World Traveler wrote:

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).

there's a issue to resolve here. While people in this thread argue how
in PRC u only "own" the building and the lot/land is owned by the
government like Hawaii, the major diff here is
* in Hawaii, if the state gov wanna build a freeway passing thru ur
home, what process does the state gov need to go thru before kicking u
out of ur house, and
* in PRC if the country wanna build a dam flooding ur farm home, what
process the gov need to go thru before kicking u out.

By law and constitution, both PRC, USA, Hawaii, grant u freedom of
speech. How it is enforced is another story.

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.

That's understandable in some sense -- UK only leased what we know as
HK today by 99 years from China (represent by Qing dynasty). It cant
"sell" these lots to private individual. This is why HK lot ownership
are retained by the british gov.

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.

How, and in what name? In other words, is it realy a "compensation"? By
calling it compensation, it mean chinese communist party admit its
mistake role in cultural revolution. Otherwise its nothing but a
mouth-sealing fee. Consider why Japan today is providing low or zero
interest loan to China but not calling it a WWII compensation.

During USA civil war, US gov confiscate general Lee's homestead in
virginia (what we know today as Arlington national cemetary). Later
after the war his family sue the government to get it back -- but
instead receive payment cuz many civil war soldiers are already buried
there and Lee's family cant use the land any more. Here u note one
major diff. In USA, u can sue federal gov and state gov for their
mistake and u have a chance to win. Talk bout that for PRC -- can
people sue the center, provincial gov for their wrongs?

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.

Right. The issue here is how the law and constitution are enforced.
both USA and PRC has law for support freedom of speech. U know what
come out of their law. Ill bet Charles Liu is gonna mention patriot act
again. Hehehe, then we can inspect how the law are applied.

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.

I wonder how u say "China is quickly starting to look like Hong Kong".
U can start with the recent anti-Japan protest in Shanghai. No chinese
media mention the protest for days.

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

True. Welcome these people to the China NG then. ^_^