China's Ghost cities.

[milkmiku]

The Chinese have been building Ghost cities for years now. What do you suppose the purpose is? My theory is that they are building the infrastructure for massive immigration from failed western economies .

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2005231/Chinas-ghost-towns-New-satellite-pictures-massive-skyscraper-cities-STILL-completely-empty.html

http://www.businessinsider.com/pictures-chinese-ghost-cities-2010-12?op=1

[Q]

Mass immigration from the West? I doubt it.

I hear some people making a case regarding these cities being build to cover expected internal migration from China's countryside (incidentally, also its "west") to the cities. The country's urbanization rate increased from 17.4% to 46.8% between 1978 and 2009 and is expected to grow to 64% by 2025.

According to these pro-regime voices, they're just a little early with building those cities.

I maintain a little more skeptical attitude however and think the regime is desperately trying to increase internal consumption so as to build down its over-reliance on the world market. This leads to such rather absurd phenomena, as it makes no sense to build cities 10 years in advance.

[Grenzer]

As Q said, the idea that they are anticipating mass immigration seems absurd, to put it mildly.

His suggestion of trying to increase internal consumption seems more likely, as there is a historical parallel in the Soviet Union. During the 1930's, the Soviet Union manufactured cars that no one could afford to buy, and were of a quality that there would be no demand for export. Their purpose was to simply produce for the sake of producing in order to fuel their industry. However, this Chinese phenomenon seems to be on the same principle, just to a more insane extreme.

[robear]

I think it has to do with poor planning and giving the construction workers a job to do.

[Guy Incognito]

Honestly, so long as it's maintained wouldn't infastructure be good in the long run? (ignoring completely the reasoning behind building ghost cities in the first place)

[Q]

Honestly, so long as it's maintained wouldn't infastructure be good in the long run? (ignoring completely the reasoning behind building ghost cities in the first place)

The point is that you can't possibly maintain such a course in the long term. What's next? Upgrading ghost city infrastructure as it becomes too obsolete after a number of years? I'm sure that also pumps up the economy. But what is the point of it? It is not actually developing China in any real sense.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

The point is that you can't possibly maintain such a course in the long term. What's next? Upgrading ghost city infrastructure as it becomes too obsolete after a number of years? I'm sure that also pumps up the economy. But what is the point of it? It is not actually developing China in any real sense.

Another reason for this construction is that it fuels the speculation boom for real estate that is going strong. Many new fancy things are not to be lived in but to be bought and sold by investors hither thither. The flats of the new developments might echo empty, but the money moves back and forth nevertheless.

(also what the fuck has news come to when all you get are a bunch of fucking google earth screencaps? fuck's sake)

[Guy Incognito]

The point is that you can't possibly maintain such a course in the long term. What's next? Upgrading ghost city infrastructure as it becomes too obsolete after a number of years? I'm sure that also pumps up the economy. But what is the point of it? It is not actually developing China in any real sense.

But isn't it possible they could be doing it to reduce housing prices in the future? A ready made city could do that. Drastically. Overabundance of supply and all that.

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

But isn't it possible they could be doing it to reduce housing prices in the future? A ready made city could do that. Drastically. Overabundance of supply and all that.

That would be contrary to the interest; a fall in real-estate price would burst the bubble which is propelling this development. There is no interest in decreasing prices. If there was any interest in providing affordable housing, the housing policy would not look like it does today.

[Guy Incognito]

That would be contrary to the interest; a fall in real-estate price would burst the bubble which is propelling this development. There is no interest in decreasing prices. If there was any interest in providing affordable housing, the housing policy would not look like it does today.

I agree. It would be bad in a capitalist sense. But what if they are just now preparing to progress back towards actual socialism? (I know this isn't at all likely, but it would be nice to hear something positive in the world)

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I agree. It would be bad in a capitalist sense. But what if they are just now preparing to progress back towards actual socialism? (I know this isn't at all likely, but it would be nice to hear something positive in the world)

Apart from the fact that they obviously are not, there's nothing in this indicating that. Those developments are approved because the city governments no longer have any central state funding and have to essentially rely on selling land to property developments as the single major source for income after funding reforms in the 80's and 90's that cut their tax base. This means that they will be very willing to approve any such project and give support to it. Developers are likewise very interested in these projects. The housing costs are so high that few Chinese citizen can afford to live in these new developments, but many wealthy investors will still be willing to invest.

If they had been interested in a progressive housing policy, they would have continued that of the early 70's, where there was a very short-lasting push for the construction of new housing (free for the residents) redeveloping slums and providing new homes. This project saw only limited realisation, however, limited to a handful of projects in some cities, and was then more or less abandoned. Instead there came the rise of the for-profit land development, which gave rise to the present real estate bubble, where a significant % of new homes are too expensive to be afforded by anyone but the wealthiest stratum. Despite the fact that the buildings are unoccupied (both office and residential spaces have an amazingly low occupancy rate), they are still traded between developers, investors, financiers and so on, so forth.

The perhaps most clear illustration of the absurdity of Chinese "socialism" is that capitalist Hong Kong has 53% of its population living in subsidised and high-quality public housing, whereas there is no public housing, free or even subsidised to a similar degree, in mainland China. To preserve social peace, the motto of the fascists, the Chinese government has recently been saying it wants to increase the amount of "affordable" housing, but this only goes as far as to give subsidies to developers and is as useless as "affordable housing" projects in the United States, a blight on the planet.

[Guy Incognito]

Apart from the fact that they obviously are not, there's nothing in this indicating that. Those developments are approved because the city governments no longer have any central state funding and have to essentially rely on selling land to property developments as the single major source for income after funding reforms in the 80's and 90's that cut their tax base. This means that they will be very willing to approve any such project and give support to it. Developers are likewise very interested in these projects. The housing costs are so high that few Chinese citizen can afford to live in these new developments, but many wealthy investors will still be willing to invest.

If they had been interested in a progressive housing policy, they would have continued that of the early 70's, where there was a very short-lasting push for the construction of new housing (free for the residents) redeveloping slums and providing new homes. This project saw only limited realisation, however, limited to a handful of projects in some cities, and was then more or less abandoned. Instead there came the rise of the for-profit land development, which gave rise to the present real estate bubble, where a significant % of new homes are too expensive to be afforded by anyone but the wealthiest stratum. Despite the fact that the buildings are unoccupied (both office and residential spaces have an amazingly low occupancy rate), they are still traded between developers, investors, financiers and so on, so forth.

The perhaps most clear illustration of the absurdity of Chinese "socialism" is that capitalist Hong Kong has 53% of its population living in subsidised and high-quality public housing, whereas there is no public housing, free or even subsidised to a similar degree, in mainland China. To preserve social peace, the motto of the fascists, the Chinese government has recently been saying it wants to increase the amount of "affordable" housing, but this only goes as far as to give subsidies to developers and is as useless as "affordable housing" projects in the United States, a blight on the planet.

Figured as much. Sucks.

[gorillafuck]

The Chinese have been building Ghost cities for years now. What do you suppose the purpose is? My theory is that they are building the infrastructure for massive immigration from failed western economies .that's definitely not it. if western economies failed, then China's economy would fail with them.

[Rusty Shackleford]

could also be because the chinese population is growing, so they are planning ahead. but also it probably has to do with the urbanization of china.

[ckaihatsu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IF-rR4zEJRM

[Sir Comradical]

This is a country that knows how to solve its problems.