Chinese investors buying up US real estate.

[CaseyCBenn]

I have been reading different articles around the web since April about how Chinese investors are buying up property in the United States.

Does this alarm anybody else here?

Here is the latest article on the subject in the Wall Street Journal.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304765304577478573004173212.html?m od=googlenews_wsj

I have this horrible feeling now that I have been reading more and more about this situation.

Ron Paul has already discussed how we borrow billions of dollars from China so we can pay for the wars in numerous speeches, videos and debates.

This borrowing contributes to the seemingly endless growing national debt and reduction in the value of the US dollar.

Now we are looking at the prospect that the Chinese are going to own more and more property in the USA?

On the one hand you could say that the free market is free or should be free enough to do this.

On the other hand you could notice that giving real estate (i.e. ground, often fought for in wars) to people in a country where they have no interest in liberty or individual rights is akin to giving away the very thing that people (friends and families for generations) have fought and died for. Our private property rights are inexplicably woven with our individual liberty rights given in our Constitution. The idea that a citizen of a nation that doesn't cares for or defends either of those ideals or rights can encroach upon our rights by simply buying up space that will now contribute to their ability to dictate property, wealth, and ultimately power on our soil.

Understand that I am a strong defender of Capitalism. I defend the idea of free markets such that I have to point out when I think we are selling ourselves, and possibly our ideals, short to people who ultimately don't care about liberty or the Constitution.

Its bad enough that everything is made in China (oh, hello Apple products), that a huge portion of our govt spending budget is borrowed from China, and now we have to deal with the fact that China is doubling up its property purchasing in the USA. China, with other countries, was looking at possible changing the oil reserve currency away from the US dollar.

What do we have left? Is there anything the last generation isn't going to take away from mine? They all grew up in a nice country in the 50s only to sell it off.

Maybe instead of worrying I should I just embrace this as the bigger, more modern, free market and dive right in.

Opinions?

[Brian4Liberty]

The Chinese, Goldman Sachs, and various other big money funds are now buying up low-end residential real estate. A return to the time when no common people owned land, instead the land owners owned you.

[Zippyjuan]

We saw the exact same thing in the 1980's with Japan. They were our biggest trading partner and biggest investor (they are still right behind the Chinese in the amount of US debt they hold- both have about six percent). Same as China today in many respects. People were worried that Japan was taking us over.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950de4d61f38f935a15752c0a9639c8b 63&pagewanted=all

Japanese investment in United States real estate soared in the 1980's, as companies and financial institutions poured nearly $300 billion into high-profile properties like Rockefeller Center in New York and the Pebble Beach Golf Club in California. But the value of many of these assets plunged by as much as 50 percent in the early 90's, and for more than a decade, the Japanese have been sellers rather than buyers.

[Brian4Liberty]

We saw the exact same thing in the 1980's with Japan. They were our biggest trading partner and biggest investor. Same as China today in many respects. People were worried that Japan was taking us over.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950de4d61f38f935a15752c0a9639c8b 63&pagewanted=all

Huge difference: we were not broke and massively in debt at the time.

[dannno]

OP is correct when he says this is not an outcome of free market capitalist policies. This is the outcome of managed currencies and managed economies.

[Zippyjuan]

As a percent of GDP, the US debt in the mid 1980's was about the same as it is today (it was lower in 1980, yes). By 1990 it was higher than now so by that measure, we are not necessarily more broke today than we were back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/463px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

[Brian4Liberty]

Lies, damned lies, and statistics. :p

[Acala]

An awful lot of group think in the OP. When you say "the Chinese" are buying real estate, do you mean the government of China? Or do you mean Chinese corporations? Or do you mean individual Chinese people?

And when you talk about "What do we have left? Is there anything the last generation isn't going to take away from mine?" Are you actually losing anything YOU own? Or are you just angry that things you DON'T own (but seem to feel you have some vague claim to)are changing hands?

And when you talk about "Our private property rights are inexplicably woven with our individual liberty rights given in our Constitution. The idea that a citizen of a nation that doesn't cares for or defends either of those ideals or rights can encroach upon our rights" are you suggesting that people in the USA actually DO care about liberty and property rights? Because that is not what I see. As far as I know, individual people from China very well might care MORE about liberty than the average American idiot.

Are you equally concerned about people from socialist European countries buying real estate in the USA? Or is this a racial thing?

[Zippyjuan]

Americans are always buying things all over the world ourselves. Even in China.

[Southron]

Are you equally concerned about people from socialist European countries buying real estate in the USA? Or is this a racial thing?

Personally, I don't want foreign citizens, governments or corporations owning U.S. property.

And I don't care how much "economic prosperity" we are supposed to gain from it.

[CaseyCBenn]

An awful lot of group think in the OP. When you say "the Chinese" are buying real estate, do you mean the government of China? Or do you mean Chinese corporations? Or do you mean individual Chinese people?

And when you talk about "What do we have left? Is there anything the last generation isn't going to take away from mine?" Are you actually losing anything YOU own? Or are you just angry that things you DON'T own (but seem to feel you have some vague claim to)are changing hands?

And when you talk about "Our private property rights are inexplicably woven with our individual liberty rights given in our Constitution. The idea that a citizen of a nation that doesn't cares for or defends either of those ideals or rights can encroach upon our rights" are you suggesting that people in the USA actually DO care about liberty and property rights? Because that is not what I see. As far as I know, individual people from China very well might care MORE about liberty than the average American idiot.

Are you equally concerned about people from socialist European countries buying real estate in the USA? Or is this a racial thing?

All very valid questions to put forward. I did not mean to come across as a group thinking, collectivist.

You have added some focus to the context which is largely appreciated. Let me see if I can answer these better.

1. Overall I wasn't distinguishing between the Chinese govt or the private populace in my statement. The deduction should be made because they can be very different in purpose. In the article it seems to focus mainly on Chinese entrepreneurs. So at first glance it looks like people who also embrace free market capitalism. Though it is of note that people in all govt also can run private businesses and so I often look at this combination now. In cases where Wal Mart was able to use Imminent Domain laws (an abomination of property rights and the principles of the Founding Fathers in my opinion.) to force people out of house and home for the sake of the "economy". Ruining private property rights.

So I will also look at private individuals that are close buddies of public servants and their funding interests not only in the USA but now on the global level as it seems everyone is participating in the global market in one way or another.

This is initially not a bad thing when its about innovation, ideas, and trade. At the political level, where a market economy can be the life blood for one govt or another (Russia going bankrupt in the arms race), I don't like the fact that China can utilize our livelihood (US way of life) as a means to hold its communist oppressive, anti-individualist govt in place.

Even Jackie Chan came under fire for supporting a free Taiwan against the will of the Chinese govt. This was also a case in Tibet as well.

We have exceptions in China like Hong Kong and Singapore which are like tiny little Capitalist societies that happen to be inside China.

2. As far as "What is left" I am trying to focus on the fact that the current generation in political power grew up during the 50s when you had the father of the house primarily bringing home income for nuclear style families. A house of four or more with a car. Most manufacturing was here in the States, the currency value was much better. The overall cost of living vs the amount the average person earned was conducive towards a single income for a family.

Now we see the opposite of this in all areas. Things Ron Paul has warned of and pointed out numerous times in his 30 year political run.

My generation (I am 35 years old now) is being told that Social Security will be bankrupt by the time I am of retiring age (Not that I expected to use that anyways, I am too independent). We see the govt pass multiple bailouts, taking tax money from us to do so and adding to the current US debt, so that the real estate market and stock markets can keep their numbers inflated as opposed to allowing the market to correct itself. All while ruining the currency value in trying to achieve this.

Then we are told we have to size down out lives since the "free market failed". Though I still believe that it was the government intervention and manipulation of the markets that made it fail. Meanwhile my generation is watching its currency lose value, its prospects being exported to every other place in the world, even in my visual effects industry they are trying to get much of the work moved to other countries now. This is even more absurd. Its like the liberals in California that keep raising taxes in hopes of solving a "budget crisis" and these tax increases and other "fees" ended up chasing many vfx companies to open up shops in Vancouver or Florida and even Austrailia and Singapore now (There is that China again). This ends up making it so that the business done by said companies now is taxed by country of business. So how does California benefit from a company that left to do business in Vancouver? They can't even collect taxes on that business now. Canada does.

One begins to see that a property management owned by a Chinese company would be raking in large sums of money from its US area which may not be easily circulated back to the US area maybe save that some taxes are funneled off. Which I already dislike the fact that we have many more taxes in place now for things then when I was a kid growing up. So in this indirect way I am concerned about, like the Wal Mart, imminent domain cases, that you could have some very bad issues with with influence from China, even in cases where its a private company.

Like GE not paying any taxes while funding Obama, while Obama says corporations need to pay more taxes. The machine feeds itself.

3. Your point at the end about the Chinese individual or company caring more about liberty then the average American was also given some thought. Which is why I stated I that may need not have to worry and just embrace the new global economy. There are many cases where someone coming to the USA to make a living has turned out really well. Cough Cough Ayn Rand. This may make China embrace a more individualist approach. But how to they change their govt from communist?

4. I am not racist. I am equally concerned with any race or culture having opposing philosophical, economic, and political views then that of the liberty minded, pro-individual rights and freedoms. Today that just happens to be a country where they make our ipads with human slaves because someone can. If we tried to run a factory in the USA that made iPads the same way they do in the one in China you would be hearing of endless atrocities in business practice in the USA.

http://www.huliq.com/10282/apple-foxconn-electronics-manufacturer-blamed-chinese-child-slave-labor

But, we just accept that as a way of life for the Chinese.

Meanwhile the govt invites some of these same entrepreneurs to do business here. Make money off of our honest labor and lives for the most part and then possibly use to to set up shops in China like Foxconn. Maybe life has always been this way in one form or another and I am just paying attention more lately.

Apple use to manufacture here. Now in China. Everything seems to be heading towards China. China China China China. We send jobs there. We borrow money from there, we buy fireworks from there to celebrate "Independence Day".

4. I am not racist nor do I have hubris about American pride. What I am concerned about is this seemingly endless drift towards giving everything of value away towards any and everything Chinese because well. They are the US. govt's sugar daddy right now. But I think it may be an even more abusive pimp down the road.

I am not all gloom and doom. Yet, I am here gauging people's opinions on this subject because of my own reactive nature to it over the last 15 years. Watching this trend become a way of life. Ultimately it may be a happy accident. In the end maybe instead of inheriting more of China's ways we are just slowly bleeding liberty and capitalism into China.

If that is the case then... Well....I guess I just have to weather the currency devalue and property prices being raised as a way of life in this global economy.

Still, somehow from listening to Ron Paul the last 15 years I have a feeling he's been trying to address this issue too.

I am pro-capitalist so I am not concerned with corporations in general per say but rather the way a corporation and a govt political body can work together to create an unfair monopoly by ways of legal favors etc.

The US govt is in debt with China and I am concerned some of this property sell off may due to said debts with China.

This site may be a bit over the top but the points made are still valid.

http://endoftheamericandream.com/archives/45-signs-that-china-is-colonizing-america

Maybe the US dollar will keep going down in value until its cheaper for other places to do business here. ;)

I am not trying to sound the alarm or freak out. I am just trying to gauge opinion here in this forum, with other critical thinkers, to help me get a sense of how other people are adjusting to this Chinese influence. Maybe its a positive thing. Maybe not. Which is why I am asking.

:) Thanks for the responses.

[Zippyjuan]

Personally, I don't want foreign citizens, governments or corporations owning U.S. property.

And I don't care how much "economic prosperity" we are supposed to gain from it.

They can't export it back to their country.They can buy say a Picasso and take that home but can't take land away.

[Acala]

The problems are what Ron Paul always focuses on - monetary policy, fiscal responsibility, limited government, and non-intervention. Pursue those and it won't matter who comes and goes and who buys real estate.

[The Free Hornet]

As a percent of GDP, the US debt in the mid 1980's was about the same as it is today (it was lower in 1980, yes). By 1990 it was higher than now so by that measure, we are not necessarily more broke today than we were back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/463px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

The point of interest is the source: "US Budget FY2009". "2010" is on the graph, but this appears to predate it.

We have exceeded 100% debt as a % of GDP:

1480


Your "today" was 4 years ago or so:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

[torchbearer]

As a percent of GDP,


hold on there, chart boy! isn't government spending included in GDP?
doesn't that skew the results as being not a representative of true market activity?
i mean, if we are talking about domestic production- how could you figure in government cost and get a good number?
and how can you compare year to year when the percentage of government spending as related to domestic production is always changing?

[Zippyjuan]

Percent GDP is the best way to show how it has grown relative to the size of the economy. If you have twice as many people producing twice as much as you used to, is it accurate to say you are spending twice as much if your budget doubled in that time? It isn't perfect but is a better number than simply looking at the raw deficit number. Should we discount for inflation as well? The percent of GDP tries to capture that since it should be roughly impacted by inflation the same. If you have a different number you would like to suggest we can certainly take a look at it.

[Zippyjuan]

The point of interest is the source: "US Budget FY2009". "2010" is on the graph, but this appears to predate it.

We have exceeded 100% debt as a % of GDP:

1480


Your "today" was 4 years ago or so:
http://www.usdebtclock.org/#

Thanks for pointing that out. I did not catch the bit about 2010 being estimated (hence the dotted line). The Total Debt number is also small- they must be looking at "public debt"- the percent which is not held by the US governement or its agencies (they, which includes Social Security hold about half the US debt). When Obama took office in 2009 total debt was over $10 trillion- not $5 trillion or so shown. Sorry- not as good a choice for a chart. Guilty.

Update: Yep- the public portion of the debt- which is why it is not 100% of GDP. We (or at least I) don't need to completely reject the chart.


Time series of U.S. public debt overlaid with partisan affiliation of the White House. The upper graph shows the U.S. public debt in trillions of USD while the lower graph shows the U.S. public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Data are from the FY 2009 U.S. Budget report, Table 7.1.

[torchbearer]

Percent GDP is the best way to show how it has grown relative to the size of the economy. If you have twice as many people producing twice as much as you used to, is it accurate to say you are spending twice as much if your budget doubled in that time? It isn't perfect but is a better number than simply looking at the raw deficit number. Should we discount for inflation as well? The percent of GDP tries to capture that since it should be roughly impacted by inflation the same. If you have a different number you would like to suggest we can certainly take a look at it.


just bugs me to see people use GDP and inflation numbers as if they mean anything, but when you look at their input values, you see many flaws that render the output meaningless. or at least, meaningless in the context they are most commonly used.
why not have a GDP without government spending? compare private market growth compared to public sector growth.
government spending is a negative to the private market as the government does not produce wealth, it only confiscates it. it either confiscates it now through inflation and taxation. or it confiscates it from future resources through borrowing. either way, it destroys the meaning of GDP to add such info to it.

[torchbearer]

for instance, if the government confiscated all wealth and spent it on bombs overseas. the gdp would look great, but the production of the country would be nothing.
you could literally have a starving population with a gdp figure through the roof.

[Zippyjuan]

just bugs me to see people use GDP and inflation numbers as if they mean anything, but when you look at their input values, you see many flaws that render the output meaningless. or at least, meaningless in the context they are most commonly used.
why not have a GDP without government spending? compare private market growth compared to public sector growth.
government spending is a negative to the private market as the government does not produce wealth, it only confiscates it. it either confiscates it now through inflation and taxation. or it confiscates it from future resources through borrowing. either way, it destroys the meaning of GDP to add such info to it.

Good points. Thanks.

[torchbearer]

if you look at the debt as the confiscation of future resources, it doesn't look good for us.
its a game of kick the can until you can't kick it anymore. the resources of our children's children has already been taken.

[LibForestPaul]

What is meant by Chinese buying up real estate...who?

The Heads of the State Owned Enterprises as well as their capos, and connected family members, are laundering their ill-gotten gains in American real-estate.

[Danan]

Personally, I don't want foreign citizens, governments or corporations owning U.S. property.

And I don't care how much "economic prosperity" we are supposed to gain from it.

Should US citizens be allowed to own property over seas? Have fun in a totally isolated economy.

[Danan]

just bugs me to see people use GDP and inflation numbers as if they mean anything, but when you look at their input values, you see many flaws that render the output meaningless. or at least, meaningless in the context they are most commonly used.
why not have a GDP without government spending? compare private market growth compared to public sector growth.
government spending is a negative to the private market as the government does not produce wealth, it only confiscates it. it either confiscates it now through inflation and taxation. or it confiscates it from future resources through borrowing. either way, it destroys the meaning of GDP to add such info to it.

This argument is not new but I really don't buy it. And that although I am as anti-government as one can possible be.

But economically it's just not true that government spending always has to be "negative" in comparison with no spending at all. Of course it's not better than the private alternatives that would evolve in absence of government spending but that's not what GDP is about.

For instance if Obama decided tomorrow that he is going to nationalize the whole economy and succeeded with this plan, but continued to produce the exact same goods and services - would the United States suddenly produce negative "aggregate value"? Of course over time this form of ownership will destroy the economy and so on, everyone here should know that already, but the point is that government ownership <b>per se</b> doesn't change the value of the produced goods and services. It will only subsequently change the produced products themselves because this economic system can't respond to market signals as well als a free market. But you can't say that these products wouldn't have any value at all just because the state produced them. And it's only the value of products and services that GDP wants to measure.

The acutal monetary value of these goods would be very difficult (or impossible) to determine - that's true. And while the example of bombs shows very well where government spending might even have negative value there are other examples too. For instance public roads. I would certainly prefere private roads over public ones, but in the meantime we have to count in public roads too, if we want to have some data over the overall value produced over a certain period in a certain area. Of course the costs of public roads (or the price the government pays for them) doesn't reflect real free market value, but it's just bad economics to leave them out alltogether as if they wouldn't provide any value at all.

[torchbearer]

This argument is not new but I really don't buy it. And that although I am as anti-government as one can possible be.

But economically it's just not true that government spending always has to be "negative" in comparison with no spending at all. Of course it's not better than the private alternatives that would evolve in absence of government spending but that's not what GDP is about.

For instance if Obama decided tomorrow that he is going to nationalize the whole economy and succeeded with this plan, but continued to produce the exact same goods and services - would the United States suddenly produce negative "aggregate value"? Of course over time this form of ownership will destroy the economy and so on, everyone here should know that already, but the point is that government ownership <b>per se</b> doesn't change the value of the produced goods and services. It will only subsequently change the produced products themselves because this economic system can't respond to market signals as well als a free market. But you can't say that these products wouldn't have any value at all just because the state produced them. And it's only the value of products and services that GDP wants to measure.

The acutal monetary value of these goods would be very difficult (or impossible) to determine - that's true. And while the example of bombs shows very well where government spending might even have negative value there are other examples too. For instance public roads. I would certainly prefere private roads over public ones, but in the meantime we have to count in public roads too, if we want to have some data over the overall value produced over a certain period in a certain area. Of course the costs of public roads (or the price the government pays for them) doesn't reflect real free market value, but it's just bad economics to leave them out alltogether as if they wouldn't provide any value at all.


where does the government get its money?
it sells packets of policies? people line up around the corner to consume demagoguery? 5 dollars a hit?

[PaulConventionWV]

The Chinese, Goldman Sachs, and various other big money funds are now buying up low-end residential real estate. A return to the time when no common people owned land, instead the land owners owned you.

My dad and I are buying up real estate and renting it out. Does that make us bad people?

[Brian4Liberty]

My dad and I are buying up real estate and renting it out. Does that make us bad people?

Are you on the Board of the Federal Reserve? Have any buddies there? Any politicians in your pocket? Are you in a position to set or influence government law and/or policy to favor yourself? Any buddies who can do that for you? Are you paying any bribes? Are you doing any exclusive backroom deals with Freddie, Fannie or a large bank? Are you engaging in any fraud?

You may be "good" people if you answered "no" to all of the above. ;)

[PaulConventionWV]

Are you on the Board of the Federal Reserve? Have any buddies there? Any politicians in your pocket? Are you in a position to set or influence government law and/or policy to favor yourself? Any buddies who can do that for you? Are you paying any bribes? Are you doing any exclusive backroom deals with Freddie, Fannie or a large bank? Are you engaging in any fraud?

You may be "good" people if you answered "no" to all of the above. ;)

Thank you so much for your stamp of approval. :)

[Danan]

where does the government get its money?
it sells packets of policies? people line up around the corner to consume demagoguery? 5 dollars a hit?

I didn't say that what the government does with the money is better than what the people would do with it if they didn't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't mean that public goods always have no or even negative value. That's just not true.

Again, that doesn't mean that government taking money and spending it is a good thing. But the produced goods and services do have a positive value (at least most of them). Allthough not as much as GDP says since the pricing-system doesn't work very good when coercion is involved.


The best way to illustrate this is that a completely socialist country where the means of production are socialized would still produce some kind of positive GDP. Because if these goods and services wouldn't have any value (or even negative value) people wouldn't want to consume them. But that's not the case.

Sure people in Soviet Russia would have prefered western goods but they still chose to consume food, cloths and houses made by the government. Because it still provided some kind of positive utility / value to them. And that's what we want to measure. Of course the same society would produce much more value in a free market scenario but to say public goods don't provide any utility is bad economics.


Also this is just a positive economical analysis. The position that taxation is theft (which I agree on) is normative but that doesn't have very much to do with how GDP is measured.

[torchbearer]

I didn't say that what the government does with the money is better than what the people would do with it if they didn't have to pay taxes. But that doesn't mean that public goods always have no or even negative value. That's just not true.

Again, that doesn't mean that government taking money and spending it is a good thing. But the produced goods and services do have a positive value (at least most of them). Allthough not as much as GDP says since the pricing-system doesn't work very good when coercion is involved.


The best way to illustrate this is that a completely socialist country where the means of production are socialized would still produce some kind of positive GDP. Because if these goods and services wouldn't have any value (or even negative value) people wouldn't want to consume them. But that's not the case.

Sure people in Soviet Russia would have prefered western goods but they still chose to consume food, cloths and houses made by the government. Because it still provided some kind of positive utility / value to them. And that's what we want to measure. Of course the same society would produce much more value in a free market scenario but to say public goods don't provide any utility is bad economics.


Also this is just a positive economical analysis. The position that taxation is theft (which I agree on) is normative but that doesn't have very much to do with how GDP is measured.

but its not domestic production, its domestic waste. squandering the private person's resource on non-productive ventures.
so you add the productive use of resources with the destructive use of resources and you get what?
our domestic production? our production was what was left over after the government took its "protection money". you know, we pay, so bad things don't happen to us.

[erowe1]

As a percent of GDP, the US debt in the mid 1980's was about the same as it is today (it was lower in 1980, yes). By 1990 it was higher than now so by that measure, we are not necessarily more broke today than we were back then.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Debt_Trend.svg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/78/US_Debt_Trend.svg/463px-US_Debt_Trend.svg.png

That graph only goes to 2009. I'm pretty sure the debt/GDP ratio today is significantly worse than it was in 1990.

[Danan]

but its not domestic production, its domestic waste. squandering the private person's resource on non-productive ventures.
so you add the productive use of resources with the destructive use of resources and you get what?
our domestic production? our production was what was left over after the government took its "protection money". you know, we pay, so bad things don't happen to us.


I'm always very reluctant to call myself an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist. But when it really comes down to it and if I were really honest about it I'd probably have to say that I am one.

I just tell this so that there's no confusion about what I think about government spending. I'd like to see it gone altogether.


But the thing is I also care about intellectual integrety and truth and it's just not true that public spending can't have any value. Value in the economic definition (since this is what we're talking about) which is: This product provides me utility. If the amount of money I'd have to pay for it is more valuable to me is a different question.


If what you say were true and public spending is nothing but waste then people wouldn't use public goods and services even when they are forced to pay for them. I'd have no use for waste even if some thug forced me to buy it. If he puts a gun to my head to purchase his garbage I'd give him the money but tell him he can keep his crap. It doesn't have any positive value for me. In fact it would even decrease my utility to have junk in my possession.

When analyzing value of produced goods and services it's of no importance how these products were financed. We just look at the things themselves and have to realize that public roads for example do add value. The only important question is: Were we better off if these products wouldn't exist at all even without getting the money back they costed to create them.

Again: If a president all the sudden completely socializes a totally free market the aggregate value of the produced goods and services wouldn't instantly cease to exist. It would slowly become lower and lower because socialism doesn't work but it most likely wouldn't ever reach zero utility.


And that value is what GDP wants to measure. Of course it's not perfect in doing so but leaving out or even subtracting public goods doesn't make any sense. Because GDP isn't about, "what could be if government left us alone?" but about, "what is?"

If you really say that public goods don't provide any (economic) value to you then I assume you never once used a public road since using it as opposed to not using it is a clear sign that you value the road although it's public.

[Brian4Liberty]

Thank you so much for your stamp of approval. :)

De nada! :D

[torchbearer]

I'm always very reluctant to call myself an anarchist/anarcho-capitalist. But when it really comes down to it and if I were really honest about it I'd probably have to say that I am one.

I just tell this so that there's no confusion about what I think about government spending. I'd like to see it gone altogether.


But the thing is I also care about intellectual integrety and truth and it's just not true that public spending can't have any value. Value in the economic definition (since this is what we're talking about) which is: This product provides me utility. If the amount of money I'd have to pay for it is more valuable to me is a different question.


If what you say were true and public spending is nothing but waste then people wouldn't use public goods and services even when they are forced to pay for them. I'd have no use for waste even if some thug forced me to buy it. If he puts a gun to my head to purchase his garbage I'd give him the money but tell him he can keep his crap. It doesn't have any positive value for me. In fact it would even decrease my utility to have junk in my possession.

When analyzing value of produced goods and services it's of no importance how these products were financed. We just look at the things themselves and have to realize that public roads for example do add value. The only important question is: Were we better off if these products wouldn't exist at all even without getting the money back they costed to create them.

Again: If a president all the sudden completely socializes a totally free market the aggregate value of the produced goods and services wouldn't instantly cease to exist. It would slowly become lower and lower because socialism doesn't work but it most likely wouldn't ever reach zero utility.


And that value is what GDP wants to measure. Of course it's not perfect in doing so but leaving out or even subtracting public goods doesn't make any sense. Because GDP isn't about, "what could be if government left us alone?" but about, "what is?"

If you really say that public goods don't provide any (economic) value to you then I assume you never once used a public road since using it as opposed to not using it is a clear sign that you value the road although it's public.

what percent of the government is really productive? utility/roads makes up what percent of the 4 trillion dollar yearly budget?
producing bombs is not producing wealth. blowing things up doesn't increase your standard of living. it destroys it.
government is destructive to production. every year it keep business from getting their full profits. money that would stimulate the real economy. their ill gotten gains go to their buddies, the business of force is not productive at all, even if they do provide some utilities at some local level.

[idiom]

What if they bought huge tracts of land and gave it to the natives?

All those wars and seizures for nothing.

[Danan]

what percent of the government is really productive? utility/roads makes up what percent of the 4 trillion dollar yearly budget?
producing bombs is not producing wealth. blowing things up doesn't increase your standard of living. it destroys it.
government is destructive to production. every year it keep business from getting their full profits. money that would stimulate the real economy. their ill gotten gains go to their buddies, the business of force is not productive at all, even if they do provide some utilities at some local level.

The biggest part is wellfare but transfers aren't counted in GDP. Public schools are "valuable" because no matter how terrible they are the kids still are better off than with no education at all (I don't say that this were the free market alternative, but that's what's important when determining it's economic value). The military has a few "valuable" parts that would most likely also exist in some form or another in a totally free society but also huge parts that are destructive and shouldn't exist. The same is true for the police and for most regulatory agencies. The free market would provide regulations too but although better and cheaper someone / everyone had to pay for them too. The whole judicial system is valuable. I also mentioned infrastructure. Healthcare related spending adds value to it's recipient (again: the free market alternative would be better, but still).

It's not a question if the free market would do things better. It always would. But just because it's mediocre at best doesn't mean it's not valuable at all.

[torchbearer]

The biggest part is wellfare but transfers aren't counted in GDP. Public schools are "valuable" because no matter how terrible they are the kids still are better off than with no education at all (I don't say that this were the free market alternative, but that's what's important when determining it's economic value). The military has a few "valuable" parts that would most likely also exist in some form or another in a totally free society but also huge parts that are destructive and shouldn't exist. The same is true for the police and for most regulatory agencies. The free market would provide regulations too but although better and cheaper someone / everyone had to pay for them too. The whole judicial system is valuable. I also mentioned infrastructure. Healthcare related spending adds value to it's recipient (again: the free market alternative would be better, but still).

It's not a question if the free market would do things better. It always would. But just because it's mediocre at best doesn't mean it's not valuable at all.


sorry. i just wrote a big check to the u.s. treasury. money i no longer have for my own enterprise.

[awake]

The Chinese are the least of your worries...at best they are symptomatic. You have a communist central monetary authority here at home that is making it all possible. The Federal Reserve is as communist central planning as it gets.

If you want to stop the Chinese then end the "FED".

[Brian4Liberty]

Should US citizens be allowed to own property over seas? Have fun in a totally isolated economy.

Out of curiosity, what would it take for a US citizen to move to Austria and buy a house? How long would it take to qualify for free medical care and public assistance? When could I become an Austrian citizen and vote?

[Danan]

Out of curiosity, what would it take for a US citizen to move to Austria and buy a house? How long would it take to qualify for free medical care and public assistance? When could I become an Austrian citizen and vote?

As far as I know there aren't any requirements for you to buy the house or own any property under Austrian jurisdiction (like stocks, etc.). That's what I was talking about since that's comparable to Chinese citizens buying US property. To be honest I didn't read the whole article, but I guess it's not about Chinese people actually coming to the US.

Of course it's possible that we have all sorts of regulations here too but afaik the US is regulated heavier in that regard (at least that's what people like Peter Schiff say, Patriot Act, money laundering bills, etc.). But I never tried to buy something here as an non-citizen so I don't know.

What I do know is that there are no laws or special regulations against people from EU-member states in regards to the free flow of capital, people and goods and services. And that this is one of the very few things I like about the EU. It didn't hurt us in any way.


To my knowledge there is no visa required for US citizens if they want to come to Austria, although I don't know how long you're allowed to stay here that way. I'm not an expert on this but I think to move here permanently you'd have to prove qualifications, that you can speak the language to some extend, that you can make a living and so on. Personally I'd much rather get rid off these regulations altogether but that's another story. But I guess it's still easier than to get a green card.

You will only get "free medical care" in a sense that there are public (and "sorta public") health insurers and an insurancy mandate. So if you work, you'd have to pay a fraction of your income (per law) no matter how your health condition is. You can be uninsured too if you don't work or don't have a private insurancy policy. Citizens are insured if they are on public welfare too but that requires them to go to the job center every now and then and to apply for a couple of jobs. I don't think that non-citizens are eligible to that, though I could be wrong. After all they have to pay mandated social insurance contributions as long as they work which covers unemployment insurance too. This may also be temporary.

But you don't necessarily get "free healthcare" all the time. There was a time when I was uninsured because I served my time in community service and didn't know that I had to get a new insurance policy for the following months before I enter a new employment contract or start to study (at which point I'd get student grant and health insurance - yeah that's right, I get payed to study...).

For the record: I'm against "free healthcare", student grants, etc. but as long as they exist I take them happily. It's really the best way to convert working, socialist friends to libertarianism if you go out with them and order a huge steak while generously thanking them for their payment.


You get the right to vote if you're an Austrian citizen (but I belief EU-citizens may vote in local elections if they are residents). You can apply for citizenship after you have lived a couple of years in Austria (I don't know the exact amount). Then you have to pass a test and pay a fee afaik.

[Dianne]

Has anyone researched this? Apparently, once you have a land patent; you can't even be forced to pay property tax.

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/AllodialLandPatentReports/Truth%20-%20What%20Is%20A%20Land%20Patent%20-%20Allodial%20Titles.htm

[tod evans]

Okay, Chinese buy land here............What are they going to do with it?

Can't pack it up and take it home.

Ownership incurs tax liability....I suppose they could deduct it from the debt our politicians took on.

Or the could move here and enjoy it....or just vacation and enjoy the TSA coming and going.

They could build on it, but you've still got the tax/can't take it with you issues...

And......best of all when China declares war on the USA they'll loose all rights to it....

[Brian4Liberty]

As far as I know there aren't any requirements for you to buy the house or own any property under Austrian jurisdiction (like stocks, etc.). That's what I was talking about since that's comparable to Chinese citizens buying US property. To be honest I didn't read the whole article, but I guess it's not about Chinese people actually coming to the US.
...


It's almost exclusively the US (among first world nations) that allows foreigners to easily purchase property. Here's some info on Austria:


http://austria.usembassy.gov/res_realestate.html

Purchase of Real Estate

Purchase of real estate in Austria by foreigners has become more and more restricted in recent years. Jurisdiction in matters of real estate transactions remains with the provincial governments. In most provinces real estate purchases by foreigners are either prohibited or have to be approved by a governmental commission. Any real estate agent in Austria should be able to provide you with the details of local requirements and conditions.

[Danan]

It's almost exclusively the US (among first world nations) that allows foreigners to easily purchase property. Here's some info on Austria:

I didn't know about that and I certainly don't like it. Sadly this is an issue that will not very likely be adressed since only very few people in country A are going to vote for something that benefits citizens from country B...

[Danke]

Has anyone researched this? Apparently, once you have a land patent; you can't even be forced to pay property tax.

http://www.freedomforallseasons.org/AllodialLandPatentReports/Truth%20-%20What%20Is%20A%20Land%20Patent%20-%20Allodial%20Titles.htm

Yes, I have. It seems difficult. But I know of at least one individual that has had his farm in the family for ages and possesses the original land patent.

When I said they can't do eminent domain on him, he smiled and said "yep."

[libertariantexas]

We saw the exact same thing in the 1980's with Japan. They were our biggest trading partner and biggest investor (they are still right behind the Chinese in the amount of US debt they hold- both have about six percent). Same as China today in many respects. People were worried that Japan was taking us over.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950de4d61f38f935a15752c0a9639c8b 63&pagewanted=all

I remember back in the '70s when people were going berserk because Arabs were buying property in the USA with oil money.

[Xhin]

If I had the money and patience, I'd Carlos Slim a lot of real estate right now too. The market's excellent for long-term investments.