re <<nationalisation>>
it would appear that the kyle bass and such do not understand communism (a/k/a state-capitalism w/ particular characteristics)
thoughts from H (cited in first e-mail in chain) and deliberations all around
e-mail trail this sunday am
On 28 Oct 2018, at 6:23 AM, G wrote:
Correct
What are property rights.
Freehold. Great. But the state still has the ability to tax. And who votes for the state - only landowners , sadly not. So quite an easy tax grab for the masses to vote . Target Assets that can not move easily.
Just needed the balance of populations to tip which I believe has happened in many countries.
And then it is just case of how much blood can one take each year without killing the patient.
So maybe a few percent a year. Works if have inflationary society. But hard when have flat line Like in France
On Oct 27, 2018, at 4:47 PM, J wrote:
I believe, and it may all be, that ...
Reform plans are real and ‘they' have been inching cautiously forward, very deliberately.
The reform firstly is focused on the farm sector, the big sector, and SOE still babied.
Whatever we read, must still keep in mind what ‘they’ keep in mind, namely, “stability, growth, and reform”
X marks the spots.
As easy as investing in HK real estate along the MTR lines planned, ala obvious.
Breaking up SOE would be too obvious should one follow the wastrels from Ivy League schools and allow Russia II to happen.
Combining SOEs so they can be used, and further reformed seems to be the protocol. Takes true deliberation and genuine planning, that which 4-years election cycles cannot accommodate.
Long game means looooong game.
The idea that one cannot fully trust ‘them’ w/r to property rights is sound, and no less sound then believing same everywhere else on the planet.
Suspect the folks in China shall be less disappointed than folks in most of everywhere else, in the continental economies.
On 28 Oct 2018, at 2:53 AM, R wrote:
D, all I am pointing out is that people like Kyle Bass are analyzing China with insufficient information.
For example, if China's assets exceed that of their debt/liabilities, Bass' theories would be totally blown out of the water. He is comparing US debt, which is backed by taxing 300 million people and very little of anything else. The only enterprise that US owns is FRE and FANNIE, which would cost the government a bundle if they are privatized, and a bundle when the next real estate crash comes around.
Bass and others are forgetting that China is still a communist country and Xi is probably more ideological than many of his predecessors. China not only owns a bunch of SOEs, they also own China. When Bank of China prints money, it is backed by a whole different set of assets as the ECB or the BOJ or the Feds. I have never seen any good analysis from that approach.
On Sat, Oct 27, 2018 at 10:31 AM D wrote:
So they will privatize the SOEs.
Will locals buy into such privatization? Will they sell their apartments in order to raise cash? If yes, then sell to whom?
Will you buy? Do you trust Chinese commies to honor your property rights? Will Chinese government allow you to run the SOE to make shareholders rich?
From the link below:
In fact, as you know, just this year, they said global financial institutions are allowed to now own more than 50% of their financial institutions. So right after they wrecked their banking system, they're now inviting us in to invest in their banks.
Jack Ma was forced to resign and then he had to sign over his ownership in Alibaba to five unnamed individuals just three weeks ago.
CNBC Transcript: Hayman Capital Management Founder & Chief Investment Officer Kyle Bass Speaks with CNBC's David Faber
cnbc.com
On 10/27/2018 9:07 AM, R wrote:
What if China decides (which is not in their plans) to "reform" as the west demanded?
So they will privatize the SOEs. How much money would they generate? May be they can wipe out all debt and leave the central government a fortune?
As an example, how much is Tsinghua Unigroup if they list the company on NYSE?
scmp.com
Is it possible that Tsinghua University is wealthier than those obscenely wealthy Ivy League institutions?
This is not a pissing contest as to which country is better. My point is by using traditional data points compiled by western economists such as GDP, we may not be comparing apples to apples.
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 8:57 AM H wrote:
Purely from anecdotal observation of how China's aggregate output data have evolved over time, it always seemed to me that their statistics likely fail to capture economic activity in its entirety. There may still be large chunks that are not visible in the data (they have kept adding stuff over time, so it's hard to say what is still missing, but I think there has been a very slow transition toward more comprehensive measurement in the course of the economic transformation of the country).
Meanwhile, the pathological dip buying urge in the stock market lives on, as there are no signs of fear detectable anywhere. Imo this selling squall is highly unlikely to end before we see evidence of genuine fear in the market.
See the attached chart and this: reuters.com
On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 3:05 PM R wrote:
This IMF blog is very "good"
blogs.imf.org
Western economists refuse to acknowledge that Chinese economy cannot be measured in the same manner as western economies. The article touched on the infrastructure as assets but I have never seen a good analysis of how much the SOEs are worth, probably unavailable to measure.
So when you have debt, debt needs to measured against these assets. What if US government owns Lockheed, and then lend money to them, how do you measure Lockheed's value in the grand scheme of things?
On Thu, Oct 25, 2018 at 11:29 PM M wrote:
New piece on China by H
acting-man.com
M |
