Home Buyers from China-Help is on way for American Homeowners !

[terisan]

True or false___this is the second report I have seen on this phenomenon.


<http://english.people.com.cn/90001/90776/90883/6582931.html>

A pioneering house-buying team of 20 to 30 people, organized by Soufun.com, one of the largest real estate portals in China, is scheduled to leave for the United States on Feb. 12, according to an article on Soufun.com.

It is said more than 300 Chinese have registered so far on the website for a 10-day house-buying trip.

The U.S. mortgage crisis and the downturn in the global economy have presented people with a golden opportunity, said Liu Jian, an official of the Beijing-based real estate portal.

The trip, which costs up to 25,000 yuan (3,500 U.S. dollars) per person, will focus on cities with huge ethnic Chinese populations including San Francisco, Los Angeles, Las Vegas and New York, Liu said.

The prices of houses targeted by Chinese buyers are between 3 million to 5 million yuan (400,000 to 700,000 U.S. dollars), he said.

The applicants include real estate professionals who want to investigate in the U.S. real estate market, and parents who want to buy houses for their children studying or to study in the United States.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

1. Oh great. My friends are losing their homes and these people are buying them? nt

[SharonAnn]

2. Worse, they're buying them with your friends' money!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

3. This is like being raped twice. nt

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

28. No, they're buying them with their OWN money, that THEY earned. n/t

[peacetalksforall]

4. "these people" ?

[Sarah Ibarruri]

7. You bet. They have our jobs, they have more money, and now they're taking my friends' houses nt

[OhioChick]

18. You're right. n/t

[pampango]

26. They're foreigners, don't you know. Not only that they are Chinese foreigners.

Demonizing foreigners is always an easy way to escape responsibility for your problems.

You may not have been around in the 1980's when the Japanese economy was peaking and they were buying famous buildings and movie studios in the US. (Japan still owns more of our debt than China does, but you wouldn't know that from reading around here.) There was fear that Japan was going to end up owning the US. Needless to say, that never happened and the Japanese eventually sold those properties (at a loss) when their economy went sour.

Now we're afraid of the Chinese, not the Japanese. Same old story, just a different twist to it.

[treestar]

31. The Saudis, too

There was that running joke they were buying up Beverly Hills.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

27. Yeah that's just great.

It reminds me of conservatives screaming about "reverse racism."

[terisan]

6. Well I guess China has to buy something American to unload those dollars. What a mess!

[Sarah Ibarruri]

8. It's horrible. Republicans have destroyed the U.S. nt

[terisan]

9. Possibly the Big Bank Bailout will put us deeper in the hole and bring even more buyers

and eventually the mortgage real estate market will recover, with the mortgages being made to our Chinese investors.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

10. We're in a hopeless situation - if we let the banks sink, the economy will die with it, but...

the CEOs will just move to their mansion on Lac Léman in Switzerland, and enjoy the money they stole from us.

Why does this country keep voting for Republicans? Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Bush. Republicans rape the country and STILL this country keeps voting for Republicans.

[terisan]

11. I don't think we should extend money to the banks in bailout-the "assets" are worthless

If we shoulder the debt why should those first-tier banks get money?---they will just use it ti invest in China, not US.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

12. Okay, what is the alternative? nt

[terisan]

15. That is what the administration needs to put on the table--the first bailout

was supposed to unfreeze credit, which we were told had frozen. It did not unfreeze credit . Plus we have not even been given a complete report on where the money went.What we have discovered has often come to us indirectly.

Before agreeing to an additional bailout we must demand a proposal from the Administration and its Treasury Secretary which clearly states where the money will be allocated, how it will be used, what the anticipated result will be, how success will be measure.

These are the logical steps any government should be able to verify that they are taking . It is also the only way to hold the planners accountable.

It is quite possible that some the first "emergency" bailout funding has gone to overseas investments--markets seen as better investments than US or parts of Europe.

This would have been a logical move for the investment bankers to make and would also have been understood by Wall Street/ International Banking "experts" like Geithner, Rubin, Summers and others now in the power positions.

Eliot Spitzer, the sex scandal disgraced former governor of NY and prosecutor of Wall Street thieves writes in Slate now and opposed these bailouts.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

25. I'm not much of an expert on finances - why do you believe that wasn't done? nt

[terisan]

13. I had thought the Europeans would com et buy-but apparently they are broke nt

[Sarah Ibarruri]

37. Not really broke, but Europeans are not seeing the U.S. as very appealing...

Our infrastructure is a mess, we're a nation of crime, homelessness, bad health care, debt, deficit, financial disaster, bad education, etc. etc. etc. We are not what Hollywood portrays and this financial disaster has brought that out in the world press. The world sees how messed up we are. :(

[AdHocSolver]

17. Bailing out the banks will NOT save the economy. Bringing jobs back to the US will save the economy.

As long as the majority of goods we purchase are made offshore so that we go into debt to purchase those goods, the economy will NEVER recover.

This country is a debtor nation and does not "earn" enough money to pay off our debts. The corporate powers that be, in collusion with the government, has been selling this country's assets to pay for what we import.

Until this country produces a majority of the goods and sevices it consumes, a situation where Americans pay other Americans for goods and services, rather than Asians, we will never get out of the hole the corporations have dug for us.

To say we can develop new technologies to sell to Asia to cover our debts is a giant fraudulent claim. Most of the technology that Asians use to make the goods we buy from them came from the US in the first place. The corporations will sell any new technology developed here to China as well.

What is the solution? It is obvious. However, the economists and boob tube pundits controlled by the corporations won't say it. The solution is to rewrite the trade laws and tax laws to make it less profitable to export jobs, and give those companies who want to manufacture goods here an even playing field.

This means getting rid of corporate cartel agreements that prevent competition such as NAFTA, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO, and tax laws that allow corporations to evade taxes by such means as offshore dummy corporations. Another action to take is to tax executive stock options as regular income, not as capital gains. This would make Ponzi schemes less profitable for corporate executives.

Reinstitute the Glass-Steagall Act as well as other New Deal regulations on corporations to make it more difficult for them to pull off these frauds in the first place, and make enforcement of these laws a priority by funding those agencies responsible for enforcement.

The solution to the economic problems is straightforward. We are in this mess because corporate crooks and their puppets in the government essentially legalized theft. We merely have to undo their actions and the economy will correct itself.

[JDPriestly]

20. I wish I could recommend your post, AdHocSolver

You are so right. I have talked about this with an economist who argues the typical economists' line: if you look at free trade as a model, in theory, an economy that has the perfect combination of climate, land, resources and manpower to produce lots of wheat should be able to export to and import from the economy that is just perfect for producing bananas. Everything is supposed to balance out. One country gets wheat it needs and the other gets bananas it needs.

As most of us here on DU agree, reality has not worked like the model predicted it would. That is especially true with regard to big ticket items like steel and other manufactured goods. The country most willing to repress and exploit its labor and to ruin and spoil its environment gets to export to everybody else at such low prices that no one can compete with it -- and of course that country that experts to everybody accumulates a lot of money it wants to save, not spend on expensive goods from other countries.

What a mess we are in. We have to end the free trade stupidity.

[AdHocSolver]

22. That model of "free trade" doesn't exist, and cannot exist.

It sets up a totally inane set of conditions for it to work.

It postulates country A that grows wheat, and country B that grows bananas. Each country supposedly has advantages to produce one of these commodities. Then they trade commodities. Wow!

Reality check! What if country A (say, China) is large enough to have climate and soil that it can produce BOTH wheat and bananas economically? Why should it buy anything from country B?

This is where the "free trade" argument falls flat.

For any country to have a stable economy, most of its goods and services must be produced and purchased internally. It is only the marginal production (goods that it produces that are excess to what can be sold at home) which can be traded for another country's excess production, that should be involved in international trade. Then both countries benefit and neither country's economy will be threatened.

[pampango]

34. "Free trade" indeed doesn't exist, but should international trade exist?

"Free trade" is one of those words constructed by politicians (RW in this case) to sell an idea or policy. (Kind of like there being no "free lunch" either.) Trade involves costs and benefits, just like lunch does. Neither one is free. You only buy lunch if the satisfaction you get from it is worth the cost of the lunch. Same thing with trade.

Should large diverse countries (China, the US) not be allowed to trade? What if country A in your example is the US? Why should we buy anything from country B (China)? We buy oil from Canada (certainly a large and diverse country) and Mexico, even though we produce our own oil. Admittedly, if we stopped all oil imports the folks in Texas and Alaska would be quite happy, as their oil is going to be selling for a whole lot more in the domestic market without foreign competition.

I agree with you that countries should only export "excess production". The real problem is defining when does production become "excess" and who makes that decision. Boeing sells a lot of its jet in the US and exports lots of them. Our farmers sell lots of food domestically and export lots of it, too. Canada keeps some of its oil for domestic consumption and exports some, too. Japan sells some cars domestically and builds some in and exports others to foreign countries. France uses a lot of its wine domestically and exports much, too.

Who decides how much of French wine should be sold to the French and how much is "excess" and can be exported? The same question can be asked about Canadian oil and Boeing jets.

[AdHocSolver]

36. The trade "problem" exists because trade is controlled by a few monopolistic corporations.

The monopolies are little more than gangsters who control trade so as to eliminate competition and prevent companies which do not belong to the cartel to compete with the cartel.

American corporations complain that their hands are tied. China sells four or five times the amount of goods to the U.S. than they buy from the U.S. The corporations complain that their hands are tied. There is no way to rectify this situation.

NONSENSE!! The WTO and other cartel agreements have mechanisms for remedying this situation. The American corporations want an excuse NOT to produce anything in the U.S. Many of these Chinese companies were financed by the U.S. corporations. General Motors spent a billion and a half dollars just a few years ago to build Buicks in China at the same time that they were shutting plants in the U.S.

Because there is no competition, Chinese factories which would like to charge more for their products are threatened by U.S. buyers that they will not purchase anything from them. Since these huge corporations dominate this trade, they have the ability to put many Chinese companies out of business.

These tactics are how Wal-Mart brings you such low, low prices. They extort the Chinese companies to continually cut costs, which usually translates into working their employees harder and reducing their pay. This is also the reason that so many products from China are of such low quality. So long as this monopolistic power and ability to extort Chinese companies continues, the concept of "fair trade" promoted by progressives and unions is a joke that is going nowhere.

The trade problems are not the fault of the Chinese. They were created and orchestrated and maintained by American monopolies.

Therein lies the solution to the trade problems, and our huge trade deficits. Eliminate the power of the corporate cartels, allow for real competition in the market place, and the trade imbalances will correct themselves.

[JDPriestly]

39. Very intelligent! We agree.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

21. YOU ARE SO ON TARGET

[Sarah Ibarruri]

38. Oh my god, that's wonderful what you wrote. Would you mind doing an original post of it?

It's true and it's what we need.

[madeline_con]

5. A $400,000 to $700,000 house for their kids to live in while they go

to college? :wtf:

[Stevenmarc]

30. It's called a free education

It's not unheard of that parents that can afford to invest in real estate in a price range that has a projected profit that will cover the cost of their kids education would buy a house in that price range, or higher, for their kids, it's not just a Chinese thing.

[treestar]

33. And they are spending their money living here and paying out

of state tuition to the universities, or private university tuition.

That's one thing we have to sell them - the US is known for its colleges and students come from around the world. We have something to sell for once.

Though we cut ourselves on that over 911 by making the visa situation miserable.

We have to have something to sell - the Chinese have the stuff people buy at Wal-Mart, we have college educations.

[glinda]

14. Well if we are in hock to China why wouldn't they just come and get the houses after awhile

[OhioChick]

16. Surprised this isn't on the greatest, yet.

K&R

[Azlady]

19. Off to the Greatest Page.....

Man, something has to happen fast... NOW!

[DCKit]

23. I started hearing about these international bus tours about a year ago.

Perhaps we should, instead, thank them for propping up the housing market, or, at least, slowing the inevitable crash. Personally, I think they're uninformed with a tendency toward greedy.

It's one way to get the money flowing back to the U.S..

[Urban Prairie]

24. Owned!!

"All your base are belong to us"

Yeah, I guess so.

Quite prophetic, actually.

[KharmaTrain]

29. Fools...Take Their Money

My bets are these people are looking at the forclosure auction market and seeing big bargains...and there are plenty, but not looking beyond. Sure, you'll find a house that sold a couple years ago for $500k for half that price, but there's a good chance there's a hefty lien attached for back taxes or other liabilities. Then there's the problem with many of these homes that have sat vacant for months that will require a lot of fixing up to make either liveable or flipable...and by the time all those expenses are paid, ya think there's gonna be much profit in it? And who do they sell to? Another Chinaman?

A buddy of mine was looking to move to California and was checking out this market...and he saw some real nice bargains. Then he did his homework. He figured the money he'd spend on getting the property fixed up would probably cost him MORE than it would have with an inflated and fast moving market...at least there the homes were in better condition and less paperwork.

But if these people want to help bail out our real estate market, their money is as green as anyones...and good to get some of our money back.

[treestar]

32. This is not bad - they would add back into the tax base and

contribute to the recovery. Some of what we lost to them would end up coming back.

If they have the jobs, let them spend the money - we can sell them something, finally. Real estate agents start doing better and start buying cars again, etc.

[peacetalksforall]

35. I am writing about the accusations against Chinese people on reading this news..

I believe there are distinctions to be made.

Not all Chinese are our enemies.

Not all rich people are our enemies.

It's important to know who you are fighting and when you figure it out to be more specific when attacking.

We are resentful of the fact that out leaders could not run the country well enough or intentionally run it skillfully to control us by specifically targeting us with their scheme of stealing from us and taking away rights. The theft involved taking our jobs and sending them out of the country. They even have associations with generous seminars the celebrate their savings, exchange how-to's, and give awards to those that do. These corporation register outside the our country to avoid legislation that protects workers and the environment. The BANK outside the U.S. The import foreign workers.

We are resentful that the mismanagement and theft and some normal changes that caused us to borrow from China.

We're appalled at the displays of wealth of ceos and bankers - especially when they use that money to fight against the citizens and for a certain political party.

Not all rich do this.

It is most likely that there are leaders in China who parallel ours? If some are resenting some products they are selling us, there is a distinction between an employee contaminating a product by mistake and not telling higher ups for fear of losing their job or doing it intentionally. There are leaders and CEOs there who know of problems and let it go through intentionally to save money.

There is a distinction in trickle down between taking from the poor to give to the rich in tax breaks and hidden asset laws that our legislators passed for them because the money saved is parked in a bank overseas and d o e s n ' t always trickle down for that reason and others.

Here is a spending event that could trickle down if the banks use that money the way it is intended - not by reinvesting it outside our country for the profit benefit to a few.

There could be jobs from some people here in this country as a result of these purchases provided they don't bring cheap labor with them.

It is wrong to condemn all Chinese. The Chinese are a solid part of our country already.

Criticize their trip and their intent.
Don't criticize the Chinese in one broad brush.

The enemy is at the baron level. Barons domestic and international.

There are benevolent rich in this country.

There are Chinese who are on a parallel with those of us who struggle.

Criticize those coming to buy as the robber barons if you learn that that's what they are. Perhaps there house buying money will benefit the country more than the domestic rich whose money is not in the U.S.

Criticize the actions of the worldwide people who are warring on us just as plainly as it's unraveling and being exposed.

Make the distinction when choosing the enemy.