Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2017 July 10

= July 10 =

Why'd Hong Kong's post-financial crisis skyscraper boom last so long?
Gluts of skyscraper completions after economic bubbles burst aren't unusual but why'd this one last so long? 73% of Hong Kong skyscrapers opened 1998-2011! (6x the pace of 2012-now). Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong is part of china and china shurely was in no economic crisis during the last 20 years with its GDP growth always between 7% and 14%. The IMF and the World Bank even argue china to be the world’s largest economy based on Purchasing power parity, surpassing the EU and USA, both with higher GDP. So there actually is even reason to ask why there are not more skyscrapers build in Hong Kong. --Kharon (talk) 21:28, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Then why'd they stop? And the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis did hurt Hong Kong. Sagittarian Milky Way (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * It affected Hong Kong sure, but you're still making assumptions without any evidence presented. I guess this will be amazing news to you, but as it turns out 1997 was also when the Transfer of sovereignty over Hong Kong happened. Blew your mind didn't it? Seems multiple things can happen over a short space of time. Point is there's a reason why people studying history need to actually be aware of as much of the related history as possible and particularly major events and not just coming up with one event and proscribing it as the reason for everything. Nil Einne (talk) 04:33, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I can't find any source really going into reasons for the boom from 1998 nor for it ending although List of tallest buildings in Hong Kong does note it and mentions it was primarily a surge in residential buildings particularly luxury ones (at least partially also mentioned in this source ). It also mentions a relaxation of height restrictions on the Kowloon Peninsula due the closure of the Kai Tak Airport lead to more high rises there and increase opposition in later years. These source also seem to be illustrative of what the things are like in HK [//zolimacitymag.com/vertical-city-part-i-how-hong-kong-grew-up/] [//zolimacitymag.com/the-vertical-city-part-ii-why-half-of-hong-kong-lives-in-public-housing/]. Probably Economy of Hong Kong is also a decent read although a little short in some areas. Maybe [//www.irishtimes.com/business/commercial-property/hong-kong-what-can-it-teach-us-about-property-bubbles-1.2135582] too. Although of course short opinion articles on news sources should generally be treated with care. I think these all do illustrate that economic situations including related things like construction booms and gluts or busts tend to be quite complex requiring careful analysis (and as anyone with even a basic experience knows, even then tends to result in wide disagreement), and anyone who claims to come up with one factor as the reason for something should be treated with great caution. Well unless you come up with very simple answers like "because people decided to build a lot" and "people stopped building". Nil Einne (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hong Kong is also according to Oxfam one of the world’s worst tax havens (1. Bermuda, 2. the Cayman Islands, 3. the Netherlands, 4. Switzerland, 5. Singapore, 6. Ireland, 7. Luxembourg, 8. Curaçao, 9. Hong Kong, 10. Cyprus, 11. Bahamas, 12. Jersey, 13. Barbados, 14. Mauritius, 15. the British Virgin Islands). --Kharon (talk) 05:37, 11 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The term "worst" here is not really correct. If you're looking for a tax haven, these are the "best". They're only "worst" from the taxman's viewpoint. The better term would be "notorious". ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:06, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

OR: The Government of the Hong Kong SAR owns all the land in Hong Kong, and government land sales policy are the main driver of land prices. Land prices fell very, very sharply in 1997-2003 (-70%), which encouraged land acquisition (“land banking”) by large developers for use at a later date. Buildings take time to construct, so over many years, the developers slowly parceled out their holding as their market expectations dictated. Remember: the year in which a building is opened has nothing to do with when the land was acquired, construction begun or other decisions made. DOR (HK) (talk) 10:02, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.
7-Eleven Inc is wholly owned by Seven & I Holdings Co.. Seven & I Holdings Co. apparently completed this purchase in November 2005. How did this happen? How did a child corporation managed to economically overpower its parent?

When a child corporation gets richer, doesn't the parent get richer as well by virtue of its ownership share? How did a slice of the pie get bigger than the pie itself? Scala Cats (talk) 18:03, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Seven & I was not a subsidiary of 7-11. They were a large Japenese retail industry giant who, among other holdings, owned the 7-11 rights for Japan and later bought out the US operation as well.  I learned this in less than 60 seconds by reading the article you linked, which it appears you didn't because your question has so much wrong with it that it could only be answered by correcting the wrongness with facts from the article you cited.-- Jayron 32 18:10, 10 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Cats' proper response here could be "D'oh!" ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:03, 11 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In any case, a child corporation do not need to economically overpower its parent to buy it, it is just a matter of paperwork (exchanging shares in such a way that the "child" now owns the "parent", for instance), usually related to tax issues.
 * Gem fr (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2017 (UTC)