This isn’t about people getting a place to live, this is speculation, like Bitcoin, but with housing. There’s a mass of people buying housing to commodify it by selling it later at a huge price or by renting it out. This mass of people got scammed by housing developers who promised to deliver the apartment or house (at a good quality). Unfortunately, that didn’t happen; developers ran ponzi schemes. They used investors’ money to start new constructions and attract new investors, and stopped working on the old constructions or finished them poorly with bad materials.
This is how capitalism works unregulated. So the small investors fucked around trying to become petite bourgeoisie, and they’re finding out the beauty of capitalism.
I know this is hard to hear for Americans, but if you’re making money from being a landlord or flipping houses, you’re a piece of shit.
Bailing out these investors would be like bailing out Bitcoin “common people” investors when the “currency” crashes.
If you buy a derelict house(that no human can possibly live in) and fix it up to a decent standard with the intent to sell it, are you still a piece of shit?
But none of that is relevant to the article of this post. That article talks about money to complete unfinished projects. It’s in the very first paragraph. There are people who took out loans to buy pre-construction apartments with plans to live there, who are now in trouble.
China made the right move here. If you think the IMF is right show me homeownership rates in countries that did as the IMF suggested.
There are people who took out loans to buy pre-construction apartments with plans to live there, who are now in trouble.
mostly foreign speculators, what’s wrong with having them lose money?
There are people who took out loans to buy pre-construction apartments with plans to live there, who are now in trouble.
you do know that homelessness and lack of affordability in many Western countries has nothing to do with the supply or demand? there are more empty homes than there are homeless people
That’s quite a fantasy you’re telling yourself. A huge portion of China’s people’s wealth is wrapped up in real estate, and tens of millions of stalled residential units have already been purchased by the Chinese people, and that money is now gone, taken by the developers.
The IMF recommendation here was “to deploy ‘one-off’ fiscal resources to complete and deliver pre-sold properties or compensate homebuyers.” That would literally be rescuing the Chinese people who were burned by developers. Instead, the Chinese government is supporting the tech and manufacturing industries. Don’t pretend like China is some paradise where the common people aren’t getting fucked
Don’t pretend like the average person in China is a fucking real-estate investor. This investment money is from the middle class and up i.e. people who don’t need to be rescued. Common people just spend their paychecks and keep a little aside for savings, like everywhere else in the world.
My understanding is many everyday Chinese people bought real estate that wasn't yet built because demand was so high. Supposedly many of them sunk their whole life savings into units that developers had promised to build at some future point. That point seems unlikely to come if those developers go bankrupt, meaning that some decently large number of everyday people are going to lose their life savings.
Real estate is an asset class just like any other asset that is traded.
With respect to them giving money unfront for building, they got scammed. It is a criminal matter. But why should other people socialize their bad choices.
Bail out mechinsm done in the west is the most retarded way to deal with these issues and it creates incentives for owner class to scam taxpayers.
My understanding is middle class Chinese people bought real estate because they wanted passive income from investing in real-estate. China shouldn’t have allowed them to do that but the solution isn’t to bail out these developers. The actual solution is to make sure these people do not end up destitute because they wasted their money on gambling.
How is a family spending their money on an apartment they now won’t receive “a millionaire that is not a billionaire”? Not to mention, China loves billionaires. They have more of them than the US. It’s a fascistic shithole.
The Economist, 2021: At 54, China’s average retirement age is too lowFor most men in China the age is 60, much lower than the average of 64.2 in the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries. For female civil servants the age is 55; for blue-collar women it is 50.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. www.nber.org/system/files/…/w23119.pdf
From 1978 to 2000, the number of people in China living on under $1/day fell by 300 million, reversing a global trend of rising poverty that had lasted half a century (i.e. if China were excluded, the world’s total poverty population would have risen) semanticscholar.org/…/c883fc7496aa1b920b05dc2546b…
From 2010 to 2019 (the most recent period for which uninterrupted data is available), the income of the poorest 20% in China increased even as a share of total income. data.worldbank.org/indicator/SI.DST.FRST.20?end=2…
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. www.nytimes.com/…/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
I don’t know enough about this specific situation. But the history of the IMF and World Bank is such that, if they were to put out a statement saying that the sky is blue, I would immediately go and check if it had somehow changed colour.
In May, officials unveiled the biggest rescue package yet. It contains a 300 billion-yuan ($42 billion) central bank fund that attempts to help local governments buy finished but unsold homes and turn them into subsidized housing.
Separately, the IMF warned of “significant downside risks” to China’s inflation outlook, saying “a negative domestic demand shock amid high debt levels could trigger a period of sustained deflation.”
Does it tough? Why would aggregate demand collapse because of real estate developers going bankrupt? They make up a small part of the population and hoard more of their wealth. Also, very funny that IMF only cares about private debt buildup when it affects the porky-happy.
Where is the concern for a demand shock when you pressure Kenya and Nigeria into raising sales taxes, which has much greater impact on aggregate demand?
Infrastructure building, including housing, was a major part of the Chinese economy. That part of the economy collapsed, which is causing China to try to transition to other industries to drive economic growth.
It is possible that the IMF is worried about the collapse of a Chinese industry, but it seems like China is trying to focus more on the effects of a collapse on the asset class given that said asset class is the main retirement savings in the country and the main driver of local government spending. China has also taken internal steps try to limit infrastructure spending in the last few years, so they may not be worried about development companies collapsing as long as their collapse doesn’t spread to the overall economy.
The quick answer is because the housing market was used for speculation and was causing real estate prices and rents to rise. China introduced “three red lines” policy to mitigate this and let the housing market crash and let the billionaire CEO Hui Ka Yan (and mostly foreign Investors) hold the bag
There were other positive feedback items happening as well, including local governments relying on development as the major tax base.
China is also likely to see a drop in infrastructure investment in the next generation, so having some of these companies collapse isn’t seen as a major issue in China.
What has really been inflated, since 2008, has not been consumer prices, but asset prices — [that is,] real estate prices, stocks and bond prices, things that the 1% hold. Wealth has been inflated much more than goods and services. [This is especially true] for real estate.
This debt has been inflated not by government debt, not by government deficits, but by the Federal Reserve creating a $9 trillion subsidy to the banks to support real estate prices, and hence the value of bank-held mortgages and stock and bond prices.
This is not discussed, or even recognized, in the mainstream economic models. Instead, we have a kind of mythology by right-wing anti-labor financial lobbyists.
This mythology is about what I think most of the listeners are expecting us to discuss: the inflation of rising consumer prices. That’s the only kind of inflation that the Federal Reserve talks about. This is all blamed on increasing the money supply, as if somehow money is creating the inflation.
They are not talking about inflation as the result of monopoly pricing. They are not talking about inflation as a result of NATO’s sanctions against Russia. They are just talking about money [as if] somehow, if we [could] just stop money supply, if we could stop the government spending so much money on Social Security and Medicare, and other social spending (not military spending) then everything would be over.
We’re actually going to be talking about the relationship between, [on the one hand,] the inflation of housing and asset prices [and,] on the other hand, how this actually affects the inflation of consumer prices, and how debt and inflation all go together.
On a more practical and immediate level, it crashed because of COVID. Chinese real estate companies were using new money to finish old projects, and when supply shocks and work stoppages interrupted the system, it fucked the whole thing. The government has been reacting to that crash ever since.