Seriously, is this necessary in an article about Jack Ma? "The growing wealth gap gave rise to populism in forms such as Britain's exit from the European Union"

Seriously, is this necessary in an article about Jack Ma? "The growing wealth gap gave rise to populism in forms such as Britain's exit from the European Union"? It so oversimplified it hurts my brain. Same about the rest of the article. It is so typical for the international "business magazines" to characterise Jiang Zemin's rule through the lens of "neo liberalism", "opening up" etc. This is all bull**. Liberalism (neo or otherwise) requires liberty, while Jiang has built one of China's biggest oppressive aparatus in a form of his "office 610". Its idea was to persecute Falun Hong practitioners, but horrible as it is, it was only a cover story for his personal gestapo. It killed and jailed extrajudicially millions. Let's not forget his rise in the previous leader's eyes was thanks to his "hard line stance" towards the Tiananmen massacre. Jiang Zemin didn't open up China. He just allowed selected foreigners to get rich too. Just look at all those "billionaires" that appeared during "his era". They are all tied to him or his faction (there was no other way to succeed at a time). This is precisely why they are all distrusted by the current ruling faction. There has been antagonism between the Jiang and the Xi factions for a long time. The only thing Jiang was objectively better at was in projecting China's image abroad.