geikei

800 million property units

First of all what classifies as a "property unit" ? 800M property units doesnt equal 800M housing units. Offices, stores, garages, hotels. Its anything really. The numbers im seeing are 400 million Housing Units in Urban ereas, less than half of the urban population, with 60 Million Empty/vaccant/mid construction, which lines up both with the vaccancy rates i mentioned and with 800M total property units. How many "housing units" does the proffessor claim there are in urban China and what is the vaccancy rate on them, and what if any chinese survey or source there is on those numbers if he actualy claims them ?

Im trying to use Chinese sources at best i can but nothing seems to agree with anything close to 800 M urban housing units at 30+% Vacancy rates . Survey and Research Center for China Household Finance has total urban vacancy rates plateuing at ~20% of 300+M housing units in 2017. More recent surveys like this point out at decreasing vaccancy rates that now sit more in line with the numbers i mentioned. This includes housing units that are vacant for more than 3 months and excludes unfinished units. The numbers should be 2-3% higher than this but still that puts it comfortably bellow 20% overall as of now.

At worst urban overbuilding doesnt seem to go above 10% of tottal units build compared to most mature economies

Why do you repeat the redditor-YT thumbnail tier "China has built enough housing for 6 billion people" thing in that comment. Its a completely unserious claim that comes from no credible source or analysis, domesticaly or abroad and is diectly contradicted by any actual numbers of Chinese construction. Its for redditors to circlejerk over in the comments when watching some demolition video of high rises in China and pretend China has ovebuild by 100% or more. Latest vacancy numbers show that residential Vacancy rates are between 7 to 23% with an average of around 13%. Higher on low tier cities and lower in Tier 1 cities. There is overbuilding but if you wanna aim at a "healthy" 5% that means that China has overbuilt by 8% and thats some dead GDP of idk a 4 trillion over a decade or whatever. But again China still has a lot room to go in urbanization rates , especially now that growth is concentrated in tier 2 and bellow cities so unless you believe that China tops out at 65% urbanization rates - of which 20% are still not even full urban hukou holders, even that overbuilding isnt as definitive in the "will never be occupied and used" territory

You make these well thought out comments and analysis but you sometimes include something so non-credibly anti-china tabloid slop that it sours the whole thing . Do you actualy believe that like of 70% of all residential buildings in China right now are empty housing or some unfinished high rises?. Be real

I have only seen polls where Vietnamese opinion on the US is comfortably positive ,annoyingly so, while opinions towards China are at the absolute best close to 50-50

He was killed in his house but Kurds both in southwestern Iraq and in Syria obviously hang in and around US bases or any kind of intelligence or other outpost. Prob staff a lot as well. Its not even an open secret or even unofficial in most cases that they ally and collaborate with US (and even israeli) forces, mercs and intelligence in their ereas

Idk if they have the single missile payload to sink a carrier so that may be only possible if they hit one damaging it enough so it stops moving and then managing a couple more hits on it

Hey that cant be cartoonishly evil. Its on the anarch-kurdist territory there by cooperation with the SDF so its all for the greater good of Actualy Existing Libertarian Confederalism or whatever. Dont expect their presence there being question even by most domestic left "anti-imperialist" voices. USA shouldnt leave and betray them and also the latter dont have any other choice than being comprados and being a side demon to the Great Satan, or so i have been constantly been told

Interesting post but you have made those points again elsewhere in the last couple of weeks ,i know your analysis and i agree in part even if i feel like some assumptions that it takes for granted are less so. But I was not arguing against it or against the point that China should or should not move away from being an exporter country or if thats where the whole play is. My response is questioning the viability and possibility of China NOT being an Exporter country given certain economic sizes and trends and what would such a tranformation entail and its consequences both for the composition of its domestic economy and its worldwide soft power. If the math even works out? I feel like you didnt answer those questions. Maybe the "facts" i laid out are wrong assumptions to begin with so id like to go over my comment and answer me when you have the time ?

China's share of global manufacturing value added is smth crazy like 35%. It's industrial might overshadows most of the world combined.

On top of that in context of the deleveraging and derisking of the real estate issue the investing and credit domesticaly has been shifting heavilt away from the real estate sector and towards industry and manufacturing

Yeah Chinese household consumption is low (tho I have seen recalculations that put it at or around Japan and SK levels and not notably lower).

So I'm asking you in light of this. How can China NOT be an exporter country? Even if household consumption along with median income approaches western levels (which is a shift that it's unreasonable to ask the Chinese state to manufacture in this short timeframe) China's manufacturing and industrial output is so large that it would still be an exporter country right? Even more so if productivity gains increase in China and the rest of the world doesn't pick up manufacturing wise.

So what does not being an exporter country entails in light of all these? China becoming more financialized and it's manufacturing base not expanding or even decreasing?

Because at current scales, and given that real estate related contributions to gdp are to shrink and have already shrinking the growth, it's industrial and manufacturing sector will only become more dynamic , versatile, efficient and productive while providing jobs to hundred(s) of millions.

It's domestic consumption can't and won't absorb anything close to it's big majority in the foreseeable future even in good case scenarios. So how can China become significantly less of an exporter country or not at all?

Also what would that mean for its foreign relations and soft power? A China that isn't the biggest exporter to most nations is a China easier to isolate with countries more likely to fa in line with US coercion, now having less to lose. Unless it becomes a comperably big importer of goods from these countries, especially as they develop too. So now China will have to absorb a much larger part of its own production and also import enough from other countries to counterbalance the loss in soft power from decreased exports of capital and goods?

Also the US "replacing" it's Chinese imports with other countries (Mexico, Vietnam) is a Potemkin village isn't it? These countries just import parts from China and assemble them to export to the us. Their imports from China follow the growth of their exports to the US EXACTLY. They become more dependent and inter tangled with China while the US isn't untagling itself from Chinese supply chains and production or industry. Just adding a middle man. Have you seen any "decoupling" and "manufacturing moving" that hasn't been that? Why is that such a good deal for the US?

With China reconciling with the US

Name a single relevant and concrete concession, policy change or backstep China has taken in the last couple of months in context of this "reconciling with the US" that noticably diverges from their behavior 6 months or 12 months ago. Xi visiting the US and saying "lets all coexist peacefully mmmkey?" or signing some deal for soybeans or whatever doesnt sell the story to me

what is "the world market" exactly ? China losing most of europe ,Korea, Phillipines and Japan? Like someone else pointed out Chinese mid and high end exports and intergration with most of SEA is going great and China is starting to dominate the market on digital infastructure in a lot of the devloping world elsewhere. USA has been unable to block the penetration and even domination of Chinese world leading mid-high tech exports in some of the worlds most important markets

For example ASEAN leads the world in growth and wants to repeat an “Asian Tigers” like development and China’s leading position in digital and physical infrastructure creates a natural economic partnership with them . Already in 2020, China exported almost twice as much to ASEAN as it did to developed Asia (Japan, Taiwan and South Korea). Chinese exports to the Global South, including ASEAN, Africa, and Latin America, nearly doubled from pre-Covid levels to an annual rate of around $900 billion in 2022 – double China’s exports to either the United States or the European Union.According to the IMF, the region’s per capital GDP in terms of purchasing power parity is $16,163, or nearly three times the USD dollar GDP per capita. The purchasing power of foreign currency in local economies is multiplied by the undervaluation of the region’s currencies. As the US dollar value of GDP converges with purchasing power parity over time and these countries grow, the import capacity of that 700 million people will rise to match western markets even in demand for high tech products . No reason to believe Chinese high tech exports and digital infastructure will not continue to rise even more.

From an ASEAN study published last year:

As ASEAN advances to become the world’s fourth largest economy by 2030, it is undergoing a transition marked by a demographic shift to a younger population, a rising middle class, and rapid adoption of technology. With many mobile-first markets in the region, ASEAN is expected to see rapid increase in the use of technology which would contribute to the growth of its digital economy by 6.4 times, from $31 billion in 2015 to $197 billion by 2025. The digital economy, therefore, is a key factor driving the growth of the region’s economy.

China is already a world leader in practical applications of digital infrastructure (AI/5G) and their strategy centers on creating future markets for its high end products by providing broadband, cloud computing, and training for Southeast Asian nations and in those aspects it already dominates the 700m people market with deals being signed left and right no matter US disagreements. .

According to a July 2022 report by the Carnegie Endowment on Huawei’s success in Indonesia, by far the largest ASEAN nation with a population of 275 million:

Huawei and, to a lesser extent, ZTE have successfully positioned themselves as trusted cybersecurity providers to the Indonesian government and the Indonesian nation. This has been no easy feat given long-held Indonesian animosity toward China. Many Chinese companies have faced protests over concerns they were taking local jobs. Huawei and ZTE have suffered no such fate. Nor has there been a broad coalition of Indonesian voices against using Chinese technology in critical telecommunications infrastructure. In short, Indonesians care a lot more about Chinese cement plants than they do about Huawei involvement in 5G networks.

Huawei teamed up with Thailand’s Ministry of Digital Economy to open a “Thailand 5G Ecosystem Innovation Center” in Bangkok in 2021, the director of Thailand’s digital development office told a Huawei conference in 2021. In October 2022, Huawei released a white paper entitled “Malaysia as the ASEAN Digital Capital.” And all these were for a Huawei in their weakest. They are booming again in 2023 and so are a lot of Chinese tech giants and sectors. Like electric cars. Already bound to dominate in SEA you see them capturing markets just in the US doorstep

Even if you wanna hyper focus on chip exports. China already has a great shot in dominating mid and low end chip production and exports everywhere within the next decade and there is little real ability or plan from the west to counterbalance that legacy chip domination. How will that coexist as a reality with them being completely cut off fin the high end sector when they reach parity. I dont think it can .

Good article on the subject in Chinese https://www.guancha.cn/ChenFeng3/2023_02_14_679722_s.shtml

everyone does not know why .A lot arent that online to have seen the discourse come up before or that informed about some specific period in modern chinese history. Its worth pointing it out since its a pretty weird relation even if its stating the obvious for most. And did say it sucks so idk why you think i disagree with people finding it lame

Idk what people expected, Kissinger is legit seen as a figure that positively impacted the trajectory of modern China by being important in the restoring of diplomatic relations with the US and the West and the opening up of China to the global economy and acceptance to global institutions. If they uphold the policy decisions they made domesticaly and abroad in the late mao and Deng era ,and they do, then they will still be formal and cordial to a figurehead like Kissinger that was central to a lot of these shifts and developments. Mao or no Mao, Revisionism or no Revisionism china would have made such a statement for Kissinger either way. Sucks but thats how china is where it is now and thats part of its history. Mao himself was cracking jokes and hanging out with Kissinger while the latter already had the blood of millions on his hands. This position (at least in their mind) has little to do with how commited in socialism or communist anyone in the prc is