4 ms·

When I first read the headline China immediately came to mind. Just recently the US started investing in ports in other countries, just like China has done. And

When I first read the headline China immediately came to mind. Just recently the US started investing in ports in other countries, just like China has done. And now the US will probably start competing on another front that China has taken a lead role in.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago
It’s weird, because the USA had done that investing long before China started belt and road, what was innovative about belt and road were the risk increase of the projects the Chinese took on, investments that western countries wouldn’t go anywhere near.
- infecto 3y ago
  I think the take generally is that China was fairly naive about its investments. Thats the belt and road projects would easily payoff as this has historically been working inside of China. I do think the US/EU could learn a bit from China here. My take is that the Chinese way has been something along the lines of, here take this loan, we will build some infrastructure, and at the same time move in some mining equipment, port or whatever is needed. The loan terms are way over ambitious but China is not trying to tell them how to govern. When the US goes in, its all about cleaning up the politics/human rights/something other clauses that all get tied to the money.
  - seanmcdirmid 3y ago
    This works for China ATM because they have a lot of excess labor (migrant workers) that they can send abroad, like India does (though on their own accord, not via SOEs). It also gives their SOEs something to do other than keep over investing in domestic infrastructure. So I get why they do it (and why they won’t be able to do it in a coupes of decades). But they take risks, like lending money to an unstable dictator who is unlikely to last more than a few years, it isn’t politics/human rights or whatever else, it’s simply that the countries are poorly governed and risk citizen revolts. China always has a shocked pikachu face when the unstable dictator they’ve been supporting gets overthrown/arrested/killed/etc… but anyone could have predicted it when they made the investments.

seanmcdirmid 3y ago

It’s weird, because the USA had done that investing long before China started belt and road, what was innovative about belt and road were the risk increase of the projects the Chinese took on, investments that western countries wouldn’t go anywhere near.

infecto 3y ago
I think the take generally is that China was fairly naive about its investments. Thats the belt and road projects would easily payoff as this has historically been working inside of China. I do think the US/EU could learn a bit from China here. My take is that the Chinese way has been something along the lines of, here take this loan, we will build some infrastructure, and at the same time move in some mining equipment, port or whatever is needed. The loan terms are way over ambitious but China is not trying to tell them how to govern. When the US goes in, its all about cleaning up the politics/human rights/something other clauses that all get tied to the money.
- seanmcdirmid 3y ago
  This works for China ATM because they have a lot of excess labor (migrant workers) that they can send abroad, like India does (though on their own accord, not via SOEs). It also gives their SOEs something to do other than keep over investing in domestic infrastructure. So I get why they do it (and why they won’t be able to do it in a coupes of decades). But they take risks, like lending money to an unstable dictator who is unlikely to last more than a few years, it isn’t politics/human rights or whatever else, it’s simply that the countries are poorly governed and risk citizen revolts. China always has a shocked pikachu face when the unstable dictator they’ve been supporting gets overthrown/arrested/killed/etc… but anyone could have predicted it when they made the investments.