A Chinese Company Reshaping the World Leaves a Troubled Trail | Hacker News Reader

A Chinese Company Reshaping the World Leaves a Troubled Trail

bloomberg.com

59 pointspetethomas17 comments

When I went to visit a friend in Zambia you could see all the infrastructure being built by the Chinese, however much to my friends disappointment they have completely bypassed the local economy.

He says they setup work camps and have facilities so they can be isolated from the locals. A Chinese worker won't spend a single Yuan in Zambia.

He joked that it's colonisation 2.0

>He joked that it's colonisation 2.0

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism

This is happening in a lot of countries, right under people’s noses and they don’t even know it.

Even places you would never think, like Italy and yes, even the United States.

(Sorry there’s no link. I tried to Google some of the recent newspaper articles I’ve read about it, but it’s simply not possible to search Google with the word “Chinese” on mobile and get anything but restaurant listings and reviews.)

Here is Texaco-Chevron completely destroying the water supply in lago agrio in Ecuador and refusing to pay even after multiple judgements against them in a court they agreed to. [1]

Given this story you would think Bloomberg would be equally 'concerned'. But they are defending Chevron in that case which means they do not really care about the issues discussed. [2]

And this is not new. This has been happening for decades and there is a long culture of exploitation and decimation by any country that can get away with it perpetuated under cover of this kind of fake concern and selective outrage. Needless to say these problems won't be solved without a more sincere and serious global effort.

[1] https://therealnews.com/stories/chevron-arbitration-ruling-a...

[2] https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-07-12/chevron-n...

Worth remembering that you'll find similar complaints about construction projects within Chinese borders -- this isn't necessarily reflective of China being cruel to the developing world. Instead, it is a consequence of a country where things are done differently going abroad.

I'd say construction overall -- construction is one of the ripest industries for graft all over the world.

It's not just graft, though. The article also talks about environmental damage.

Now, construction can also cause environmental damage worldwide. (By definition, it has to cause environmental change in some way.) But some may do better at limiting the environmental damage than this company does.

I'd argue it's more a function of operating in states with poor oversight mechanisms.

This article does use a standard unit of size, the American football field, but introduced me to a new unit for weight, the Toyota Camry.

In all seriousness, I don't mind weird units when they are a small multiple of what is being discussed. Like 2 Olympic swimming pools of beer or the weight of a fully loaded 747. But the point is that people don't readily understand large numbers. Saying the sand "weighs as much as 70 million Toyota Camrys" is no better for people than saying it weighs 250 billion pounds. How about 20 Great Pyramids? Someone who has seen the Pyramids will have some idea of the magnitude then.

This Chinese belt&road thing is a bit weird, as a project: it's unpopular at home, it's controversial in the target countries, it's had no real benefit so far, and also it's tremendously expensive while the Chinese economy is slowing down. It's like the Chinese gov thinks building new roads will expand the economy, but these things take time to get a ROI -- if they succeed at all.

It really feels like a soviet 5 year plan. Bureaucratic delusion.

It has a lot of benefits for China.

But as often China is capable of drawing a plan over 50 years and to execute it over that time frame.

What they are doing is developing and reshaping global trade routes around China.

That's a strategic, long term plan.

And yes, building roads and railways will expand the economy. Let's remember how the US developed the West.

The US developed organically, here it looks a bit more like a forced march. Not saying it cant work, but it looks more like a bet than a plan.

Also, the only "50 year plan" I can think of is Den Xiaopin opening the economy, and it went through because he was still powerful and alive until a few years ago. And it was more like a 30 year plan. Do you know many great long-term successes from them? Because they're more famous for things like the great leap forward.

After Workd War 2 the US was in the unique situation of not being completely decimated by the war. They used this leverage to craft trade policies to benefit the US economy by relying on their weight. To say that the US growth was purely organic is not quite hitting the mark. By all intents, it was forced to a large degree and perhaps with even more bloodshed than we’d like to admit. With that being said, the US growth model is not the only model that exists, it just so happens it was the most recent and most successful to date. But I would say that the rate of growth in a China is unparalleled, especially in the last 30 years. Going from one of the poorest countries in the world to what they are today is mind boggling. The growth itself is unsustainable unless they take forced measures of building the infrastructure out to allow the growth to spread out. It’s going to be interesting to see how this all plays out and even more so with the current political climate in the west. I imagine the US isn’t just going to roll over and let it’s dominant position be taken from it so easily but we have to remember, there hasn’t been a single empire in history that has stood the test of time. The way China is approaching things might not be the best way to do it but we won’t know the true cost of today for another 30 years down the line.

Ha, I missed the mark here. The comment I was replying to mentioned 'railways' and 'the west' so I was thinking of the American West. Older use-case, and for national/internal development. You are right that the Marshall Plan is a good equivalent example. But I think its thinking was more obvious: it's either us or the soviet, and also rebuilt economies had only one major economy to trade with. These gave the USA major leverage. I don't see it here, leverage is a lot lower.

Yes, I meant the American West, which was opened by the railways.

Do you think that "belt and road" is a short term plan?

Of course not. Building trade routes and railways to span Eurasia is thinking 50 years down the road.

No, it's long term, but as mentioned above, to me it's more of a bet (I said "5 year plan" as a reference to rigid soviet top-down polocies).

You said "But as often China is capable of drawing a plan over 50 years and to execute it over that time frame". Can you give (multiple since you said "often") major 50 year plans, that China announced and then delivered on? I don't know all that much on that topic, and as I said before their most famous efforts at planning/reforming didn't turn out too good.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com