^What is wrong with that? We blow up 15-20 year old stadiums all the time, just look at the Charlotte Coliseum. China is growing very rapidly, it shouldn't be surprising that they tear down older buildings to build fancy new ones, most of them were even private companies doing it. When you are growing as fast as China is, buildings become outdated very quickly.

9/27/2010 10:33:49 AM

From what the page said, at least some of the demolitions were due to regulatory uncertainty: someone built what they thought they had a right to build, only some years later to have the government come in and demolish it because some bureaucrat decided the construction had been illegal in some way. This too happens in America.

9/27/2010 11:11:52 AM

I'd say it happens about anywhere, nothing too amazing.

[Edited on September 27, 2010 at 12:40 PM. Reason : ]

9/27/2010 12:39:51 PM

Nothing particularly shocking. Only thing that gains notice is that since it's done in China, the scale is much larger even compared to the United States.

9/27/2010 1:43:43 PM

Well, what it is proof of, is that China is now just like the rest of us, with a private capitalist economy, and a regulatory state eager to smash the product it produces.

9/27/2010 1:59:00 PM

No, it's not proof of that. Read the article. China destroys good buildings so they can build a new building and maintain their absurdly high GDP. It's the broken window fallacy in practice, which this country is more than familiar with.

9/27/2010 2:03:30 PM

Quote :

"China destroys good buildings so they can build a new building and maintain their absurdly high GDP."

They do it for the same reasons we tear down good buildings, we want new buildings, or in many of the examples given, they need a road there or a new building for the Olympics, etc.

Quote :

"It's the broken window fallacy in practice"

That's stupid. Do you know what the broken window fallacy is? That's like saying "it's perpetual motion in practice". A broken window would not increase GDP.

9/27/2010 3:19:57 PM

No, Kris, while you are probably right that this is not a broken window situation, you are wrong that it such a fallacy cannot increase GDP.

If the government conscripted the entire workforce to make rope and set an absurdly high price for rope, then GDP could be huge, while we all starve to death. Governments do lots of stuff that counts towards GDP, such as war, that just consumes resources while leaving everyone worse off.

9/27/2010 5:13:57 PM

Quote :

"you are wrong that it such a fallacy cannot increase GDP"

The only way if it will increase GDP is if there is a window that actually needs fixing, that is to say that what is done with the land would need to create more value than the structure that was there to begin with and the cost of tearing it down and building something else. If you just started tearing crap down and building the same stuff back up, the people building these things will get no return. I guess it's possible if the government financed it, but in that case it's not as much of a broken window if the increase of government debt doesn't negatively impact the value of the currency, which would mean that buyers of government bonds would be acting irrationally, eh it gets a bit more complicated, but it's not the act of building the building that makes the growth, its the use of credit that needs to be expanded in someway.

Quote :

"If the government conscripted the entire workforce to make rope and set an absurdly high price for rope, then GDP could be huge, while we all starve to death. Governments do lots of stuff that counts towards GDP, such as war, that just consumes resources while leaving everyone worse off."

Well you know that they're just playing with the money supply. If the GDP increases it is due to government credit that should have been used anyways.

9/27/2010 11:00:21 PM

Quote :

"The only way if it will increase GDP is if there is a window that actually needs fixing, that is to say that what is done with the land would need to create more value than the structure that was there to begin with and the cost of tearing it down and building something else. If you just started tearing crap down and building the same stuff back up, the people building these things will get no return. I guess it's possible if the government financed it, but in that case it's not as much of a broken window if the increase of government debt doesn't negatively impact the value of the currency, which would mean that buyers of government bonds would be acting irrationally, eh it gets a bit more complicated, but it's not the act of building the building that makes the growth, its the use of credit that needs to be expanded in someway."

This is kind of a clusterfuck of a paragraph, no?

Quote :

"The only way if it will increase GDP is if there is a window that actually needs fixing, that is to say that what is done with the land would need to create more value than the structure that was there to begin with and the cost of tearing it down and building something else"

This is not at all what GDP measures, but I suspect you know that and you're trying to work backwards to explain the "beauty" of the planned state.

GDP private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports)

I don't see "value" anywhere in that equation.

Quote :

"the people building these things will get no return. "

And amazingly, GDP will still go up due to these activities.

Quote :

" I guess it's possible if the government financed it, but in that case it's not as much of a broken window if the increase of government debt doesn't negatively impact the value of the currency"

Private investment could have financed it. You said it yourself (in a different way). If they expect a better return, they'll do it. Over the short term, this looks great. But if they bet wrong, it unwinds on the other end.

Quote :

" which would mean that buyers of government bonds would be acting irrationally"

Investors acting irrationally....(gasp) no ?!



I didn't actually come here to reply to that, I came to post this

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/news/aa052300b.htm

Kinda surreal looking back on what was being said. Interesting how free trade with China wasn't pushed as a pure profit motive by the "pros" but rather as

Quote :

" Potential for improve working conditions and pay for Chinese workers Opening Western-style economy in China could force human rights reform in China"

Foxconn what? Stronger censorship of the internet what?

With the exception of the Taiwan thing (which China did actually saber rattle about, right?), those fearing "free trade" were pretty much spot on.

[Edited on October 20, 2010 at 10:08 PM. Reason : .]

10/20/2010 10:07:43 PM

Quote :

"GDP private consumption + gross investment + government spending + (exports - imports) I don't see "value" anywhere in that equation."

I think you knew what I meant by "value", but if you want to know where it is in that equation, it's in the "gross investment" category. The "value" was just more specifically the return on that investment, which I clarified later.

Quote :

"And amazingly, GDP will still go up due to these activities."

If money is only lost, consumption, investment, government spending and exports will all decrease to some degree.

Quote :

"If they expect a better return, they'll do it. Over the short term, this looks great. But if they bet wrong, it unwinds on the other end."

Yeah, that's kind of the definition of an investment.

Quote :

"Investors acting irrationally....(gasp) no ?"

They tend to act rationally more often than they act irrationally, so much more that there is an entire branch of study almost entirely devoted to it.

10/20/2010 11:37:12 PM

Quote :

"I think you knew what I meant by "value", but if you want to know where it is in that equation, it's in the "gross investment" category. The "value" was just more specifically the return on that investment, which I clarified later."

That is not the definition of value. People value child care, but stay at home moms contribute $0 to GDP when they provide it. GDP is a statistic that has little to do with value. It is entirely possible for GDP to fall at the same time the citizenry is better off. Similarly, as in the example I gave, it is entirely possible for GDP to grow dramatically while the citizenry starves in the street. As I said, "Governments do lots of stuff that counts towards GDP, such as war, that just consumes resources while leaving everyone worse off."

Quote :

"Well you know that they're just playing with the money supply. If the GDP increases it is due to government credit that should have been used anyways."

Absolutely not. Anyone familiar with Soviet History should know, it is called forced savings, as the citizenry has nothing left to do with their money but lend it to the government to produce more stuff the government likes but the people can neither eat nor enjoy.

10/21/2010 12:28:04 AM

they just jacked some of our stealth tech... their damn hackers plague the world...

time to put a tech beat down on them...

1/25/2011 10:58:16 PM

I don't particularly have a problem with them stealing the stealth stuff. That is to say, I'm not thrilled that they have it (or that we let it slip), but I can't exactly blame them for grabbing it. It's what I'd do.

I am a bit suspicious about the timing in all of this. They unveil it right before their big diplomatic mission over here, and we convict the guy who sold them the information just a few days later?

There was some interesting commentary that the unveiling of the plane (and its timing) may be indicative of a split between the PLA and the civilian and diplomatic actors in the country. Supposedly when Gates mentioned the plane to the premier, he acted like he didn't know what Gates was talking about -- even though by then it was public knowledge over here. That particular development could be worrisome.

1/25/2011 11:42:34 PM

Imitation is the truest form of flattery.

1/26/2011 10:33:18 AM

^^ The growing consensus seems to be that the Chinese government is becoming more factionalized, particularly the PLA. President Hu still commands great respect, but he's more a board chair trying to wrangle a whole bunch of stovepiped departments than a unified leader like his predecessors Deng and Jiang. I don't think the heir apparent will do any better.

1/26/2011 10:44:51 AM

That probably a good thing. Let them fight amongst themselves. Although it does get bad for us if the PLA decides that the best way to assert itself is to play with its new toys.

1/26/2011 11:26:30 AM

Actually, it's a problem for the very reason you state. The Politburo and civilian leadership always helped keep the PLA in check. With their grip weakening on the military, the generals are becoming much more assertive and aggressive, and unfortunately for us, that's usually means an anti-American sentiment. I don't think this means they're going to start waging war without the CCP's approval, but when tensions are high, accidents can happen. We don't need something like a repeat of the EP-3 incident back in 2001.

If there is a silver lining though, it's that their aggression has completely undermined Chinese efforts to play the whole "peaceful rise" game with their neighbors and have driven them closer to the United States (South Korea, Japan, and Vietnam are a few examples).

1/26/2011 12:14:18 PM