71–80 of 87 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure, but wouldn’t China be relying on those countries willingly giving those things (ports, resources, etc) to them? Why would any country do that?
Sri Lanka handed over a port to China to pay off debt.. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lank...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This article has no "hint claim" that China is the sole lender. In fact, there's no such thing as "the front of the line" when you're the sole lender. It's an article about Chinese lenders rejecting and sabotaging the traditional practice of lenders working together to avoid a default. They're trying to grab as much as they can for themselves while the debtor falls into chaos. You don't need to be the sole or even ma…
Their intent all along was to wait for the defaults to start pouring in so they can claim all the assets they funded. The speedrun way to plant infrastructure around the globe and manage their own banana republics without raising the hackles of an adversary. Making a deal was never an option.
There is nothing bad with the loan. But the loaners are not always so good at paying back.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The important context is that these loans were given with the expectation that the recipient would eventually default. These loans are backed by resource rights, and would also giving China considerable leverage to demand the right to create ports / military bases, etc. Anybody paying attention has seen this coming miles away (example: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2018.04.014 ), but such loans are too tempting…
Sure, but wouldn’t China be relying on those countries willingly giving those things (ports, resources, etc) to them? Why would any country do that?
It is a kind of economic warfare, you could say, except it’s completely legal to bet on some country lending and defaulting.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The comment you're responding to is typical cope from corrupt, inept, and poorly-run countries looking for excuses on why they remain poor. I see this in my country (Nigeria) too...that somehow it's the IMF keeping us poor, not our stupid leaders and an equally stupid populace voting them in.
This you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35474481 I don't trust anything that comes out of your mouth.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Burner account making claims with no data, then being disproven immediately by other commenters providing data? Seems super legit.
They're either just really bad at it, or these attempts just smokescreen their proper influence campaign.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets. Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political…
This is a completely false narrative. The IMF is a lender of last resort. Countries only go to it to borrow when they absolutely need money and have nowhere else to go. And for obvious reasons, when countries are in such desperate straits that literally no private or public entity will lend money to them, the IMF requires fairly stringent rules so their leaders don’t just pocket the money and run away, or don’t spend…
> Behind the scenes is China’s reluctance to forgive debt and its extreme secrecy about how much money it has loaned and on what terms, which has kept other major lenders from stepping in to help. On top of that is the recent discovery that borrowers have been required to put cash in hidden escrow accounts that push China to the front of the line of creditors to be paid. This is the part of “belt and road” where they…
I wonder what "stepping in to help" is supposed to mean in this context.
Also, "found paying back that debt is consuming an ever-greater amount of the tax revenue needed to keep schools open, provide electricity and pay for food and fuel". No shit, servicing debts requires money, who could have thought. If only everyone could just print more money like the US does to service it's loans (oh wait, it seems like it no longer can do that!)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets. Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political…
This is a completely false narrative. The IMF is a lender of last resort. Countries only go to it to borrow when they absolutely need money and have nowhere else to go. And for obvious reasons, when countries are in such desperate straits that literally no private or public entity will lend money to them, the IMF requires fairly stringent rules so their leaders don’t just pocket the money and run away, or don’t spend…
This is irrelevant.
> And as a bonus, unlike the World Bank funds (which is the correct equivalent to the BRI loans), the Chinese didn’t require you to prove the economic viability of the projects, they didn’t require you to raise additional private capital for the project, and most importantly, the Chinese had absolutely no qualms about their companies personally bribing the leaders of the recipient companies tens of millions of dollars.
May I ask, what is exactly your source for this? This really feels narrated. For one, IMF doesn't really invest in specific projects: https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/IMF-Lending
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets. Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political…
Every loan comes with conditions. No one is forcing countries to take those IMF loans. They always have the option of living within their means.
Was anyone forcing countries to take Chinese loans?
So china lent money loan-shark style for things that these countries probably didn’t need but china convinced them would help them, and now it’s calling the loans due and of course the promised revenues didn’t materialize so these destitute countries are left holding the bag.
I honestly feel a weird kind of anthropomorphisation going on here. These kinds of contracts involve armies of professional bureaucrats, lawyers and financial experts from both sides.
Denying these countries their own agenda and responsibility is kind of dishonest, is it? These are sovereign states, not some well educated corpos fooling countryside simpletons.