Donât want to open new thread so here goes the link
Your partner DD screw up is your fault.
Obviously nobody should lend money to poor countries, because those people are too stupid they always end up being taken advantage of by the wickedly clever Chinese.
If you believe in that you should also ban payday loans and subprime mortgages. What if poor people canât get any loans after you ban the loans that they can actually get? Well, riding tall on the moral high horse of course nobody cares.
All these swipes at Belt and Road from the Western media is just ridiculous. From the NYT article:
China seemed particularly interested in oil from Ecuador, one of OPECâs smallest members. In one deal in 2009, China lent Ecuador $1 billion, to be repaid in oil shipments to the state oil company PetroChina.
âBut we didnât have other options,â Mr. Borja recalled. âThe doors were closed to the West.â
So the West didnât want to lend to Ecuador, and China is evil because it did? If Chase refused your mortgage application but Wells didnât, and you later defaulted, itâs Wellsâ problem that they are evil to lend to you in the first place?
High interests rate and bad loan terms come about because poor people and poor countries donât have that many options. If the West is upset about that, it can always lend at a more favorable term. So essentially their position is, we donât lend them money and therefore you canât too?
.
Same kind of logic used when GTAT went bankrupt, many blame Apple.
Is amazing such logic is spouted by public reputable news sites. Even more appalling is supposedly highly educated (and hence excellent critical thinking skills?) believe them.
The World Bank has a specific page to list its research on BRI. Itâs quite good.
Western mediaâs complaints about BRI being just an excuse to export Chinaâs excess capacity is so small minded and dangerously underestimates Xiâs strategic goals.
Chinaâs development model is infrastructure heavy. They believe in heavy investment in infrastructure like ports and railways and its potential to lift up a countryâs productivity. How can you export anything if your ports are rotten and roads are just mud roads? It offers a different development model from the one the West has been preaching since WW2 and frankly didnât work at all. I donât think itâs that crazy for them to try something new.
Infrastructural projects are inherently risky/ controversial because of high capital investment upfront and future benefits are unknown (usually projected outcomes using some econometric models). I recalled many bloggers comment on BART projects⌠frankly I didnât follow that closely⌠vaguely recalled over-budget, delays, insufficient usage, USA is car-based culture, etc.
Yes, that NY times article is a one-sided account. At least China attempted to built a dam there to improve lives. Did any other country lift a finger?
The Ecuador mega dam project, plus a crap ton of other projects, cost $19B and NYT was crying bloody murder.
Then there is the price tag: around $19 billion in Chinese loans, not only for this dam, known as Coca Codo Sinclair, but also for bridges, highways, irrigation, schools, health clinics and a half dozen other dams the government is scrambling to pay for.
Some comparison:
The new Bay Bridge, well only about half of it is new, cost $6B.
Central subway linking SF Chinatown to Downtown, only 1.7 miles long but cost $1.6B. That comes to about $1B per mile.
BART extension from Fremont to San Jose Downtown, 6 new stations, estimated to cost over $6B. So itâs about $1B per station.
Watchdog Probes Tencentâs Grip on Chinaâs Giant Music Industry
-
Song-licensing practices trigger antitrust regulatorâs concern
-
Anti-competition review threatens Tencentâs market dominance