> The bottom line is that it is easy to write stories that amaze people who live in one system by playing on the differences of the other system.

I wonder if they do this in China to things in the USA?

I imagine that if they did, it would be just as skewed and critical as the stories from the west about China are. Even so, it would be interesting to find out what is considered to be "amazing" (for whatever connotations that word has) by the Chinese (or at least their "media") about the United States...

I imagine that there might be one difference - the fact that there are probably more Chinese tourists who visit a wider part of the USA than there are USA tourists visiting the non-touristy areas of China. This might give them a different impression (perhaps closer to reality - whether that reality is objectively/subjectively good or bad to them) than the USA does of China (where we see - or are fed - information about them that still has a smell of "the mysterious" or "the exotic" or "the strangeness").

My gut feels that they likely have a far better, and likely more realistic, impression of the United States than we ourselves do - if only because they can be realistic about it without any threat, where we tell/sell ourselves stories to gloss over the difficult to talk/think about parts.

What pains me most about this, as a citizen of the United States, who has never visited China (but would like to some day) - is that I can see these things; maybe not as clearly as someone not immersed in the culture - but they are still very, very apparent to anyone honest with themselves. Yet, it feels like a large majority of my fellow countrymen either don't, or they do and just ignore it (or take advantage of it); either seems a tragedy to me.

Probably still worse with an authoritarian government manipulating the news. It did not take long after the Huawei arrest scandal for brand new TV channels focused on Canadian news to pop up from nowhere.

The difference being that most Chinese are well aware their news is propaganda.

Fox viewers probably not so much.

They’re aware they’re getting the opinion of the Chinese State, just like Fox News viewers are aware they’re betting the opinion of those who run the Republican Party (and, by proxy, the state)

A building sitting empty for 5 years is a massive cost even if it’s later filled. This goes beyond time value of money and into the limited lifespan of infrastructure. Ghost cities are a problem with an easy and obvious solution, slow down the rate of construction to more closely match population movement.

>> A building sitting empty for 5 years is a massive cost even if it’s later filled.

Don't look too closely at NYC, Vancouver, london, or any of the other hot markets. Whether for historical preservation scams or investment trickery, it is not unusual for a building to sit empty for many years. Given the effort that it takes to oust tenants, and the length of time necessary for zoning/planning, many owners would rather a building sit empty for years pending redevelopment rather than the hassle of filling it.

Google "Calgary new horizons mall". From the owner/developer's perspective that mall is technically full and, at least for them, profitable.

US national vacancy rate is ~6.9% and NYC sit's well below that at under 4%. Much like the unemployment rate these things don't hit 0% for various reasons. But, that's very different from building a 11th building when your first 10 are all at 90% vacancy.

"Vacancy" is something above a building being empty. Vacancy is a building that has space available that hasn't been filled. It does not cover buildings deliberately left empty by owners. A building waiting years to be demolished and replaced isn't vacant, nor a condo kept only as an investment and never lived in.

That mall in Calgary isn't vacant either. Each store/stall is technically occupied by its owner. There just aren't any flesh and blood people in the mall.

NYC has ~60,000 buildings. Less than 1% of them are deliberately left empty by their owners. It’s a very different situation in a city which can make use of that space as demonstrated by the low vacancy rate.

That mall does have people shopping in it. In terms of retail square footage it’s underutilized but a long way from empty. Good or bad investment they are not building 3 of them next to each other while the first is far from full.

Really, you have some edge cases with people trying to time the market, deal with zoning or lawsuits etc. But, that’s different from seeing 6 empty apartment buildings and saying let’s build another one.

For dense urban areas land cost could exceed building cost. However for ghost cities land cost (defined as an opportunity cost) is low to begin with. While building material may have alternative use, if the labor used to build buildings don't have a lot of alternative use then the true economic cost of building a building may be below the headline cost as well.

This build-a-city approach is also probably due to the large rural population in China that have been steadily urbanizing or just moving to the cities for work. So there is some expectance that cities will be filled which does generate false hope and random ghost towns near places of economic activities. Good example in the past is Shenzhen which became big and the other unknown cities built around that time and was grouped with Shenzhen that people have forgotten because they never became big.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_China

Not sure that Milton Keynes "Home of the Roundabout" and the other new towns in the UK don't count.

Well, Milton Keynes was built incrementally as people arrived to fill it, and it and the other new towns definitely had an economic reason to exist - the existing towns couldn't handle increasing urbanisation and the growth of businesses that relied on that. It did end up with rather more light industrial space and slightly more offices than necessary due to the decline of British industry, but nothing like the kind of speculative building described here.

I don't think such mass speculative building would even have been economically possible; if I remember rightly, the housing construction was done by the usual home-building companies who needed to be able to sell off their houses to residents in order to afford the next tranche.

It was very centrally planned in what to day would seem very creepy eg segregated housing for workers, supervisors and executives.