this post was submitted on 27 Jul 2024
81 points (100.0% liked)

Personal Finance

3747 readers
14 users here now

Learn about budgeting, saving, getting out of debt, credit, investing, and retirement planning. Join our community, read the PF Wiki, and get on top of your finances!

Note: This community is not region centric, so if you are posting anything specific to a certain region, kindly specify that in the title (something like [USA], [EU], [AUS] etc.)

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Paywall removed https://archive.is/NFELy

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)
[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

How's Evergrande been these days?

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Last I checked Evergrande never got government bailouts, and Chinese economy is successfully reorienting away from real estate towards high tech. That's what happens when you have a functional government that represents the interests of the working class in charge. Oh, and people in China now have record high household savings while burgerlanders are starving https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/stock-market-today-dow-jones-bank-earnings-01-12-2024/card/chinese-household-savings-hit-another-record-high-xqyky00IsIe357rtJb4j

[–] pingveno@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 month ago (1 children)

Chinese economy is successfully reorienting away from real estate towards high tech

functional government

Speaking of functional government, provinces rely on land use sales of various lengths. Many of them heavily overborrowed to build out infrastructure in anticipation of future land sales that are now lower or non-existent. And meanwhile, the real estate crisis is still quite active.

If the Chinese government was so special, it should have learned from the US's issues with companies that posed a systemic risk with inadequate oversight. Instead, they let Evergrande and others become way too large with too little oversight. They should have taken a cue from the financial regulators in the US, which identify systemically risky companies and imposes onerous regulations. Then at the height of the real estate bubble, Xi introduced a new set of policies that immediately popped the bubble instead of trying to ease it down. Too often, Xi in particular seems to work on principles like "people should invest wisely" instead of "if I introduce this policy, it will cause problems." The good news is that China does seem to be listening more lately, but it's already done damage.

[–] yogthos@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 month ago

Speaking of functional government, provinces rely on land use sales of various lengths. Many of them heavily overborrowed to build out infrastructure in anticipation of future land sales that are now lower or non-existent. And meanwhile, the real estate crisis is still quite active.

If that actually happened then we'd be seeing economic blowback from that. Instead, we're seeing Chinese economy steadily growing year on year. Seems like the actual material reality just doesn't match the propaganda you've been guzzling.

If the Chinese government was so special, it should have learned from the US’s issues with companies that posed a systemic risk with inadequate oversight.

In fact they did, and that's precisely why China didn't suffer a crash the way US did in 2008.

Instead, they let Evergrande and others become way too large with too little oversight.

The difference is that they let companies like Evergrande fail, and have the rich investors eat the losses, many of whom were international. This avoided impacting regular working class people and destabilization of economy the way we saw happen in US.

Then at the height of the real estate bubble, Xi introduced a new set of policies that immediately popped the bubble instead of trying to ease it down.

What the Chinese government did clearly worked effectively. As a side note, it's absolutely hilarious that you think that Xi makes all the decisions about a country of 1.4 billion people personally. This shows an incredibly infantile understanding of how a government works.

Too often, Xi in particular seems to work on principles like “people should invest wisely” instead of “if I introduce this policy, it will cause problems.”

My dude, that's literally how capitalist enterprises are supposed to work. People get to play with investing money, and if they make stupid investments then they eat the losses. It's not the responsibility of the government to protect rich people from making stupid decisions about spending their money. The job of the government is to protect the working majority, which is precisely what the CPC did in this scenario.

The good news is that China does seem to be listening more lately, but it’s already done damage.

I have no idea what you're even referring to here.