• filoria@lemmy.mlOP
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    85
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    3 months ago

    IMF: your housing market is collapsing

    China: yeah we know

    IMF: so how about you bail out those poor housing investors

    China: …no thanks

    IMF: surprised Pikachu

    • Shard@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      Majority of those housing investors being the common people who are buying homes…

      • VeganPizza69 Ⓥ@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        edit: grammar

        • johnyma22@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          9
          ·
          3 months ago

          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?

        • realharo@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          3 months ago

          But the article is specifically talking about unfinished projects.

          So you don’t have a flat to live in either, you have an abandoned construction site.

            • realharo@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              5
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              3 months ago

              So where do all the renters come from?

              https://www.yicaiglobal.com/news/a-quarter-of-china-city-dwellers-rent-survey-shows - same website that your wikipedia link lists as source

              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.

              • تحريرها كلها ممكن@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                7
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                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

  • Sauvandu60@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    23
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    If it was my country’s government, they would have accepted it without a second thought and the people have no say about it.

    • carl_marks[use name]@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • HobbitFoot @thelemmy.club
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

    • davel@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Because housing is for living in, not for speculation or asset price inflation*.

      .
      *Radhika Desai and Michael Hudson Discuss the Causes and Politicization of Inflation

      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.