|
http://www.globaltimes.cn/SPECIALCOVERAGE/SouthChinaSeaConflict.aspx Checkout the map the Chinese media shows for "Huangyan" Island. Pretty hilarious. And further Chinese media opinion about the island: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/photo/2012-05/10/c_131578905_3.htm With the 2008 Russian war with Georgia during the middle of the Olympics and the lack of any response from the West, I wouldn't be surprised if China would do something aggressive militarily to claim this "island."
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 20:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Ronald Spiers posted:http://www.globaltimes.cn/SPECIALCOVERAGE/SouthChinaSeaConflict.aspx Of course the West didn't respond Georgia started that poo poo doesn't make good propaganda this would be totally different however
|
|
#
?
May 11, 2012 22:59
|
|
|
Yeah, the Russian/Georgian situation was seriously complicated and involved the Georgians actually killing Russian peacekeeping soldiers before the Russians attacked. I've read reports that the Russians were suspiciously well mobilised for a counter-attack, but nothing specific. There was no way that Russia was going to take that lying down, though, is the point - you don't shell a wounded but resurgent great power's protectorate and kill off its soldiers without a reprisal. Obviously I'm not sure they should have gone in all gung-ho, but it requires a level of knowledge of the events which I frankly don't have. Basically what I'm saying is, unless someone shells Chinese soldiers in the area it will be nothing like the Georgia conflict
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:09
|
|
|
V. Illych L. posted:Yeah, the Russian/Georgian situation was seriously complicated and involved the Georgians actually killing Russian peacekeeping soldiers before the Russians attacked. I can't recall that having happened. What I believe happened was the Georgians invaded and reconquered the capital, in the process killing a good amount of Ossetians, a large amount of which had dual citizenship with Russia. Russia then went in and "liberated" South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:18
|
|
|
Mmmh. I may have spoken too soon; the Russians maintain that their peacekeepers were shelled initially, and wikipedia states that peacekeepers got killed as they engaged attacking Georgian forces, but I cannot find any independent sources stating that the initial assault was targetted in any way against the peacekeepers. Still, Russian soldiers were killed in the course of the action, and the casualties were predictable, as was the Russian response. (http://rt.com/news/russian-peacekeepers-confirmed-killed-in-georgia/ for example)
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:24
|
|
|
SirKibbles posted:Of course the West didn't respond Georgia started that poo poo doesn't make good propaganda this would be totally different however I don't think of either side as being in the right or wrong as much as I'm astonished at how Saakashvili could have been so monumentally stupid as to think that the West would seriously have considered backing him against Russia.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:32
|
|
|
eSports Chaebol posted:I don't think of either side as being in the right or wrong as much as I'm astonished at how Saakashvili could have been so monumentally stupid as to think that the West would seriously have considered backing him against Russia. I'm pretty sure he was hoping that he could complete the action within 48 hours, presenting Russia with a fait accompli. He had only reconquered Azaria a few years beforehand, afterall. Of course the Russian government was sick of him and had a much stronger military so there we go.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2012 00:35
|
|
|
I realize this might be highly off topic, but can any of you folks recommend a taobao agent? Or know of a better way for someone stateside to buy from there? Thanks! (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
May 15, 2012 20:11
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:It’s worth noting, though, that Hong Kong isn’t exactly an open society – which is rather the way Beijing wants and needs it to be. For example, Falun Gong (established in a court case as legal and protected) has been repeatedly repressed on flimsy grounds, anti-PRC radio stations have been shut down, and street demonstrations are subject to pretty tremendous police brutality and very very strong regulation and prior approval. The write up you posted is excellent for the most part, but it's totally DEAD wrong as far as Hong Kong is concerned. I live in Hong Kong, and none of the quoted above is true at all! Hong Kong enjoys western style freedoms protected by the Basic Law (HK's constitution) in both theory and practice. Hong Kong enjoys separation of powers between the three branches of government, including an independent judiciary. Since HK is "executive led" the executive branch is supposed to lead and be strong. The judiciary is equally strong. The legislature is the weakest of the three branches, but minority opposition lawmakers can still use filibusters against government bills to delay or block the bill. Bills are not assured safe passage if they are unpopular with the general public. Constitutional amendments, including matters relating to political reform such as the 2017 CE election, require two thirds majority. One political reform bill has been already blocked in the past because it did not have a super majority due to the lack of support from the democrats. HK has its own currency too, but I am sure everyone knows that by now. Hong Kongers enjoy the right to protest and protest more frequently than Americans do. There is no police brutality in HK when you compare it to countries like the US or South Korea. The police handle protests in a professional manner. For example, on July 1st 2003 there was a massive protest against the Article 23. Article 23 was a national security bill, more or less as nasty as the US Patriot Act, which the HK government unsuccessfully tried to ram through the legislature. 500,000 HK people protested the bill and the government was forced to shelve the bill because they did not have enough votes in the legislature to pass it. HK's legislature isn't a rubber stamp like the National People's Congress. Presently, the legislature is busy cock blocking the HK government again because a few pro democracy lawmakers have been using a filibuster for the past two weeks to block a by-elections bill they don't like. It has resulted in ALL of the HK government's bills being delayed, and many risk dying since the legislature will go on recess after July 18th. The HK public also have the right to file a judicial review against the government, and the judiciary has been very good about upholding the HK constitution. Judicial reviews are filed frequently in HK as a result, and play a very important role in ensuring HK remains a free society. HK also has a free press that is very active at scrutinizing the HK government. Falun Gong is not repressed in HK. It practices its free speech constantly in public areas of Mong Kok. There haven't been any anti PRC radio stations closed down, and there are tons of anti PRC websites and Internet radio streams in HK if you're into that sort of thing. I'm not. Hong Kong hasn't changed much since colonial times. Also HK does not have its own "mainland style corruption". HK is considered one of the cleanest cities in the world, and has an effective anti corruption agency called the ICAC that was originally setup in the 1970s. The ICAC continues to keep HK clean as far as stuff like bribes are concerned. Though due to HK's nature there will be some government and business collusion. But that happens in the US too. Hong Kong will have its first democratic election, returned by popular vote, for Chief Executive in 2017 (Note: There will probably be some kind of vetting mechanism as far as nominating the CE candidates is concerned.). Currently half of the legislature is elected by popular vote (The nomination procedure is very transparent and democratic too) and the other half is selected by professional groups who generally are more pro Beijing. The Chief Executive is currently elected by an electoral college of 1200 beijing friendly electors who were elected by various professional groups. One thing is for sure, corporatism is alive and well in HK, but that's been going on since before the handover. The quote about Hong Kong is shockingly wrong, especially considering how accurate everything about the Chinese state and Party structure was. Hong Kong is very much an open society, but at the moment it is not a fully democratic society. However regardless of this, it is partially democratic and enjoys western style freedoms. That is something that does not exist in the rest of China. iceaim fucked around with this message at 01:21 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 00:08
|
|
|
iceaim posted:The write up you posted is excellent for the most part, but it's totally DEAD wrong as far as Hong Kong is concerned. I live in Hong Kong, and none of the quoted above is true at all! Thank you very much for the information! I appreciate this kind of input a great deal. All my two years were spent in the North and I wrote all my papers on Confucianism, so HK is not an area of great expertise for me. However, I do wonder about the degree of freedom the HK government has, more than its people. I guess I mischaracterized -- I know that individual people from HK are usually pretty free to protest, express themselves, and so on, and that intra-HK governance has its own complex politics. But what about the "lines" the Party and outside government draw on the nature and type of activity that the HK government can get up to? Or the ability of the HK government to not fear an "override switch" from Beijing on some matters? I would really appreciate some more clarification on how things like Beijing-based anticorruption operations, media control for things going to the mainland (like the radio broadcasts I mentioned) fit into the great picture you painted of the more democratic and open side of HK public and civic life.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 01:04
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Thank you very much for the information! I appreciate this kind of input a great deal. All my two years were spent in the North and I wrote all my papers on Confucianism, so HK is not an area of great expertise for me. There is no perfect way to measure corruption but Hong Kong always ranks extremely favorably in the CPI. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_perceptions_index It's ranked #12 Countries ranked above HK. 1. New Zealand 2. Denmark 3. Finland 4. Sweden 5. Singapore 6. Norway 7. Netherlands 8. Australia 9. Switzerland 10. Canada 11. Luxembourg 12. Hong Kong That list certainly jives with what i've seen with reality. Most business people do say HK is very corruption free and has none of the major tea money/bureaucratic issues of doing business in SE/NE Asia.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 02:04
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:Thank you very much for the information! I appreciate this kind of input a great deal. All my two years were spent in the North and I wrote all my papers on Confucianism, so HK is not an area of great expertise for me. For the most part, the HK government is free to run HK in whatever way it pleases. Which for the past 15 years meant the bureaucracy inherited from the colonial era has been running the show. This is mainly due to the past two Chief Executives being very poor leaders and letting the bureaucrats run wild. I suspect Chief Executive-elect CY Leung who will take office as Hong Kong's third Chief Executive on July 1st will be a much stronger leader and we'll see a bolder HK government as a result who will reign in the bureaucrats. On occasion, Beijing does ask the HK government to enact a law it favors, but it leaves it up to the HK government to draft it. Like any other piece of legislation though, it must be scrutinized by the legislature and be constitutional or it will not survive a judicial review. The article 23 bill, the 2007 political reform bill, and the 2011 by-elections bill are pieces of legislation that are likely favors called in by Beijing. Usually when Beijing calls in a favor like this, the Hong Kong government lets Beijing down in the most spectacular and embarrassing way possible. The most infamous example is Article 23. However the 2007 political reform bill that was vetoed and 2011 by-elections bill currently being filibustered should get honorable mention. Certain matters, such as political reform, constitutionally require Beijing's approval before they can happen, and these exceptions are clearly spelled out in the HK constitution. The 2017 chief executive election amendment is one such example. Beijing will allow the chief executive to be returned by popular vote in 2017, and no matter how you spin this....this is a huge step forward in Hong Kong's democratic development. It legitimately will make HK far more democratic. Even currently, HK is far more democratic than Singapore. Plus we have far more personal freedoms too. Regular laws that require a simple majority to pass do not need Beijing's approval. But they certainly do need the approval of the legislature and judiciary. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (中央人民政府駐香港特別行政區聯絡辦公室) does fire up its political machine during the legislative elections though. It uses its vast resources to try to give Pro Beijing politicans a chance to win seats in the legislature that are returned by popular vote. Currently the pan-democrats win 60% of the seats that are returned by popular vote. So as you can see, the Pro Beijing politicans really need the Liaison Office's political machine to keep the democrats at bay. The democrats naturally are very critical of the Liaison Office's involvement in HK elections. This practice is not sanctioned by the HK constitution but it's not forbidden by it either. Can you clarify what you mean by "Beijing-based anticorruption operations"? As far as radio and tv broadcasts that inevitably cross into the mainland, whenever a HK broadcaster mentions something that Beijing doesn't want mainlander viewers to see or hear..the signal is simply jammed on the mainland side and replaced by commercials. On the HK side, there is no interference. I hope this addresses most of your questions. If something is not clear, or you would like me to explain in more details, please do not hesitate to ask! iceaim fucked around with this message at 02:18 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 02:07
|
|
|
iceaim posted:Can you clarify what you mean by "Beijing-based anticorruption operations"? "Anticorruption operations" means when the government and the party apparatus decide to crack down on (usually to make an example of someone) a business that's been bribing officials or breaking laws with its mainland operations. Otherwise, great info. I knew HK was much freer, socially and politically, than the mainland, but I had overestimated the control Beijing could really exert.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 02:11
|
|
|
BrotherAdso posted:"Anticorruption operations" means when the government and the party apparatus decide to crack down on (usually to make an example of someone) a business that's been bribing officials or breaking laws with its mainland operations. Beijing does not handle any anti corruption operations in HK. That is the domain of the ICAC. The ICAC is very autonomous and another colonial hangover. It's going to investigate all cases of corruption, even if it involves top government officials. Currently the HK Chief Executive is under investigation of accepting favors because he took a few rides on boats and planes owned by rich HK tycoons. Personally, I think it's way over blown since Bill Clinton and Tony Blair did such things too and there's no chance the ICAC will charge the CE with a crime since this practice is not currently illegal in HK. But there was a big stink about it in the media, and the CE barely escaped impeachment proceedings in the legislature because of it. Anti Corruption is taken very seriously in HK. It's not used as a tool to remove political enemies during power struggles like it is in the mainland. Also now that I think about it, your original quote does apply a lot more to Macau than it does to Hong Kong as far as personal freedoms is concerned. Macau certainly has more freedoms than the mainland, but Hong Kong and Taiwan blow it out of the water. The Macau government is more heavy handed than the HK government, and Macau's constitution does not see universal suffrage as the end goal that must be gradually reached like the HK constitution does. A good example of Macau being more heavy handed is the immigration department in Macau not permitting HK journalists to enter on sensitive dates (Like May 1st when there's usually a labour protest in Macau) to cover a story. Macau has prevented a handful of journalists and politicans from entering its borders. Macau also likes to harass its pro democracy politicans by having the Macau police follow them around in both vehicles and on foot. It doesn't get physical, but this type of practice would be unthinkable in Hong Kong and a direct attack on our core values. Macau has a corruption problem. But the Macau government is still cleaner than your typical local or provincial government in the mainland. iceaim fucked around with this message at 03:21 on May 16, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 02:26
|
|
|
HK is also the only nation I know of that has actually put billionaires behind bars for corruption. (I don't count the U.S. Madoff case or the politically motivated Russian convictions)
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 02:41
|
|
|
Heard this on the radio today: A Tale of Two Brothers: One in China, Other in US It is about two Americans who grew up during the Cultural Revolution. Fascinating how two brothers with similar experiences end up with very different views on China as well as the US.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 04:05
|
|
|
That's an interesting story; I'd like to learn more about their lives in China during the 60s. It reminds me of the James Dresnok and co. story.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 04:31
|
|
|
Here is an autobiography of Sidney Rittenberg. One of the very few foreigners to join the CCP. He had a heck of a time during the Cultural Revolution. Now he is a consultant for people who want to do business in China.
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 08:17
|
|
|
HK must remain corruption-free so that everyone else in the world can use it as a base to launder their corrupt activities through. Everyone in Asia knows this, probably much of the rest of the world with any assets, heh. It's the rare exception to the honor among thieves rule. Of course that's a purportedly separate issue from politics, but Singapore was always super-high on the transparency index while suppressing any negative media coverage and prosecuting the poo poo out of critics - until this year there were a huge bunch of revelations about all this PAP corruption that had been stifled. It seems more likely that the rule is Don't Ask, Don't Tell & Don't Commit Crimes Domestically. When someone tells you an Asian country is transparent, it's like someone telling you that America doesn't have bribery problems because the FCPA is strong and we force lobbyists and campaign donors to report their
|
|
#
?
May 16, 2012 18:32
|
|
|
The long-predicted (by some) collapse in the Chinese real estate sector appears to be in full swing:Professor Patrick Chovanec posted:...Very few people paused to ask where this investment growth was actually coming from. After all, the market was clearly struggling. Year-on-year sales in Q1, for all real estate, was down -14.6%. The decline was even steeper, -17.5%, in residential property, which accounts for about 80% of the market. Office sales were down -10.2%, while growth in “commercial” (i.e., retail) property sales, which saw a boom in 2011, decelerated to +10.5%. Although many people were touting a month-on-month sales recovery in March, compared to the Chinese New Year period, March sales were still down -7.8% from the year before, for the sector as a whole, and -9.7% for residential properties (by comparison, sales in January-February were a disaster, falling -20.9% overall, compared to the first two months of 2011, -24.7% for residential). This will make the Eurozone poo poo look like an argument over who ate the last slice of pizza.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:06
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:The long-predicted (by some) collapse in the Chinese real estate sector appears to be in full swing: This real estate bubble in China is the the usual market readjustment after a period of too hot growth. We've seen this in the U.A.E. and other places. It's the super wealthy playing musical chairs and eventually one of them gets pushed off at the end and the market readjusts. The middle class Chinese and the like might finally be able to afford housing in 5 years. With the demand being what it is you can't expect a total collapse of Chinese real estate.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 05:31
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:Nah the eurozone stuff is a much more serious global economic balancing of the scales of untold proportions. Entire nations are going to be affected by that for a long time. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU fractures over it because Greece, Italy, Spain, etc.. are all basket cases. The problem with your thinking is that the proportion of the Chinese economy tied up in this real estate bubble is absolutely massive. Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. It's not "just a property bubble", because it's driving the majority of commerce in the world's second-largest economy. It will have ramifications akin to the U.S. housing bubble, which coincidentally is what first tripped off this European adventure. As for the wider repercussions, China has been a huge source of EU bailout funds, and has continued to buy commodities at a furious rate, which is all that's kept Australia and Canada propped up to date. You could probably add Russia to that list of "countries to be hosed" if there's a real commodity rout globally. So, to summarize: China's economy grinds to a halt, bailout funds (and liquidity generally) dry up worldwide, and the global commodity market takes a massive hit as China stops wasting money and resources on totally retarded malls and highways and empty train stations. Also, if you think banking sector contagion tied to European banks is bad, wait 'till you see the list of banks holding the bag on Chinese capital investments, or counterparties to weird copper-denominated bonds etc. It's a complete shitshow.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:The problem with your thinking is that the proportion of the Chinese economy tied up in this real estate bubble is absolutely massive. Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. It's not "just a property bubble", because it's driving the majority of commerce in the world's second-largest economy. It will have ramifications akin to the U.S. housing bubble, which coincidentally is what first tripped off this European adventure. I can definitely see a major readjustment happening in residential property happening since it is a bubble but China's real estate boom isn't exactly out of sync with the rest of the region either. Real estate in Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, Taiwan, and Korea have all been skyrocketing in the past 5 years. The only markets not booming at a wild rate have been Hong Kong and Japan mainly because their real estate markets are already mature and have been through a boom/bust cycle over the past two decades. Modus Operandi fucked around with this message at 07:28 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 07:25
|
|
|
Hong Kong's actually up like 80% in the last 5 years or something. They were recovering from a somewhat lower base after huge falls stemming from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s. It's notable that neither Patrick Chovanec or Michael Pettis are predicting some kind of huge apocalyptic meltdown and go to great length to make that clear in their writings. Doesn't mean it's not possible, only that huge economies are hugely complex and multifaceted and no one really knows what's going to happen in the future so making predictions is sort of a fool's game. Americans want to see doom and bubbles everywhere because the only housing bust most of them have known in their lives just happened a few years ago. The problems with Chinese state directed over investment were a problem that western commentators have been talking up ever since 1989 and finally cumulative in a real estate bust at the end of the 1990s. A lot of people lost money and GDP growth went from 14% in 1992 to 7% in 1999. So they muddled through then, the Chinese economy today is much larger and more advanced than it was in 1999, so why won't they muddle through again?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 08:06
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. A small decrease in real estate... what? As written your post implies that land in China may start disappearing. A small decrease in real estate prices? Trade volume? Construction? What are we talking about here? I have a hard time believing that real estate construction will falter hard enough to collapse the economy just because China needs so much housing already. It's not like the construction will slow virtually to a stop like it did in the U.S. There's no overcapacity, just overpricing. Right?
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 10:14
|
|
|
Throatwarbler posted:Hong Kong's actually up like 80% in the last 5 years or something. They were recovering from a somewhat lower base after huge falls stemming from the Asian financial crisis of the late 1990s.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 10:32
|
|
|
It seems to me that the real estate bubble in China is going to be qualitatively different from the one in the west. The big deal in the west was that real estate purchases were financed by heavy amounts of borrowing, so that when prices fell, this led to many cases of negative equity. Hence, when people defaulted, the impact was passed along to the lenders, and the whole domino effect swept through the system. In China, in comparison, the average debt level is just so much lower. So if the bubble bursts, some individuals will lose money, sure, but I can't see a mechanism for it to bring any wider collapse to the system.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 12:18
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:The long-predicted (by some) collapse in the Chinese real estate sector appears to be in full swing: If I'm not mistaken, didn't the Chinese government itself slam the breaks on real estate? I'm pretty sure it did. I remember reading it in the papers last year here. I wish I had a source. Modus Operandi posted:Wouldn't that be considered a recovery for HK? I thought HK real estate was still lower now in the present day than the pre-'97 crisis 80's to mid 1990's heyday of crazy asian tiger money pouring into the market there. HK real estate has always been pretty expensive though. Actually some luxury flats now are more expensive now than they were in 1997. Real estate prices are way too high now in HK, and I am pretty sure there will be some sort of correction within 5 years. iceaim fucked around with this message at 12:32 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 12:30
|
|
|
iceaim posted:Actually some luxury flats now are more expensive now than they were in 1997. Real estate prices are way too high now in HK, and I am pretty sure there will be some sort of correction within 5 years. Thanks to the hot money from Mainland China, the luxury flats' prices are unlikely to go down for quite a while. Let's hope the Leung administration will do something about real estate prices - I just want my own apartment without selling my soul for it  It is quite interesting that you choose the HKSAR emblem as avatar - living and/or conducting research there, I presume? Jeek fucked around with this message at 14:33 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 14:29
|
|
|
Modus Operandi posted:Here's the problem I have with these apocalyptic visions of mass financial collapse. They never happen this way. Well I guess we disagree on what the definition of "mass financial collapse" is, then, because I'd absolutely say that the United States, Spain, and Ireland in the last few years are all perfect examples of what I expect to see in China. Arglebargle III posted:A small decrease in real estate... what? As written your post implies that land in China may start disappearing. A small decrease in real estate prices? Trade volume? Construction? What are we talking about here? Did... you not click the link in my post?  It explains which sectors in Chinese real estate generally are down (short answer: all of them), as well as some of the author's educated opinions on what this means for the broader Chinese economy. Clicking that link might be helpful, as it pretty much demolishes everything you said after "I have a hard time believing..." (Edit: Here's the direct link.)iceaim posted:If I'm not mistaken, didn't the Chinese government itself slam the breaks on real estate? I'm pretty sure it did. I remember reading it in the papers last year here. I wish I had a source. They did, and now they're easing a lot of those restrictions in a somewhat panicked effort to pull the economy out of a stall. The problem they faced, and still face now, is that they had to crush the real estate and construction sectors in China before it was too late, because those sectors were at the point of being driven almost entirely by rampant malinvestment and speculation. As all of the "good" capital projects (apartments people actually lived in, bridges people would actually use, etc.) were completed years ago, but all that capital sloshing around in China kept looking for places to land, and you started seeing empty train stations and the famous "ghost malls". The bad debt levels at the local government level in China and in the banking sector are truly terrifying and speak to a level of malinvestment that could quite honestly put Ireland and the U.S. to shame. People have this very simplistic view of China, namely that "There are a lot of people in China without homes, ergo you can always fill a condo in Shanghai". It's as simplistic as the idea that everyone wants to live in Miami, so property prices will always go up in Miami, etc, because it doesn't analyse any of the fundamentals below that: incomes, population growth, in-migration, local conditions, etc. The stats Chovanec cites pretty much speak for themselves. Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 17:23 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 17:13
|
|
|
The link certainly supports your general point. I was just talking about the sentence I quoted in particular. I am pretty good at English and I don't understand that sentence because it's missing an important piece. It's this phrase specifically: "...hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP..." You have the verb "decrease" there and its object is real estate, but real estate is obviously supposed to be the first half of a compound noun which you don't finish. Read literally the phrase suggests that the land area of China is decreasing. So you're talking here about real estate investment, maybe? Or sales volume? You're missing half the noun so it's hard to tell specifically what you mean by that sentence.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 18:17
|
|
|
Well the confusion might stem from the fact that I deliberately left the particular noun out there because it could (logically) be any one of several interrelated aspects of real estate, and all of them would fulfil the general idea. It could be "A small decrease in real estate values", or "a small decrease in real estate transactions", or "a small decrease in real estate development", and all three would necessarily be linked to the others because of the nature of that particular economic activity. I didn't think anybody would be confused as to whether or not I was saying China is physically shrinking, so for that I'm sorry.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 18:21
|
|
|
Um, the only lever they have pulled back on is slightly reducing the reserve requirements. Actual restrictions on purchases are tight as all hell. This is entirely on purpose and 2013 will likely see the introduction of property taxes as well. Massive public housing projects are also going up and this further brings down prices for reasonable housing. This is entirely planned and it's not a "devastating crash". The developers also love hitting up the banks with bonds. The rates for those bonds is rather good, but the minimum buy-in is exceptionally high with a 5 year period being typical before principle is returned. China *wants* lower housing prices as unaffordable housing is a far greater crisis than "rich people losing money". That laborforce has been redirected to capital investment projects (such as that train station which was based on zerohedge bullshit). Rail is a HUGE deal actually, and those "ghost stations" are simply due to the fact that they were built with the consideration of future lines coming in. A few ghost malls won't be the end of the world either and vacant housing is eventually filled with overconfident speculators being the losers.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 18:28
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:The problem with your thinking is that the proportion of the Chinese economy tied up in this real estate bubble is absolutely massive. Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. It's not "just a property bubble", because it's driving the majority of commerce in the world's second-largest economy. It will have ramifications akin to the U.S. housing bubble, which coincidentally is what first tripped off this European adventure. WAIT STOP. That's not what the quote says. The quote says a very rough estimate says a small decrease in real estate investment would reduce GDP growth by 40%. It would not reduce GDP by 40% because that's an unthinkable cataclysm. By Chovanec's article which uses various contentious assumptions that gives estimates higher than everyone else's, real estate investment is 13% of GDP. Not 'the majority of commerce'. Moreover, from an economic perspective, such an idealised estimate is stupid. Money that has been pulled out from investment into real estate does not merely cease to exist. It is put into other things. Hence, you will likely see an offsetting increase in output in other sectors. It's just a sectoral slowdown. Nothing in here even slightly compares to the vast systematic problems the credit crunch caused in the US, let alone the financial armageddons that hit Ireland. There's just no identified analogy for the subprime mortages which were such a potent multiplier in that crisis. Worst case scenario? China's growth drops temporarily to 3.5%. Big loving deal. Fangz fucked around with this message at 18:56 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 18:50
|
|
|
Fangz posted:WAIT STOP. That's not what the quote says. The quote says a very rough estimate says a small decrease in real estate investment would reduce GDP growth by 40%. It would not reduce GDP by 40% because that's an unthinkable cataclysm. By Chovanec's article which uses various contentious assumptions that gives estimates higher than everyone else's, real estate investment is 13% of GDP. Not 'the majority of commerce'. Do you know what a huge decrease in GDP growth would do to China? The entire basis of the CCP's political mandate can be summed up as "We won't let you vote, but we'll make you rich," and it's a deal that has held up so far as the middle class expands and the lower classes continue to believe they can move up the ladder. It's why they continue to pursue growth strategies despite massive social and environmental problems, and it's why China's stimulus response to the global credit crisis was larger than the U.S. stimulus on a per-capita basis. Saying 3.5% growth is "no big deal" is... not reflective of the reality on the ground. If Chovanec is correct (and I'm not entirely sold on his numbers, aside from being willing to admit he's called the real estate slowdown for a while before it happened), this will have massive ramifications for the country as a whole. quote:Moreover, from an economic perspective, such an idealised estimate is stupid. Money that has been pulled out from investment into real estate does not merely cease to exist. It is put into other things. Hence, you will likely see an offsetting increase in output in other sectors. I don't understand this handwave. Do you have data showing that construction, infrastructure, and real estate investments are NOT as large a component of the economy as Chovanec has said? If so, post 'em, I'm happy to read a cogent critique of his assertions. But unless you do have something like that, saying "Oh it's just one sector" seems kind of silly. Massive, disproportionate malinvestment doesn't just result in money "moving somewhere else", otherwise Ireland and Spain would be seeing a massive boom in some other new magical sector. It just results in destruction of capital, period. The allegation here is that China has kept their economy afloat despite a massive decrease in exports, largely by shunting resources into an unsustainable domestic construction boom and property bubble. What Chovanec is saying is that the tune just stopped, and now we get to see how many chairs are left. Whether or not he's correct, there is plenty of data out there to back his claims, certainly enough that they are worthy of an equally data-driven response. Calling it "no big deal" when real estate alone (ex construction) was 13 per cent of their 2011 GDP seems naive.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 19:11
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Well the confusion might stem from the fact that I deliberately left the particular noun out there because it could (logically) be any one of several interrelated aspects of real estate, and all of them would fulfil the general idea. Wow. I honestly thought you forgot a word and I was waiting to hear what it was so I could understand your sentence. I didn't think you had intentionally produced a sentence with no clear meaning. But in retrospect it should have been obvious with how weaselly the whole thing was. With a clearer object for "decrease" let's subscript the weasel words in this sentence: Fine-able Offense posted:Commercial and residential construction + infrastructure projects make up a truly ridiculous proportion of their GDP, hence Chovanec's research indicating even a small decrease in any one of several interrelated aspects of real estate could reduce GDP by as much as 40% as all the secondary and tertiary spillovers grind the economy to a halt. And wow again, it looks like the new object you gave has exactly the same problem as the last one: you imply that "real estate" is half of a compound noun, but you don't supply the other half. The literal meaning is still that China is physically shrinking and we should worry about the impact of that on GDP. Now obviously I don't actually think that you meant China is physically shrinking, the point is your sentence is so bad that a reader might reasonably arrive at that conclusion. Again, I thought I was just asking for a missing word, but your response has been far more amusing. The insinuation that it's my fault for not understanding a sentence that you intentionally left incoherent is especially rich. Here's the problem: why should we pay any attention to your conclusion if your reasoning, under scrutiny, is meaningless? If you want to make a claim like "could reduce GDP by 40%" you should probably arrive at that claim through something more than a collection of weasel words so deliberately vague they could equally refer to foreign investment or square kilometers. fake edit: Fangz caught something much worse and I can't believe you're doubling down on such an elementary mistake. Fangz you totes stole my thunder. Lizard monkeys go home!
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:Flailing I'm sorry, but if you intend to handwave away sticking words in Chovanec's mouth to call 13% the majority of commerce and equate temporary GDP growth with actual GDP, then plainly you have no interest in any accuracy in your posts whatsoever. My problem is not with Chovanec, though no doubt you can probably find plenty of experts who dispute his analysis. My problem is with your interpretation and wild, inaccurately phrased speculations of doom and destruction that bear little relation to what Chovanec says. You also need to look into the causes of the Irish economic crisis. The Irish collapse came not because of investors pulling out of real estate, but because of massive financial failures in terms of bad loans (in particular, loans to people who weren't merely unable to repay, but could never be able to repay even if all their assets were liquidated) and exposure to the wider economic crisis producing banks in debt to the tune of 309% of GDP! Continuously shouting Spain and Ireland doesn't make China into Spain and Ireland. Because China isn't Spain and Ireland. If the real estate sector were instantaneously turned into oblivion, Chinese banks would not be in that much debt. Right now, it seems pretty obvious that you have no idea what you are talking about. Fangz fucked around with this message at 20:18 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 20:02
|
|
|
Nevermind, even.
Franks Happy Place fucked around with this message at 21:31 on May 17, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:12
|
|
|
Fine-able Offense posted:aside from being willing to admit he's called the real estate slowdown for a while before it happened Every idiot who's not blind and deaf knew about the "slowdown" before it actually happened. The government flat out announced it would be taking measures to drop real estate prices. It was way out of hand and it was a direct reaction to the US markets screwing up the domestic markets, investors pulling out cash and dumping it in places that were due to see some large capital infrastructure projects (which increases value). Why is there building going on? In accordance with the law a developer can purchase rights to a parcel of land. These rights are revoked if they squat on it without doing actual development (no refunds). They also cannot sell anything until development is well underway. No more pre-sales. Surprise, once they started cracking down, you started getting undersold developments. With the profits in real estate, you only need to manage to sell a rather small percentage of units to break even anyways.
|
|
#
?
May 17, 2012 21:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 02:35 |
|
|
Jeek posted:It is quite interesting that you choose the HKSAR emblem as avatar - living and/or conducting research there, I presume? I live here in HK yes. Hong Kong happens to be a major interest of mine, though I am just an amateur.
|
|
#
?
May 18, 2012 03:34
|
|