4 ms·

These questions indicate a misunderstanding of how markets inside China work. I suggest you don't look at "what makes sense" but more look at the reality of wha

These questions indicate a misunderstanding of how markets inside China work. I suggest you don't look at "what makes sense" but more look at the reality of what's happening. What you are also missing is that sometimes, parties are not allowed to abandon ship. Couples who have bought homes with mortgages but are not moved in for years are not allowed to give up, they are not allowed to stop paying on threat of imprisonment. The organizations on the countersign are also not allowed to give up on mortgages because the existence of their company is at the will of the government. There was an uprising where people banded together and just stopped paying their mortgages and basically threatened the local police to mass arrest them, and that's one of the things that spurred the greater bankruptcy, because the government didn't really want to arrest all the people, cause that would indicate they are not in control. And seeming to be in control is what the government will opt for every single time in every single decision they make.

Terr_ 3y ago
> And seeming to be in control is what the government will opt for every single time in every single decision they make. That reminds me of when the Battlefield 4 game was banned in China, because one of the antagonists was a rogue Chinese general. I remember thinking that the game would have had better odds if the plot had been about a unified and monolithic Chinese government doing willful evil instead.
namaria 3y ago
An autocratic government running a fiat currency economy is a dangerous thing. On the one hand they can engineer the economy quite deeply. On the other hand, the imbalances are hidden and thus likely to be worse then they would ever be in a liberal democracy. But China has many centuries of track record running a command economy.
asu_thomas 3y ago
> the government didn't really want to arrest all the people, cause that would indicate they are not in control Objectively, not arresting them indicates they are not in control more than arresting them would.
- barkingcat 3y ago
  of course, but the central government is all about seeming to be in control, not objectively in control. mass arrest -> leads to questions about why 1000's of young couples are being arrested due to them not wanting to pay mortgages on houses they can't move into for years, and has no construction progress (the construction is abandoned), and this is a contagion that will lead to another city starting to rebel, leading to more mass arrests. Not talking about 1 or 2 people, but thousands. vs. the central government is taking care of the people by forcing a company into bankruptcy so they can't take advantage of people anymore. The 2nd is the better narrative. That's what they picked. Doesn't make sense, but is what happened.
  - licebmi__at__ 3y ago
    I know that this comment will seem as pro china, but really your comment is really weird and almost funny. The way you portray the two perspectives sounds like a good Chinese government action being spun like a bad thing because actually "China bad".
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]

Terr_ 3y ago

> And seeming to be in control is what the government will opt for every single time in every single decision they make. That reminds me of when the Battlefield 4 game was banned in China, because one of the antagonists was a rogue Chinese general. I remember thinking that the game would have had better odds if the plot had been about a unified and monolithic Chinese government doing willful evil instead.

namaria 3y ago

An autocratic government running a fiat currency economy is a dangerous thing. On the one hand they can engineer the economy quite deeply. On the other hand, the imbalances are hidden and thus likely to be worse then they would ever be in a liberal democracy. But China has many centuries of track record running a command economy.

asu_thomas 3y ago

> the government didn't really want to arrest all the people, cause that would indicate they are not in control Objectively, not arresting them indicates they are not in control more than arresting them would.

barkingcat 3y ago
of course, but the central government is all about seeming to be in control, not objectively in control. mass arrest -> leads to questions about why 1000's of young couples are being arrested due to them not wanting to pay mortgages on houses they can't move into for years, and has no construction progress (the construction is abandoned), and this is a contagion that will lead to another city starting to rebel, leading to more mass arrests. Not talking about 1 or 2 people, but thousands. vs. the central government is taking care of the people by forcing a company into bankruptcy so they can't take advantage of people anymore. The 2nd is the better narrative. That's what they picked. Doesn't make sense, but is what happened.
- licebmi__at__ 3y ago
  I know that this comment will seem as pro china, but really your comment is really weird and almost funny. The way you portray the two perspectives sounds like a good Chinese government action being spun like a bad thing because actually "China bad".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]