4 ms·
Note that in the article comments it is pointed out that it is not clear if the article refers to billionaires in yuan or in dollars. In the former case, there
by temphn 15y ago
Note that in the article comments it is pointed out that it is not clear if the article refers to billionaires in yuan or in dollars. In the former case, there would be many more billionaires and the death stats not quite so unusual.
- 6ren 15y agoAccording to the linked article, it's not even yuan billionaires: http://www.hindustantimes.com/72-millionaires-die-young-in-China-report/Article1-724560.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/72-millionaires-die-young-in-C... > The numbers of millionaires may be rising steeply in China, but their life span appears to be shorter than average Chinese as studies showed 72 of them died young in the last eight years. The Chinese multimillionaires, whose personal assets exceeded 100 million yuan ($15.51 million), have died of unnatural causes or passed away at a young age since 2003, according to a report.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- wheels 15y agoIt's worse than that: he cites billionaires in dollars for the total number, while the source for the number killed is billionaires in yuan. These are actually 72 out of 60,000 [1], not 115. Flagged for being terrible "journalism". [1] http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20110724000023&cid=1303&MainCatID=13 http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=2011...
- reitzensteinm 15y agoOK, this is ridiculous. It appears the original article wans't even talking about yuan billionaires, but instead, yuan hundred millionaires ($15m). Creative headlines are one thing, but manufacturing facts to get traffic is almost blacklist material. http://www.hindustantimes.com/72-millionaires-die-young-in-China-report/Article1-724560.aspx http://www.hindustantimes.com/72-millionaires-die-young-in-C...
- chalst 15y agoRight. Linked to from Forbes' front page, I note, which I assume is an editorial decision.