|
Forget shares, how much face has been lost lately?
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 23:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:Forget shares, how much face has been lost lately? this question hurts the pride of the chinese people, APOLOGIZE POST HASTE.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 23:47
|
|
|
Yeah, government intervention aside, this is a pretty classic example of what happens in a unregulated marketplace and this is very much about unfettered capitalism eating people alive (and the government throwing the pensioners/small investors into the fire to try to quell it). In all honesty though, if China suddenly had a even more ideologically free market (somehow) than they have, it wouldn't have helped.
|
|
#
?
Aug 26, 2015 23:59
|
|
|
Ardennes posted:Yeah, government intervention aside, this is a pretty classic example of what happens in a unregulated marketplace and this is very much about unfettered capitalism eating people alive (and the government throwing the pensioners/small investors into the fire to try to quell it). What government intervention would have saved the day on this one?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:What government intervention would have saved the day on this one? Nothing can be done to advert a crash of this extent when it finally forms, the issue was pulling regulation from the market in order to form the bubble in the first place. You can to try to frame this into "the Communists and their five year plans" are the cause but this is really about a government trying to keep a economic boom going on indefinitely by pulling regulation and plenty of more "traditional" free market states do this as well. It isn't really a battle of ideologies here beyond the Chinese government being even more incompetent at doing the same thing as many western governments (that said the Eurocrisis is pretty neck and neck as far as incompetence goes). They should haven't have made the radical changes they made to regulation, and instead actually work on the myriad social, ecological and economic issues that are plaguing China (which is admittedly never going to happen). If anything throwing pensions into the fire is cited as "government intervention" when at the same time can be called another form of deregulation to feed their beast of a market. Ardennes fucked around with this message at 00:36 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
The Chinese governments intervention is to ensure corruption and white collar crime happen to their benefit. It's enforcing the types of things a regulation body is supposed to prevent.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 00:29
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:What government intervention would have saved the day on this one? Government intervention is what caused this crash, the government was literally cheerleading for everyone and their grandma to dump all their savings into the stock market
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 00:57
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Government intervention is what caused this crash, the government was literally cheerleading for everyone and their grandma to dump all their savings into the stock market And why were they cheerleading for everyone to dump all their savings in the market?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:10
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:And why were they cheerleading for everyone to dump all their savings in the market? They wanted the prestige of making Shanghai a leading financial capital and since the CCP is run by idiots they thought that by making it look big it would become super important. Also the rest of the economy is in the shitter and they thought they could control the stock market so they had everyone put their money in under the implicit promise that they wouldn't let exactly what happened happen.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:17
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:And why were they cheerleading for everyone to dump all their savings in the market? Because they wanted to continue their legitimacy through economic growth thing, and the CCP apparantly has literally never heard of a Ponzi scheme or what it is, and that stock prices must go up up up forever because that's what stock markets do right? Just like cats only eat fish and all the other horror stories about Chinese education posted in this and other China threads icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:19
|
|
|
Junkyard Poodle posted:What government intervention would have saved the day on this one? Government intervention that secured a future for democratic institutions.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:20
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Because they wanted to continue their legitimacy through economic growth thing, and the CCP apparantly has literally never heard of a Ponzi scheme or what it is, and that stock prices must go up up up forever because that's what stock markets do right? Just like cats only eat fish and all the other horror stories about Chinese education posted in this and other China threads Just as Mao didn't know you can't make steel in a peasants backyard, you can't beat America at its own game.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:36
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Government intervention that secured a future for democratic institutions. You're 5 words short.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 01:40
|
|
|
What are the odds that the CCP used their encouragement into the equity markets as a way to transfer capital to the shadow bank/local gov lending agreements that soured do to poor risk controls (ie gov/gov backed companies got undeserved preferential interest rates & prioritized over more economically sound options)? Could early reform in their financial system (the liberalization of interest rates, freer flows of capital and a transparent rating systems) have helped? How much did/are the state ran banks being allowed by the CCP to participate in the shadow banking system?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:They wanted the prestige of making Shanghai a leading financial capital and since the CCP is run by idiots they thought that by making it look big it would become super important. To be fair a bunch of American companies believed them and based their growth plans around China's "infinite" growth.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 02:05
|
|
|
So what're futures looking like today?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 02:07
|
|
|
looks like a modest uptick to start the day off we'll see if it holds up
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 02:29
|
|
|
Back in March I heard something about some government funds and missing money and selling at 5000.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
2% so far, maybe the market has found the bottom for now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 03:41
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:2% so far, maybe the market has found the bottom for now. This is China, there is always more and it is always worse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:2% so far, maybe the market has found the bottom for now. It's been on a downward trend for the day. I think we'll be seeing it consistently hit the negatives by the time it closes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
NEED TOILET PAPER posted:It's been on a downward trend for the day. I think we'll be seeing it consistently hit the negatives by the time it closes. Yeah, it's managed to go down to just under 1% now. I'm thinking it's going to stay just above 0 for a while, then when it comes near closing then BAM another 2%-3% drop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 04:31
|
|
|
Fojar38 posted:This is China, there is always more and it is always worse. Equities tend to have significant support levels that they will not drop below based on the fundamentals of the company. Though they may be a bit more opaque in this case you can reasonably expect that there are, for each individual firm, a level it will pretty much absolutely not go below, and I doubt many at all listed on the SSE will go to zero.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Is shanghai trading through lunch today or something? ah nevermind, google isn't showing the gap
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
In tonight's show the role of "Chinese Capitalism" will be performed by an elephant. Thai elephant gores handler to death and runs off carrying three tourists
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 06:16
|
|
|
and here comes the drop again!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 06:44
|
|
|
Dilber posted:and here comes the drop again! We are still above 0! It's not happening yet.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 06:55
|
|
|
Now it's not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:11
|
|
|
We are back in the red! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkBMAHUkibY 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:30
|
|
|
Okay we are back in the green. They've gotten pretty good at funneling pension money in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
we broke +3% yaaaaay 
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:41
|
|
|
e: +5% it is a miracle! Alucardd fucked around with this message at 07:59 on Aug 27, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:55
|
|
|
Oh well. See you all at the next crash in two weeks
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
Alucardd posted:+4.5% Crisis is over guys. Hurrah! Man isn't it great that whenever it looks like things are going to tank again, a mysterious billionaire buys a bunch of stocks and everything is okay again?!
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 07:56
|
|
|
So focusing on the macro for a moment all these news articles keep talking about how China is going to switch to a "consumption-based model." How is that going and how likely is it to succeed?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:03
|
|
|
Shadoer posted:Okay we are back in the green. They've gotten pretty good at funneling pension money in. Is that Chinese green or everyone else green?
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:05
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Is that Chinese green or everyone else green? Everyone green. At +4% right now
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:09
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Splitting off the various non-Mandarin Han subgroups isn't really feasible in part because those groups have basically always been politically united for the last 2000 years, but I don't see how you can say Xinjiang and Tibet shouldn't be split with a straight face. Electro-Boogie Jack posted:Seriously. Tibet is one of the easiest cases you can find for the ideal of self-determination, it's so bizarre to see someone say 'water rights' as if that meaningfully trumps a peoples right to self-rule. The difficulty is that both Tibet and Xinjiang are now majority Han chinese, so it's not really the open and shut case you guys are suggesting at all. If you held a referendum on independence in either Xinjiang or Tibet the population would vote to stay in China. Of course, the Chinese government moved a lot of them there, which is what complicates the issue ethically. But a lot of those Han families have now been living there for three generations. You can't practically disqualify them from any referendum.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:12
|
|
|
lmaoboy1998 posted:The difficulty is that both Tibet and Xinjiang are now majority Han chinese, so it's not really the open and shut case you guys are suggesting at all. If you held a referendum on independence in either Xinjiang or Tibet the population would vote to stay in China. Xinjiang is actually two regions stapled together, one of them is the Tarim Basin, the other is basically part of Mongolia whose inhabitants the Qing murdered and resettled with Han Chinese https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzungaria Even taken as a whole Wiki has it at only 45% Han, and the vast majority of them live in Dzungaria. As for Tibet, Wiki lists the TAR as 90% Tibetan 8% Han, soooooooo yeah. I imagine the Qinghai and Sichuan parts of the Tibetan Plateau have similar ratios
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 10:44 |
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Xinjiang is actually two regions stapled together, one of them is the Tarim Basin, the other is basically part of Mongolia whose inhabitants the Qing murdered and resettled with Han Chinese Hmm. I guess my high school history/chinese studies teacher didn't know wtf he was talking about. But he used to let his girlfriend sit in on our classes and once told me he lost his virginity to Under The Bridge so perhaps I should have seen that coming.
|
|
#
?
Aug 27, 2015 08:45
|
|