201–210 of 386 posts
Perhaps a dumb question: why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money? Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Believe me, the organic transition had nothing to do with agricultural practices and all to do with economics, with the logic being that fertilizer was an expensive import, and by banning fertilizer they could hemorrhage foreign exchange reserves a little less. Of course, they also earned a lot less because the bone-headed transition lead to a marked reduction in yield, only worsening the forex problem the ban of agr…
Very honestly, it might have worked out fine - organic produce fetches a much higher price overseas. If its already a somewhat niche product like tea, organic produce might go even higher and make up for the loss in yield. For Sri Lanka, it was the perfect storm of covid decimating tourism AND overseas demand for their produce. Without Covid, they might have been able to stay afloat on tourism dollars until the organ…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#2 is actually false. Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones. See this detailed report by The Atlantic: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch... And this study by British campaign charity Debt Justice, which found that the situation in Africa is simil…
Then why did China ask for the Hambantota port[1]. It is a clear strategic and economic policy. Not to deny other countries haven't done that in the past; but it is a clear way of gaining control - especially the taking control over infrastructure part. Same is the case with Africa, and many projects of which do not benefit the citizens of those countries in any way too. [2] [1]: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/wo…
> Our research shows that Chinese banks are willing to restructure the terms of existing loans and have never actually seized an asset from any country, much less the port of Hambantota.
Even if we assume that Hambantota is a problem, total Sri Lanka debt owned by China is still at 10%, much less than non-Chinese debt. China is not the biggest problem, if it is one at all.
Whether projects benefit citizen really is up to African governments. Chinese companies build whatever African governments ask them to; Chinese don't force their projects on Africa. When I buy a house and the house doesn't end up benefiting me, that's my problem for having chosen that house, not the mortgage's fault for "debt trapping" me.
But it's not at all set in stone that none of the projects, or even the majority of the projects, are useless. In a recent study, "China Surpasses US in Eyes of Young Africans, Survey Shows": https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-06-12/china-sur...
Perhaps a dumb question: why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money? Ignoring the volatility and environmental concerns, why shouldn’t all these small to medium-sized countries standardize on a cryptocurrency?
> why does every little country need its own currency? Are they all just addicted to printing money? Controlling your money supply can be needed to improve your country's position with regard to foreign trade. Greece would probably have been better able to manage its recent debt crisis had it controlled its own currency rather than being tied to the Euro, for example. > Ignoring the volatility and environmental conce…
This is basically protectionism, an economic theory that has been debunked time after time. If it were true, then why doesn't it hold true for individual states within a country? And while we are at it, why not a currency for every city or neighborhood?
> Because people still need to be able to transact with something, which is not a function well-served by cryptocurrencies, most of which have the bulk of trade in them carried on off-chain or via stablecoins that track a fiat currency.
Those same systems could simply add support for cryptocurrency. Paypal did a few months ago (not sure if they enabled merchant support or p2p transfers, but there's no technical barrier preventing them to do so). Credit cards could also add crypto to the long list of currencies they already support. Etc.
When an entity fails this hard and the internet I consume is suddenly flooded with articles about it, I can't help but think: ok, who fucked them over? Who are the biggest "friends" of Sri Lanka? The US, China? Who profits from a weaker Sri Lanka. That's the real question. I know this site has people from all over, so I'd love to read more from the people who are NOT on the other side of the world.
This is something i see a lot in conspiratorial thinking, you can't believe a government would be so incompetent, so somebody MUST be behind it and have caused this maliciously. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
1. https://github.com/binka/essays/blob/master/us_atrocities.md
2. https://twitter.com/justinbaragona/status/154695519704541593...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
#2 is actually false. Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones. See this detailed report by The Atlantic: The Chinese ‘Debt Trap’ Is a Myth https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2021/02/ch... And this study by British campaign charity Debt Justice, which found that the situation in Africa is simil…
> Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones My understanding is more of the Chinese debt is unproductive. 5% borrowed to build a useless port saps FX in a way 20% borrowed to buy yield-boosting agricultural inputs does not.
The drastic move to organic farming is puzzling. Any level headed person , forget a politician , would want to experiment first, see the results, gauge and then expand selectively. That is common sense . I guess when you are a dictator ish government and you rule the country with an iron first, the institutions of the state stop being anything and simply become rubber stamps. This also underlines the importance of se…
There's a premium that can be exacted from switching to organic agriculture that isn't be discussed in this article. Sri Lanka has a limited land mass available for food production and they mostly export commodities to other countries. We're talking ~25,000 sq-mi. For context, the US state of Kansas is ~82,000 sq-mi. If you cannot physically expand the footprint of agriculture in Sri Lanka to boost revenues, the thin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Only ~10% of Sri Lanka's debt is Chinese. The majority is from western private market lenders. Chinese debt also have lower interest than western ones My understanding is more of the Chinese debt is unproductive. 5% borrowed to build a useless port saps FX in a way 20% borrowed to buy yield-boosting agricultural inputs does not.
Also there were conditions linked to the debt. Here is the money but you have to use it to build a highway using Chinese companies. Pure neocolonialism
Furthermore, a major reason why Chinese companies did the work was due to a lack of skilled workforce in the country. Some countries chose for a hybrid model, where they ask for Chinese companies to train local workers.
Finally, if something does go wrong, then The Atlantic's article says that Chinese lenders are often willing to restructure the loan.
The drastic move to organic farming is puzzling. Any level headed person , forget a politician , would want to experiment first, see the results, gauge and then expand selectively. That is common sense . I guess when you are a dictator ish government and you rule the country with an iron first, the institutions of the state stop being anything and simply become rubber stamps. This also underlines the importance of se…
Are you kidding me? The complete religious level consensus on the "save the planet" or "climate change" side of the discussion is everything should go back to being organic and sustainable, and unquestionably right now, with no testing.
Take a look at the greens in germany, who are still getting the last 3 nuclear plants shut down RIGHT NOW. I mean what the fuck.
And this isn't politicians. Politicians just reflect what their voting base want. There is an insane dogma now that anything artificial is basically evil, for many many of the public.