China's Subprime Crisis Is Here • Hacker News Board

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#211

Post by logfromblammo » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 4:06 PM UTC

error_logic wrote: post #207

logfromblammo wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Think of it this way. Your parents borrow $10000 to throw a big party--one that you were not allowed to attend. After they die, their wills are read, bequeathing unto you $10000 in festivity debt, plus 50 years of interest. They never paid for the party, despite having such a great time at it (or so you assume, not having been there to judge). Now you have a choice. You can try to maintain the postmortem reputations…

There's another way of looking at it. Debt can be an investment. Compare the rates of inflation vs. the interest rates on bonds. Please let me know if I'm wrong, but... isn't the government making money with them at this point?

Today, maybe.

Don't presume that the government is necessarily using the sale of lower-interest bonds to pay off the principal on its higher-interest debts.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/03/05/john-...

As long as the principal on the bond cannot be repaid out of actual revenues, every bond you sell at a negative yield is one that may have to be refinanced at a positive yield later.

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#212

Post by slantedview » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 5:12 PM UTC

yueq wrote: post #34

slantedview wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was broader than subprime and derivatives even. It was a general real estate (housing) bubble. Home prices became massively inflated and the various investments tied to housing came crashing down. A similar result can be expected in China when the music eventually stops.

When price go up it doesn't mean a it's a bubble. Getting loans is way harder/regulated in China than 06/07 US. Currently 25+% down payment or 70% for 2nd home is required. -- Comparing in 2007 banks only asks for 3% down.

Prices going up for no good reason (increase in demand or decrease in supply) means there is a bubble. This is what happened in the US. Bubbles are the cause of speculation, such as building cities that sit empty.

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#213

Post by DominikR » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 5:42 PM UTC

dvt wrote: post #182

DominikR wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's natural to cheer for your team and boo the other team. I wouldn't take too much offense. It is a primitive behaviour because it fosters racism and hatred for others instead of cooperation. The one thing we do not need more of right now is hatred, there's enough of it in the world. Edit: It is also one thing if a private person holds his opinion (however detestable it might be - I don't care) and if we get this…

Even from an artificial game theoretic perspective, cooperation is often not the optimal choice. I'd say that in real life, even more so.

Sure, if your view is that of a sociopath. Without cooperation you'd be sitting on a tree.

There'd be no society, institutions, states, healthcare, education, families and friendships without cooperation.

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#214

Post by dvt » Thu, Feb 18, 2016, 5:57 PM UTC

DominikR wrote: post #213

dvt wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even from an artificial game theoretic perspective, cooperation is often not the optimal choice. I'd say that in real life, even more so.

Sure, if your view is that of a sociopath. Without cooperation you'd be sitting on a tree. There'd be no society, institutions, states, healthcare, education, families and friendships without cooperation.

I think you grossly misunderstood my point.

Furthermore, entire social theories are built on the idea that selfishness is the driving force behind all human behavior. I could quote Nietzsche or Schopenhauer, but there are also contemporary examples (Dawkins and Singer, to name a few). I don't know if I agree with them or not, but there's plenty of conceptual drilling to do before dismissing them as "sociopaths."

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#215

Post by AJ007 » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 1:58 AM UTC

kesselvon wrote: post #202

AJ007 wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It only seems like that because journalists like to write the same things as every other journalist. For almost 20 years I read stories about how China would surpass the United States in both economic and military power. There are a lot of underlying facts to China's investment driven growth cycle that can be explained in math and global trade balances. Their reserves can be spent very fast. GDP growth doesn't matter…

What does lack of diversity have to do with economic growth?

The suspicion is that diversity of ideas and experiences allow groups to more easily evolve and solve problems. Even in a room full of males, if some come from different industries, they may more easily be able to pull together best practices each other had never heard of. Does this also apply to age, gender, ethnic, and cultural background? May be it doesn't.

At the least I believe that this gives the US a huge advantage in attracting talent because the best from around the world can feel more at home here.

This needs to be observed through long term economic endurance rather than measurements of shorter term investment-driven growth like China, Japan, or Brazil experienced.

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#216

Post by dahauns » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

danharaj wrote: post #191

dvt wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even from an artificial game theoretic perspective, cooperation is often not the optimal choice. I'd say that in real life, even more so.

Especially from an artificial game theoretic perspective. Real life observations of human beings consistently show higher levels of cooperation than rational choice theory predicts alone. You are taking for granted the vast amount of cooperation and trust that goes into your society. It's so seamless that nobody notices it. People notice competition because it's more obvious when people are in conflict than when they…

If you want predictions that hold in reality, you really shouldn't look at rational choice theory...

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#217

Post by lmm » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 5:45 PM UTC

gozur88 wrote: post #188

altcognito wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sacred is the right word. It is seen as an almost religious document written by men who were inspired (as seen by some) by "Christian values" (read God) and it enshrines and protect the most basic moral values. They look back to the men that wrote it hoping to divine their intent much like those who read the bible.

Well, yes. It's the basis for the machinery of the US government. As time goes on, how do you know what a document means if it uses words and textual shorthand that are no longer in common parlance?

If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too. Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers to the questions we have today?

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#218

Post by adwf » Fri, Feb 19, 2016, 9:30 PM UTC

epimetheus wrote: post #184

adwf wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You see no evil, yet. I don't want to know what happens when the latest wannabe dictator comes along and nationalises all the Chinese infrastructure...

A pretty short war? I don't see where China would be too worried about a small time dictator? Or was that your point and I missed it? It could be good for Africa for that to happen, have China step in and assume some order, rather than the Chaos that is keeping many of these countries economically down.

And then we're back to the bad old colonial days which the west gets so criticised for...

Re: China's Subprime Crisis Is Here

#219

Post by gozur88 » Wed, Feb 24, 2016, 4:58 AM UTC

lmm wrote: post #217

gozur88 wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes. It's the basis for the machinery of the US government. As time goes on, how do you know what a document means if it uses words and textual shorthand that are no longer in common parlance?

If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too. Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers…

>If the document is that far out of date, its meaning likely is too. The founding fathers were human too; skilled legislators to be sure, but we have skilled legislators today too.

I don't see how a constitution can go "out of date". It's the founding document for a nation - the individual states that compromise the US ratified a document that forms the basis of their association. Individual words and phrases have gone out of common parlance, but to change the meaning of the document would require the agreement of the parties, i.e. the states. Is it ever reasonable for the other party to tell you "Now that you've signed this contract, we're going to change it"?

The genius of the US constitution is that it sets up a mechanism for a system of government without getting into policy. Policy is decided by the legislature, and the legal code changes all the time.

But the structure has served us well and is better than, or at least no worse than, that of anyplace else. Human nature hasn't changed, after all, and there hasn't been any real advancement in government for thousands of years.

The lawyering over language happens because a document is just a means of communication, after all - there's no purpose in a written agreement if you're going to allow the meaning of the words in that agreement to change.

> Rather than try to stretch a document written for a very different time to apply to modern disputes, why not hold a new convention, with a remit not to figure out what people were thinking 200+ years ago, but to figure out the best answers to the questions we have today?

Because you don't need to change the structure of a government to change policy. The legislature is there to provide "the best answers to the questions we have today".