11 ms·

>> building a megacity in the Pearl River Delta that it hopes will one day rival New York and Tokyo Construction is 50% of their GDP (fact-check me here) and t

>> building a megacity in the Pearl River Delta that it hopes will one day rival New York and Tokyo Construction is 50% of their GDP (fact-check me here) and this feels like business as usual to keep the gravy train rolling.

notaround1111 7y ago
looks like its around 40% according to the world bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?locations=CN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?location...) which is probably based on data provided by the CCP. which kinda makes fact-checking data a fool-errand anyways.
- whatshisface 7y ago
  Well there are satellite photos, construction workers can be questioned about their wage, material prices are semi-public (you don't know exactly what was negotiated in each contract but there is something of a market)... Too bad there is no public institution that estimates these things as far as I know. Although I bet most hedge funds along with the CIA have worked it out.
rolltiide 7y ago
have you ever seen a construction project that didn't appear like a total racket? I wouldnt try holding construction groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  >have you ever seen a construction project that didn't appear like a total racket? Yes but none of them were funded or overseen at the state or national level. The source of the funds, the people doing the constructing and the people with the stake in the results was a fairly tight loop. The extra overhead of state/national projects seems to provide enough inefficiency/friction that just turns the whole thing into a money pit.
  - coliveira 7y ago
    Research the interstate highway system: completely funded by the US government, paid by taxes.
    - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
      Research the Big Dig. Most of the interstate was built 50+yr ago when the administrative overhead of such projects was far, far lower. The states basically said "here's where it's going" and did it without much local input, environmental assessment, etc, etc. Government also was far less risk averse in those days (so more stuff was done in house at cost). The interstate is actually a great example of how costs have increased over time since it was mostly built over a 30yr period.
  - rolltiide 7y ago
    > Post: I wouldnt try holding construction groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard > Reply: Tries to hold constructions groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard
- 88840-8855 7y ago
  Just look at the BER Berlin capital airport. A funny story. But you dont have to go that big (here in Germany). They just recently opened a road (700m long, across an empty field) - after 8 years of planning, 2 years of construction plus additional 1 year of delay - only at a cost of 12 million Euros.
  - api 7y ago
    Wow... I thought the US was bad!
gumby 7y ago
40-50% of today's GDP, spread over 10-20 years, doesn't sound so bad.

notaround1111 7y ago

looks like its around 40% according to the world bank (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?locations=CN https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.IND.TOTL.ZS?location...) which is probably based on data provided by the CCP. which kinda makes fact-checking data a fool-errand anyways.

whatshisface 7y ago
Well there are satellite photos, construction workers can be questioned about their wage, material prices are semi-public (you don't know exactly what was negotiated in each contract but there is something of a market)... Too bad there is no public institution that estimates these things as far as I know. Although I bet most hedge funds along with the CIA have worked it out.

rolltiide 7y ago

have you ever seen a construction project that didn't appear like a total racket? I wouldnt try holding construction groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard

dsfyu404ed 7y ago
>have you ever seen a construction project that didn't appear like a total racket? Yes but none of them were funded or overseen at the state or national level. The source of the funds, the people doing the constructing and the people with the stake in the results was a fairly tight loop. The extra overhead of state/national projects seems to provide enough inefficiency/friction that just turns the whole thing into a money pit.
- coliveira 7y ago
  Research the interstate highway system: completely funded by the US government, paid by taxes.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Research the Big Dig. Most of the interstate was built 50+yr ago when the administrative overhead of such projects was far, far lower. The states basically said "here's where it's going" and did it without much local input, environmental assessment, etc, etc. Government also was far less risk averse in those days (so more stuff was done in house at cost). The interstate is actually a great example of how costs have increased over time since it was mostly built over a 30yr period.
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > Post: I wouldnt try holding construction groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard > Reply: Tries to hold constructions groups and Chinese central planning to a higher standard
88840-8855 7y ago
Just look at the BER Berlin capital airport. A funny story. But you dont have to go that big (here in Germany). They just recently opened a road (700m long, across an empty field) - after 8 years of planning, 2 years of construction plus additional 1 year of delay - only at a cost of 12 million Euros.
- api 7y ago
  Wow... I thought the US was bad!

gumby 7y ago

40-50% of today's GDP, spread over 10-20 years, doesn't sound so bad.