5 ms·

I'm definitely not an expert on the subject, but isn't the primary benefiter from the Belt and Road initiative... China?

BurningFrog 7y ago
It's hard to tell now, but Belt and Road seems mostly like a gigantic waste. Still, if China squanders its wealth by giving away infrastructure to the world, while the US squanders its wealth by bombing the world, I think China is winning.
TomMarius 7y ago
No, that is Africa, where the train line is. Have you ever visited Africa and have seen how they live now? To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa. It's only natural that someone would want to catch that opportunity, and in our world it's the Chinese - the Africans are thankful to whoever does it, because for many of them it is literally matter of life and death.
- Mediterraneo10 7y ago
  > To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa. They have been. A lot of the tarmac and bridges in West Africa have been funded by Europe.
- peteretep 7y ago
  > To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa They are. That's called "International Development". What's unusual is how much China is paying out as a proportion of their national income[0], how much they're willing to turn a blind eye to giving unpleasant people and regimes money, and how willing they are to ignore problems that their development will cause in terms of debt traps. In essence, most rich country International Development programs to date have tried to have at least a semblance of doing the right thing rather than just being completely naked influence and power grabs. As noted elsewhere in this thread, it seems there's great potential for this to blow up in the faces of the Chinese, but we'll see! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...
barry-cotter 7y ago
No. The Chinese government and its state owned enterprises are lending piles of money to fund infrastructure projects no one else will touch. In some cases that’s because they don’t care about environmental impact statements, involving local communities or dealing with dictatorial governments but mostly it’s because they’re offering more money than the World Bank and other international financial institutions or large institutional investors. Those investors and the IFIs have decades of experience doing these kinds of development projects. They don’t do the ones China is doing because mostly because they can’t see a return. So China’s lending money to people who won’t be able to hold up their end of the deal. China might think that they’ll come out ahead on taking over as the projects’ owners but they don’t see how politically toxic this will be. China may not care if they’re viewed as a threat, a bully and a new colonial power but that’s likely to be the end result of many of these loans. The money would have been far better spent on investments within China, where there are still plenty of desperately poor people. The Belt and Road Initiative is going to go down in history as a colossal white elephant, an extension of the domestic Chinese model of “Let's borrow a ton of money to spend on infrastructure and keep doing it forever to pump up the economy.” to other countries. Thing is, even governments need to pay off loans eventually, whether in hard currency or in wrenching economic adjustment when the bubble finally pops. China hasn’t had a real economic downturn since Deng opened China up in the 80s. When it happens it’s going to be bad.
- hnzix 7y ago
  China might not care about the cash returns so much as the real estate and political leverage.
  - yorwba 7y ago
    There is not much political leverage to be gained by building a port named after the current president [1], if he then loses the next elections and his successor decides to pay the debt by handing them the port. Gaining that real estate might look like a win for China, except of course now they're stuck operating it for very little profit. (Certainly less profit than the interest on the loan was planned to be, since otherwise the Sri Lankan government would've just repaid it.) Many Chinese infrastructure projects in other countries appear irrational if you consider the Chinese government as a single actor. However, they become rational if you consider that they are a way to turn money from the coffers of the Chinese state into foreign currency in the hands of a Chinese construction company. Some of that money will certainly find its way back into the pockets of the decision makers approving the project. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_Port https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_...

BurningFrog 7y ago

It's hard to tell now, but Belt and Road seems mostly like a gigantic waste. Still, if China squanders its wealth by giving away infrastructure to the world, while the US squanders its wealth by bombing the world, I think China is winning.

TomMarius 7y ago

No, that is Africa, where the train line is. Have you ever visited Africa and have seen how they live now? To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa. It's only natural that someone would want to catch that opportunity, and in our world it's the Chinese - the Africans are thankful to whoever does it, because for many of them it is literally matter of life and death.

Mediterraneo10 7y ago
> To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa. They have been. A lot of the tarmac and bridges in West Africa have been funded by Europe.
peteretep 7y ago
> To be honest I don't understand why the west is not building roads and rails in Africa They are. That's called "International Development". What's unusual is how much China is paying out as a proportion of their national income[0], how much they're willing to turn a blind eye to giving unpleasant people and regimes money, and how willing they are to ignore problems that their development will cause in terms of debt traps. In essence, most rich country International Development programs to date have tried to have at least a semblance of doing the right thing rather than just being completely naked influence and power grabs. As noted elsewhere in this thread, it seems there's great potential for this to blow up in the faces of the Chinese, but we'll see! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_country_donors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_development_aid_countr...

barry-cotter 7y ago

No. The Chinese government and its state owned enterprises are lending piles of money to fund infrastructure projects no one else will touch. In some cases that’s because they don’t care about environmental impact statements, involving local communities or dealing with dictatorial governments but mostly it’s because they’re offering more money than the World Bank and other international financial institutions or large institutional investors. Those investors and the IFIs have decades of experience doing these kinds of development projects. They don’t do the ones China is doing because mostly because they can’t see a return. So China’s lending money to people who won’t be able to hold up their end of the deal. China might think that they’ll come out ahead on taking over as the projects’ owners but they don’t see how politically toxic this will be. China may not care if they’re viewed as a threat, a bully and a new colonial power but that’s likely to be the end result of many of these loans. The money would have been far better spent on investments within China, where there are still plenty of desperately poor people. The Belt and Road Initiative is going to go down in history as a colossal white elephant, an extension of the domestic Chinese model of “Let's borrow a ton of money to spend on infrastructure and keep doing it forever to pump up the economy.” to other countries. Thing is, even governments need to pay off loans eventually, whether in hard currency or in wrenching economic adjustment when the bubble finally pops. China hasn’t had a real economic downturn since Deng opened China up in the 80s. When it happens it’s going to be bad.

hnzix 7y ago
China might not care about the cash returns so much as the real estate and political leverage.
- yorwba 7y ago
  There is not much political leverage to be gained by building a port named after the current president [1], if he then loses the next elections and his successor decides to pay the debt by handing them the port. Gaining that real estate might look like a win for China, except of course now they're stuck operating it for very little profit. (Certainly less profit than the interest on the loan was planned to be, since otherwise the Sri Lankan government would've just repaid it.) Many Chinese infrastructure projects in other countries appear irrational if you consider the Chinese government as a single actor. However, they become rational if you consider that they are a way to turn money from the coffers of the Chinese state into foreign currency in the hands of a Chinese construction company. Some of that money will certainly find its way back into the pockets of the decision makers approving the project. [1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_Port https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magampura_Mahinda_Rajapaksa_...