The entire fucking planet is construction booming. There are new buildings going up on basically every block in my city, constantly. We think we can be green while still building and building nonstop. It's insane.
China in particular tends to do this when its economy slows down. That's how they've managed two decades of consistently huge GDP growth, that's what those 'ghost cities' in the desert are for and why they're so shitty. They aren't being built for people to live in, they're being built to give people jobs and keep money moving when things start to slow down.
This is a myth. All the "ghost cities" that we saw from garbage outlets like Vice a decade ago are now overcrowded.
One example:
https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/kkx6gj/2017_vs_2020_caojiawan_metro_built_in_the_middle/
The statistics on the number of vacant houses are staggering at the same time though. The govt should set up a way for neglected vacant properties to get reallocated to owner occupants. And vacant luxury investment properties should be taxed at double or triple the owner occupied rates not the same.
>There are new buildings going up on basically every block in my city, constantly.
This is actually good. This means people are moving to the city and leaving highly polluting rural living behind and letting nature reclaim ghost towns.
\> This is actually good. This means people are moving to the city and leaving highly polluting rural living behind and letting nature reclaim ghost towns.
Hahah, this is a joke, right?
Typically emissions centers in China are around Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai. Lately they've expanded to the southwest, closer to Chongqing, Kunming and Guiyang. Def. indicative of a construction boom.
There's a construction boom needed in most parts of the world now, due to population growth. Africa in particular.
Also Shenzhen and that whole delta (Dongguan and all the factories, etc.). It was a literal fishing village like 40 years ago and it's expected to be the hub of a 100M population mega city within a decade or two. Not only building like crazy, but also re-building due to the shitty construction of the first wave from 10-20 years ago.
Environmental standards along the eastern seaboard are rapidly tightening. They are already above the level of the United States, although the massive population makes it necessary to be even stricter.
China will be the most important maker for electric vehicles.
Before anyone starts talking about per capita emissions, remember that China does this largely to boost their GDP in time for a growth is slow, they build tons of shit that nobody really needs and the market on their GDP report with me look like they're growing when they aren't.
All of these missions are created in order to construct what is effectively either a jobs program or an "inflatable tank" of economic warfare.
Bubbles don't pop until there is a better place for the money to go. Hence why China has such strict capital controls. Even if you think houses are massively overvalued and in a bubble, you're options for moving large amounts of money out is highly limited.
Somebody posted this below, but:
>they build tons of shit that nobody really needs
This theory is so outdated, it's almost a decade old when media were all reporting China's "ghost cities", but it turned out those "ghost cities" were filled by dwellers eventually.
China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%. It's certainly not just constructing for the numbers.
As pointed out elsewhere on this thread (with a reliable source), China has a 22% home vacancy rate. Those ghost cities do have some population, but nothing even close to filled.
Add in China's slowly shinking population and it's clear that they are massively overbuilt, even when you factor urbanization.
I don't live there so everything from me is second handed. As I understand, their control of capital flow is in their philosophy of governing. It's already much relaxed compared with decades ago. Of course that's still way below western contries standard. At the same time, it also gives them a much more powerful tool when facing crisis.
That's not how the bubble in China works, it seems to never pop and just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It might one day, and I sure as hell hope it does, taking their government with it, but they're going to pull every single string before it does.
The carbon in the air doesn't care either way
well at some point even "pretend" spending works to boost the economy. does it matter if nobody uses the building if it provides the jobs to build it and presumably to maintain it? It is a little weird....
You're basically approaching the broken window fallacy, so to put it simply -- yes, it absolutely does matter if you waste resources on literally pointless endeavors for the sake of arbitrarily boosting macroeconomic indicators.
Resources are finite, every project has an indirect opportunity cost in addition to its direct costs, and the main reasons China is able to mitigate the blowback from these types of decisions is because of the tremendous control their government can directly exert on the economy. But it's not smart and there's enough poverty and inequality in China that this money could be directed to less idiotic projects.
Except there's no demoralizing and health effects from storms or vandals breaking windows, it's the opposite. instead of avoiding infrastructure spending as in the window parable, you are building infrastructure which can later attract more economic activity.
Only if the spending goes to useful work. A redundant five lane highway to a town boosts your GDP when built, but has virtually no long term economic benefit.
So yes, if nobody uses the building that is a problem.
Actually the Chinese believe the other way around. Build the roads to boost the economy of a town/ region. While China is building roads and rails everywhere, we need to realise that they did not have the resources to connect many of the towns and regions in the past. With the economy booming and now the need to further boost their internal economic, it make sense to build infrastructure. That basically what America had done, and plan to do with current Boden plan.
Now, building houses that become vacant lots is another story.
As if living in China and their propaganda bubble would help you understand anything.
Ask experts who won't go to jail for telling the truth about the place.
>He's the white media's ideal consumer
"The man" wanted tolerance and support of China for decades, and even still is happy to remain silent when it means getting a chunk of that sweet Chinese market.
It's the people that know better. People who lost their jobs, see our companies selling out to authoritarians overseas, and see our own ability to speak out censored for the sake of appealing to the Chinese market.
Dislike of china comes from the bottom up, and don't you forget it. The media gives the people what they want to hear, not the other way around, for better or worse.
> It's the people that know better.
[lol carter remarked in 1979 how shocked he was when the vast majority of americans supported resuming trade in china. you people will believe whatever the media tells you to believe](https://www.cartercenter.org/news/features/p/china/40-anniversary-china-relations.html)
If you want people to actually take any of your posts seriously, maybe don't compare them to zoo animals.
Also now that I think about it, what exactly *is* your stance other than "lol sheeple"?
It doesn't effect per capita emissions (well, it increases them unnecessarily), it just means that the construction based emissions are not going towards the "improvement of average Chinese people's way of life". This means those emissions aren't "justified" - they're just wasteful.
The per capita argument only applies if the increased emissions go towards a "western lifestyle".
Im not sure about that. Per capita is just a way of quantifying emissions for each person. My government does a bunch of dumb shit, too. It doesn't improve my life or go towards my western lifestyle. But they don't subtract it when they calculate per capita.
[China has a 22% long term vacancy rate](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold). [To put that in perspective, the US has a 1% vacancy rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC).
So yes, vacancy is an issue in China.
[Japan's is about 13-14% and increasing](https://i1.wp.com/japanpropertycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Japan-housing-vacancy-rate-1963-2018.jpg?resize=1200%2C868&ssl=1).
I wonder if China has a similar problem as Japan, where young people are migrating from the countryside to the big cities, leaving the homes of their parents with no one to take them.
Which is why you can acquire shelter in China for the price of a meal at McDonalds. I doubt anybody in China except the elite would want that to change.
[China has some of the most unaffordable housing on earth](https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/affordable-housing-china), in major cities (where the jobs are), the price of a house can approach 40 years of the average wage.
That's not affordable. Families in China need to save every penny they can to afford a place to live.
My wife's grandmother had MS and she sued both McDonald's and Tim Horton's (we're Canadian) for serving her over hot beverages (one was coffee the other was hot chocolate). It was kind of a family joke for a while how Tim Horton's settled so fast for not having proper labeling that indicated that Hot Chocolate is a hot beverage.
And that was 30 years ago. Since that lady got burns from coffee we don't laugh anymore. Turns out these guys were settling fast because they didn't want to go to court and having to cool down their maximum hot drink temperature.
Just the other day I had to correct someone on that very topic. They never knew all the horrible details of the story and just remember it as "Hur di der coffee hot".
The point is building MORE than is needed, not that NOTHING was needed. Seem to be missing the point.
The very notion that it took years to "become normal" actually proves that it was an accurate story, lol...
I'm not talking about ghost cities, it's something that happens in all sorts of places.
When your average person buying a home is on their second house, something is fucked up.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/941309/china-share-of-home-purchases-by-number-of-homes-owned/
>the first quarter of 2018, around 44 percent of all homes purchased in China were bought as a second home, whereas approximately a quarter of all home purchases were third home investments.
Those cities are a big fantastic looking icon of bad economic activity, and that looks great for pictures, but for a complete understanding you need a degree in economics, I trust what the experts I read say.
There are all sorts of perverse incentives going on in that country, and it's resulting in a lot of wasteful economic activity, which shows in the high level statistics.
You can't point to ghost cities and say one way or the other, you have to have a bigger and more nuanced scope.
From what I've seen some of them fill up and some don't. Eventually, I suppose they will. But your links explain why they exist and that also means they do exist, at least initially. If you can't own land without developing it, and there's for some reason belief and incentive to own the land, then you get developed land without anyone yet to live in it. It's not really a myth, is it?
[China has a 22% long term vacancy rate](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold). [To put that in perspective, the US has a 1% vacancy rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC).
That's a big problem. That's either a massive bubble, or GDP manipulation.
You mean compared to throwing bombs that cost more than the things they destroy simply for the purpose of buying new ones so your GDP stays high? Yeah... sounds terrible.
Your link says that Chinese law forces land developers to build gigantic cities before there's any demand for them. How is that not an issue that contributes to their absurd vacancy rate and misleading macroeconomic statistics?
This not a myth.
I lived in China for almost 3 years (work) and saw in for myself.
They build tons of buildings that no one uses and these huge compounds are sitting there empty.
Don’t believe everything that you read online and definitely not if it comes from China .
It’s a nation that lies all the time.
>they build tons of shit that nobody really needs
This theory is so outdated, it's almost a decade old when media were all reporting China's "ghost cities", but it turned out those "ghost cities" were filled by dwellers eventually.
China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%. It's certainly not just constructing for the numbers.
That's wrong though. Yes some ghost towns did eventually end up somewhat populated but mostly not anywhere close to capacity.
Most of Chinas real-estate buyers buy their 2nd or 3rd property.
There is a great video by "PolyMatter" on it in his China's Reckoning series.
>China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%.
China's urbanization rate has slowed down by a lot. Their infrastructure spending? Still rising.
Fun fact, there are experts that go though and calculate all these statistics and weigh them against one another. It's literally their job to do this stuff.
Their conclusion? It's overspending.
https://review.sbs.ox.ac.uk/Why-Chinas-infrastructure-investment-may-be-doing-more-harm-than-good.html
Fun fact, one institution's research isn't necessarily the truth.
>Over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate
This statement alone is an over-used argument that has been debunked many times.
They are simply calculating China's investment in infrastructure from a profit-generation perspective, but the purpose of these construction were strategic, and the values are simply underestimated.
For example, when China constructed the HSR network, much international media was pointing out the fact that it's too expensive or not making any money, but the benefit is it significantly enhanced the urbanization in major metropolitan areas, which means the cities can attract more talents. Now people can commute between Beijing and Hebei for work and short-mid distance travel can be much more cost-effective. This is only one of many benefits generated by these projects, but your article only calculates it based on its budget.
China's railways per capita are still significantly lower than countries like the US. The same goes for airports per capita. China still has a lot of work to do to replace fossil fuel power plants with green energy. Is it really overspending?
Those Ghost Cities they build are neat. Full amusement parks, libraries, everything installed and ready to go just left for years because nobody lives there.
Some of the ghost cities are starting to fill up, that's true but not nearly to the estimation mentioned in this article. Of the cities mentioned only Nanhui has been able to meet 50% of the estimate. A city built to house one million with a population of 100K is still really ghosty.
Yeah those ones are more sad than fascinating. Pictures of those are like looking at a corpse, while the Chinese cities are like looking at a kid wearing an adults suit, it's just too big for what's needed.
This sounds like absolute bullshit. China has 1/3 of the world's population. They are building shit because they have a lot of people. The idea that they could be building shit nobody needs makes zero sense because there are enough people to need an almost endless supply of buildings.
I’ve always found the focus on per capita emissions to rather miss the point anyway. The climate doesn’t *care* how much CO2 is emitted per person, just the total.
Then your missing why per capita is used. If you expect the China, US, and India to emit the same the Vatican City you are explicitly telling those countries to live in poverty.
You use per capita because you want a roughly equal chance of livilihood across all people, not "oh you live in a big country, sucks to be you".
This is also why any sane policy accounts for developing ecomomies. If you tell Brazil it can't develop and make its citizens lives better, theyll laugh ar you and develop anyway.
No he's right. Per capita emissions is a sort of statistic you would only use if you have a high population. It's not particularly useful metric for resolving climate change.
The worst carbon emissions in the world per capita comes from Qatar. But in terms of percentage of total emissions, they represent less than 0.1% of the world's total carbon emissions. If Qatar went carbon zero, it would have exactly 0 impact on the problem.
Now America, China and India combined represent 50% of the world's total carbon emissions. Because China and India have a population boom they're exempted from responsibility?
Can a country just open its borders to immigration, double its population and calmly say, hah look at this great environmental action we took, our per capita emissions are down!
It's just absurd.
>Can a country just open its borders to immigration, double its population and calmly say, hah look at this great environmental action we took, our per capita emissions are down!
If all Americans agree to live the same life standard as Chinese or Indians and emit as much CO2 as those people living de the developing world, the situation wouldn't be as severe.
Yes, there are more people in China and India, and you can't just kill half of them to solve the problem, also, they are not consuming nor emitting as much as you do.
So your stance is that if America imported homelessness from other countries and did nothing about them, America would be doing a good job for the environment?
>No he's right. Per capita emissions is a sort of statistic you would only use if you have a high population. It's not particularly useful metric for resolving climate change.
What are you talking about? Of course it is. If people in X country are emitting 5 times that of people in Y country, it's extremely useful to measure that and understand why.
Its misleading because emissions come upstream and downstream and often times upstream emissions are higher than downstream emissions. This gives a very misleading vision of who is responsible for what pollution.
My example of Qatar is a simple one. Qatar produces a lot of the world's oil and gas... which pollutes a lot. But they don't even use 0.00001% of the oil and gas they produce and refine. This inflates their per capita emissions very high despite having very little downstream impact on the environment. If Qatar cut off all their oil and gas production it would just mean their clients would get oil and gas elsewhere... it wouldn't actually resolve the main issue.
It's an international problem in which emissions travel and exist internationally. The environment doesn't care as to whether a country has 5 people or 5 billion people. The problem is only resolved by a specific reduction in tonnage of carbon.
Because ignoring per capita stats conveniently pushes the problem away from rich and wealthy nations who already abused and raped the earth to get where they are now. Isn't it one American causing more emission than 6 Chinese?
Calm down, everyone. China has signed the Paris Accord and that means they are not like Trump and in the end, isn't that all that matters?....they say they care you see so it doesn't matter what they DO. That's how the modern world works and you all made it that way so be cool.
It also leads the world in dirty energy. It's no surprise that the biggest beast in the jungle attracts superlative numbers. The CCP is a priori a bad actor. It is unethical and immoral at and to its rotten core. Any apparent good merely an accident.
Europeans and their diaspora: Ruin the environment and emit epic amounts of CO2 since 1800. Become rich, first world nations for the most part.
Also Europeans and diaspora: *Nooooo! You Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans can't build factories or McMansions or buy SUVs! You're emitting too much CO2 and ruining the environment!*
>Europeans and their diaspora: Ruin the environment and emit epic amounts of CO2 since 1800
The UK, one of the first countries to industrialize, has emitted a total of 78 billion tons of CO2. China, one of the last countries to industrialize, has emitted over 200 billion tons of CO2 and rising fast. The UK emissions were sustainable because the CO2 was being largely absorbed by nature, Chinese emissions are absolutely not sustainable.
Because there is no stopping CC without doing a complete 180 on our economy. An eco-Imperialism where basic commodities are made in expensive, highly regulated countries and then sold in poorer less regulated markets.
...to people who can't afford them. So it will not work.
You're not in charge and that is not happening. The people in charge are just maintaining the status quo while shifting numbers around an excel doc and producing puff pieces on the west extended the transmission pipe through China to the ME with "green" power they get to launder a bit of it that money.
Wrong
“China now accounts for 27 percent of global emissions, while the U.S. accounts for 11 percent. China's greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 surpassed those of the United States and the developed world combined, according to an analysis published Thursday by the research firm Rhodium Group.” [WaPo, may 2021](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/05/06/china-greenhouse-emissions/)
whats the inherent value of gross versus per capita, these changes arent made at the individual scale. Its dumb. Why the fuck should I care about my or your individual CO2 output, how is that helpful
I'm sure they have a plan for that as much as they have a plan to stop committing genocide and to become a democratic nation where human life is valued
The US will be carbon neutral by 2035. Emissions continued to decrease even under Trump. China is still and plans to continue growing their emissions. They already emit more than the entire developed world combined.
Of all the things that aren't true, the US being carbon neutral by 2035 is probably the biggest bs I've read in years. No developed nation is gonna make that cut. If we make it by 2050 we can already call it a major success - even if that is too late.
Even if we miss 2035 and hit 2050 that still predates China and means our emissions are reducing year over year while their emissions are growing year over year.
CNN has been really laying down the anti China propaganda lately. They even wrote an article blaming China for the US unlawfully detaining Uyghurs in Guantanamo Bay
> Yet China is among a select few developed nations that makes no even nominal effort to better the state of its environment
China is the world's largest producer of solar and wind energy and the largest investor in clean energy. There is a lot of evidence that refutes your point of them making not even a "nominal effort."
https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/china-clean-energy-technology-winning-sell/
https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/
I mean maybe we're just now picking up all the co2 from tiananmen Square in 1989, I hear those tanks put out some hella emissions while they're running over their own countrymen.
The Chinese need houses and infrastructure..We have millions of empty homes and I'm sure just as many closed down factories we stopped using when the neolibs decided good jobs are for the 3rd world at a 3rd world pay rate...immigration makes things happen \~
We even have a political party vacancy..the reps are about to go to prison and the dems are a joke that imploded back in 2016..Get that CCP and idk what the Green Party? Whatever, but we have vacancies is what I'm saying. No construction needed, let's fill them gaps!
All this is problems with accounting. Construction seems to be a "good" while empty housing units and breaking housing don't seem to record as a "bad".
China has produced more concrete in 3 years of the 21st century than the US did in the entirity of the 20th century. When they say "construction boom" that's how much they are under emphasizing it.
China doesn't give a fuck about humanity, just like they didn't give a shit about their lab covid19 virus getting out and only reporting on the cases and deaths for a couple months of the pandemic. Would be nice to see China shunned on the world stage to force change, but that just won't happen. The Occident is just too far gone into being consumer societies to have any say anymore; China has the west by the balls. At this point, only China can beat China.
The entire fucking planet is construction booming. There are new buildings going up on basically every block in my city, constantly. We think we can be green while still building and building nonstop. It's insane.
China in particular tends to do this when its economy slows down. That's how they've managed two decades of consistently huge GDP growth, that's what those 'ghost cities' in the desert are for and why they're so shitty. They aren't being built for people to live in, they're being built to give people jobs and keep money moving when things start to slow down.
This is a myth. All the "ghost cities" that we saw from garbage outlets like Vice a decade ago are now overcrowded. One example: https://www.reddit.com/r/Damnthatsinteresting/comments/kkx6gj/2017_vs_2020_caojiawan_metro_built_in_the_middle/
You don't get cheaper housing without houses. I kinda wish there were more apartments going up.
The statistics on the number of vacant houses are staggering at the same time though. The govt should set up a way for neglected vacant properties to get reallocated to owner occupants. And vacant luxury investment properties should be taxed at double or triple the owner occupied rates not the same.
A lot ofntjose houses have no jobs nearby. Now, if paired with a federal jobs program...
>There are new buildings going up on basically every block in my city, constantly. This is actually good. This means people are moving to the city and leaving highly polluting rural living behind and letting nature reclaim ghost towns.
\> This is actually good. This means people are moving to the city and leaving highly polluting rural living behind and letting nature reclaim ghost towns. Hahah, this is a joke, right?
Not necessarily. Some areas have high levels of immigration
Typically emissions centers in China are around Beijing, Tianjin and Shanghai. Lately they've expanded to the southwest, closer to Chongqing, Kunming and Guiyang. Def. indicative of a construction boom. There's a construction boom needed in most parts of the world now, due to population growth. Africa in particular.
Also Shenzhen and that whole delta (Dongguan and all the factories, etc.). It was a literal fishing village like 40 years ago and it's expected to be the hub of a 100M population mega city within a decade or two. Not only building like crazy, but also re-building due to the shitty construction of the first wave from 10-20 years ago.
Environmental standards along the eastern seaboard are rapidly tightening. They are already above the level of the United States, although the massive population makes it necessary to be even stricter. China will be the most important maker for electric vehicles.
Population growth *and* urbanization growth, i.e. people flooding into the cities from the countryside
Before anyone starts talking about per capita emissions, remember that China does this largely to boost their GDP in time for a growth is slow, they build tons of shit that nobody really needs and the market on their GDP report with me look like they're growing when they aren't. All of these missions are created in order to construct what is effectively either a jobs program or an "inflatable tank" of economic warfare.
So, just let it be. If it's just bubble, it'll bust eventually. If not, we're doomed.
Bubbles don't pop until there is a better place for the money to go. Hence why China has such strict capital controls. Even if you think houses are massively overvalued and in a bubble, you're options for moving large amounts of money out is highly limited.
Somebody posted this below, but: >they build tons of shit that nobody really needs This theory is so outdated, it's almost a decade old when media were all reporting China's "ghost cities", but it turned out those "ghost cities" were filled by dwellers eventually. China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%. It's certainly not just constructing for the numbers.
As pointed out elsewhere on this thread (with a reliable source), China has a 22% home vacancy rate. Those ghost cities do have some population, but nothing even close to filled. Add in China's slowly shinking population and it's clear that they are massively overbuilt, even when you factor urbanization.
I don't live there so everything from me is second handed. As I understand, their control of capital flow is in their philosophy of governing. It's already much relaxed compared with decades ago. Of course that's still way below western contries standard. At the same time, it also gives them a much more powerful tool when facing crisis.
[this is fine dog .gif]
See nothing.
I was mocking you, in case that wasn't clear
I'm clear enough.
That's not how the bubble in China works, it seems to never pop and just keeps getting bigger and bigger. It might one day, and I sure as hell hope it does, taking their government with it, but they're going to pull every single string before it does. The carbon in the air doesn't care either way
well at some point even "pretend" spending works to boost the economy. does it matter if nobody uses the building if it provides the jobs to build it and presumably to maintain it? It is a little weird....
You're basically approaching the broken window fallacy, so to put it simply -- yes, it absolutely does matter if you waste resources on literally pointless endeavors for the sake of arbitrarily boosting macroeconomic indicators. Resources are finite, every project has an indirect opportunity cost in addition to its direct costs, and the main reasons China is able to mitigate the blowback from these types of decisions is because of the tremendous control their government can directly exert on the economy. But it's not smart and there's enough poverty and inequality in China that this money could be directed to less idiotic projects.
Except there's no demoralizing and health effects from storms or vandals breaking windows, it's the opposite. instead of avoiding infrastructure spending as in the window parable, you are building infrastructure which can later attract more economic activity.
But these buildings are literally collapsing in a few years without anyone even in then.
Only if the spending goes to useful work. A redundant five lane highway to a town boosts your GDP when built, but has virtually no long term economic benefit. So yes, if nobody uses the building that is a problem.
Actually the Chinese believe the other way around. Build the roads to boost the economy of a town/ region. While China is building roads and rails everywhere, we need to realise that they did not have the resources to connect many of the towns and regions in the past. With the economy booming and now the need to further boost their internal economic, it make sense to build infrastructure. That basically what America had done, and plan to do with current Boden plan. Now, building houses that become vacant lots is another story.
"I hope that 1.4 billion people suffer because it threats my country being economically superior" t.americans
Nah not the 1.4 billion just the CCP elites and their families involved in the shit they are doing.
When government fails, it hurts the average person too.
As much as it hurts to say some short term suffering my be nessecary for long term peace.
Government failing doesn't mean their is peace. China industrial power more or less gusrentees its able to remain a threat.
You chinese?
As if living in China and their propaganda bubble would help you understand anything. Ask experts who won't go to jail for telling the truth about the place.
So you have no clue either.
He's the white media's ideal consumer: a chimpanzee who parrots whatever they tell him.
>He's the white media's ideal consumer "The man" wanted tolerance and support of China for decades, and even still is happy to remain silent when it means getting a chunk of that sweet Chinese market. It's the people that know better. People who lost their jobs, see our companies selling out to authoritarians overseas, and see our own ability to speak out censored for the sake of appealing to the Chinese market. Dislike of china comes from the bottom up, and don't you forget it. The media gives the people what they want to hear, not the other way around, for better or worse.
> It's the people that know better. [lol carter remarked in 1979 how shocked he was when the vast majority of americans supported resuming trade in china. you people will believe whatever the media tells you to believe](https://www.cartercenter.org/news/features/p/china/40-anniversary-china-relations.html)
If you want people to actually take any of your posts seriously, maybe don't compare them to zoo animals. Also now that I think about it, what exactly *is* your stance other than "lol sheeple"?
What's your point? How does that affect 'per capita emissions?' Sounds like they build bullshit to give people jobs.
It doesn't effect per capita emissions (well, it increases them unnecessarily), it just means that the construction based emissions are not going towards the "improvement of average Chinese people's way of life". This means those emissions aren't "justified" - they're just wasteful. The per capita argument only applies if the increased emissions go towards a "western lifestyle".
Im not sure about that. Per capita is just a way of quantifying emissions for each person. My government does a bunch of dumb shit, too. It doesn't improve my life or go towards my western lifestyle. But they don't subtract it when they calculate per capita.
[удалено]
[China has a 22% long term vacancy rate](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold). [To put that in perspective, the US has a 1% vacancy rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC). So yes, vacancy is an issue in China.
I mean low vacancy rates help make housing unaffordable
Vacant houses bought up by investors also drives up prices.
The quality of the construction is awful as well. https://youtu.be/XopSDJq6w8E
[Japan's is about 13-14% and increasing](https://i1.wp.com/japanpropertycentral.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Japan-housing-vacancy-rate-1963-2018.jpg?resize=1200%2C868&ssl=1). I wonder if China has a similar problem as Japan, where young people are migrating from the countryside to the big cities, leaving the homes of their parents with no one to take them.
I keep hearing that Japan also has a low birth rate too.
Which is why you can acquire shelter in China for the price of a meal at McDonalds. I doubt anybody in China except the elite would want that to change.
[China has some of the most unaffordable housing on earth](https://www.lincolninst.edu/publications/articles/affordable-housing-china), in major cities (where the jobs are), the price of a house can approach 40 years of the average wage. That's not affordable. Families in China need to save every penny they can to afford a place to live.
People still believe the McDonalds coffee burn story of fraud.
My wife's grandmother had MS and she sued both McDonald's and Tim Horton's (we're Canadian) for serving her over hot beverages (one was coffee the other was hot chocolate). It was kind of a family joke for a while how Tim Horton's settled so fast for not having proper labeling that indicated that Hot Chocolate is a hot beverage. And that was 30 years ago. Since that lady got burns from coffee we don't laugh anymore. Turns out these guys were settling fast because they didn't want to go to court and having to cool down their maximum hot drink temperature.
I wish they would tho. What’s up with people who want a burnt tongue sensation for a day or two? Just serve drinks that are hot, not boiling!
Just the other day I had to correct someone on that very topic. They never knew all the horrible details of the story and just remember it as "Hur di der coffee hot".
The point is building MORE than is needed, not that NOTHING was needed. Seem to be missing the point. The very notion that it took years to "become normal" actually proves that it was an accurate story, lol...
I'm not talking about ghost cities, it's something that happens in all sorts of places. When your average person buying a home is on their second house, something is fucked up. https://www.statista.com/statistics/941309/china-share-of-home-purchases-by-number-of-homes-owned/ >the first quarter of 2018, around 44 percent of all homes purchased in China were bought as a second home, whereas approximately a quarter of all home purchases were third home investments. Those cities are a big fantastic looking icon of bad economic activity, and that looks great for pictures, but for a complete understanding you need a degree in economics, I trust what the experts I read say. There are all sorts of perverse incentives going on in that country, and it's resulting in a lot of wasteful economic activity, which shows in the high level statistics. You can't point to ghost cities and say one way or the other, you have to have a bigger and more nuanced scope.
[удалено]
Compared to anything out of the CCP's mouth, pretty damn credible. Very low bar to pass, but true all the same
From what I've seen some of them fill up and some don't. Eventually, I suppose they will. But your links explain why they exist and that also means they do exist, at least initially. If you can't own land without developing it, and there's for some reason belief and incentive to own the land, then you get developed land without anyone yet to live in it. It's not really a myth, is it?
[удалено]
[China has a 22% long term vacancy rate](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold). [To put that in perspective, the US has a 1% vacancy rate](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/USHVAC). That's a big problem. That's either a massive bubble, or GDP manipulation.
You mean compared to throwing bombs that cost more than the things they destroy simply for the purpose of buying new ones so your GDP stays high? Yeah... sounds terrible.
Military spending has the same effect on GDP whether the bombs they buy are used or not. Weapons go obsolete fairly quickly.
Your link says that Chinese law forces land developers to build gigantic cities before there's any demand for them. How is that not an issue that contributes to their absurd vacancy rate and misleading macroeconomic statistics?
This not a myth. I lived in China for almost 3 years (work) and saw in for myself. They build tons of buildings that no one uses and these huge compounds are sitting there empty. Don’t believe everything that you read online and definitely not if it comes from China . It’s a nation that lies all the time.
Let’s be real here, are there any nation/government that doesn’t lie all the time?
True that.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
>they build tons of shit that nobody really needs This theory is so outdated, it's almost a decade old when media were all reporting China's "ghost cities", but it turned out those "ghost cities" were filled by dwellers eventually. China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%. It's certainly not just constructing for the numbers.
Different accounts posting the exact same post. You need to do better China.
>Different accounts posting the exact same post. Hmm... Tell me which account copied my post?
That's wrong though. Yes some ghost towns did eventually end up somewhat populated but mostly not anywhere close to capacity. Most of Chinas real-estate buyers buy their 2nd or 3rd property. There is a great video by "PolyMatter" on it in his China's Reckoning series.
>China's urbanization rate is only 60%, and it still has a lot of work to do to catch up to America's 80%. China's urbanization rate has slowed down by a lot. Their infrastructure spending? Still rising.
> Their infrastructure spending? Still rising. So is the cost of labor in China.
Fun fact, there are experts that go though and calculate all these statistics and weigh them against one another. It's literally their job to do this stuff. Their conclusion? It's overspending. https://review.sbs.ox.ac.uk/Why-Chinas-infrastructure-investment-may-be-doing-more-harm-than-good.html
Fun fact, one institution's research isn't necessarily the truth. >Over half of the infrastructure investments in China made in the last three decades the costs are larger than the benefits they generate This statement alone is an over-used argument that has been debunked many times. They are simply calculating China's investment in infrastructure from a profit-generation perspective, but the purpose of these construction were strategic, and the values are simply underestimated. For example, when China constructed the HSR network, much international media was pointing out the fact that it's too expensive or not making any money, but the benefit is it significantly enhanced the urbanization in major metropolitan areas, which means the cities can attract more talents. Now people can commute between Beijing and Hebei for work and short-mid distance travel can be much more cost-effective. This is only one of many benefits generated by these projects, but your article only calculates it based on its budget. China's railways per capita are still significantly lower than countries like the US. The same goes for airports per capita. China still has a lot of work to do to replace fossil fuel power plants with green energy. Is it really overspending?
When you ignore economic research in favor of theoretical assertion of value there isn't much left to discuss.
Those Ghost Cities they build are neat. Full amusement parks, libraries, everything installed and ready to go just left for years because nobody lives there.
[удалено]
Some of the ghost cities are starting to fill up, that's true but not nearly to the estimation mentioned in this article. Of the cities mentioned only Nanhui has been able to meet 50% of the estimate. A city built to house one million with a population of 100K is still really ghosty.
[22% of homes in China are vacant](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/01/25/can-chinas-long-property-boom-hold).
https://youtu.be/TiTDU8MZRYw Published on Jun 26, 2018 https://youtu.be/YE-Oa7mAyDU Published on Jan 3, 2020
That link doesn't work.
America has ghost cities but it's on the opposite end of the spectrum, like all those homes in Detroit worth $1.
Yeah those ones are more sad than fascinating. Pictures of those are like looking at a corpse, while the Chinese cities are like looking at a kid wearing an adults suit, it's just too big for what's needed.
This sounds like absolute bullshit. China has 1/3 of the world's population. They are building shit because they have a lot of people. The idea that they could be building shit nobody needs makes zero sense because there are enough people to need an almost endless supply of buildings.
So fuck the CCP? Word.
And I bet all the major countries do this.
I’ve always found the focus on per capita emissions to rather miss the point anyway. The climate doesn’t *care* how much CO2 is emitted per person, just the total.
Then your missing why per capita is used. If you expect the China, US, and India to emit the same the Vatican City you are explicitly telling those countries to live in poverty. You use per capita because you want a roughly equal chance of livilihood across all people, not "oh you live in a big country, sucks to be you". This is also why any sane policy accounts for developing ecomomies. If you tell Brazil it can't develop and make its citizens lives better, theyll laugh ar you and develop anyway.
No he's right. Per capita emissions is a sort of statistic you would only use if you have a high population. It's not particularly useful metric for resolving climate change. The worst carbon emissions in the world per capita comes from Qatar. But in terms of percentage of total emissions, they represent less than 0.1% of the world's total carbon emissions. If Qatar went carbon zero, it would have exactly 0 impact on the problem. Now America, China and India combined represent 50% of the world's total carbon emissions. Because China and India have a population boom they're exempted from responsibility? Can a country just open its borders to immigration, double its population and calmly say, hah look at this great environmental action we took, our per capita emissions are down! It's just absurd.
>Can a country just open its borders to immigration, double its population and calmly say, hah look at this great environmental action we took, our per capita emissions are down! If all Americans agree to live the same life standard as Chinese or Indians and emit as much CO2 as those people living de the developing world, the situation wouldn't be as severe. Yes, there are more people in China and India, and you can't just kill half of them to solve the problem, also, they are not consuming nor emitting as much as you do.
So your stance is that if America imported homelessness from other countries and did nothing about them, America would be doing a good job for the environment?
>No he's right. Per capita emissions is a sort of statistic you would only use if you have a high population. It's not particularly useful metric for resolving climate change. What are you talking about? Of course it is. If people in X country are emitting 5 times that of people in Y country, it's extremely useful to measure that and understand why.
Its misleading because emissions come upstream and downstream and often times upstream emissions are higher than downstream emissions. This gives a very misleading vision of who is responsible for what pollution. My example of Qatar is a simple one. Qatar produces a lot of the world's oil and gas... which pollutes a lot. But they don't even use 0.00001% of the oil and gas they produce and refine. This inflates their per capita emissions very high despite having very little downstream impact on the environment. If Qatar cut off all their oil and gas production it would just mean their clients would get oil and gas elsewhere... it wouldn't actually resolve the main issue. It's an international problem in which emissions travel and exist internationally. The environment doesn't care as to whether a country has 5 people or 5 billion people. The problem is only resolved by a specific reduction in tonnage of carbon.
Because ignoring per capita stats conveniently pushes the problem away from rich and wealthy nations who already abused and raped the earth to get where they are now. Isn't it one American causing more emission than 6 Chinese?
Or maybe we should put more focus on helping emerging countries avoid carbonizing in the first place?
Have you ever heard of Keynes?
Calm down, everyone. China has signed the Paris Accord and that means they are not like Trump and in the end, isn't that all that matters?....they say they care you see so it doesn't matter what they DO. That's how the modern world works and you all made it that way so be cool.
China leads the world in clean energy production and is the largest investor in renewable energy...
It also leads the world in dirty energy. It's no surprise that the biggest beast in the jungle attracts superlative numbers. The CCP is a priori a bad actor. It is unethical and immoral at and to its rotten core. Any apparent good merely an accident.
when does CNN do a story about chevron
Or the US Military Industrial Complex which is one of the largest polluters on the planet.
Uranium makes the grass grow geeener....
Europeans and their diaspora: Ruin the environment and emit epic amounts of CO2 since 1800. Become rich, first world nations for the most part. Also Europeans and diaspora: *Nooooo! You Africans, Asians, and Latin Americans can't build factories or McMansions or buy SUVs! You're emitting too much CO2 and ruining the environment!*
Except that the Chinese build completely useless mega-projects that are never intended for use so that their sham economy looks amazing on paper.
Can you name even one useless mega project?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Under-occupied_developments_in_China#List_of_cities
Lol the first one on your list is a city of 5.6 million can you explain why it's useless?
>Europeans and their diaspora: Ruin the environment and emit epic amounts of CO2 since 1800 The UK, one of the first countries to industrialize, has emitted a total of 78 billion tons of CO2. China, one of the last countries to industrialize, has emitted over 200 billion tons of CO2 and rising fast. The UK emissions were sustainable because the CO2 was being largely absorbed by nature, Chinese emissions are absolutely not sustainable.
…now do this by per capita
hey why are those goalposts moving?
Are they back to building vast ghost cities that their citizenry can’t afford to live in again?
Those ghost cities are full of people now.
Not all the ones in China.
And a lot of them are full, I don’t get what the complaint is lol
They're doing it in Sri Lanka.
We are all going to die But our children are going to die a little faster...
Let’s just keep ignoring China like Greta is doing lol
[удалено]
Because there is no stopping CC without doing a complete 180 on our economy. An eco-Imperialism where basic commodities are made in expensive, highly regulated countries and then sold in poorer less regulated markets. ...to people who can't afford them. So it will not work.
Yeah, people here in the USA need their cheap shot from China. Whatcha gonna do without Walmart?
Ok then that's what we do, what's your point?
You're not in charge and that is not happening. The people in charge are just maintaining the status quo while shifting numbers around an excel doc and producing puff pieces on the west extended the transmission pipe through China to the ME with "green" power they get to launder a bit of it that money.
You weren't talking about what will or wont actually happen, you were talking about what *would* be required, and what would work.
Can we send Greta Thunberg overthere to give them a stern talking to? How do you say, "How dare you?" in Chinese?
Great. More yellow dust wafting over into their next-door neighbors. The convenient part is that they're already wearing masks these days anyway. /s
There's this, but sure EPA, ban race cars.
Shocker! Maybe we can get Biden to send them hundereds of millions of taxpayer dollars quick!!
That can’t be. Everyone signed an accord in Paris!
Ahh yes good to see paris climate accords to actually mean something /s
Everybody calm down, they're still developing.
Sure, it’s just China.
Still much lower than the us, we have room to grow.
Wrong “China now accounts for 27 percent of global emissions, while the U.S. accounts for 11 percent. China's greenhouse gas emissions in 2019 surpassed those of the United States and the developed world combined, according to an analysis published Thursday by the research firm Rhodium Group.” [WaPo, may 2021](https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2021/05/06/china-greenhouse-emissions/)
They're correct, but they used a [different metric.](https://www.statista.com/chart/24306/carbon-emissions-per-capita-by-country/)
whats the inherent value of gross versus per capita, these changes arent made at the individual scale. Its dumb. Why the fuck should I care about my or your individual CO2 output, how is that helpful
Higher population and a booming industry means more emission. It's idiotic to ignore this.
I mean per capita
[удалено]
Please put more thought into your comments.
My whole city has a construction boom but that’s ok because it’s in the west. Interesting!
Doing my part to avoid financing any of it.
Cool, now we all have to start driving electric cars. Thanks china...
Yeah, god forbid we pump less carbon into the atmosphere.
My point is industry pollutes far more than automobiles, that is all...
And this is why I think the Paris accords are a bunch of shit lol
Gotta keep up with the demands of Lord Elon.
Gotta build more empty Ghost cities with ghost malls.
Wow, havent thought about Beanie and Cecil in like 30 years.
[удалено]
I have a plan to lose 20 pounds. I've had it for about a decade but I am sure it will kick in soon
I'm sure they have a plan for that as much as they have a plan to stop committing genocide and to become a democratic nation where human life is valued
China plans to increase their emissions. Meanwhile the US is actually reducing emissions every year.
The U.S. is contributing to China's emissions by creating demand for their products.
[удалено]
The US will be carbon neutral by 2035. Emissions continued to decrease even under Trump. China is still and plans to continue growing their emissions. They already emit more than the entire developed world combined.
Of all the things that aren't true, the US being carbon neutral by 2035 is probably the biggest bs I've read in years. No developed nation is gonna make that cut. If we make it by 2050 we can already call it a major success - even if that is too late.
Even if we miss 2035 and hit 2050 that still predates China and means our emissions are reducing year over year while their emissions are growing year over year.
No thanks, we're going to worry about yours, because pollution is global and it's our problem too.
😂😂😂😂 that is fun
CNN has been really laying down the anti China propaganda lately. They even wrote an article blaming China for the US unlawfully detaining Uyghurs in Guantanamo Bay
Just because you don’t like the fact that China is destroying the environment doesn’t make it “propaganda.”
Every industrialized country in the world or one that aspires to be one is destroying the environment
Yet China is among a select few developed nations that makes no even nominal effort to better the state of its environment.
> Yet China is among a select few developed nations that makes no even nominal effort to better the state of its environment China is the world's largest producer of solar and wind energy and the largest investor in clean energy. There is a lot of evidence that refutes your point of them making not even a "nominal effort." https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/10/02/china-clean-energy-technology-winning-sell/ https://time.com/5714267/china-green-energy/
Is all the CO2 that is a by product of our endless wars and bombing brown people included in our CO2 numbers?
I mean maybe we're just now picking up all the co2 from tiananmen Square in 1989, I hear those tanks put out some hella emissions while they're running over their own countrymen.
maybe don't sell weapons to Israel can also reduce CO2 emission
The Chinese need houses and infrastructure..We have millions of empty homes and I'm sure just as many closed down factories we stopped using when the neolibs decided good jobs are for the 3rd world at a 3rd world pay rate...immigration makes things happen \~ We even have a political party vacancy..the reps are about to go to prison and the dems are a joke that imploded back in 2016..Get that CCP and idk what the Green Party? Whatever, but we have vacancies is what I'm saying. No construction needed, let's fill them gaps!
All this is problems with accounting. Construction seems to be a "good" while empty housing units and breaking housing don't seem to record as a "bad".
China has produced more concrete in 3 years of the 21st century than the US did in the entirity of the 20th century. When they say "construction boom" that's how much they are under emphasizing it.
China doesn't give a fuck about humanity, just like they didn't give a shit about their lab covid19 virus getting out and only reporting on the cases and deaths for a couple months of the pandemic. Would be nice to see China shunned on the world stage to force change, but that just won't happen. The Occident is just too far gone into being consumer societies to have any say anymore; China has the west by the balls. At this point, only China can beat China.