52 ms·

As the article points out, many of these loans have secret funds setup as collateral. But if they don't hand over the money to China? Well, no one lends money

As the article points out, many of these loans have secret funds setup as collateral. But if they don't hand over the money to China? Well, no one lends money to you anymore. If you were the leader of a country, what is preferable? Giving up property and/or territory which allows you to continue borrowing so the people in your country can buy food and gas, or protecting the territory but the people in the country starving and running out of energy to run their businesses?

CogitoCogito 3y ago
> But if they don't hand over the money to China? Well, no one lends money to you anymore. > If you were the leader of a country, what is preferable? Giving up property and/or territory which allows you to continue borrowing so the people in your country can buy food and gas, or protecting the territory but the people in the country starving and running out of energy to run their businesses? What would be preferable? To default. I'm serious. I mean otherwise what are your critiques about in this thread at all. Should the original loans have been agreed to? If not, why not? Money is coming in after all and if that is the only concern than what is the problem with the original loans. Besides the fact that China won't loan to them in the future is maybe assured, but I don't see why it's assured they couldn't get loans from others. Though it's true that others maybe won't loan money under conditions where they can't make any repayment. Or maybe the others won't loan the money under conditions where it just disappears due to corruption. Sounds...good?