| ▲ | slibhb 10 hours ago |
| So far you're right but the tide can always turn. China has massively overbuilt housing supply, which is the kind of mistake that a freer economy couldn't make. China's failed birth policies (1 child until 2015!) are another example. My opinion is still that capitalism (Western style) will win. Not because markets are never wrong but because the scope for fucking up is so much less. Markets can't decide "families can have only one child" or "we need to build 90 million units of housing" (that now sits empty). An accumulation of fuck-ups in this vein is inevitable when you have a small group of people making these kinds of decisions. In the long run, it will be fatal. |
|
| ▲ | zelphirkalt 7 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| It depends though, whom you are asking about failed or successful policies. For example I have seen a normal flat of a friend in China in a capitol of a province, who lives alone in this 4 room apartment. I asked how much rent they had to pay and then asked them what they think, how much they would have to pay for that in Berlin. When I told them they would probably have to pay some 2k EUR rent, they thought for a moment, then just said: "That's insane!". The rent they paid was maybe 1/8 to 1/6 of that. And that apartment was not somewhere far out. It is well within the city and has good public transport connection. People can afford to rent. People can move. Single people. Over here not so much. This is also a result of the state having built houses and apartments. |
| |
| ▲ | em-bee 5 hours ago | parent [-] | | i don't know much about the rental market in china, but living there, always renting, i had the impression that rents do not cover the cost of the apartment. it is as if most people rent out their apartment because it would otherwise stay empty. when we finally bought an apartment, the mortgage payments were twice as high as what we would have paid for the same apartment in rent. we had a 15 year mortgage i think, so that means it takes 30 years in rent to just cover the cost of the apartment. is that profitable? i don't know. in germany rent has to be profitable. |
|
|
| ▲ | jen20 6 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Markets can't decide "families can have only one child" Sure they can. Just make it unaffordable to do anything else. |
|
| ▲ | kmeisthax an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Yes. Unfortunately, we don't live in capitalism anymore, we live in feudalism. The feudal lords just so happen to wear the skin of formerly capitalist corporations. That's how we get the opposite but identical kind of failure, where basically any desirable city gets almost no housing buildout (because any idiot with a billion dollars can make it arbitrarily expensive to do) and families can't afford to even have one child. |
|
| ▲ | HDThoreaun 7 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| China is still moving millions of people from rural to urban areas every year. The overbuilt housing is a complete non issue that will naturally solve itself in under a decade. Meanwhile in the west there is a massive housing affordability crisis because the government lets special interests make new housing illegal. I am not a fan of the chinese government but their housing policy is one spot where they are obviously better than western policy. |
|
| ▲ | cogman10 10 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| > Markets can't decide "families can have only one child" Actually they can. It's part of the reason why a lot of capitalist nations are seeing major problems with population stagnation and possibly shrinkage. The problem is markets don't care at all about society. If they can require that every member of a household has to work and extract all their money as efficiently as possible, then they leave little room for society to have families. Capitalism is geared towards minimizing workers' free time. And, unfortunately, free time is how babies get made and kids get raised. That is where western capitalism is failing. Shouting louder and young adults to pull on bootstraps harder isn't making them have kids in their studio apartments. South Korea and Japan are 2 examples of this train-wreck that's coming for the US and other nations. |
| |
| ▲ | fn-mote 10 hours ago | parent [-] | | > If they can require that every member of a household has to work and extract all their money as efficiently as possible, then they leave little room for society to have families. This ascribes an agency to capitalism that doesn’t exist. The families themselves make the choices to have more or fewer children. Capitalism says nothing about free time. Make the connection in your argument - people without enough money work as much as they can, maybe… but I still don’t see the lower wage people I know working 16 hour days. In fact it is the people who have a use for the extra money, usually to buy free time later, as one would expect in a capitalistic system. | | |
| ▲ | cogman10 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > This ascribes an agency to capitalism that doesn’t exist. Oh no, it really doesn't. Captialism is everyone working to maximize profit. It's the lack of foresight on social problems and pressures in capitalism that leads to exactly this problem. > The families themselves make the choices to have more or fewer children. Right, because of the pressure of a capitalist society. People can be priced out of having children if necessities like food, housing, and clothing price them out of being able to take care of a child. > Capitalism says nothing about free time. Capitalism is about maximizing profit. A direct path towards that is paying employees the minimal amount and having them work the most hours to extract the maximum amount of value from them. Before mass unionization, 60 or 80 hour workweeks were pretty common in the US. Even today, we see companies that use salaried employees as a way to make employees work longer hours. If overtime wasn't so expensive, you could bet that McDonalds would have people working 12 hour shifts. Hospitals already do that to nurses. | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | > capitalism is everyone working to maximize profit This is nonsense. Capitalism is about the private ownership of productive stuff, i.e. capital. That’s it. Profit is a corollary, and one that is bounded by preferences and tastes. | | |
| ▲ | saubeidl 9 hours ago | parent [-] | | That completely ignores the coercive law of competition. "Accumulate! Accumulate! That is Moses and the prophets." - Karl Marx, Capital: A Critique of Political Economy, Volume 1 | | |
| ▲ | JumpCrisscross 9 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > completely ignores the coercive law of competition Not a forcing function unless you’re levered. Competition can’t push your return on a productive asset below zero (by definition), just lower by increasing the value of said asset while reducing the cash flows from it. | | |
| ▲ | tankenmate 8 hours ago | parent [-] | | `Not a forcing function unless you’re levered`; but every one is levered, you aren't born with all the housing, food, and water you'll need for the rest of your life. Everyone is born with a net negative of the necessities of life, the difference though is that a very small minority are bequeathed this by well heeled ancestors. But for the overwhelming majority there is a life long struggle to afford to live a suitable life. |
| |
| ▲ | lanfeust6 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Out-competing yields rewards for effort, that doesn't make it necessary. All that's necessary is maintaining. Many small businesses coast by for 30 years with no aspiration to do more. Japan has had stagnant GDP growth for decades. Growth is not "necessary" as socialist like to project, it's just better. Productivity/innovation increases through growth have drastically improved our quality of life. Meanwhile socialists treat the world as zero-sum, as though everyone started out with a pile of cash which gets divvied up. Redistribution can be good, but you first need to generate the wealth. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | D_Alex 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | >This ascribes an agency to capitalism that doesn’t exist. You may find this marvelous piece enlightening: https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ |
|
|
|
| ▲ | YC34987349872 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| [flagged] |
| |
| ▲ | lowkey_ 8 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | 1) Years ago for work, I went deep investigating these; some of the team actually flew to China to see it all first-hand and verify the data. This is not a bunk narrative. 2) I've never made this accusation on HN before and apologize if I'm wrong, but this is a new account with 3 comments, all on this post (one of the largest posts about Hong Kong I've seen in a while here), and it looks a lot like a paid actor for China. This makes me thankful for the green-name feature on HN, if the random string of numbers wasn't enough of a tell. | |
| ▲ | sQL_inject 9 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | This take is bunk. I travel to China every year and in each major city, for each filled skyscraper, there is another that is half built and empty. | |
| ▲ | refurb 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | Bunk? A Chinese government official admitted there were way more homes than people in China. https://www.reuters.com/world/china/even-chinas-14-bln-popul... Housing prices have dropped 30% so far, and the market hasn’t hit bottom. It’s creating a huge drag on people’s savings and the economy as a whole. Not to mention inflating government debt as local governments can’t sell land anymore to developers to fund local spending. | |
| ▲ | chaostheory 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | Ghost cities of tofu dredge buildings are real. In some cases, the local government moved there offices into those places in a desperate bid to turn the tide. Given China’s falling demographics and geopolitical events, the provinces built too much housing. |
|
|
| ▲ | maxglute 9 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| They prebuild 10 years of housing runway but still have another 10 years, aka 100m+ housing shortage for urbanization goals. They realize they got overzealous and was venturing in bubble and and intervened during boom vs after collapse. AKA preplanning and prematurely fixing something, which is the kind of intervention a freer economy can't do. Family planning was also massive successful in preventing frankly 100s of millions of useless mouths from being born and concentrating resources to upskill 1-2 kids, hence their massive catchup within a few generations. Now they make more technical talent than OCED combined and will have the greatest high skill demographic dividend to milk for at least our life times, giving them 40+ years to sort out better family planning. BTW US overspending 5-10% of GDP aka 2.5 Trillion per year on healthcare vs OECD baseline is basically more wasteful misallocation than anything PRC has ever done, including RE misallocation (3-5% waste). And at least they still have housing units left to use (being converted into affordable housing), instead of piles of paper work and personal debt. Accumulation of fuckups that are not resolvable in western style capitalism, it will be fatal medium term. |
| |
| ▲ | kbelder 4 hours ago | parent [-] | | Useless mouths? Christ. | | |
| ▲ | maxglute 3 hours ago | parent [-] | | Yes, some cohorts are more useful than others for nation building, that's just reality, especially if excess mouths are net drains relative to national resource available. Too much excess and not just useless but actively detrimental to development. It's not saying time to purge, but excess demographics can dilute development resources too thin, double bad if above domestic carry capacity, i.e. getting import dependant trapped. PRC averted 200-300m birth who would have spread family resources into developing country trap. The family planning exchange is non-existing 400m low skilled workers / subsistent farmers that is net drain on national power vs having 100m tertiary to uplift into developed country. All PRC rising in the last 20 years is because PRC family planning aborted a fuckload of 2nd/3rd/4th+ siblings so families can concentrate resources to get 1st kid into STEM. They speedrun the high skill human capita game, compressing 100s of years of human capita accumulation in 50. There's downsides, but they come after the up. What's better for development, a 1.8B country of 6 Nigeria's and 2 Japans or 1.4B country of 2 Nigerias and 6 Japans. The latter. And you would recognize the former, while all lives are special blah blah blah is absolute developing shitshow. Every Nigeria PRC avoids is 200m of less governance overhead, i.e. make work jobs. AKA see which way India trended. Look at new gen of PRC protein consumption and average height vs alternative, stunted growth from malnutrition that literally makes significant % of population too stupid to integrate into modern economy. That's what happens, you can literally fuck up your human capita stock so much by diffusing limited resources that 100s of million become too biologically stupid to do modern jobs i.e. even in PRC, 100s of millions from old times too stunted and innumerate to do even basic factory work. PRC didn't abort enough. |
|
|