The most expensive place in the world is Tokyo, Japan. At present, in the center of Tokyo, an 80-square-meter apartment building with parking space costs about 30 million yen, equivalent to 2.25 million yuan, and the price per square meter of the apartment is about 23,000 yuan (Market News, September 5, 2005). Even in absolute terms, some housing prices in or near urban centers such as China, Shanghai, Beijing and Hangzhou have exceeded this price. If we consider that Japan's per capita GDP is 2 1 times of ours (in 2005, China's per capita GDP was 1.703 US dollars, which was only equivalent to 1/25 in the United States and 1/2 1 in Japan), the housing prices in China, Beijing, Shanghai and other cities have already far exceeded ".
Moreover, the right of residence in China is only 70 years, which is equivalent to the annual depreciation rate of 1.4%, while residents in many countries enjoy the permanent ownership of their houses after paying taxes.
In particular, the service life of residential buildings in China is less than 70 years. "The land service life of domestic commercial housing is 70 years, and that of standard-designed housing is 50 years, but the average service life of domestic housing is only 30 years" —— Tong, deputy director of the Housing Industrialization Promotion Center of the Ministry of Construction. On April 22nd, International Finance News quoted an expert as saying: "The property market was so hot in the first two years that all kinds of houses could be sold, so developers were lucky and didn't make great efforts to improve the quality of housing, resulting in the average life span of houses in China being less than 30 years."
In a noisy real estate market, profit has become the only important purpose, and some insatiable developers are still quietly cutting corners in the case of huge profits. The event of replacing steel bars with bamboo in Hangzhou illustrates this point intuitively. According to the Beijing Morning Post reported on May 24th, an owner of Renhe Jiayuan in Yuhang District of Hangzhou was surprised to find that there should have been two supporting 12mm threaded steel bars on the lintel, but it turned out to be two bamboos! After the news spread, the owners made an emergency inspection of their houses and found many quality problems: the concrete floor was covered with construction waste. ...
If you count the service life, building quality and other factors, China's housing prices are not high or low, but too high! When housing prices seriously deviate from the purchasing power of the public, far beyond people's affordability, when housing prices rise and the vacancy rate rises simultaneously, who can say that there is no bubble?
Scholars who advocate how many times the house price will rise are based on the rapid growth of China's GDP, but the growth of GDP does not mean the simultaneous growth of people's actual purchasing power. The reason for this is the following：
First of all, personal wealth has not kept pace with the growth of GDP. Since the reform and opening up, the country's financial resources have grown rapidly, but the growth rate of people's wage income is much lower than that of GDP. According to the announcement made by the National Bureau of Statistics on June 9, 2006 on the revised results of historical GDP data, China's GDP in 2004 was 3,533.4 billion yuan from1598.78 billion yuan, an increase of 3.52 times, while the total wages of employees in the same period increased from 4.9162 billion yuan to 654.42 billion yuan.
Second, while personal wealth is growing, the burden is also increasing. Take the cost of education as an example. College tuition has increased 25 times in 20 years. Higher education is a quasi-public product, and its rapid growth is beyond the affordability of many ordinary families. It is not uncommon for people to return to poverty because of education, and to go to school because of poverty.
Third, the social security system has not yet been established, and people's medical care and old-age care have not been guaranteed, which needs to be solved by individuals to a large extent. A considerable part of the public's "purchasing power" is spent on this and cannot be used to buy a house. On March 2 this year, the Economic Information Daily reported that a family with an annual income of nearly 65,438+10,000 yuan and two properties was once the envy of everyone. Because his wife was ill in hospital, almost all the property in the family was consumed. A middle-income family still falls into the bottom of society because of illness, and the affordability of poor families can be imagined.
Fourth, part of the wealth brought by GDP growth was taken away by foreign capital. For a simple example, according to Yi Xiaozhun, Vice Minister of Commerce, "In 2005, 58% of China's total exports came from foreign-invested enterprises, and the net trade surplus of foreign-invested enterprises was 84.4 billion US dollars, accounting for 83% of China's total trade surplus ... If this part is deducted, China's trade surplus is only 654.38+075 billion US dollars." David David Barboza, a journalist from The New York Times, wrote: "It seems that China has gained more from trade. In fact, the real profits are obtained by foreign companies such as the United States; Globalization has not left any profit. " (shanghai securities news 65438+1October 65438+March)
Fifth, GDP statistics itself. As we all know, some government officials like to cheat in statistics, which leads to statistical distortion. The so-called village deceives the township, and the township deceives the county, all the way to the State Council. The difference between local and central GDP data is an obvious example. Li Deshui, former director of the National Bureau of Statistics, once pointed out that there is a gap between local and central government statistics. One of the important reasons is that the central government is not serious about cheating local officials (Nanfang Daily, August 22).
Sixth, China's per capita GDP ranks only 1 10 in the world, and it is "not yet an economic power", and its wealth is highly concentrated in the hands of a few people. Most people can't afford to buy a house, and the rich can't spend all their wealth on buying a house. So the ability to buy a house is overestimated.
The current housing prices in China have exceeded the actual purchasing power of many people. China Index Research Institute conducted a random questionnaire survey on more than 1000 prospective buyers at Beijing International Trade Autumn Housing Exhibition. Among all the interviewees, 86.4% of the buyers think that the current house price is too high or too high to afford (reported by China Business Times1October 5 10). In the case that many people can't afford to buy a house, the continuous rise in house prices is tantamount to throwing a knife at the palace, which may ruin social harmony and people's stability.
In big cities, rising house prices are forming a "crowding out" effect:
First, rising house prices will drive up land prices, and land prices in the city center will soar. The impulse of local governments to move the poor out in order to make room for land will be stronger, and the result of crowding out the poor will be further polarization between the rich and the poor, and the opposition between the rich and the poor will be further intensified.
Second, rising house prices can easily inhibit the development of the tertiary industry. Rising house prices, rising rents, and rising development costs of the tertiary industry will seriously inhibit the development of the tertiary industry and drag down economic development. Today, the contribution of the development of the tertiary industry to economic growth is highly valued. For example, the tertiary industry in the United States accounts for 78% of the economy!
Third, soaring housing prices are likely to "crowd out" a large number of talents. 2 1 century, the most expensive thing is talent, which directly determines the comprehensive competitiveness of a region. House prices have risen to a prohibitive level, making it difficult to retain talents. Many talents are more like passers-by. After accumulating, they will settle down elsewhere. This situation will undoubtedly have a considerable impact on the development of a city and the renewal of population structure.
Unfortunately, under the mechanism of evaluating political achievements by GDP, short-sighted thinking is dominant among many local government officials. In order to make a profit, they take various measures to push up housing prices, even at the expense of inviting wolves into the room, colluding with foreign businessmen, plundering and eating in the real estate market, and sucking marrow from domestic taxpayers. It is a common practice of the international community to impose necessary restrictions on non-residents to invest or buy their own real estate. According to the information provided by the International Monetary Fund's foreign exchange arrangements and restrictions in 2003, among its 65,438+087 members, 65,438+037 members supervise the real estate investment of non-residents in transactions or exchanges. However, China is one of the few countries in the world that has no substantial restrictions on foreign institutions and individuals investing in domestic real estate.
Until July this year, 1 1, the Ministry of Construction and five other ministries and commissions issued the document 17 1, and began to restrict foreign real estate speculation. However, the effect of these measures is very doubtful. Foreign investors are more likely to find loopholes in China's relevant policies and weaknesses of relevant officials than domestic investors. The interests of foreign real estate speculators and local governments are the same. Can local governments that implement policies really restrict foreign real estate speculation? In fact, many foreign-funded enterprises have easily circumvented the relevant restrictions through joint ventures.
Rising house prices not only made many people unable to afford houses, but also prompted local governments to illegally sell land for profit, resulting in more and more fertile land being buried, which affected China's food security. In the past seven years, the cultivated land in China has been reduced by 654.38+0 billion mu, and the planned land for non-agricultural construction in many provinces in China has been used up ahead of schedule by 2065.438+00 (Xinhuanet, 2004,654.38+00,654.38+00), and land violations have emerged one after another. If we consume land at this rate, one day we will push ourselves or our descendants to the wall.
In fact, the danger is approaching quietly. 6543810.9, the report "Agricultural Harvest Forecast and Food Situation" released by FAO in 2006 shows that the world is facing a huge food crisis due to natural and man-made disasters, and 40 countries around the world are in urgent need of international food aid. At the same time, the unsafe international environment is also threatening global food production, and the whole world may fall into the most terrible food crisis in 30 years. At present, the global grain reserve can barely support people's demand for more than 50 days, which has fallen below the safety thread machine of grain reserve for 70 days (Beijing News June 65438+1October 65438+1October 065438+1October 0). As the most populous country in the world, why is the great danger that may be brought by wanton occupation of land ignored?
We can't bury our inherent home just because we live in the dream house! Preventing the continuous rise of housing prices and promoting the rational return of high housing prices are not only to safeguard the interests of ordinary people, but also to defend national interests and save a country's future.