If the leaks and rumors are true, Beijing stands ready to launch a new and radical solution to the economy’s property crisis – a government takeover. What the authorities refer to as “a new model” would replace the old emphasis on ownership with more rentals and use government funds to buy up bankrupt properties so that in time the government’s role in real estate would rise from 5% of the market at present to 30%. Such an act would surely take the nation back to its communist roots if not quite the days of Mao Zedong. If it would veil the property crisis for a time, it would in the long run do tremendous damage to China’s economic prospects.

xi-peel

  • context [fae/faer, fae/faer]@hexbear.netOP
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    101
    ·
    4 months ago

    Beijing’s ability to manage real estate also comes into question after considering how poorly the authorities have managed things to date. Prior to 2020, Beijing actively encouraged residential real estate development, pushing local authorities to get involved and ensuring easy credit terms for both developers and homebuyers. Private builders and speculators responded actively, taking on debt and pursuing increasingly dubious projects so that even as China was meeting its housing needs, such development reached the astronomical level of some 30% of China’s economy. Then in 2020, Beijing abruptly removed all this support. Not surprisingly, the highly leveraged and extended developers began failing almost immediately.

    xi-lib-tears oh no! not the speculators! it would be a real shame if a bunch of capitalists lost tons of money and all we got out of it was all this housing that now we can buy up for cheap!

    • betelgeuse [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      80
      ·
      4 months ago

      Since US prices are so high, they were salivating at a Chinese housing crisis. That way they could enter the Chinese market and buy up properties for cheap. But since the government is going to buy up the cheap homes, they can’t enter the market. So now comes the propaganda tantrum about how there’s no way this will work, it’s evil, it’s authoritarian.

      Problem is that shit only works on Americans. Appealing to Chinese people’s sens of individualistic English property rights doesn’t really work.

      • context [fae/faer, fae/faer]@hexbear.netOP
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        53
        ·
        4 months ago

        you nailed it

        also forbes about u.s. commercial real estate:

        Finally, while it will be a tough year or two for the commercial real estate community, I expect the amount of capital on the sidelines will open up the market and create once-in-a-lifetime opportunities. As the old adage goes in real estate, “It is not the first or second but the third owner who makes money on a project.” The opportunities will be plentiful, but the buyers will have to view the assets through a new lens.

      • Tankiedesantski [he/him]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        50
        ·
        edit-2
        4 months ago

        Since US prices are so high, they were salivating at a Chinese housing crisis. That way they could enter the Chinese market and buy up properties for cheap. But since the government is going to buy up the cheap homes, they can’t enter the market.

        Incompetent Chinese property developer: “I consent!”

        Soulless American hedge fund: “I consent!”

        The Communist Party of China: “Was there somebody you forgot to ask?”

        The myth of consensual market entry.

    • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      47
      ·
      4 months ago

      Prior to 2020, Beijing actively encouraged residential real estate development. . . [Developers persued] increasingly dubious projects so that even as China was meeting its housing needs. . . Then in 2020, Beijing abruptly removed all this support.

      So they funded housing development until there were plenty of houses at which point they stopped funding more development and this is bad for some reason? What did they want them to do, continue encouraging development when there wasn’t a need for it solely to prop up the investors?

      • Rod_Blagojevic [none/use name]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        27
        ·
        4 months ago

        If they had done that, then we could get more of the stories about the ghost cities that are the harbinger of China’s imminent collapse. I’ve been reading those articles for decades. They’ve kept a lot of journalists busy.

        • Raebxeh@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          17
          ·
          4 months ago

          Imagine taking a city’s population growth chart, extrapolating the data out 5 years, and including the projected need to housing in your 5 year plan. These damn commies are way too prepared for predictable trends. Suspicious.

      • nilloc@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        Well, they are leaving out how demand fell off a cliff after Beijing locked everyone in their high rise apartments for a year or more.

        • Zuzak [fae/faer, she/her]@hexbear.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          4 months ago

          Imagine the government listening to the science and using public health measures to save millions of lives instead of demanding everybody go die so the quarterly profits aren’t interrupted.

          covid-coolsolidarityporky-happy

    • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      36
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      gives capitalists the money and leniency to build a bunch of housing

      abruptly yoinks it from them after they’re built and tell them to fuck off

      subsidize the housing so people can live in it

      suswcc problem?

  • Awoo [she/her]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    81
    ·
    4 months ago

    If the leaks and rumors are true, Beijing stands ready to launch a new and radical solution to the economy’s property crisis – a government takeover.

    Leaks and rumours?

    Isn’t it what they said they would do ages ago?

    • Infamousblt [any]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      51
      ·
      4 months ago

      No but see we can’t trust anything China’s government says it’s going to do even though it has a long and storied history of doing literally exactly what it says it’s going to do because … reasons? I guess? So we can only trust anonymous sources instead.

  • FuckyWucky [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    76
    ·
    4 months ago

    xigma-male There is no ‘property crisis’, its made up by the market.

    When 2008 housing bubble burst, the problem wasn’t that the homes magically vanished, the homes remained, taken over by ghouls and leaving the individuals with debt which wasn’t wiped off clean.

  • RyanGosling [none/use name]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    edit-2
    4 months ago

    use government funds to buy up bankrupt properties so that in time the government’s role in real estate would rise from 5% of the market at present to 30%

    We should let unused, bankrupt property be repo’d by banks so they can use it to gamble on doge coin

  • SuperZutsuki [they/them, any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    4 months ago

    Lmao, what “crisis”? That there’s a surplus of housing and people are easily able to afford to live? This is what only being able to see things through the lens of profit does to a mf.

  • regul [any]@hexbear.net
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    53
    ·
    4 months ago

    This is my dream result for the YIMBY movement. Dense infill housing built in all cities and then immediately expropriated.

    Also it’s very funny that 30% publicly-owned housing is communist when I’m pretty sure Singapore has a much higher percentage.

    • SkingradGuard [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      4 months ago

      Yeah I think the “free” capitalist Singapore has like 78% of their population living in public housing…yet you don’t see these fascists fearmongering about how Singapore is “foolish” and “communist” for doing so.

    • Greenleaf [he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Fun fact: a lot of these articles actually are done for free or even the author pays the website/publisher. The telltale sign - as is the case here - is when the author works in a profession where they need to generate business (like investment managers) and especially when they have a book to sell. The author here almost certainly wrote this so he gets exposure as an “investment guru”.

    • Raebxeh@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      4 months ago

      Except China’s not gonna be maintaining private ownership or redlining ethnic minorities out of said ownership

  • Aria@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    43
    ·
    4 months ago

    it would in the long run do tremendous damage to China’s economic prospects.

    Says the people who’s advice leads to less than half the economic growth that China has on off-years.

  • VILenin [he/him]@hexbear.netM
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    33
    ·
    4 months ago

    Liberals critiquing Marxism: “Fear not, for Don Quixote has come to relieve you of your delusions! Those aren’t windmills you’re seeing, you utter fucking morons, they’re giants! Wake up sheeple!”