Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which superpower is being held to a higher standard right now?
USA. Whether or not they're living up to it is another thing altogether though.
Who's holding the USA to high standards?
China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
81–86 of 86 posts
Re: China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
#82Western media has a tendency to see China through a pair of gloomy glasses, and thus often are so certain that next Tuesday is China's doomsday. Here are ALL the headlines (contains the word "China" ) from Yahoo News in the last 3 days. 12 out of 13 have negative words in the headline: ------------------- Xi Jinping has run into the one thing in China he __can’t control__ China's Boom Has World Bank __Worried__ The S…
This is only insightful if you do the same thing for other countries as headline subjects and then compare the relative rates of negativity to see if China is an outlier. News headlines tend toward the negative in general, because it's not newsworthy when things work like everyone expects them to.
my original plan was to pick 5 news outlets from each of the top 20 powerful countries, grab headlines for a consecutive 30 or 60 days, and come up with a negativity value from country N towards country M, so the final result would be a 20X20 matrix. Too much work, so it's not done yet.
But based on my years of experience in consumption of news from major media outlets in the world, the relative rates of negativity towards China is in the vicinity of 12/13, i.e., extremely high and very much an outlier. Of course it's just my guesstimate and gut feeling.
Re: China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
#83Re: China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sadly don't think it's stopped anyonw. Friend told me it's 50,000/person at any one time, but given the amount of money I've seen being being spent, I doubt that is stopping anyone. Going to dig into if there are any loopholes for this. I think it's fascinating how so many people in China suddenly became self-made millionaires/billionaires + can spend that money so extravagantly in the US without much consequence. Th…
Would you mind posting your finding after you dig more into this stuff?
Sure. But doubt loopholes like these would be openly documented.
Best option seems like if I was still back at school and just asked some international students.
Re: China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
"A foreigner". Why do you care where they were born? If where someone was born is so important to you, why not extend it down to the state level and only let people buy in the state in which they are issued papers from? This is indeed thinly veiled nationalism/racism. In a properly functioning society, you should have no real idea how the domestic money was obtained, either. It's none of your business as a seller.
I think the more accurate assertion should be residents only. Or no long term unoccupied properties so people rent them out. Or you get my home town of Vancouver[0] or you get London[1], which is even more complicated. If your not a resident, then you can deal with just renting. In asian countries where they limit ownership to only citizens or residents, and your not china, you don't see such huge property value boom…
Residents only is also unfair. What if I wanted to own a place in SF?
Lots of people only live in a place part of the year.
Re: China’s Market Rout Is a Double Threat
#86Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the more accurate assertion should be residents only. Or no long term unoccupied properties so people rent them out. Or you get my home town of Vancouver[0] or you get London[1], which is even more complicated. If your not a resident, then you can deal with just renting. In asian countries where they limit ownership to only citizens or residents, and your not china, you don't see such huge property value boom…
Residents only is also unfair. What if I wanted to own a place in SF? Lots of people only live in a place part of the year.
By that behavior you constrain supply for the people who live there full time and destroy businesses that need a full time populace to live there.
Look at this vancouver example when people want to live there only part time because it has become hip with the world's wealthy and retired: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/home-and-garden/real-est...
New york also suffers this to some extent with empty highrises owned by who know what.
In normal places where they aren't supply shocked I don't think it matters, but if your NIMBY enough a place where the price of a property doubles in 2-4 years, it can get pretty nuts.
And I'm not saying you cannot rent a place, just not own one unless your a full time resident XOR you have a high tax on long term unoccupied properties that encourages property owners to rent out their spaces. I would actually just prefer a long term unoccupied property tax. The key is unused empty properties, not who owns it. Increase supply, and remove perverse incentives to not just sit on supply.
Unfortunately we cannot just pick on SF's landlord unfriendly laws here, because the supply shock applies to the entire bay area. Removing those laws to encourage landlords to rent out their empty properties would be an improvement.