Chinese authorities have rejected a proposal made by the International Monetary Fund to use central government funds to complete unfinished housing, dealing a blow to hopes for more forceful support to an industry that’s been a major drag on the economy.
This isn't about people getting a place to live, this is speculation, like Bitcoin, but with housing. There's a mass of people buying housing to commodify it by selling it later at a huge price or by renting it out. This mass of people got scammed by housing developers who promised to deliver the apartment or house (at a good quality). Unfortunately, that didn't happen; developers ran ponzi schemes. They used investors' money to start new constructions and attract new investors, and stopped working on the old constructions or finished them poorly with bad materials.
This is how capitalism works unregulated. So the small investors fucked around trying to become petite bourgeoisie, and they're finding out the beauty of capitalism.
I know this is hard to hear for Americans, but if you're making money from being a landlord or flipping houses, you're a piece of shit.
Bailing out these investors would be like bailing out Bitcoin "common people" investors when the "currency" crashes.
That's quite a fantasy you're telling yourself. A huge portion of China's people's wealth is wrapped up in real estate, and tens of millions of stalled residential units have already been purchased by the Chinese people, and that money is now gone, taken by the developers.
The IMF recommendation here was "to deploy 'one-off' fiscal resources to complete and deliver pre-sold properties or compensate homebuyers." That would literally be rescuing the Chinese people who were burned by developers. Instead, the Chinese government is supporting the tech and manufacturing industries. Don't pretend like China is some paradise where the common people aren't getting fucked
The Economist, 2021: At 54, China’s average retirement age is too lowFor most men in China the age is 60, much lower than the average of 64.2 in the OECD, a club mostly of rich countries. For female civil servants the age is 55; for blue-collar women it is 50.
The real (inflation-adjusted) incomes of the poorest half of the Chinese population increased by more than four hundred percent from 1978 to 2015, while real incomes of the poorest half of the US population actually declined during the same time period. https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23119/w23119.pdf
By the end of 2020, extreme poverty, defined as living on under a threshold of around $2 per day, had been eliminated in China. According to the World Bank, the Chinese government had spent $700 billion on poverty alleviation since 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/31/world/asia/china-poverty-xi-jinping.html
I don't know enough about this specific situation. But the history of the IMF and World Bank is such that, if they were to put out a statement saying that the sky is blue, I would immediately go and check if it had somehow changed colour.
Don't pretend like the average person in China is a fucking real-estate investor. This investment money is from the middle class and up i.e. people who don't need to be rescued. They're going to be fine. Even if their investments all go up in smoke, they won't be homeless. Common people just spend their paychecks and keep a little aside for savings, like everywhere else in the world.
The quick answer is because the housing market was used for speculation and was causing real estate prices and rents to rise. China introduced "three red lines" policy to mitigate this and let the housing market crash and let the billionaire CEO Hui Ka Yan (and mostly foreign Investors) hold the bag
There were other positive feedback items happening as well, including local governments relying on development as the major tax base.
China is also likely to see a drop in infrastructure investment in the next generation, so having some of these companies collapse isn't seen as a major issue in China.
What has really been inflated, since 2008, has not been consumer prices, but asset prices — [that is,] real estate prices, stocks and bond prices, things that the 1% hold. Wealth has been inflated much more than goods and services. [This is especially true] for real estate.
This debt has been inflated not by government debt, not by government deficits, but by the Federal Reserve creating a $9 trillion subsidy to the banks to support real estate prices, and hence the value of bank-held mortgages and stock and bond prices.
This is not discussed, or even recognized, in the mainstream economic models. Instead, we have a kind of mythology by right-wing anti-labor financial lobbyists.
This mythology is about what I think most of the listeners are expecting us to discuss: the inflation of rising consumer prices. That’s the only kind of inflation that the Federal Reserve talks about. This is all blamed on increasing the money supply, as if somehow money is creating the inflation.
They are not talking about inflation as the result of monopoly pricing. They are not talking about inflation as a result of NATO’s sanctions against Russia. They are just talking about money [as if] somehow, if we [could] just stop money supply, if we could stop the government spending so much money on Social Security and Medicare, and other social spending (not military spending) then everything would be over.
We’re actually going to be talking about the relationship between, [on the one hand,] the inflation of housing and asset prices [and,] on the other hand, how this actually affects the inflation of consumer prices, and how debt and inflation all go together.