You have a point - only up to a point.
Gold in the hands of the Inca translated into neither wealth nor "power", while coal and iron in the hands of the English led to Empire (though not necessarily "desirable") and victories (for a time anyway).
Now did you ask yourself why the Princelings "transfer wealth" to the US? Why do they feel that "investment" in their own country is "not safe"? Radical wealth redistribution increases neither the welfare of the poor nor, on its own, improves "upward mobility" of the 99% - whether you see them as "wool" or "pork".
Princelings' children landed in LA for the same reason(s) that the older "elites" of the nationalist revolution studied in Japan.
Consider this: the "wealth transfer" of the Lai Changxings and middle officials probably far exceed the princelings', who may yet feel that they owe a duty to the country (which I agree is entirely speculative).
For analogous reasons even Putin is still talking about "economic reform" - there is never absolute privatization or absolute nationalization. When Mao nationalized 600 million people then all 600 million were his property!
Was he corrupt? I guess not because he sent his son to Korea only to get napalmed by the Yanks (grandson the "general" seems to be comporting harmlessly and well enough these days ...)
Should or shouldn't China pay Yanks 400kg of gold for this "act of fate"? Just kidding.
Gold in exchange for industrialization and autarky is gold well-spent. Deng perhaps should have had greater "self-confidence" instead of "forfeiting" the gold. But did or did not the cultural revolution create a situation that left him with no choice?
How much gold and oil did the USSR have? Is it still here?
It is a false choice between the 2 polar opposites of oligarchic looting or the Bolshevik
NK style "equalization" whereby any pride of ownership is destroyed intentionally.
Then again, men only have "custody" of material wealth, and never "ownership" anyway. I won't go down this tangent with you for now.