6 ms·

Conspiracy idea: The Chinese government wants everyone to default on loans because then they'll get to claim ownership of all the assets. So everything will bec

by daemin 7y ago

Conspiracy idea: The Chinese government wants everyone to default on loans because then they'll get to claim ownership of all the assets. So everything will become state owned once again, communist dream?

em-bee 7y ago
ownership in china is time limited anyways, i think to 75 years. at that point properties go back to the government no matter what. so this wouldn't make much difference
- kyllo 7y ago
  More likely is that they simply extend the term.
- vkou 7y ago
  What's the difference between owning a 75 year lease on a property, and owning a property, where every year, you have to pay a ~1.33% property tax on the value of said property? It's not like China is the first country in the world that has fixed-year leases on housing. I know for a fact that you can find such properties in both Canada, and the United Kingdom.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    the main concern i'd have is that they are looked as being the same without people being aware that there is a difference. people are saying stuff like: buying an apartment in the US or in singapore is better than buying one in china, not realizing that they are effectively different models. calling it "ownership of a longterm lease" is a very good name that much better describes the reality. (it's the first time i see that term, but it just makes sense)
- daemin 7y ago
  Is that on the land or on each individual property? Does it get automatically renewed when the property gets transferred (sold or inherited)? I could imagine there being a price drop on property nearing its expiration, so much so that there's no point in maintaining it if it just goes back to the government.
  - em-bee 7y ago
    i have no idea. i have wondered just the same. what happens with the value when the time is up? maybe we can look at how time leases work in the UK or canada as suggested below. also, in china maintenance is only done when necessary and when it brings profit.
YjSe2GMQ 7y ago
Ownership doesn't mean the same thing in liberal democracies and in more or less oppressive countries. It's an abstract concept which gets translated into reality day by day, depending on other people's actions. Sure, you may "own" a piece of land with a building on it that you had paid for, but the govt can seize it without repaying fair value. Or you may fully "own" a company, but you can only make decisions that fall in line with the party's line.
- vkou 7y ago
  > Sure, you may "own" a piece of land with a building on it that you had paid for, but the govt can seize it without repaying fair value. It can also do that in the United States, through particularly tortured (and often unfair) application of eminent domain.
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    But there is a tremendous difference in terms of degree. It can still be unfair. But it is not a common occurrence to the degree it can be in a country like china. We have the ability to appeal to courts. Powerful people can push around the weak, but there is also the ability to go the other way.
    - vkou 7y ago
      You can appeal to a court in China, too. When people's homes are bulldozed in it, they are also entitled to market value compensation. It is just like eminent domain. And yes, people quibble over fair market value. They do so in the US, too. Poorer communities have been hit very hard by it.
mrnobody_67 7y ago
That's why they are spending billions building infrastructure in Africa (and loaning the government the money to do so)... highly recommended book on the topic of how this works:https://www.amazon.com/dp/1626566747/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1626566747/
- tepidandroid 7y ago
  I encourage you and people who share the same opinion as you to read alternative perspectives on the matter [1]. One should not be so quick to assume that Africans don't know what they are doing and don't know what's best for themselves. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-initiative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    Many of these giant belt infrastructure projects have only been approved by what appears to be bribery of the public officials. In multiple countries there have already been issues with Chinese financed large projects that appear to be un-affordable to extreme degrees, like in Malaysia. It appears that to me based on what has already happened that they are at least frequently unsustainable, and what happens is the original local control over new ports etc very frequently falls into Chinese hands once the high costs become apparent. Too early to say about Africa, but just look at Malaysia.

by daemin 7y ago

em-bee 7y ago

ownership in china is time limited anyways, i think to 75 years. at that point properties go back to the government no matter what. so this wouldn't make much difference

kyllo 7y ago
More likely is that they simply extend the term.
vkou 7y ago
What's the difference between owning a 75 year lease on a property, and owning a property, where every year, you have to pay a ~1.33% property tax on the value of said property? It's not like China is the first country in the world that has fixed-year leases on housing. I know for a fact that you can find such properties in both Canada, and the United Kingdom.
- em-bee 7y ago
  the main concern i'd have is that they are looked as being the same without people being aware that there is a difference. people are saying stuff like: buying an apartment in the US or in singapore is better than buying one in china, not realizing that they are effectively different models. calling it "ownership of a longterm lease" is a very good name that much better describes the reality. (it's the first time i see that term, but it just makes sense)
daemin 7y ago
Is that on the land or on each individual property? Does it get automatically renewed when the property gets transferred (sold or inherited)? I could imagine there being a price drop on property nearing its expiration, so much so that there's no point in maintaining it if it just goes back to the government.
- em-bee 7y ago
  i have no idea. i have wondered just the same. what happens with the value when the time is up? maybe we can look at how time leases work in the UK or canada as suggested below. also, in china maintenance is only done when necessary and when it brings profit.

YjSe2GMQ 7y ago

Ownership doesn't mean the same thing in liberal democracies and in more or less oppressive countries. It's an abstract concept which gets translated into reality day by day, depending on other people's actions. Sure, you may "own" a piece of land with a building on it that you had paid for, but the govt can seize it without repaying fair value. Or you may fully "own" a company, but you can only make decisions that fall in line with the party's line.

vkou 7y ago
> Sure, you may "own" a piece of land with a building on it that you had paid for, but the govt can seize it without repaying fair value. It can also do that in the United States, through particularly tortured (and often unfair) application of eminent domain.
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  But there is a tremendous difference in terms of degree. It can still be unfair. But it is not a common occurrence to the degree it can be in a country like china. We have the ability to appeal to courts. Powerful people can push around the weak, but there is also the ability to go the other way.
  - vkou 7y ago
    You can appeal to a court in China, too. When people's homes are bulldozed in it, they are also entitled to market value compensation. It is just like eminent domain. And yes, people quibble over fair market value. They do so in the US, too. Poorer communities have been hit very hard by it.

mrnobody_67 7y ago

That's why they are spending billions building infrastructure in Africa (and loaning the government the money to do so)... highly recommended book on the topic of how this works:https://www.amazon.com/dp/1626566747/ https://www.amazon.com/dp/1626566747/

tepidandroid 7y ago
I encourage you and people who share the same opinion as you to read alternative perspectives on the matter [1]. One should not be so quick to assume that Africans don't know what they are doing and don't know what's best for themselves. [1] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-initiative.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/26/opinion/china-belt-road-i...
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  Many of these giant belt infrastructure projects have only been approved by what appears to be bribery of the public officials. In multiple countries there have already been issues with Chinese financed large projects that appear to be un-affordable to extreme degrees, like in Malaysia. It appears that to me based on what has already happened that they are at least frequently unsustainable, and what happens is the original local control over new ports etc very frequently falls into Chinese hands once the high costs become apparent. Too early to say about Africa, but just look at Malaysia.