120
China Rejects $1 Trillion Housing Rescue Plan Pitched by IMF
(www.bloomberg.com)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Aug 2024
120 points (100.0% liked)
World News
32059 readers
618 users here now
News from around the world!
Rules:
-
Please only post links to actual news sources, no tabloid sites, etc
-
No NSFW content
-
No hate speech, bigotry, propaganda, etc
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
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
Majority of those housing investors being the common people who are buying homes...
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
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?
You add the repairs to the price.
If you're creating a luxury house/apartment, well, the word "luxury" is already there.
I'm really confused.. Did you answer my question?
I clarified how it depends. The answer was "it depends", which is a very displeasing answer, so I skipped a step.
if they bought the houses to live and not speculate, it doesn't matter
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.
Homeownership rate in China is over 95%
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_home_ownership_rate
What kind of world are we living in where people who have no idea what they are talking about argue with absolute certainty?!
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.
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.
mostly foreign speculators, what's wrong with having them lose money?
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