4 ms·

While very true, I don't think this criticism is really the important point. The rapid pace of Chinese urbanisation and economic advance from such a low base h

While very true, I don't think this criticism is really the important point. The rapid pace of Chinese urbanisation and economic advance from such a low base has meant China's development has been necessarily highly speculative. There have been huge wins on projects that in the west would look absurd, as well as huge losses. What you also have to remember is that the state has a huge interest to keep construction happening as its one of the biggest employing industries. However development is trending now overall towards a more mature western approach. Big developers are more experienced. Unmet demand it not as massive as before. And wages are rising. The ridiculous projects are reducing in pace and being more carefully organised.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago
Oh, we all are aware that construction is a huge jobs program, and that most of these buildings are going to be torn down after 20-30 years of use, since Chinese construction using concrete and cheap labor necessarily requires overbuilding that makes proper maintenance very expensive. Local governments see this as a feature, since every new building is more GDP, even demolition of the previous building is added GDP they can report to central. A lot of the speculation will have to fall off. A good old fashioned property bust would do wonders to correct all the distortions in the market, but the central government keeps doubling down on more.
- A2017U1 8y ago
  Call me a wowser but I far prefer a country whose big government employment program is building housing and not building armies that are ten times the size of all the largest other armies combined. That's a nation with a very big unused hammer adventuring around the world looking for a nail.
  - seanmcdirmid 8y ago
    I never said it was “wrong,” just that there were consequences to this kind of thinking. So if you build something that is empty for 15 years, it was useless for half its lifetime, and that is if it was even being maintained while basically derelict; it is highly likely that when the building is actually needed, they will tear it down and start over again. China will eventually move to a high skilled labor force and these problems will go away. But that is not today.

seanmcdirmid 8y ago

Oh, we all are aware that construction is a huge jobs program, and that most of these buildings are going to be torn down after 20-30 years of use, since Chinese construction using concrete and cheap labor necessarily requires overbuilding that makes proper maintenance very expensive. Local governments see this as a feature, since every new building is more GDP, even demolition of the previous building is added GDP they can report to central. A lot of the speculation will have to fall off. A good old fashioned property bust would do wonders to correct all the distortions in the market, but the central government keeps doubling down on more.

A2017U1 8y ago
Call me a wowser but I far prefer a country whose big government employment program is building housing and not building armies that are ten times the size of all the largest other armies combined. That's a nation with a very big unused hammer adventuring around the world looking for a nail.
- seanmcdirmid 8y ago
  I never said it was “wrong,” just that there were consequences to this kind of thinking. So if you build something that is empty for 15 years, it was useless for half its lifetime, and that is if it was even being maintained while basically derelict; it is highly likely that when the building is actually needed, they will tear it down and start over again. China will eventually move to a high skilled labor force and these problems will go away. But that is not today.