Hong kong protests - Huge

[Jimbeaux]

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long. Either they crack down, which will stunt their economic growth, or they will take the Democratic route and deal with the evolution that comes with that. That being workers' rights, unions, minimum wages, etc.

[Asterix]

Jimbeaux said:

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long. Either they crack down, which will stunt their economic growth, or they will take the Democratic route and deal with the evolution that comes with that. That being workers' rights, unions, minimum wages, etc.

The latter will hit growth as well though. All that stuff you've mentioned will drive up prices and exports will reduce.

[Jimbeaux]

Asterix said:

Jimbeaux said:

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long. Either they crack down, which will stunt their economic growth, or they will take the Democratic route and deal with the evolution that comes with that. That being workers' rights, unions, minimum wages, etc.

The latter will hit growth as well though. All that stuff you've mentioned will drive up prices and exports will reduce.

Absolutely, Democracy, and all that comes with it will slow their economic roll considerably. Either way, they have a slowdown coming.

[johnxjsc1985]

Is it possible for a billion people to be a democracy ?. We struggle with 60 million and then only half bother to vote.

[Shaoxter]

johnxjsc1985 said:

Is it possible for a billion people to be a democracy ?. We struggle with 60 million and then only half bother to vote.

If you want a case study, look at India, specifically the difference in infrastructure between India and China.

Democracy does not work in developing countries. China will transition there some day, but the question is what kind of transition it will be. I'm hoping it's going to be a smooth and peaceful one without interference or egging on from the World Police but unfortunately I doubt that will be the case.

None of this has much to do with HK though, they just want to keep living the life they have been without interference or integration with the mainland. That's totally reasonable but I think slightly naive.

[Jimbeaux]

Shaoxter said:

None of this has much to do with HK though, they just want to keep living the life they have been without interference or integration with the mainland. That's totally reasonable but I think slightlyextremely naive.

Fixed that for you.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Shaoxter said:

None of this has much to do with HK though, they just want to keep living the life they have been without interference or integration with the mainland. That's totally reasonable but I think slightlyextremely naive.

Fixed that for you.

Been watching too many Arab spring movies.

If tanks quelled the demonstrations, little the rest of the world can do.

[Jimbeaux]

Mermaid said:

Jimbeaux said:

Shaoxter said:

None of this has much to do with HK though, they just want to keep living the life they have been without interference or integration with the mainland. That's totally reasonable but I think slightlyextremely naive.

Fixed that for you.

Been watching too many Arab spring movies

The "definate-ness" of this one is even more certain than any Arab Spring.

[AA999]

Jimbeaux said:

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long.

Not sure I follow.
Not saying you are wrong in any way but could you expand?

I would have thought that with a government that has total rule without the need to consult or win votes from the general public in order to decide national policy, it would result in them being able to adapt, change and control market and financial conditions as they wish, and as rapidly as external factors dictate. (One of the main 'bonuses' of a communist rule).

I thought that in recent years the effectiveness of this type of government (in terms of being able to control its financial affairs) angered the americans in that they openly voiced a "money printing war" on the Chinese whereby they stated "we [the USA] have bigger and faster money printing machines that you [China]".


I guess on the flip-side is that under a capitalist market economy this will naturally generate non-government members with 'power'.
But surely as capitalism being what it is and the pyramid structures of wealth distribution that are set up, those 'powered' individuals would not make a dent in the grand scheme of things. (Or would they?).

I'm sure the model of capitalism that is operating in China would not allow corporations to gain enough power over the government, as opposed to what we see in the west where banks and large corporations have a large influence on politicians and policy.

[Jimbeaux]

AA999 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long.

Not sure I follow.
Not saying you are wrong in any way but could you expand?

I would have thought that with a government that has total rule without the need to consult or win votes from the general public in order to decide national policy, it would result in them being able to adapt, change and control market and financial conditions as they wish, and as rapidly as external factors dictate. (One of the main 'bonuses' of a communist rule).

I thought that in recent years the effectiveness of this type of government (in terms of being able to control its financial affairs) angered the americans in that they openly voiced a "money printing war" on the Chinese whereby they stated "we [the USA] have bigger and faster money printing machines that you [China]".


I guess on the flip-side is that under a capitalist market economy this will naturally generate non-government members with 'power'.
But surely as capitalism being what it is and the pyramid structures of wealth distribution that are set up, those 'powered' individuals would not make a dent in the grand scheme of things. (Or would they?).

I'm sure the model of capitalism that is operating in China would not allow corporations to gain enough power over the government, as opposed to what we see in the west where banks and large corporations have a large influence on politicians and policy.

I believe you have a point to a certain extent. Yes, a controlling government can guide an economy to a better place (assuming that government makes good decisions). Governments, as a rule, usually do not make good money managers. There is a point where, I feel, that such control = prosperity reaches and apex and the returns on control begin to diminish. That is when either control or free market must be chosen, both can no longer coexist. Nothing can generate new ideas and foster growth like a free market.

[FredClogs]

Jimbeaux said:

AA999 said:

Jimbeaux said:

I have been stating on PH for years that China is at an impasse. The paths of capitalism and Communist rule cannot run parallel for long.

Not sure I follow.
Not saying you are wrong in any way but could you expand?

I would have thought that with a government that has total rule without the need to consult or win votes from the general public in order to decide national policy, it would result in them being able to adapt, change and control market and financial conditions as they wish, and as rapidly as external factors dictate. (One of the main 'bonuses' of a communist rule).

I thought that in recent years the effectiveness of this type of government (in terms of being able to control its financial affairs) angered the americans in that they openly voiced a "money printing war" on the Chinese whereby they stated "we [the USA] have bigger and faster money printing machines that you [China]".


I guess on the flip-side is that under a capitalist market economy this will naturally generate non-government members with 'power'.
But surely as capitalism being what it is and the pyramid structures of wealth distribution that are set up, those 'powered' individuals would not make a dent in the grand scheme of things. (Or would they?).

I'm sure the model of capitalism that is operating in China would not allow corporations to gain enough power over the government, as opposed to what we see in the west where banks and large corporations have a large influence on politicians and policy.

I believe you have a point to a certain extent. Yes, a controlling government can guide an economy to a better place (assuming that government makes good decisions). Governments, as a rule, usually do not make good money managers. There is a point where, I feel, that such control = prosperity reaches and apex and the returns on control begin to diminish. That is when either control or free market must be chosen, both can no longer coexist. Nothing can generate new ideas and foster growth like a free market.

There is no such things as a free market, if they're were countries would be controlled on the interests a a small cabal of elite controlled multinational corporate conglomerates who fix the market to be far from free and blackmail and bully the democratic process.

Oh wait a minute...

[Dr Jekyll]

Jimbeaux said:

I believe you have a point to a certain extent. Yes, a controlling government can guide an economy to a better place (assuming that government makes good decisions). Governments, as a rule, usually do not make good money managers. There is a point where, I feel, that such control = prosperity reaches and apex and the returns on control begin to diminish. That is when either control or free market must be chosen, both can no longer coexist. Nothing can generate new ideas and foster growth like a free market.

The more power the government have to interfere, the worse for the economy.

[Jimbeaux]

Dr Jekyll said:

Jimbeaux said:

I believe you have a point to a certain extent. Yes, a controlling government can guide an economy to a better place (assuming that government makes good decisions). Governments, as a rule, usually do not make good money managers. There is a point where, I feel, that such control = prosperity reaches and apex and the returns on control begin to diminish. That is when either control or free market must be chosen, both can no longer coexist. Nothing can generate new ideas and foster growth like a free market.

The more power the government have to interfere, the worse for the economy.

Agree 100%.

[BlackLabel]

It appears that the authorities in HK are paying triads and other thugs to intimidate and bully the protesters in order to make them disperse.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/hong-...

[Mermaid]

BlackLabel said:

It appears that the authorities in HK are paying triads and other thugs to intimidate and bully the protesters in order to make them disperse.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/04/hong-...

Seems to have worked - crowds have thinning out last few days.

[Jimbeaux]

The internal infection festering in China will become worse and worse.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

The internal infection festering in China will become worse and worse.

Absolutely.Well suppressed at present.

[FredClogs]

Jimbeaux said:

The internal infection festering in China will become worse and worse.

Infection?

[Jimbeaux]

FredClogs said:

Jimbeaux said:

The internal infection festering in China will become worse and worse.

Infection?

Internal unrest, strife, festering internal divisions, call it what you will but it will act as an infection, worsening as time goes by. As Mermaid said, well supressed at the moment; which will only cause it to fester more.

[Mermaid]

Jimbeaux said:

Internal unrest, strife, festering internal divisions, call it what you will but it will act as an infection, worsening as time goes by..

Chinese property groups look abroad as local market turns frothy

NEW YORK, NY - OCTOBER 06: The Waldorf Astoria, the landmark New York hotel, is viewed on October 6, 2014 in New York City. It was announced October 6, that Hilton Worldwide will sell the Waldorf to the Beijing-based Anbang Insurance Group for $1.95 billion. As part of the deal the Waldorf will undergo a major renovation. The Park Avenue hotel opened on October 1, 1931, and claimed to be the biggest hotel in the world at the time, attracting movie stars, politicians and the wealthy.

A wave of Japanese investment in iconic Manhattan buildings such as the Rockefeller Center in the late-1980s eventually came to symbolise the peak of Japan’s bubble.
With Hilton’s $1.95bn sale of the landmark Waldorf Astoria New York Hotel to an obscure Chinese insurance company it is tempting to ask whether history is repeating itself.


Outbound property investment from mainland China has soared from less than $70m in 2008 to $16bn in 2013, according to research from real estate services company Colliers International.
Chinese investors are now the biggest foreign buyers of property in New York City, London and Australia.
A key incentive for Chinese buyers is high and frothy prices at home and a worsening slump in domestic markets across the country – also an important motivator for Japanese investors during their shortlived offshore buying spree.
Some analysts believe Chinese global property purchases are likely to be around a lot longer and that the trend has only begun.
One major difference is size, not just of the domestic Chinese market but also of its main participants, who are all looking beyond the country’s borders as they seek to renovate their business models for a future beyond shovelling concrete.
Of the top 10 listed global developers by revenue, seven of them are now mainland Chinese, according to S&P Capital IQ. China Vanke, the country’s largest residential builder, had sales last year of $20.4bn, almost three times higher than Lennar, the biggest player in the US.
For now, the sector remains almost entirely reliant on selling physical property. At Wanda, China’s top commercial developer, unit sales still account for almost 90 per cent of revenue.
While that model worked well during the boom, it is coming under increasing stress as the market turns. Nationwide property sales in China this year have dropped more than 10 per cent compared with 2013, while prices in 68 of the 70 most-watched cities fell in August, the highest number on record.
Powerful connections

In 1992, Deng Xiaoping, leader of the Communist Party of China and later a reformer, called for the Pudong district of China's largest city to lead economic development under China's socialist system with a new economic zone and incentives for foreign investors.

Anbang Insurance, the Chinese financial company that this week bought the Waldorf Astoria, has one huge thing going for it in its home market – its founder and chairman is the grandson-in-law of Deng Xiaoping, the architect of modern China. The chairman, Wu Xiaohui, who is in his late 40s, is renowned in Beijing for his ruthless business style and the support he receives from powerful political leaders

“After 15 years of vigorous growth, the Chinese property market is approaching a point of maturity. The Chinese economy is looking to consolidate – that pushes the developers to look for new opportunities,” says Albert Lau, head of China research at Savills.

Chinese developers now have projects under way in cities stretching across four continents, from Sydney to San Francisco via south London. Shanghai-based Greenland has announced the biggest deal so far, investing $5bn in the Atlantic Yards redevelopment in Brooklyn.
Chinese insurance companies such as Anbang, buyer of the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, were only given permission to buy offshore property in late 2012.
So far there have been few high-profile deals, including Ping An Insurance’s purchase of London’s Lloyd’s Building, and China Life’s acquisition of a Canary Wharf office tower.

But many more deals are expected to come as the Chinese insurance companies look to diversify away from the shaky domestic market.
They will join individual buyers who are already piling in to major western markets in a huge way.
In London, Chinese were the top foreign buyers last year, according to property consultancy Knight Frank, accounting for 6 per cent of all purchases of more than £1m. Russian buyers accounted for 5.2 per cent.
Mainland Chinese were also the top foreign investors in Australian property last year, accounting for 11.4 per cent of total foreign investment in real estate with $5.9bn in purchases, according to Australia’s Foreign Investment Review Board.
The decision by major Chinese developers to venture abroad is the clearest sign of the waning enthusiasm for China’s home market.
Yet in going overseas, developers are still hoping to target the same set of buyers as they look to capitalise on the rising trend of Chinese people moving overseas for work or study.
In spite of their inexperience abroad, Chinese developers have some advantages. As the largest builders in the world, they bring economies of scale when it comes to materials and equipment, while their access to Chinese funding – both through commercial and policy banks – often provides attractive financing.
Aside from finding new markets, mainland companies want to learn from the most experienced western players. Vanke is working on a project in San Francisco in partnership with Tishman Speyer, one of the best-known US property companies. Such tie-ups offer Chinese developers a chance to learn new skills, such as property management.
The ultimate goal is to move away from a near total reliance on property sales towards a sustainable income-based and asset-light model. Such a switch requires willing investors, which might be found among China’s fast-growing insurance and pension funds.
However, while the aims are clear, the paths to achieving them remain fraught with risk, say analysts. Any such overhaul requires time, money and the willingness to take risks – all things that developers may find in short supply if China’s housing market downturn worsens.
Alvin Wong, analyst at Barclays, cautions that the business of providing services and managing properties is simply too low margin to replace the cash flow that comes from the traditional build and sell model.
“In the next two to three years, developers will still need to focus on sales, lowering debt levels and clearing inventory,” he says. “It’s very difficult to make a big change.”
If the domestic property downturn accelerates and turns into a Japan-style crash then the current wave of Chinese buying may dry up just as the “Japanese invasion” did more than two decades ago.