China owning US farmland

#26
#26
Rasputin_Vol said:
Yeah, and we're worried about "Russia Russia Russia"...

Meanwhile, we have members of our political class (on both sides of the political spectrum) that have some kind connection with the Chinese and we have corporations that are bending to China's will as the violate intellectual property/patent rights.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we funded china's rise to power by sending all good to be made over there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and AM64
#27
#27
Its pretty simple to control really and every other country I know has some form of legislation that covers it.

A national law making it a requirement that all real property must be owned by either a US national or a domestic corporation. Could play with the fringes (green card holders, etc) but that is the basic gist of it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol and AM64
#28
#28
Gandalf said:
Its pretty simple to control really and every other country I know has some form of legislation that covers it.

A national law making it a requirement that all real property must be owned by either a US national or a domestic corporation. Could play with the fringes (green card holders, etc) but that is the basic gist of it.
Click to expand...

The CCP has stolen trillions in IP and want to supplant our nation as premiere world leader. They are an enemy. No other way to reconcile the trillions of DoD to counter their efforts. Such a disconnect.
Our corporate interests in conjunction with federally elected leaders who are supported by these corporations, are gonna be the "rope" that we hang ourselves with.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#29
#29
C-south said:
They do this around the world with farming, mining, and just about everything else.
Click to expand...
American business owns manufacturing facilities all over China, not to the extent they own here but it's good insurance for us.....
 
#30
#30
#34
#34
hog88 said:
Good question. In some countries you would have to form a native corporation or other legal entity to purchase land, that sounds on the surface to be an idea in discussion.
Click to expand...
States rent ports to other countries I.e. the Saudi’s and the Indiana toll road to Spain for 75 years. They are just dovetailing off the ideas started by Railroad ownership. The Rr are owned by one family from nc and rented to corporations for 99 years. If the corporation defaults under the contract the next xyz company steps in to rent it. With the owning family taking a % off the profits and none of the responsibility for upkeep.
That’s why we have seen so many mergers of RR lines and so many old RR name disappear, they really aren’t mergers but new contract acquisitions.
I’ve seen this method in several different books I’ve read about RR companies plus what the previous master from the Elkhart Indiana yard told me
 
#35
#35
n_huffhines said:
Remember for the first few years of Trump how I explained ad nauseam that a trade deficit with China also means a capital surplus? This is what a capital surplus looks like in practice. The $ comes back to our economy, despite the imbalance in goods traded.
Click to expand...

Has to be about the biggest dumbass take I ever read on here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Caculator
#36
#36
Orangeburst said:
Has to be about the biggest dumbass take I ever read on here.
Click to expand...

It's not a take. It's an explanation of reality. I doubt you can put into words what your actual critique of my statement is.

A trade deficit reflects the fact that we buy more goods and services from abroad than we sell to foreigners. Foreigners take the earnings they receive from our spending (minus the goods and services they buy from us) and invest that sum in the U.S. The U.S. has a wealth of investment opportunities, but we have a low rate of domestic saving, so lots of investments in the U.S. wouldn’t get funded if foreigners weren’t willing to supply us with their savings.

Trade Deficit Is Really A Capital Surplus | Benjamin Powell
 
  • Like
Reactions: midnight orange
#37
#37
n_huffhines said:
It's not a take. It's an explanation of reality. I doubt you can put into words what your actual critique of my statement is.

Trade Deficit Is Really A Capital Surplus | Benjamin Powell
Click to expand...

Convoluted Dumbass take..Foreign investment by a foreign nation indicates surplus liquid capital to be able to purchase foreign properties. Why foreign investment by a nation is an indicator of a nations health, just as every empire in history. Just because there is value in American properties, does not indicate that the seller has more leverage than the buyer, just as an underwater home owner sells his property.
Frankly without the trade, the CCP would never of had the capital to procure the properties in the first place.
 
#38
#38
Orangeburst said:
Convoluted Dumbass take..Foreign investment by a foreign nation indicates surplus liquid capital to be able to purchase foreign properties. Why foreign investment by a nation is an indicator of a nations health, just as every empire in history. Just because there is value in American properties, does not indicate that the seller has more leverage than the buyer, just as an underwater home seller sells his property.
Frankly without the trade, the CCP would never of had the capital to procure the properties in the first place.
Click to expand...

You're just saying what I said, but calling it bad. It's not good. It's not bad. It just is. There are good things about it and bad things about it. It's good that we benefit from comparative advantage. It's bad that Americans are bad at saving. It's good that someone is investing in our economy. And so on.

Maybe cool it with the insults until you're smart enough to know what is actually being said.
 
#39
#39
n_huffhines said:
You're just saying what I said, but calling it bad. It's not good. It's not bad. It just is. There are good things about it and bad things about it. It's bad that Americans are bad at saving. It's good that someone is investing in our economy.

Maybe cool it with the insults until you're smart enough to know what is actually being said.
Click to expand...

Not what you said...

There is abolsutelyt nothing good about the CCP owning American properties...None.
But maybe you have not read the Reason article yet.
 
Last edited:
#40
#40
n_huffhines said:
Remember for the first few years of Trump how I explained ad nauseam that a trade deficit with China also means a capital surplus? This is what a capital surplus looks like in practice. The $ comes back to our economy, despite the imbalance in goods traded.
Click to expand...

This is to some degree what many have argued in the past as reason to allow foreigners to own real property/corps etc here. Essentially, the boom and bust cycle - Japan did it in NYC and then it crashed, meanwhile we had taken in a lot of their money also. Right now, much of the upward surge in prices for NYC housing is driven by foreign buying (plenty of it Chinese but Russia and others as well) - otherwise the NYC real estate market would crash like a lead balloon. Many argue that other home prices would crash if we banned FDI into real property.

The problem is this model does not really account for strategic powers. Japan was an economic power when it flexed its might in the 1980s. China is using its economic might to build a military power that rivals and surpasses our own and they have clear ambition for political hegemony insofar as they can. Even though we may not have had strict laws against it, it is inconceivable that we would have allowed the old USSR to do what China is doing now. The reality is, however, that they are in essentially the same place as a strategic rival and quite potentially, enemy.
 
#41
#41
Gandalf said:
This is to some degree what many have argued in the past as reason to allow foreigners to own real property/corps etc here. Essentially, the boom and bust cycle - Japan did it in NYC and then it crashed, meanwhile we had taken in a lot of their money also. Right now, much of the upward surge in prices for NYC housing is driven by foreign buying (plenty of it Chinese but Russia and others as well) - otherwise the NYC real estate market would crash like a lead balloon. Many argue that other home prices would crash if we banned FDI into real property.

The problem is this model does not really account for strategic powers. Japan was an economic power when it flexed its might in the 1980s. China is using its economic might to build a military power that rivals and surpasses our own and they have clear ambition for political hegemony insofar as they can. Even though we may not have had strict laws against it, it is inconceivable that we would have allowed the old USSR to do what China is doing now. The reality is, however, that they are in essentially the same place as a strategic rival and quite potentially, enemy.
Click to expand...

If you want to be afraid of China, that's fine. All I'm saying is that this is perfectly normal market activity. This is how we get our $ back when we trade it for goods. This is part of why our $ has value, particularly on the international stage. If you want to ban foreigners from buying land here because you are afraid, fine. It comes with a cost.
 
#42
#42
n_huffhines said:
If you want to be afraid of China, that's fine. All I'm saying is that this is perfectly normal market activity. This is how we get our $ back when we trade it for goods. This is part of why our $ has value, particularly on the international stage. If you want to ban foreigners from buying land here because you are afraid, fine. It comes with a cost.
Click to expand...

I think you are right in this and in most cases, it is not an issue. The two areas I think it is manifestly undesirable is weapons and land. One can say certain types of advanced tech or the manufacturing base, etc and those are arguable but the two that are not are land and guns. Because if you sell those two things to foreigners you either sell them the actual country or the physical ability to take it from you.
 
#43
#43
Gandalf said:
I think you are right in this and in most cases, it is not an issue. The two areas I think it is manifestly undesirable is weapons and land. One can say certain types of advanced tech or the manufacturing base, etc and those are arguable but the two that are not are land and guns. Because if you sell those two things to foreigners you either sell them the actual country or the physical ability to take it from you.
Click to expand...

I honestly don't know nearly enough about any of this to weigh security concerns against economic benefit.
 
#44
#44
hog88 said:
No! Absolutely not! Nationalizing anything privately owned is a horrible idea and should be opposed by everyone.
Click to expand...
Generally yes, but if you believe a foreign government is trying to control your country by purchasing properties within our borders then I would be all for nationalizing those properties. JMO
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
#45
#45
Years ago people went wild when the Japanese bought Pebble Beach golf course in California. A few years later the real estate market collapsed and they lost their ass when they sold it for about half of what they paid for it.
 
#47
#47
Gandalf said:
This is to some degree what many have argued in the past as reason to allow foreigners to own real property/corps etc here. Essentially, the boom and bust cycle - Japan did it in NYC and then it crashed, meanwhile we had taken in a lot of their money also. Right now, much of the upward surge in prices for NYC housing is driven by foreign buying (plenty of it Chinese but Russia and others as well) - otherwise the NYC real estate market would crash like a lead balloon. Many argue that other home prices would crash if we banned FDI into real property.

The problem is this model does not really account for strategic powers. Japan was an economic power when it flexed its might in the 1980s. China is using its economic might to build a military power that rivals and surpasses our own and they have clear ambition for political hegemony insofar as they can. Even though we may not have had strict laws against it, it is inconceivable that we would have allowed the old USSR to do what China is doing now. The reality is, however, that they are in essentially the same place as a strategic rival and quite potentially, enemy.
Click to expand...
I forget the exact stats but something like 50% of China’s agriculture is done with manual or animal labor as opposed to like 2% of US agriculture. Your not taking over the world with that kind of poverty. All this China pants pissing is us just moving to the next hobgoblin.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top