The Constitution of the PRC clearly states that all real estate,
buildings, houses, factories, roads, farms (except for some collectives),
equipment, machine tools, and all means of production are the property of
the state. The document is available on the website of the PRC.

Nonsense. Fortunes are being made as we speak, in people doing real estate
business in the fast growing parts of China such as Shanghai. The land is
owned by the government, but is "sold" on long-term lease. The individual
buildings are owned by the leaseholder. This is similar to arrangements in
many places in the world (including Hawaii). I was surprised during travel
through Shandong and other wheat and grain-growing areas at the quality of
the rural houses, which specifically are owned by the farmers. They were of
a common design, similar to a Jim Walter basic house, but with a window wall
all along the south side for wintertime heating. There is currently a
property boom in Southern China building resorts and vacation homes for
tourists, and I have friends who have bought their own vacation homes in
subdivisions near Zhuhai in southern China, where we'll probably stay on our
next visit to Asia.

As a matter of interest, even before reverting to China, all Hong Kong land
ownership was retained by the (British) government, and land "sales" were
actually 99 year leases. (There is only one privately-owned plot in Hong
Kong, which dates back to its establishment.) All those skyscrapers in HK
sit on leased land, but the buildings have private owners.

We owned an apartment in Macau for many years, and home ownership in Macau,
Zhuhai, Hong Kong, Guangdong and other parts of China is unchanged.

In the PRC individuals are permitted ownership only of personal property,
e.g., clothes and furniture.

Again, not true, and the Constitution does not say that. Even during the
Cultural Revolution there was still family property and homes, and the
government later paid compensation to those whose homes were taken over or
destroyed during the Cultural Revolution.


Don't kid yourself. The PRC is a communist state in which the individual
has no rights whatsoever.

Wrong again. If you look at the Constitution, beginning with Article 33 are
a whole series of rights of the individual. You can't support your
supposition by reference to the constitution.

You'd be better off trying to argue that the government wasn't living up to
the constitutional requirements, and in fact the constitution is a document
which seems to lag behind the actualities of Chinese life. In fact, what
China has is a traditional Chinese-style central government, in which much
of the actual authority is exercised not by the central government but
within the individual provinces. Post HK-reversion, rather than Hong Kong
starting to look like the rest of China, China is quickly starting to look
like Hong Kong.

IMHO China's impact post-Mao and post-Cultural Revolution is very similar to
what happened in Japan post WWII. We've survived this before, and as long
as we understand how the world is evolving, we'll survive it again.

There are enough reasons to discuss China business without having to make up
things that aren't true -- Regards