4 ms·
Our USA global empire from 1945 to present invests mostly in resource extraction in poor and underdeveloped countries. Aid comes in the form of providing food a
by acyou 3y ago
Our USA global empire from 1945 to present invests mostly in resource extraction in poor and underdeveloped countries. Aid comes in the form of providing food and medicine, probably the worst help that could be given to countries with virtually no infrastructure.
China pays for infrastructure to be built of the type and scale in countries that haven't seen this type of investment since their respective post-war expansionary periods, which most likely ended 60+ years ago. We Americans don't like it, because this represents moves towards the attempted changing of the guard, but we can't do anything but complain. At this point we can't invest in our own infrastructure, much less improve other countries'. But it feels like these infrastructure investments should have happened decades ago, and their net effects would have been to raise the standard of living of millions, or billions. Agreed that this plan seems to be winding down, unfortunately it doesn't seem to work.
It looks like China will actually pivot their economy to tech. Airplanes, computers, microchips, and soon, software...
- jorts 3y agoThe US is clearly investing in its infrastructure [1]. [1] https://www.whitehouse.gov/build/ https://www.whitehouse.gov/build/
- anon84873628 3y agoAs the article states, China does not actually invest in these projects. It simply finances them by providing loans.
- acyou 3y agoI'm surprised to see this level of confusion on what "investment" means, on a venture capital related forum of all places. If financing by providing loans is not investment, well, then we are saying that it's something like the article seems to imply, which is that you have to end up with an ownership stake in order for something to be an investment? If you were buying government bonds, would you not consider that to be an investment? Non-equity lending is definitely still investment, and is probably less predatory...
- anon84873628 3y agoFair point, however I was responding in context of the parent tirade which encodes lots of political subtext, and my use of italics was attempt to suggest a particular practical connotation (investment == partnership) rather than a strict technical definition. Specifically referring to this line of the parent comment: >China pays for infrastructure to be built of the type and scale in countries When in fact China did not just "pay for" these projects. And they are not "invested" in the prosperity of these people any more than the US was.