Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used?
-
Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used? China lent money, now they're taking payments. Is that debt collecting, or just the second part of lending money? Is a mortgage lender a debt collector? That's a loaded term meant to give you a negative impression, cuz no one likes a debt collector except perhaps an American hospital.
Second, the countries agreed to the loans. Paying them back was expected and predictable. If payments can't be made, then the debt will be restructured, meaning the payment schedule will be modified so the debtor country can make payments.
Third, the money was often used to build a potentially money-making asset, like a port. If used correctly, the assest should pay for a decent chunk of the loan.
Forth, I see a lot of half baked comments like 'China will take the port back' or 'China will take the hospital.' You must first ask, with what will China take back an African port, or hospital, or whatever? They don't have the means. They're not going to park an aircraft carrier off the coast and drop bombs until the loan is repayed, because they can't. So what does China want? China doesn't want the fucking port, they want resources and friends with benefits.
China's basically going here's a loan, build a port to import goods for your people. Import from whoever you like, it's your port. Oh by the way we make the cheapest and best everything (cuz they do), we'd be happy to sell you whatever you want, like solar panels or EVs. We also need colbalt and the finest silicon sand to build you these awesome EVs and solar panels you want, so we'll buy that from your mines and use your cool new port to ship it. Here's the loan payment schedule. No payments for the first 5 years, then afterward you pay X per year for 20-30 years. Oh no, you're having trouble making payments? Well we benefit from you having that port too, so let's restructure that debt so your people don't revolt and get cozy with the US.
There's no fucking debt trap. That's just racist and moronic. 'Those sneaky Chinese tricked the backwards brown people with a loan they can't repay.' Plus you can't repossess a structure on the other side of the world without a credible threat of violence. China does not have the means. Economic coercion, sure, but the debtor agreed to that and they're not stupid.
-
Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used? China lent money, now they're taking payments. Is that debt collecting, or just the second part of lending money? Is a mortgage lender a debt collector? That's a loaded term meant to give you a negative impression, cuz no one likes a debt collector except perhaps an American hospital.
Second, the countries agreed to the loans. Paying them back was expected and predictable. If payments can't be made, then the debt will be restructured, meaning the payment schedule will be modified so the debtor country can make payments.
Third, the money was often used to build a potentially money-making asset, like a port. If used correctly, the assest should pay for a decent chunk of the loan.
Forth, I see a lot of half baked comments like 'China will take the port back' or 'China will take the hospital.' You must first ask, with what will China take back an African port, or hospital, or whatever? They don't have the means. They're not going to park an aircraft carrier off the coast and drop bombs until the loan is repayed, because they can't. So what does China want? China doesn't want the fucking port, they want resources and friends with benefits.
China's basically going here's a loan, build a port to import goods for your people. Import from whoever you like, it's your port. Oh by the way we make the cheapest and best everything (cuz they do), we'd be happy to sell you whatever you want, like solar panels or EVs. We also need colbalt and the finest silicon sand to build you these awesome EVs and solar panels you want, so we'll buy that from your mines and use your cool new port to ship it. Here's the loan payment schedule. No payments for the first 5 years, then afterward you pay X per year for 20-30 years. Oh no, you're having trouble making payments? Well we benefit from you having that port too, so let's restructure that debt so your people don't revolt and get cozy with the US.
There's no fucking debt trap. That's just racist and moronic. 'Those sneaky Chinese tricked the backwards brown people with a loan they can't repay.' Plus you can't repossess a structure on the other side of the world without a credible threat of violence. China does not have the means. Economic coercion, sure, but the debtor agreed to that and they're not stupid.
This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html
You're either ignorant or a demagogue.
-
This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html
You're either ignorant or a demagogue.
nytimes isnt necessarily a trusted source for unbiased information about china, or americas dealings. that aside, i wish i could read that article without them demanding or selling my information. so can you post a breakdown for us paranoids?
-
nytimes isnt necessarily a trusted source for unbiased information about china, or americas dealings. that aside, i wish i could read that article without them demanding or selling my information. so can you post a breakdown for us paranoids?
This article references the story of the OG port from 2018:
-
Okay gang, I need you to think a bit more critically than 'China Bad.' First, why was the term "debt collector" used? China lent money, now they're taking payments. Is that debt collecting, or just the second part of lending money? Is a mortgage lender a debt collector? That's a loaded term meant to give you a negative impression, cuz no one likes a debt collector except perhaps an American hospital.
Second, the countries agreed to the loans. Paying them back was expected and predictable. If payments can't be made, then the debt will be restructured, meaning the payment schedule will be modified so the debtor country can make payments.
Third, the money was often used to build a potentially money-making asset, like a port. If used correctly, the assest should pay for a decent chunk of the loan.
Forth, I see a lot of half baked comments like 'China will take the port back' or 'China will take the hospital.' You must first ask, with what will China take back an African port, or hospital, or whatever? They don't have the means. They're not going to park an aircraft carrier off the coast and drop bombs until the loan is repayed, because they can't. So what does China want? China doesn't want the fucking port, they want resources and friends with benefits.
China's basically going here's a loan, build a port to import goods for your people. Import from whoever you like, it's your port. Oh by the way we make the cheapest and best everything (cuz they do), we'd be happy to sell you whatever you want, like solar panels or EVs. We also need colbalt and the finest silicon sand to build you these awesome EVs and solar panels you want, so we'll buy that from your mines and use your cool new port to ship it. Here's the loan payment schedule. No payments for the first 5 years, then afterward you pay X per year for 20-30 years. Oh no, you're having trouble making payments? Well we benefit from you having that port too, so let's restructure that debt so your people don't revolt and get cozy with the US.
There's no fucking debt trap. That's just racist and moronic. 'Those sneaky Chinese tricked the backwards brown people with a loan they can't repay.' Plus you can't repossess a structure on the other side of the world without a credible threat of violence. China does not have the means. Economic coercion, sure, but the debtor agreed to that and they're not stupid.
Fine, so China is just being as shitty capitalist as any other predatory capitalist country, is that the message you want to put across?
-
This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html
You're either ignorant or a demagogue.
the economic viability of the port is suspect.
If the economic viability of the port is suspect what does China gain by taking it back? An asset that is losing them money instead of losing Sri Lanka money? Or are they managing it better so it produces a profit for them but not under Sri Lankan management? Are they selling off the assets to try to recoup as much of their investment as possible but still end up worse off than if they never paid for it in the first place?
What is the allegation here?
-
This article references the story of the OG port from 2018:
That article seems to focus on environmental sustainability, which, while important, doesn't really mention the economic viability aspect that was part of the allegations earlier in this thread.
-
This is false. In case of Sri Lanka, they did take the port back and arguably the whole thing was setup since the economic viability of the port is suspect.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/25/world/asia/china-sri-lanka-port.html
You're either ignorant or a demagogue.
I can't get past NYT's paywall, and it's the NYT, they're not going to give an unbiased assessment, but I found the wikipedia article. I'm failing to see how China "took the port back." Looks like a Chinese company bought an 85% stake into Hambantota International Port Group, an entity created by the Sri Lanken government to run the port. The agreement allows the Chinese company to operate the port for 99 years.
Then there's this bit:
Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown states that China's relationship to the Hambantota port has become the opposite of the theorized debt-trap modus operandi. Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics. As of at least 2024, the port is not a significant commercial success, although shipping through the port is increasing.
-
Fine, so China is just being as shitty capitalist as any other predatory capitalist country, is that the message you want to put across?
Are those other capitalist countries building infrastructure or just extracting wealth? It often seems like only the latter while China is at least building infrastructure first. I'm not sure how predatory it is, but it seems less predatory than what's happened in the past.
-
Are those other capitalist countries building infrastructure or just extracting wealth? It often seems like only the latter while China is at least building infrastructure first. I'm not sure how predatory it is, but it seems less predatory than what's happened in the past.
Depends on the case. Hospital, probably good, building train tracks, dams, canals, ports that the colonial empires also did to facilitate extraction of resources. Depends on how it is implemented and how much the locals are listened to and integrated in the process. It is certainly possible for both to benefit.
-
Depends on the case. Hospital, probably good, building train tracks, dams, canals, ports that the colonial empires also did to facilitate extraction of resources. Depends on how it is implemented and how much the locals are listened to and integrated in the process. It is certainly possible for both to benefit.
Absolutly. This would be a fun topic to dive into, but I don't know where to get raw, unbiased info about the deals (nor do I have time).
-
That article seems to focus on environmental sustainability, which, while important, doesn't really mention the economic viability aspect that was part of the allegations earlier in this thread.
Different port. I am referring to the one from 2018.
-
the economic viability of the port is suspect.
If the economic viability of the port is suspect what does China gain by taking it back? An asset that is losing them money instead of losing Sri Lanka money? Or are they managing it better so it produces a profit for them but not under Sri Lankan management? Are they selling off the assets to try to recoup as much of their investment as possible but still end up worse off than if they never paid for it in the first place?
What is the allegation here?
That China's investments aren't necessarily beneficial for the country host country.
There is an element of domination and geopolitics (having a de facto military port on India's doorstep).
-
I can't get past NYT's paywall, and it's the NYT, they're not going to give an unbiased assessment, but I found the wikipedia article. I'm failing to see how China "took the port back." Looks like a Chinese company bought an 85% stake into Hambantota International Port Group, an entity created by the Sri Lanken government to run the port. The agreement allows the Chinese company to operate the port for 99 years.
Then there's this bit:
Writing in 2023, academic and former UK diplomat Kerry Brown states that China's relationship to the Hambantota port has become the opposite of the theorized debt-trap modus operandi. Brown observes that China has had to commit more money to the project, expose itself to further risk, and has had to become entangled in complex local politics. As of at least 2024, the port is not a significant commercial success, although shipping through the port is increasing.
Let's not play dumb, ok?
