Over time I have started to dislike long read articles. Most of the time articles all over the place and inundated with useless fillers.Stuff about length of h

Over time I have started to dislike long read articles. Most of the time articles all over the place and inundated with useless fillers.Stuff about length of hair or type of earphones are just fluff. And the article confuses the message as well. For example, In the mid-1990s, just two Indians featured in the annual Forbes billionaire list, racking up around $3bn between them. But against a backdrop of the gradual economic re-opening that began in 1991, this has quickly changed. By 2016, India had 84 entries on the Forbes billionaire list. Its economy was then worth around $2.3tn, according to the World Bank. China reached that level of GDP in 2006, but with just 10 billionaires to show for it. At the same stage of development, India had created eight times as many. What has number of billionaires have to do with anything? As per Forbes, 100 and 1 billion are the same. On the Nirav Modi and Mallya saga, India's bankruptcy system was broken and many times banks were in doldrums trying to recover dues. There is a new bankruptcy law which should help to smooth things out. But then the article spends too much time talking about Mallya and reduces an important piece of legalisation to a mere mention. So, while I agree to the premise that India's rise has been astounding and corruption/cronyism is a problem, this article is not worth anyone's time.