This is a very Orientalist view that stems mostly from the 19th century. It is not the case that being a merchant was treated with any sort of hostility, but rather, entrepreneurship was not revered in the same way it was in the West following the Industrial Revolution. This may sound like a bad thing, but it actually reflects the meritocracy which formed the hallmark of East Asian social organisation.

In the West, before the Industrial Revolution, there were very few paths to greatness. Either you were born a nobleman, and then had myriad opportunities to be a great general or statesman; or you were a commoner, and through being a great merchant, might hope to become rich and hence powerful. Before the Industrial Revolution, the former still held more power regardless, effectively being sovereign over the serfs or soldiers in the domains they led. However, over time the feudal structure of Europe meant that even becoming a King was not particularly powerful, being almost primus inter pares over a group of lords and noblemen. In contrast, a merchant could assemble a powerful trading empire united solely by his wealth.

In China, a tradition of meritocracy has generally provided people across all strata of society with a chance at greatness. Some of this was structured through Imperial Examinations, some through a meritocratic system of military promotion. But this essentially integrated talented commoners into the state bureaucracy, resulting in a political unit characterised by strong centralisation. In this context, the best and the brightest were drawn into government, and consequently it was apparent that even the successful merchant had mostly just failed to become officials.