Did a little digging. Found one interesting piece from Hudson institute including an opinion piece from former head of world bank. Main points: China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are prioritizing engagement with Africa both for for economic and political purposes (large UN voting bloc). China favors market rate loans over foreign aide, article suggests they cannot afford straight aid even if they wanted to. Loans from China are denominated in dollars, so strengthening USD and increasing interest rates playing a large role in debt. African nations paying more in debt repayment than receiving in aid and economic benefit. Traditional capital markets are no use to Africa because capital is flowing to developed countries and companies that already have cash. Doesn’t seem like China wants to repossess infrastructure they built, they actually want loan repayments. China doesn’t want to take write downs because they are concerned the money will be used to repay western creditors. US foreign policy is weak in Africa, infrastructure aid would go far because would improve terms from China. It’s a far more complex situation than I had thought. I plan to do more reading on the topic so I can be better informed.
Oh no way, they will tell you to nationalize assets, impose fiscal austerity and all the other things that you can hear from a corporations board room in search of records profit in the next quarter even if it means nosediving economics in 4 months.
I’ve yet to see any of you coming at me cite anything that isn’t a Washington think tank. Why don’t we try something other than begging Sᴏᴜᴛʜᴇʀɴ Bᴏʏ™ to use Associated Press/AFP sources, citing hardcore right wing neocon think tanks that appear first on Google search, and instead try asking Africans about what they think of China?
You don’t even know how to find that information, do you? Post-Ukraine Google has you thumbfingering RAND Corp and The New York Times into my mentions. You are one stinky boy!
The account is 2-3 days old and is posting or commenting at least once per hour in the last 24. They posted three disparate articles with commentary in less than five minutes, so I don’t believe it is a single, real, person.
You are going to need to come back with something other than NEOCON DRIVEL if you want me to take your quest to inject 🤓🇳🇺🇦🇳🇨🇪🧐 into my discourse seriously. “Did a little digging” always seems to include the first page of search engines that had their balls chopped off by the Alliance to Secure Democracy in 2022. I don’t need live reports on your Google search journey!
Did a little digging. Found one interesting piece from Hudson institute including an opinion piece from former head of world bank. Main points: China, and Russia to a lesser extent, are prioritizing engagement with Africa both for for economic and political purposes (large UN voting bloc). China favors market rate loans over foreign aide, article suggests they cannot afford straight aid even if they wanted to. Loans from China are denominated in dollars, so strengthening USD and increasing interest rates playing a large role in debt. African nations paying more in debt repayment than receiving in aid and economic benefit. Traditional capital markets are no use to Africa because capital is flowing to developed countries and companies that already have cash. Doesn’t seem like China wants to repossess infrastructure they built, they actually want loan repayments. China doesn’t want to take write downs because they are concerned the money will be used to repay western creditors. US foreign policy is weak in Africa, infrastructure aid would go far because would improve terms from China. It’s a far more complex situation than I had thought. I plan to do more reading on the topic so I can be better informed.
https://www.hudson.org/economics/china-winning-belt-road-debt-battles-david-malpass-joshua-meservey-thomas-duesterberg
When imf says aid it’s not what you mean. It means loan with strings attached.
Strings meaning the repayment terms. The issue was more about which lender is going to write down bad loans, China or the west.
Oh no way, they will tell you to nationalize assets, impose fiscal austerity and all the other things that you can hear from a corporations board room in search of records profit in the next quarter even if it means nosediving economics in 4 months.
So yep, aid is worse than loans.
I’ve yet to see any of you coming at me cite anything that isn’t a Washington think tank. Why don’t we try something other than begging Sᴏᴜᴛʜᴇʀɴ Bᴏʏ™ to use Associated Press/AFP sources, citing hardcore right wing neocon think tanks that appear first on Google search, and instead try asking Africans about what they think of China?
You don’t even know how to find that information, do you? Post-Ukraine Google has you thumbfingering RAND Corp and The New York Times into my mentions. You are one stinky boy!
I wasn’t coming at you dork.
The guy is itching for an argument on every post.
The account is 2-3 days old and is posting or commenting at least once per hour in the last 24. They posted three disparate articles with commentary in less than five minutes, so I don’t believe it is a single, real, person.
You are going to need to come back with something other than NEOCON DRIVEL if you want me to take your quest to inject 🤓🇳🇺🇦🇳🇨🇪🧐 into my discourse seriously. “Did a little digging” always seems to include the first page of search engines that had their balls chopped off by the Alliance to Secure Democracy in 2022. I don’t need live reports on your Google search journey!
Two day old sock puppet account surely doesn’t have an agenda. Focus your attention elsewhere factory troll.
My agenda is smashing that MFing 𝔖𝔥𝔞𝔯𝔢 𝔅𝔲𝔱𝔱𝔬𝔫. Get your neocon agenda, both-sidesing ass out of here.
You absolute potato, you’ve got the energy of an entitled youngest child.
Says the redditor begging me to take Washington think tanks seriously because learning something new scares him.