Investing in production instead of property portfolios like FOOLS
Imagine having a productive economy, real CHADS like the US or THE FREE WEST have real strong economies predicated on
scamming/ponzi-ing the other through marketsfinance and the third sector, and no such outdated economical bases like industry or infrastructureOur glorious economy has advanced beyond the need for physical embodiment, and now exists in an airy frictionless realm of pure thought.
the maoist uprising against the landlords was the largest and most comprehensive proletarian revolution in history, and led to almost totally-equal redistribution of land among the peasantry
Surprised to see so many upvotes and no one correct this to Marxist-Leninist uprising since Maoism was barely a thing at that point of history, and the CPC at no point as ever advocated anything called Maoism.
It’s a copypasta
Capitalists interpret the health of an economy by how much CSAM they can buy within it.
No, the west tells us their economy is collapsing because they can’t have a communist nation look good. So they lie.
If this is true, why are the Chinese buying real estate all over the globe? Something’s not adding up here.
It’s not the Chinese buying real estate in the west, it’s Chinese capitalists. A lot of Hong Kong bourgeois for example have been buying property in and in many cases have moved to the west since 1997, since they’re terrified of losing their extortionate privilege of property ownership under the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Working class Chinese people, while on average wealthier than their western working class counterparts, do not have the capital nor the material interest to buy real estate in the west, whether for speculation or to move their ill gotten gains out of China.
Because houses are used for speculation in the countries where they are buying them
I would argue that statement here is misleading.
Popular Chinese movies acknowledge high price of real estate in large cities. All theses movies are available in US, have subtitles in English and can be accessed using popular streaming services.
Examples:
Some of dialogue involving parents, if i recall right:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_O2O_(TV_series)
In the following show lower income aerospace engineer and high income actress. They directly state that he could not afford small apartment if not for money grant for being the best:
The ‘for living’ doesn’t mean free, means affordable for the average person/family living there.
But yes, dense city centres all over the world have about the same problem (since ancient times, up until railways & commuting, when for a bit poor/working class people lived outside the city).
Even in sci-fi movies the top few hundred floors are nice, all the other floors never get daylight or even a sense of where the sun is. Especially if there are roads/allies/“streets” between floors on various levels.
The dates on the shows are 2016 and 2021, and as we can see the real estate really starts winding down around 2022. The housing prices are naturally going to lag as well. So, I don’t think there’s any contradiction here.
Movies aren’t the same as reality, you know.
But they’re based in it. Especially dramas or soap operas which work because people relate to the characters or at least realize that what they’re going through can happen in the world. A silly example: a Cuban wouldn’t make Breaking Bad because why would the protagonist need to find cash for his treatment or kids, when healthcare and education are free?
So while we can’t tell how widespread the issues in those dramas are, it’s valid to say that they do appear in China (or appeared when they were created).
Because of the low rent and easy access to housing in New York City, maybe I should move there with my $40,000/year self-employed job.
In the Chinese shows mentioned, high rent is explicitly mentioned in the series, while in your example it is implied that they make ends meet with their low-income jobs. It’s not the focus of the series.
Luckily there is an easy way to find out if the situation is getting better or worse.
I don’t disagree with that, all I said was that tv shows are based on reality. Of course that reality is changing…
Tier 2 and even tier 3 cities in China seem pretty liveable from the vlogs I have seen. Cities having high costs/rents is a problem but it’s a problem as bad as in, say, India where the urban-rural disparity is much more stark.
Tier 1 is fine too, rent in Shenzen is 80% lower compartively to London, and its larger than London too.
They also can’t comprehend an economy based on actual production, not magic numbers on a computer screen.
Westoid economists were screaming about how China’s real estate market is overheated and will crash, and now that the CPC has done something about it, they’re screaming about how the real estate market isn’t growing as fast so China is doomed.
I think at this point they’re already screeching about “overproduction”.
It is not just “overproduction”. It is “overproduction” with a “stagnating economy” during an “economic downturn”. Only China is capable of collapsing in multiple contradictory ways at the same time like this.
Reminds me of this, as anti-communist rhetoric often does:
“During the cold war, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.” ― Michael Parenti, Blackshirts and Reds: Rational Fascism and the Overthrow of Communism
parenti quote
The quote
In the United States, for over a hundred years, the ruling interests tirelessly propagated anticommunism among the populace, until it became more like a religious orthodoxy than a political analysis. During the Cold War, the anticommunist ideological framework could transform any data about existing communist societies into hostile evidence. If the Soviets refused to negotiate a point, they were intransigent and belligerent; if they appeared willing to make concessions, this was but a skillful ploy to put us off our guard. By opposing arms limitations, they would have demonstrated their aggressive intent; but when in fact they supported most armament treaties, it was because they were mendacious and manipulative. If the churches in the USSR were empty, this demonstrated that religion was suppressed; but if the churches were full, this meant the people were rejecting the regime’s atheistic ideology. If the workers went on strike (as happened on infrequent occasions), this was evidence of their alienation from the collectivist system; if they didn’t go on strike, this was because they were intimidated and lacked freedom. A scarcity of consumer goods demonstrated the failure of the economic system; an improvement in consumer supplies meant only that the leaders were attempting to placate a restive population and so maintain a firmer hold over them. If communists in the United States played an important role struggling for the rights of workers, the poor, African-Americans, women, and others, this was only their guileful way of gathering support among disfranchised groups and gaining power for themselves. How one gained power by fighting for the rights of powerless groups was never explained. What we are dealing with is a nonfalsifiable orthodoxy, so assiduously marketed by the ruling interests that it affected people across the entire political spectrum.
– Michael Parenti, Blackshirts And Reds
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the admins of this instance if you have any questions or concerns.
This is also why they think One Child was a failure: a Western economy that size would need 1.8 billion talking heads by 2040 just to keep the spin going. CNBC headquarters alone would be the size of Manitoba and on the verge of gravitational collapse due to the flesh packed within.
One child policy was also a requirement put forth by IMF for providing loans to China.
Do you have a source for this? If true, that’s quite a plot twist
I don’t. I thought I had read the somewhere but when I tried to look it up I couldn’t find anything. I’ll delete the comment since it could be total bs.
Population decrease is only a problem in a world where profits must go up forever. China is investing heavily in industrial robotics and is not ideologically constrained from socializing the output of those robots like the US is.
“We have a shortage of workers willing to work for unlivable wages right now at this moment. The solution to this is to have more babies.”
Yes, this is sensible and logical, and is indicative of a good understanding of worker productivity levels for the infant and pregnant demographics.
No actually that’s actually part of the stimulus, it will create lots of jobs at the factory that makes smaller-than-usual handles for industrial equipment.
shit i’d rather have antinatalists around
US logic: Population line can’t go down if you keep stealing talent from all over the world, and exploiting immigrants with promises of a “better life”
I’m sorry but the line will go up.
Stupid Chinese don’t know that if you increase rent every year, GDP will go up.
You, a fool, a peasant: Gathers wood and stone from his surroundings to build a tower (it is not efficient or competitive
)Me, a genius: builds some of a tower, then starts taking material from the bottom and putting it on the top (fast, disruptive, I will achieve self-actualization in no time
)so primitive 🤣
