Talk:Chinese property bubble (2005–2011)

solar eclipse

Is the lights being turned off really a clear sign that the buildings are unused? I would assume that people were watching the eclipse and therefore didn't want to turn the lights on.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.96.60.167 (talk) 13:32, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Entire sky scrapers though? It would be logical to assume at least one if not several lights would be turned on in fully occupied buildings that sized. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.130.26 (talk) 20:36, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

China Housing Prices Decline resource WSJ

"Accelerating Fall in Sector Signals Government Efforts Are Working, but Raises Fears About Growth" by Dinny McMahon, Eether Fung and James T. Areddy Wall Street Journal. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Ordos: "ghost town"?

Some information from this 17 March 2012 BBC article (Ordos: The biggest ghost town in China) might deserve a mention, relating to over-building and poor planning.
E.g.: "It is a spectacular example of a new Chinese phenomenon, in many cities - unsold flats, unlet shops, empty office blocks" ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 08:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

btw there are many of these towns in Africa. see: http://business.financialpost.com/2012/07/03/chinas-latest-import-to-africa-a-ghost-town-in-angola/ Yes Eric, well done, that links to an article about a ghost town in Angola built by a Chinese company. You nullified your own point. Clap clap. 86.26.169.161 (talk) 15:37, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Grey market" lending

What is the role of private grey-market financing (and related fraud)? E.g.: It is common practice in China where there is a big grey market in private loans to private businesses who cannot get money from the big, official, state-owned banks. -- With 40% APR not uncommon. ~Eric F 184.76.225.106 (talk) 09:38, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Is it ongoing?

Two points.

First, supposing there is a property bubble (people still deny it), as of early 2013 it is not over. The government restrictions have been increasing for years, but still prices and transactions (when *allowed*) are at record levels (Q1 2013). Read the Chinese press; it is daily news. Definitely prices have not collapsed, only their growth rates (and short-term). The economy has also not yet entered anything like a real slowdown. All of this is premature speculation. "2011" is a fabricated date. It is 2013 and real estate prices are going up. We have not seen long-term trend change.

Second, the slowdown in growth rates happened during a 12-year political transition (late 2012). This was obviously by design as a signal that the government could "control" prices. Thus this article's narrative is just government rhetoric: With decisive action from the new leadership, housing prices are now under control and the bubble is over without any serious repercussions ("popping"). But we do not know if these actions have had a long-term effect, because they are *recent*. We only know the government sought to make headlines during the political transition. Again, no clear long-term trend.

P.S. The article should probably be divided into a "fundamentals" section, a background section, and a criticism section.

Vector4F (talk) 13:50, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly the title should be repaired to something a little more generic, as it seems to be ongoing and the title is two years out of date. -- stillnotelf is invisible 18:31, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Two years later any update on going in 2015? Or any information when it ended. Title and lede have different dates.Jonpatterns (talk) 08:19, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Vector4F, Stillnotelf, and Jonpatterns: I came to this page to query an IP edit here that changed the text to read "from 2005-2011" to "2005-2013", while leaving the page title unchanged. Mind you they have given sources. Just FYI. 220 of ^Borg 13:16, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch, I've restored the information the IP removed. I've also kept the new information the IP provided. Article needs more and better references. The sources conflict for when the bubble started and ended, and many are speculation.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:05, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the lede doesn't reflect the article.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:07, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps it should be specifically stated that the exact start/end are uncertain? I would have though some major financial magazine, or company would make some educated statement somewhere. 220 of ^Borg 16:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it's the future here.

It seems to have turned out that the bubble continued until the 2020s. "Ghost cities" continued being built as investment properties until about now, when suddenly many real estate companies collapsed and Chinese citizens started boycotting mortgage payments for houses that would never be completed/occupied. This could probably be reflected in the article somehow - anyone know any good articles on this? 20WattSphere (talk) 10:54, 22 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page name

Following up above discussion about the 'end' of the 'bubble', if the start/end of the 'bubble' are not certain, then perhaps years should be dropped from the page title? "Chinese property bubble" on its own, "2000s Chinese property bubble" or "21st Century Chinese property bubble"? 220 of ^Borg 16:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy for it to be renamed just "Chinese property bubble". There are, as far as I can tell, no other pages about a different Chinese property bubble. Therefore, no need to disambiguate by time period. If I get chance I'll look for articles that that give an overview of the situation.Jonpatterns (talk) 17:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Chinese property bubble (2005–11). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100108084021/http://businessmirror.com.ph:80/home/bloomberg-specials/20525-chinas-property-bubble-may-lead-to-us-style-real-estate-slump.html to http://businessmirror.com.ph/home/bloomberg-specials/20525-chinas-property-bubble-may-lead-to-us-style-real-estate-slump.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:09, 30 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hukou factor

I removed the section asserting without evidence that the hukou system contributed (?) to the bubble--or, more accurately, just stated that "hukous' premiums in big cities in China should be evaluated properly when justifying the Chinese property bubble." Unclear what this paragraph does, since it does not actually say anything about the bubble. I tried to do some research, but found nothing suggesting that the hukou system made bubbles more likely--if anything, it would seem they prohibit people from easily buying property, thus decreasing the likelihood of a bubble. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 21:19, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Years

What years did it start and end? 2005 and 2011 seem oddly specific. What do journalistic and academic sources say?

I am tempted to propose renaming it to remove the years. Maybe adding postscript on the 2020s crisis. 20WattSphere (talk) 12:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]