Even 1.4 billion people can’t fill China’s vacant homes, ex-official admits
cnn.com
cnn.com
“How many vacant homes are there now? Each expert gives a very different number, with the most extreme believing the current number of vacant homes are enough for 3 billion people,” said He Keng, 81, a former deputy head of the statistics bureau."
No, they don't have "vacant homes for 3 billion people". Not even close to 1/10th that. Actually, the "vacant homes" amount to "7.2 million homes, according to Reuters calculations" based on statistics from the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS).
Those, they could fill them in a heartbeat (and will build tens of millions more in the future), filling these particular ones a matter of price, and of desirability of specific areas (which could change due to industry coming in or moving out and so on).
Instead CNN went with the bullshit accout of vacant homes "enough for 3 billion people" for the headline and "message" of the story.
Maybe give the article a slower and calmer re-read.
But the article probably could have done better quantifying the unused and partially completed units better. It’s lazy reporting to quote the official stats and not the estimates, which are certainly available.
(Pretty sure Trump would have done the same. I mean, he's a real estate investor himself.)
Eh... that's not unused space, that's non existent space. What percentage of those have no actual on the ground progress, hence are total bullshit?
The 7.2mm homes, if they don’t get occupied, can at least be used as homes by the people who own them, many of whom have put their entire life savings into these places.
The homes that have been sold but not built will likely never be built and the people who have put their entire life savings and taken on debt (that they’re already paying interest on) to acquire those homes will get absolutely nothing in return.
"Millions starving as a billion tons of grain goes unused" I mean people starving is bad, why aren't they doing something with all that food. But if you instead write "millions stave as a billion tons of grain never planted" gives you a much different view of the ground truth.
I've already found examples of Australians who've responded to Australia's housing crisis by moving to rural China (one opened a restaurant serving an exotic dish called "pizza", made with a wood fired oven). If China really wants to subvert the West, it just needs to show Westerners that life is better under Chinese rule. Which, if they can offer apartments, they might be able to demonstrate.
We could use some competition in the government space. Without it, we can expect Western governments to remain captured by, in this case, homeowners.
If there's one thing the Chinese Communist Party can't tolerate it's competition in the government space.
They don't even tolerate a competition of ideas. Paranoid China wants the Chinese to spy on each other and most especially foreigners:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-09-17/xi-s-secu...
It doesn't matter that it will be ineffective. It doesn't matter that a lot of innocent people will be caught up in it. From the CCP's point of view, the climate of fear it will create is useful for them to retain control.
It's a dumb game to play, but apparently it's all the CCP can think to do at this point.
There's this idea that one of the reasons that US workers (and workers in the West more generally) had a relatively good standard of living during the Cold War, was that Western countries were facing competition from the Soviet Union. Would Britain have built all that social housing? Would it have created the NHS? Would America have permitted as much unionization as existed? Possibly not, if it weren't for the Soviet threat. And is it a coincidence that we had waves of privitization in the West at the same time that the Soviet Union was collapsing? So goes the thinking.
Now, the reality was that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian state, and it's unlikely that you'd actually want to live there. Granted, they may have done certain things well, like putting up Khrushchevkas. But the political situation was terrible and the material quality of life was not very good.
Nevertheless, maybe the existence of a competitor did spur the US and other countries to do better.
(There are other more cut-and-dry examples of this, e.g., much earlier, Bismarck outflanking the Socialists in Germany with state healthcare.)
And, for all the negatives of the Chinese system today, it's hard to argue that they don't build a lot very quickly. (Quality may be an issue sometimes, but I'm still impressed by a lot of what's accomplished.)
So, my half-tongue-in-cheek proposal is that China use its known strengths to offer a better deal than Western governments can, not just to e.g. African nations via BRI, but also to Western and even US citizens. It's not really that I think Westerners would be wise to go there (I know full well that there must be a propaganda element to the example of the Australians that I used). It's that Western leaders seem entirely content to let lucrative problems like the housing crisis fester, and it would be fantastic if there were some credible alternative to spur action.
Basically, life should be better for citizens if governments are competing for legitimacy with them.
The problem the article discusses is that they've built too much too quickly. There's no one to buy or use it. Oversupply isn't useful and it costs a lot.
Same situation with EVs. EV oversupply is neither economic nor environmental:
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2023-china-ev-graveyards/
> Basically, life should be better for citizens if governments are competing for legitimacy with them.
You're inventing democracy. China doesn't like democracy.
Taiwan likes democracy. China's determined to take over Taiwan, no matter what the Taiwanese think about it. China's quite happy to invade Taiwan to get it done:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/13/china-unveils-...
China's message is "Fuck your democracy. Submit or we will invade and kill you until whoever is left submits".
So much for the competition of governments and the betterment of the lives of citizens.
The current problem isn't excess housing stock, 50m is wasteful but not excessively so buffer. The problem was presales was tying up too much investment in RE, driving up housing prices and affordibility. Central gov wants people to invest in SMIC not Evergrande, so 3RL crackdown which is going to take a few years to unwind as central gov forces developers to finish or return deposits while they're being slowly dismantled - priority is to make buyers whole. In the mean time there's some capital stuck in the system, which is bad but not end of world. Medium long term, PRC's initial shitty housing stock is approaching 50+ years end of life, and demand for new replacement square meter is going to kick in.
TLDR is the inefficiency is not primarily the surplus, it's the bubble, and the bubble sapping investments away from other sectors.
The entire EV graveyard narrative is extra retardedly overblown by western media (like bike graveyards). There's a few car share fleet graveyard and subsidy scams amounting to a few 100s of thousands of heavily used urban fleet cars or useless scam chasis. This is out of growing 2-3m total car share fleet and projected 100s of millions of future EV sales. Now both sectors have or is active being consolidated to drive out bad players. Bluntly, it's fucking nothing, a few billion in waste vs 100s of billions gained per year in building new sector. Hurricanes destroy significantly more cars than that every few years in the US. Like everytime PRC decides to go HAM on pursuing an sector, there's some initial overcapacity and waste but things even out when sector matures. Ask any auto export power if they would waste a few billion dollars and few hundred thousand scraped hulls to be where PRC EV is now, and they'd say yes to a trade 10x that.
Fueled by what? The jobs people don't have:
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/26/china/35-curse-unemployme...
https://edition.cnn.com/2023/08/14/economy/china-economy-jul...
The TLDR is PRC urbanization strategies isn't targetted at tier1 cities, it's targetted at tier 2/3/4 cities. They don't want tier1 cities getting denser, they want density to spread, especially to increasingly developing interior provinces and where most of the new industry hubs are being situated. Incidentally, a lot of the extra shit potential speculative RE is happening in this area. There's plenty of rural people from these regions that PRC is trying urbanize but being priced out due to richer tier speculators driving up prices.
“For every two of us there should be one of us” doesn’t seem that wise in hindsight.
For a developing nation with a questionable future, one-child-per-family seemed a viable way to solve the problem of finite resources, particularly as a transient "we do this for N years then revert" model.
I notice in the end most of the hand-wringing comes from the economic argument. It's not "Dad needs two children around to care for him in his dotage", it's "who will fill the factories" and "line won't go up without perpetually growing population."
I suspect the loop can be closed with modernization and rising standards of living. If we have 50% fewer people than in 1980, but they're twice as productive, and per-person consumption doubles, aggregate demand remains flat. That can be an interesting play because it keeps demand flat on necessities -- you only need so much rice, so many apartments, so much transport capacity -- but allows for growth in the much more elastic, and less "if we stretch them til they break, our society crumbles", luxury sectors.
Seems arbitrary to equate all Chinese and not just equate all humans. There is no evidence to suggest stupidity is geographically constrained by concepts of nationality.
Take a moment to read the comment I posted under as a response or I'd say follow up to understand the context.