> Postwar Britain had been swept up by the theory that nationalization created economies of scale that gave citizens better outcomes than pure capitalism. “There was an idea that if we could rationalize the planning system … then we could build things in the right way—considered, and planned, and environmentally friendly,” ... But the costs of nationalization became clear within a few decades.
Central economic planning - the eternal hope that never works.
Like building transport infrastructure to nowhere, hmm? And then they build all the other infrastructure around it.[1] Because with such central planning you don’t need to build around and on top of existing infrastructure—you can build like in Sim City.
That vacant “Paris” also turned out to become populated later.
Ha ha they centrally planned a city and didn’t move people into it before it was done... like what you do when building a house. That’s effectively what you are alluding to as absurd.
[1] But by that time the Western journalists might not care anymore whistles
The ghost cities have attracted residents over time, but they're still mostly empty. Constructing buildings that sit vacant for a decade or more is not very efficient - and the buildings depreciate with age whether they are occupied or not.
Gluts and shortages are endemic to centralized economic planning.
Oh yeah that's a boomer favourite! There are a bunch of articles from the early 2010s of Americans laughing at China for exactly this ... and a handful of more recent ones from the latter part of that decade conceding that actually those "ghost cities" are rapidly filling up. They don't do articles on them any more, it's too embarrassing because they're filling up and just turning out to be normal cities. You can get a nice overview of each on the wikipedia page if you like: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Underoccupied_developments_in_...
They've also built thousands of miles of high-speed rail, many dozens of subway lines and elevated hundreds of millions into the middle class. I don't particularly like the CCP for a variety of reasons, however to downplay their incredible strategic planning starting in the early 1980s in terms of industry and infrastructure is to be frighteningly ignorant of the world outside your borders. If you're an older American, you can probably afford to live out the rest of your days in this blissful ignorance. The rest of us however will have to figure out how the rapid decline of the USA and ascendency of China will affect our lives and plan accordingly.
The link in that tweet leads to an article: U.S. ambassador on why China competition must be managed while keeping "the peace"
Did you click the tweet or did just spend thirty minutes looking for a source to support the "ghost cities" claim, then rush to paste it here without looking that closely at it?
It's not that I "don't like that one" - it was a tweet containing a headline that looked like it linked to an article about Ghost Cities but actually linked to something else entirely, and you didn't realise because you didn't open it. Maybe it hinted at other problems in China, I am certain there are many problems there! But you wanted to make a point about ghost cities, and this article didn't make that point.
And this next one you've sent me is just someone writing a "hey have y'all heard about those 'Ghost Cities' in China?" article. You might as well have just linked to your prior comment saying "google ghost cities china".
Central economic planning - the eternal hope that never works.