The World’s Emptiest Airport Is a Red Flag
nextcity.org
nextcity.org
Coercing developing countries into taking out loans they can't afford to build infrastructure they don't need has been the USA's MO for decades, and is the reason why it is able to exert so much geopolitical influence around the world. And recently China has been playing the same game.
Yes but in China's case they don't expect to be involved in the internal policies or demand specific budgetary restrictions when they default on their loan. As opposed to an IMF loan, China has better and simpler terms (someone below outlined this already: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16796087) and they know it.
It explores the fallout of loan conditions given to the government of Jamaica. The main issue surrounded Jamaica's acceptance of a loan in the aftermath of an oil crisis. The loan conditions required the Jamaican government to not impose trade restrictions or tariffs on member countries of the World Bank. This meant America's subsidized grain and vegetables could be sold there at a fraction of the cost of production in Jamaica, and the whole process led to a collapse of Jamaica's agricultural industries.
> Apple Computers is a famous example: it was founded by (mostly Republican) computer engineers who broke from IBM in Silicon Valley in the 1980s, forming little democratic circles of twenty to forty people with their laptops in each other's garages.
Someone who's willing to say something like that has blown their credentials in my book, especially when it comes to economics, which is an ideologically touchy field already. Here's a further, somewhat ranty discussion by Brad Delong, a well-respected left-wing economist: http://delong.typepad.com/sdj/2013/04/david-graeber-april-fo...
On the other hand, I think the book is full of good analysis, the overall narrative is compelling. I don't think it really warrants treatment as a textbook, more as any other mass market non-fiction...subject to factual scrutiny, but worthy of intellectual engagement as well. he cites enough true things and gives enough examples that the point would stand alone if the factual errors named were simply removed.
Now, I don't condone lying, and I certainly am not pleased to see that post you linked. I am also sufficiently interested with the philosophical content of the book that I still recommend it, though with a slightly tempered sense of enthusiasm...sigh.
Are you trying to make some subtle distinction between "leftist" and "left-wing", or are you claiming DeLong doesn't even qualify as a "left-wing economist"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Bradford_DeLong#Political_v...
I'm not arguing against your point, but do you have any specific examples? The wiki article doesn't really offer up anything, do we just have to read the book?
I don't recall if the author lists very specific information about the examples, such as "The Salvajina Dam, located at such-and-such coordinates", in the book, but I don't think so.
His book is a great read.
But just gooogle “China invaded Africa” to get a bunch more:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1036105/How-Chinas-t...
Unstable countries see those two demands as far simpler than WTO / UN type development, which also tends to come with things like human rights requirements.
And if they can't repay the loan, China will pay THEM to lease it out? Seems like a win-win.
Fast forward a few years, and China has helped prop up their internal construction companies, by giving them state sponsored projects on foreign soil.
And when the countries ultimately fail to repay the loan, China acquires territory over important infrastructure in foreign countries, not unlike how the US has military bases worldwide.
Well, China is an authoritarian dictatorship, while the U.S. supports democracy and human rights of the locals. In fact, the U.S. has done more for freedom and democracy in China than the Chinese government: 23 million Chinese people in Taiwan have those things because the U.S. protects them from China's own government. (Yes, the U.S. also does some bad things.)
There is a big difference between a foreign government controlling a military base with the support of the local government, and a foreign government controlling the major ports and railroads due to a debt trap that the local government can't legally escape. Again, the U.S. is imperfect, but the world has seen enough expansionist dictatorships to know what they do.
> violent methods in which it is being spread
That is attempted sometimes (and usually with poor results), but democracy almost always spreads peacefully: India, Brazil, South Korea, most of Europe, South Africa (albeit still a one-party democracy), Mexico, etc. etc.
It's the dictatorships that try to spread their form of government through violence. We can say that if there were no dictatorships - i.e., if all countries were democracies - there probably would be no wars. Even Trump and the GOP aren't threatening war with any democracies.
/s
C.f. https://qz.com/1192493/china-spied-on-african-union-headquar...
For example, if SL resisted and China ignored them then the SL leader would be humiliated and might fall from power and/or China might replace them with someone more agreeable. I think SL's only protection would be if another power, India in particular, decided it was in their interest to push out China. I'm surprised India has allowed China to get a foothold there.
Compare SL to Cuba: Castro survived, AFAICT, because the USSR supported him and used Cuba as a geostrategic base.
They are building military infrastructure (listening posts already exist) in Myanmar's Coco Islands, and Maldives too, in their strategy to surround India which is called, "String of Pearls".
https://libcom.org/files/__Debt__The_First_5_000_Years.pdf (pdf)
/s
One possible argument against the notion is that China has always been manically focused on internal unity. Their ambitions abroad, while extensive, will always take a backseat to internal cohesion. China seems to be preparing for a certain amount of internal social upheaval, and if that does happen it would probably curb their external activities to an extent.
This kind of economic “outreach” is possibly a way to get imperial without having to overcommit. It’s a little scary, because as you say it could work. If the Chinese play it right, they could dominate economically without firing a shot, except maybe in Taiwan
Why do you choose that date? The following cycle is a well known model of Chinese history and has been true for millennia (I might misremember a detail here or there): 1. civil war -> 2. cohesion and ascendant power -> 3. corruption and declining power -> goto 1
As an interesting tangent: The model above emphasized order as the priority, which means centralized authoritarian power. A recent history published in Hong Kong[0] says that order was really just consolidated power for the Emperor (or Paramount Leader, as they are called now), but for common people the periods of 'disorder' provided more freedom, prosperity, and innovation. As the author says in one interview:
"Since the imposition of imperial absolutism and centralized government in the Qin dynasty, China has not produced the democratic politicians of ancient times, nor the great thinkers like Laozi, Confucius and Mencius. Quite the opposite – totalitarian society has produced many despotic and violent rulers and corrupt officials and brought China into a great dark age." [1]
[0] China History Revisited by Xiao Jiansheng, published by New Century Press of Hong Kong. I read that it was banned in China, but a best-seller in Hong Kong. This first link is the forward, which I recommend:
https://chinahistoryrevisited.blogspot.com/
https://asiancorrespondent.com/2010/01/chat-with-chinese-aut...
[1] https://www.asiasentinel.com/society/revisiting-chinese-hist...
That said, I’d not want to live under a Chinese culture and it’s Confuscianistic rules.
We’re contrasting a democracy and a dictatorship. Each can be cruel. But one is more stable than the other.
/s
Its not like human mods are any better at it