4 ms·

I don’t think it’s necessarily so clear that Chinese foreign policy has really paid off yet. Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with

I don’t think it’s necessarily so clear that Chinese foreign policy has really paid off yet. Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with many loans basically in default. While it’s true that Western development agencies were not lending to these projects, they mostly weren’t doing so because they were doubtful of the business cases of said projects and the likelihood that the government could actually pay off the loan, and so now China is dealing with that. One of the most direct Chinese relationships is with Myanmar, which has not only gone to hell in a handbasket but now is a hotbed of criminal activity by Chinese organized crime abducting Chinese nationals to work in Myanmar. So that’s not great either.

ted_bunny 2y ago
It's been argued that if you observe actions and not words, default has always been the point of IMF loans. Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?
- manishader 2y ago
  If you can't tell Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a work of fiction I don't know what to tell you.
  - PittleyDunkin 2y ago
    You don't need to read the book to see the role the world bank plays in preserving worldwide power structures. The entire world can talk to each other outside the american media sphere, you know!
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  I think that generally if you read the internal documents, most of the people behind IMF and other global development loans are operating in good faith and not simply puppets of the political agenda of the west. I think they showed clear overconfidence in their policy prescriptions, but not out of malice
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  The IMF is by definition the lender of last resort, when banks and investors find a country so fiscally irresponsible that they cannot access reasonable funding. It is not exactly surprising that those kinds of basket case economies also fail when given IMF loans given that people predicted they were going to do that and stopped lending.
PittleyDunkin 2y ago
> Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with many loans basically in default. As America (or the world bank/imf as a proxy for american capital) can attest, calling in these loans is a great way to make a lot of enemies.
- bilbo0s 2y ago
  The problem in China's case, is that there's a lot of evidence that China doesn't even care whether or not it's paid back. One, the loans were given often in dollars. Which China found itself with a surplus of the past few decades. With no convenient way of ridding themselves of those dollars without significant pain, Chinese strategists hit on the brilliant plan of "loans". Two, and more importantly, the loans were used to finance Chinese influenced infrastructure projects. So for instance, most of the African loans financed things like ports, and roads, and bridges, and trains, etc. Well when you look at the map of the "where" and the "what", it's easy to see the "why". All these bridges, roads and trains lead to the ports. Sure, this allows African countries to move their resources, and sometimes even finished products manufactured in these nations, to ports for delivery to "international clients". (Read, "China"). But tell me this, will the Africans own the freighters? No. The Africans will move massive amounts of products and resources to their ports, likely in the EAC, then China will pick up all that bounty and move it to China. Sounds a lot like "harvesting" doesn't it? There's one case where the Chinese definitely don't care whether the loan is repaid or not. They only care that all the bridges, roads and trains financed by the loan go to the ports. In fact, I don't know if the Africans realize it, but they'll be paying the Chinese more than the value of the loan just by using the rail and roads. The entire infrastructure system they've built only facilitates one thing, moving resources and products to the ports. Is it good for Africans? Absolutely. A much better deal than they used to get when the West and Russia used assassinations and proxy wars to ravage the place. But let's not pretend it's about helping Africa. It's, at root, about an extremely low risk method of helping China by "loaning" money to others.
  - whimsicalism 2y ago
    roads and bridges to ports are exactly what imf and world bank loan do too, for obvious reasons frankly this whole comment reads as historically less informed
mahirsaid 2y ago
Also don't forget U.S. debt to China. the picture is painted clear of who depends on who.
- ianburrell 2y ago
  China has $774B of US debt. The US total debt is $36T. 2% is not control of anything. That is smaller than the daily trading volume. China used to hold more but sold it recently.
  - mahirsaid 2y ago
    My apologies I meant the other way. like what you said.

ted_bunny 2y ago

It's been argued that if you observe actions and not words, default has always been the point of IMF loans. Have you read Confessions of an Economic Hitman?

manishader 2y ago
If you can't tell Confessions of an Economic Hitman is a work of fiction I don't know what to tell you.
- PittleyDunkin 2y ago
  You don't need to read the book to see the role the world bank plays in preserving worldwide power structures. The entire world can talk to each other outside the american media sphere, you know!
whimsicalism 2y ago
I think that generally if you read the internal documents, most of the people behind IMF and other global development loans are operating in good faith and not simply puppets of the political agenda of the west. I think they showed clear overconfidence in their policy prescriptions, but not out of malice
bobthepanda 2y ago
The IMF is by definition the lender of last resort, when banks and investors find a country so fiscally irresponsible that they cannot access reasonable funding. It is not exactly surprising that those kinds of basket case economies also fail when given IMF loans given that people predicted they were going to do that and stopped lending.

PittleyDunkin 2y ago

> Chinese loanmaking to foreign countries has mostly gone bust, with many loans basically in default. As America (or the world bank/imf as a proxy for american capital) can attest, calling in these loans is a great way to make a lot of enemies.

bilbo0s 2y ago
The problem in China's case, is that there's a lot of evidence that China doesn't even care whether or not it's paid back. One, the loans were given often in dollars. Which China found itself with a surplus of the past few decades. With no convenient way of ridding themselves of those dollars without significant pain, Chinese strategists hit on the brilliant plan of "loans". Two, and more importantly, the loans were used to finance Chinese influenced infrastructure projects. So for instance, most of the African loans financed things like ports, and roads, and bridges, and trains, etc. Well when you look at the map of the "where" and the "what", it's easy to see the "why". All these bridges, roads and trains lead to the ports. Sure, this allows African countries to move their resources, and sometimes even finished products manufactured in these nations, to ports for delivery to "international clients". (Read, "China"). But tell me this, will the Africans own the freighters? No. The Africans will move massive amounts of products and resources to their ports, likely in the EAC, then China will pick up all that bounty and move it to China. Sounds a lot like "harvesting" doesn't it? There's one case where the Chinese definitely don't care whether the loan is repaid or not. They only care that all the bridges, roads and trains financed by the loan go to the ports. In fact, I don't know if the Africans realize it, but they'll be paying the Chinese more than the value of the loan just by using the rail and roads. The entire infrastructure system they've built only facilitates one thing, moving resources and products to the ports. Is it good for Africans? Absolutely. A much better deal than they used to get when the West and Russia used assassinations and proxy wars to ravage the place. But let's not pretend it's about helping Africa. It's, at root, about an extremely low risk method of helping China by "loaning" money to others.
- whimsicalism 2y ago
  roads and bridges to ports are exactly what imf and world bank loan do too, for obvious reasons frankly this whole comment reads as historically less informed

mahirsaid 2y ago

Also don't forget U.S. debt to China. the picture is painted clear of who depends on who.

ianburrell 2y ago
China has $774B of US debt. The US total debt is $36T. 2% is not control of anything. That is smaller than the daily trading volume. China used to hold more but sold it recently.
- mahirsaid 2y ago
  My apologies I meant the other way. like what you said.