Therein lies the tales of two systems.
Per Western doctrine of corporate governance, as famously described in corporate finance theory, it is the shares-holders, aka capital, that decide, or should ultimately decide what is a good economic activity to pursue for any corporations. Any corporate management that makes economic decisions that align with share-holders' interests is deemed to be under a good corporate governance, if not, under a bad one. Any corporation that takes share-holders out of the decision loop is deemed to be in breach of corporate governance. What is the share holders' interest one might ask, and it is the profit. So share holders, aka capital, wants only one thing, ie, the profit, and they got to have a say in every decision making in how to make that profit. In other words, everybody is accountable and answers to money, and it's called good governance. All the rage in the latest fads are green finance, social impact, impact investing, social entrepreneurship, etc, but they all the same in essence, same dance to the same song but with a different arrangement.
Current Chinese hybrid system mostly self finances its economic activities, these foreign investors/shareholders/capital don't have a say in what China does with her own money, and they don't like it a bit. That's the reason MSM business articles are abound with China collapse, with their own narrow corporate governance point of view. China has been building up her own financial capital, human capital and last but not least physical capital at an impressive clip that they feel they cannot maintain the lead by usual means of these finely couched, academically certified, MBA stamped BS doctrine of "for money, by money, nothing but money" governance. China would only allow foreign capital in much need technology and high end service sector in order to spur domestic competition and growth. Chinese system only allow capital as an engine, a horse, an ox, but not as a driver, or a decision marker. It's a means to an end. US$1 T worth China's tech shares wiped out in short succession don't mean much for Chinese system. It was only book value. Investors spooked? Never high up in the decision matrix. Like in the current pandemics precedent, it's the common Chinese people who's the ultimate goal that money must serve, not money itself. As China grows ever more, it's the foreign investors, if and when they bring in what China wants, who need China more. Not the other way around.
Western capitalist preaching finance to Chinese Communists is like a high school drop out teaching a seasoned Wall Street banker how money works.
