The difference between this and 08 though is that in 08, way too many people were allowed to buy houses that were already built, taking on debt they could not handle, and speculating to an insane degree on the health of those mortgages. A structural issue with no structural cure except to bail out individual homeowners who took on way too much debt which was never gonna happen. For evergrande (as I understand it) it’s just the property developer running out of cash to pay for the construction. The homes were already paid for, so at most the house buyers will just be either SOL or directly bailed out by the government for which there is a strong case to do so, and evergrande shareholders losing their investment is not really a big deal since they’ll probably be paid out in the bankruptcy. I feel like this whole thing is a really big parallel to Silicon Valley bank, for which all the doomers were out there peddling the impending collapse of the financial system which never happened.
If anything is gonna bring down China it will be their demographic collapse, and that is impossible to fix and already manifesting. There is of course the usual argument of a huge tax base suddenly becoming a budget liability with a significantly smaller population of people to financially support them. But the big thing that will hit the private sector is the lower population causing rising labor costs which is driving away manufacturing, and the bulk of their entire industrial infrastructure is now set up for something they will no longer be very competitive in, and for a sector which young educated urban people don’t really want to work in.
They can. They just need to pay a little more. We’re talking 25 pence per liter at most compared to no sugar tax. Higher sugar intake is correlated with obesity which means more health problems which is more expense for the NHS. It’s like a train ticket or gas taxes or taxes in general, some percentage of usage that causes the problem needs to pay for the thing that deals with the consequences or expenses that solve it.
It’s the companies who have decided that they would rather sell shit soda, and consumers who are probably unwilling to pay anything except the cheapest price possible - wealth inequality and poverty problems aside because that’s a different social policy that should not be addressed through a sugar tax.