Thread: The View, from China

[What a sullen little begrudger. I can see why ya got picked on in school PH.]



The BRI has the potential to yield considerable economic and political gains for China. Many of these have been explicitly acknowledged in China’s official policy communiques, such as the expansion of China’s export markets, the promotion of the Renminbi (RMB) as an international currency, and the reduction of trade frictions like tariffs and transport costs.

Additionally, developing and connecting hard infrastructure with neighboring countries will help reduce transport times and costs. Establishing soft infrastructure with partner countries will allow for a broader range of goods to be traded with fewer regulatory hurdles. Raising capital for these infrastructure projects by issuing bonds in RMB will also encourage its use in international financial centers. In particular, China’s lower-income western provinces stand to gain, as the creation of overland economic connectivity with Central Asia will boost growth there.

Attendance at Belt and Road Forums
Forum (Dates)	Number of Heads of State/Government
1st Forum (May 14-15, 2017)	29
2nd Forum (April 25-28, 2019)	37
Source: Various

Click fo

r a complete list of attendees.

Many of the potential benefits of BRI are less publicly articulated. For instance, some of China’s SOEs – such as cement, steel, and construction companies – have built up significant capacity (expanding factories and hiring workers) to serve the once booming domestic economy. As China’s economy has slowed, these companies are struggling to find productive uses for their resources. Similarly, China has a large reserve of savings that is not being invested productively. Investing in large-scale overseas infrastructure projects enables China to export its excess savings and put its SOEs to work.

If successfully implemented, the BRI could help re-orient a large part of the world economy toward China. Increasing the amount of trade, investment, and connectivity between China and countries throughout Eurasia will also render these countries more dependent on the Chinese economy, increasing China’s economic leverage over them. This may empower China to more readily shape the rules and norms that govern the economic affairs of the region.

The BRI may also win China political gains. Beijing may be able to exploit its financial largesse to influence partner country policies to align with its own interests, particularly in certain countries in Central and South Asia that lack good governance and robust rule of law. Some countries that are part of BRI rank unfavorably on Transparency International’s Corruption Perceptions Index, an index running from 0, indicating very high corruption, to 100, indicating very low corruption. BRI recipient countries with particularly poor Corruption Perceptions Index scores include Turkmenistan (20), Pakistan (33), and Sri Lanka (38).

Accepting Chinese capital may come with expectations that Chinese companies will then be contracted to manage infrastructure, giving them at the least some influence over critical infrastructure. From China’s perspective, investment into strategic locations like Gwadar will help diversify China’s transport network for critical natural resources like oil and gas, which could help reduce dependency on trade routes, such as the Strait of Malacca, through which China currently receives much of its oil and gas.

Partner countries should likewise reap concrete benefits. Fulfilling the infrastructure needs of these countries will speed development by helping them export their products to overseas markets, which could help create new jobs and foster stable growth. Other potential sources of infrastructure finance, such as the World Bank, tie lending to conditions that recipient governments may feel encroach on their sovereignty, such as stipulations that governments limit spending to a certain level or enact anti-corruption measures. Chinese investment on the other hand has been historically less likely to require recipient countries to adhere to such conditions.

FULL- https://chinapower.csis.org/china-be...ad-initiative/

Originally Posted by sabang

Haters gonna Hate. And remind the TD readership what Begrudgers they are.


The top 10 most polluting countries according to the IPCC:

• Qatar — 37.05 per capita
• Kuwait — 23.49 per capita
• Saudi Arabia — 19.39 per capita
• Canada — 16.85 per capita
• United States — 15.74 per capita
• Germany — 9.7 per capita
• China — 7.72 per capita
• Spain — 6.09 per capita
• France — 5.02 per capita
• Thailand — 4.05 per capita

You can read the full report here.

10 Most Polluting Countries Per Capita, According To UN Report

You can try this stupid chinky shit of quoting per capita but the fact is:

Top 10 polluters

• China, with more than 10,065 million tons of CO2 released.
• United States, with 5,416 million tons of CO2.
• India, with 2,654 million tons of CO2.
• Russia, with 1,711 million tons of CO2.
• Japan, 1,162 million tons of CO2.
• Germany, 759 million tons of CO2.
• Iran, 720 million tons of CO2.

In short, the chinkies are responsible for more CO2 pollution that the next three countries combined.

And that doesn't include the toxins they spew.

Originally Posted by OhOh

China to auction 314,000 tons of imported soybeans they've been hoarding to push up the price.

FTBFY.

Originally Posted by sabang

The BOI screws vulnerable countries to yield considerable economic and political gains for China.

Exactly as it was designed to do.

China Coast Guard (CCG) has announced that a three-and-half-month fishing moratorium began on Sunday in the South China Sea waters north to 12 degrees north latitude.

The annual summer fishing ban is expected to end on August 16.

For the next three days, the CCG's South China Sea branch and local authorities will patrol major fishing grounds and ports to ensure that the ban will be well observed.

After the middle term of the moratorium, they will hold three law enforcement actions in the Beibu Gulf, the Pearl River Estuary and the water border of Fujian and Guangdong provinces, in a bid to crack down on illegal fishing and protect marine fishery resources.

China has imposed the annual fishing ban in the South China Sea since 1999, as part of the country's efforts to promote sustainable marine fishery development and improve marine ecology.

China kicks off annual summer fishing ban in South China Sea - SHINE News

Your BRI post @1247 describes the benefits to China, but says little about the benefits lacking in such an enterprise.
I am all for reducing the level of poverty globally, but this scheme does seem to benefit China economically and politically, while having complete disregard for levels of corruption in the countries they decide to ‘help’.

Did it not occur to your financially astute brain that there are good reasons for the World Bank and other investors to place some Ts and Cs on corrupt countries?

Targetting the weak and vulnerable does not seem very sensible as a business practice for a country with excess construction capacity, and inactive savings.

Speaking of savings, is this government funds, or citizen savings in the custody of government?

It looks good in theory, to the untrained eye, but in reality it seems irresponsible to load debt onto a corrupt foreign power, in the full knowledge that default is the most likely outcome. High interest rates often accompany such loans with significant benefits to the lender of last resort.

Poor, corrupt and greedy actors will have no compunction selling their people such largesse, until the inevitable default. The only ones to gain from these sordid ‘payday loans’ is the lender of last resort; China.

Pretending that any altruism exists here is beyond belief for a man who claims to be well educated and morally sound! In truth, your tacit support for such a scheme is a disgrace.

How is that Sri Lanka deal going BTW.

Originally Posted by sabang

I believe you already know that home ownership depends on a number of factors, mostly driven by land availability, and government policy.

What do they do with all those pears??
Crop production is mostly about a country’s staple. Given the acreage available to them, it’s possible to grow enough for domestic demand and enough to export to near neighbours. In Chinas case, rice production seems quite low. In any event, these are predicted figures from a period when the global impact of rural production was an unknown quantity due to the pandemic

Pretending that any altruism exists here is beyond belief for a man who claims to be well educated and morally sound! In truth, your tacit support for such a scheme is a disgrace.

Of course it isn't for charity, apart from bona fide 'foreign aid'. Mutual benefit is the objective. I would think that is self evident, particularly as the particular article I linked to was emphasising the 'benefits to China'.

What do they do with all those pears??

Eat some, sell the rest presumably. While it is a huge net food importer overall, China is also a significant exporter of food. It's called trade.

Originally Posted by sabang

China Coast Guard (CCG) has announced that a three-and-half-month fishing moratorium began on Sunday in the South China Sea waters north to 12 degrees north latitude.

Which they wouldn't need if they used sustainable fishing instead of hoovering up everything they can find, whether it's in their waters or other countries'.

Originally Posted by Switch

ICrop production is mostly about a country’s staple. Given the acreage available to them, it’s possible to grow enough for domestic demand and enough to export to near neighbours. In Chinas case, rice production seems quite low. In any event, these are predicted figures from a period when the global impact of rural production was an unknown quantity due to the pandemic

The cunts should be growing pangolins instead of eating everyone else's.

Originally Posted by sabang

Eat some, sell the rest presumably. While it is a huge net food importer overall, China is also a significant exporter of food. It's called trade.

In the chinky's case, it's called parasitism, and for good reason.

No-one gives a fuck about 1751, it's what happening now that matters because we understand the impact on the environment.

But the chinkies, and obviously the four wanketeers, don't care.

Originally Posted by sabang

Of course it isn't for charity, apart from bona fide 'foreign aid'. Mutual benefit is the objective. I would think that is self evident, particularly as the particular article I linked to was emphasising the 'benefits to China'.

Eat some, sell the rest presumably. While it is a huge net food importer overall, China is also a significant exporter of food. It's called trade.

That massive whooshing sound is the point of my critique flying high over your tiny head.

Please don’t bother posting rubbish, having it eviscerated, and then talking in such condescending terms to other posters. Give your attitude on here, you certainly don’t have a monopoly on being right about anything.

If that’s the best you’ve got, perhaps it’s time to pack in altogether?

Perhaps it's time to just ignore this thread, begrudgers. You contribute nothing, just bitch and moan, and as I repeatedly point out my posts are not aimed at the likes of you anyway- although you are free to read them.

The proverbial Yellow Peril Boogieman and all that's associated.
Should we really be surprised that such a fabricated and broadly promoted entity still exists in the conditioned mindsets of such selected company.

Whereas, the true/succinct dangerous and destructive bodies are never recognized for what they are.
The illusive sleight-of-hand continues on.

Originally Posted by sabang

How do we get you to actually comment on the content of something, rather than trying to drag everything into the Doghouse?

China is a major contributor of Co2 emissions that is a fact. However it is also the factory of the world and if we in the West are contributing to the problem by buying all their manufactured goods.

Sometimes we have to look at the whole picture. Eg the amount of iron ore Australia sends to China.

Sure. Maybe Canada, the US & Germany owe us an explanation why they emit more per capita than the 'factory of the world'?

Originally Posted by Switch

but this scheme does seem to

Choose your sources carefully and you may become a beliver.

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

because we understand the impact on the environment.

Greta thinks she does I'm sure.

Choose your sources carefully. CO2 emissions V Greening of the Country.

Originally Posted by sabang

Maybe Canada, the US & Germany owe us an explanation why they emit more per capita than the 'factory of the world'?

Because the western half of the country live in abject poverty with an agrarian life.

Like this-



Urumqi



Kashgar

According to the World Bank, more than 850 million Chinese people have been lifted out of extreme poverty; China's poverty rate fell from 88 percent in 1981 to 0.7 percent in 2015, as measured by the percentage of people living on the equivalent of US$1.90 or less per day in 2011 purchasing price parity terms,

Poverty in China - Wikipedia


Suggest you look a lot closer to home and do something about poverty alleviation and homelessness. It's disgusting.

Originally Posted by sabang

Suggest you look a lot closer to home and do something about poverty alleviation and homelessness. It's disgusting.

You as usual continue to push false narratives. The truth...

Originally Posted by OhOh

Choose your sources carefully and you may become a beliver.


Greta thinks she does I'm sure.

Choose your sources carefully. CO2 emissions V Greening of the Country.

What on earth are you babbling about?