billionaires is that the Chinese ones are owned by the government. To set up any company in China requires part government ownership of, I think, 15%.

There is no way the billionaires are calling the shots, ever, while Xi is in power. As if he would allow what's happening in America, happen in China.

Remember what happened to the CEO of Alibaba? Jack Ma? When he became rich enough to potentially take over the country?

Nah...Jack Ma tried to fuck around with government and they shut him down.

First, we do not know this, even the weather channel provides the odds of something happening alongside a reminder that future outcomes cannot be predicted with certainty. Second, they are fundamentally different:

American capitalism: Maximization of individual economic freedom and utility. The system is designed to facilitate capital accumulation, innovation, and consumer choice through decentralized decision-making. The individual (consumer, investor, entrepreneur) is the primary unit of analysis which in turn is often a source of criticism due to the individualist nature of the social doctrine. The "invisible arbitrator (state)" of the market is trusted to aggregate individual choices into the best possible social outcomes but as seen recently, this trust has no incentive and can be taken advantage of leading to internal corruption and instance of accumulation of powers. Process is paramount: free choice, free competition, and profit motive are both the means and the implicit ends. It was also a direct response by John Locke to the issues caused by mercantilism and was created in the 1689 if I remember correctly.

Chinese socialism: National rejuvenation and the perpetuation of the ruling party's governance (let us remember that this is a country that is still less than 100 years old). Economic development is a critical tool for ensuring state sovereignty, social stability, and the legitimacy of the Peoples republic of China, which in turn is governed by a marxist-leninist influenced communist party. The economy is a subsystem of the state, not a separate sphere. It draws from Confucian traditions of a meritocratic, guiding state (similar to marx's conclusion "From each according to his ability to each according to his needs" on the flaws of the 19th century german socialist democracy present in his last volume, Kritik Des Gothaer Programs). The collective (nation, party, society) is the primary unit of analysis. Economic growth is a means to power, stability, and civilizational restoration. The system is teleological oriented toward a specific end-state (a "modern socialist," strong nation, correcting the post-modern false narrative that communism does not work which is a complete generalization and misdirected association on why certain states failed, yet cuba remains and has been for over a century even with the american embargo still being present). Efficiency matters, but only insofar as it serves the ultimate political goals.

The competition between them is not just economic so we can be clear; it is a competition between two fundamentally different logics of social organization: one rooted in individual autonomy and decentralized choice, the other in collective goals and centralized coordination. The 21st century will be a live test of their relative performance and resilience and I think of it as amazing that we get front row seats to see this.