• jay91
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    6
    arrow-down
    12
    ·
    3 years ago

    Its part of china`s debt trap.

      • OsrsNeedsF2P
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        ·
        edit-2
        3 years ago

        A hyperbole perhaps, but a myth no. As evidenced in your links, China would definitely be gaining more short term if they operated the loans like a death trap, but instead have been quite generous. In Sri Lanka, initial reports suggested it would be profitable and even when things went south China didn’t go for asset forfeiture.

        However - China is objectively trying to gain power in these developing countries and make these countries rely on China.

        Is this a bad thing? In my opinion, there’s nothing inherently bad about it, and it’s objectively better than what the US has done. However, if you’re fearful of Chinese values, I can see you being fearful of their loan program.

        • linearperk
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          9
          ·
          3 years ago

          Every time I read “debt trap” and it isn’t followed or preceded by “IMF” I get a tiny bit more cynical.

          Even a cursory glance at US monetary policy reveals most about what you need to know about so called “debt traps”.

          Folks in the US write best sellers about it every few years (economic hit man, smedley butler, etc) but it never sticks.

        • ☆ Yσɠƚԋσʂ ☆OP
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          8
          ·
          3 years ago

          Right, China obviously isn’t doing this out of sheer altruism. My key point is that there is no indication that anything nefarious is happening here.

    • gun
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 years ago

      The only time a country ever came close to default on one of China’s infrastructure projects, was Sri Lanka. And they didn’t default because China helped Sri Lanka cover the costs by leasing the port they financed.

      • poVoq
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        2 years ago

        deleted by creator

        • gun
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          3 years ago

          This is what Trump and Pompeo said. That they want a military base. But it’s wrong. It’s not effective as a naval base. The harbor entrance is narrow, only wide enough for one ship to pass through at a time. To house naval ships there would be foolish. It would be easy for enemy to block the entrance off and then bomb. And in the case where ships need to scramble somewhere, they can only do so very slowly.