"Deleveraging is impossible unless nominal GDP growth is faster than debt growth" Or you know, they can sell their assets that far exceeds their debt lol.
Chinese Economics Thread
- Thread starter Norfolk
- Start date
Exhibit A of Evidence free claim from you:
I was extremely *specific* when I said those *who bought property from 2017-onwards* - which is a subset of all those living in Tier 3-5 cities, this may or may not be a significant portion of people living in specific Tier 3-5 cities. You clearly are not reading.
Where have I stated people in lower-tier cities are not more optimistic?
What political subtext am I supposedly hoping to attach to it?
So in your mind,
Sept 24 2024/Sept 26 2024 policy pivots did not happen.
in Nov 2024 did not happen.
Fiscal deficit in 2025 was not significantly higher than in 2024.
The central government did not
The , and .
What rock have you been living under?
Show me which one of my quantitative estimates have been wrong?
Last edited:
Can you please debate like an adult? If you're so adamant about being misinterpreted then maybe state your actual, exact position in plain language so we can approach this from a position of symmetry. I have already done so.
Yes, you can just deny that an opponent understands your argument forever if you stubbornly refuse to ever state it. You are the first person to ever discover this.
I'm asking those questions because you're making up claims I've never stated. So do me a favor and not put words in my mouth. Stop projecting.
You want to respond to this first? @hereforsemithread
Why don't you explain to me how these stimulus efforts were used to buoy the confidence of 1st tier consumers, as opposed to doing literally anything else or pursuing any other policy objective whatsoever.
Still waiting to hear your point.
Your original claim that "none of the bazooka stimulus measures have ever materialized". I showed you exactly why you're wrong. I never claimed that these stimulus measures were effective in buoying first tier consumers.
Waiting on this too.
Last edited:
So your contention is that the central government is indeed trying to buoy the confidence of first tier consumers, that this is the main priority of their stimulus efforts, but is failing miserably thus far for several years ..... because? Why? Despite their demonstrable competence in accomplishing much more difficult developmental objectives?
You know they could re-open the credit tap to developers at the stroke of Xi's pen, right? That they could have done this at any time in the last half decade?
Why haven't they?
We can argue all day about the semantics of what constitutes a "bazooka" stimulus or a "huge" market intervention, but I know your core point is that it is indeed a high central government priority to reignite the confidence of wealthy consumers, and that their main stimulus efforts have been directed towards doing it.
I am pointing out that there is a guaranteed-effective and very easy means of doing this that they have stubbornly not done since 2020. Re-open the credit to developers. Undo the negative wealth effective of housing price declines.
Why, if your point is true, haven't they done this?
Last edited:
This is the natural impact of modern "capitalism".
....No? That the stimulus I listed simply proves your statement "that there was no stimulus" wrong. Its an entirely different question as to whether the stimulus is sufficient enough.
As for stimulus on first tier city consumers, I haven't gotten to listing the which have been effective at lifting retail sales by ~1%, or the that have been less effective.
As for the real estate sector, they've already made it very clear they want to see it stabilize. With YTD primary homes sales down 14% it is clearly not yet reached. So yes, measuring the Politburo statement the policy goal has not yet been achieved. The government sometimes doesn't reach its goals - shocker.
This is why there is recent talk of offering interest rate subsidies to homeowners ala . This isn't just a Bloomberg news article - it is actually under discussion by policy-types in Beijing - meaning there is a desire for 'more effective measure' at achieving 'stabilization of the housing sector'. If anything this is very much on-brand to the "toothpaste squeeze" type of stimulus measures that's been rolled out in the past years.
The other way to interpret your argument here is, if the policy goals of the Politburo readout has not been reached, it must mean they don't care - are you insinuating that they are lying in the Politburo readouts?
Why must you associate 'stimulus' as 'credit tap to property developers'? (please do not 刻舟求剑). That they want stabilization does not mean they want another real estate bubble. If you don't understand the difference you should not have an opinion here.
Last edited:
This is a debate about the relative priorities of the central government. I contend that increasing the spending of consumers in 1st tier cities is not a high priority and that their stimulus efforts thus far have not been aimed at doing so. To augment this I cite the fact that they have persistently refused to do the one thing that would pretty much instantly fix the confidence issue, and that they are doing this to pursue broader structural transformation of the economy.
When I said "no bazooka", I was referring to no big credit stimulus towards developers. Such massive stimulus in 2008 was the reason the term "bazooka" was even coined to begin with when discussing fiscal policy, something a financial worker like yourself definitely knows but it playing dumb about.
Of course the politburo would like the property sector to stabilize, eventually. They're not lying about this. But their revealed preference is that it is not as high of a priority as other objectives with which re-opening credit towards developers would conflict.
I cannot force you to engage with a point. If you want to feel proximate to power, I cannot force you to critically examine that perception.
Last edited: