Hong Kong
- This topic has 637 replies, 13 voices, and was last updated 3 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Xi’s 10-point plan
http://www.xinhuanet.com/2021-08/11/c_1127752490.htm
(since I previously linked to a Chinese language page you seem surprised I understood what it said. Useful tip – click translate)
Are Chinese loans sustainable for countries that borrow?
China’s overseas lending had dramatically shifted from government-to-government loans during the pre-BRI era, to almost 70% now going to state-owned companies and banks, joint ventures, private institutions, and special purpose vehicles (SPVs).
This had led to extensive underreporting of repayment obligations – to an estimated $385bn – because the primary borrowers are no longer central government institutions with stricter reporting requirements.
massive loans to high-risk countries were enabling “debt book diplomacy” in some – but not all – regions, forcing them to cede ownership or control of major assets to Beijing in lieu of repayment.
“Many poor governments could not take on any more loans,” AidData executive director Brad Parks told AFP. “So China got creative.”
“Beijing is more willing to bankroll projects in risky countries than other official creditors, but it is also more aggressive than its peers at positioning itself at the front of the repayment line (via collateralisation),” the report said, noting 40 of the 50 largest loans were collateralised, often against future commodity exports… demanded far higher interest rates with shorter repayment periods.
In the case of Pakistan Chinese loans with average interest rates of 3.76%, compared with a typical OECD-linked loan’s rate of 1.1%.
China’s foreign ministry said in a statement that “not all debts are unsustainable”
I read half of the book of Xua and there is nothing new that Lenin of Mao has not written. It is the same Trotskyist conception of the Bolsheviks of building socialism based on a peasant economy. The old Peking Review editions covered more than his book and I used to read them all the time, and the newer editions and the reports say that in 2121 the population would be matured for communist life, but is only a political promise because communism can not build by a state, it can not be established by decree, and it can not be separated from socialism, they will be using that promise all the time to be able to dominate the workers. It is something made up by all the other charlatans. They will continue building capitalism until they are overthrown. They are the same reports and speeches made by Stalin that Russia was building a socialist society, and then Mao said the same thing about China
We can’t expect The Economist to be sympathetic to Xi but some useful stats
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2021/10/02/chinas-new-reality-is-rife-with-danger
The top 20% of China’s households take home over 45% of the country’s disposable income; the top 1% own over 30% of household wealth
Property developers are sitting on $2.8trn of borrowing. Property development and the industries that cater to it underpin about 30% of China’s gdp. Households have parked their savings in real estate partly because other assets offer a poor return. Households’ spending on unfinished property accounts for half of developers’ funding. Local governments, especially outside the big cities, depend on land sales and property development to generate revenue.
Another useful read
https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2021/10/02/just-how-dickensian-is-china
I was about to read another on the power outages but my free article limit ended
Richard Wolff already explained that in a very clear and detailed manner using statistic and economic facts. They had to build an internal consumer society because the exportation of goods are going to decline drastically and probably the USA might be industrialized again and it is going to be a tough competitor. Like the Bolsheviks they do not have any other choice than to continue developing capitalism at a fast pace and we are going to see a case similar to the USA workers with huge personal debts. It is just a copy of the USA society with Chinese character.
PS As Alan wrote several conservative countries are raising their taxes, the old thinking that raising taxes produced de- industrialization and moving to China is not longer valid, or was only a myth to avoid taxation on the corporations. The USA and others European countries are raising taxes and several countries in Latin America are doing the same. Joe Biden was funded by the technological industry and they are supporting him despite his plan on raising taxes to finance his New Deal
Alan, you keep pushing the same debunked “China debt trap diplomacy” myth, and from the Guardian no-less. Mouthpiece of the British Blairites. Do better.
“The top 20% of China’s households take home over 45% of the country’s disposable income; the top 1% own over 30% of household wealth”
Wealth inequality is being dealt with as we speak.
While the Brits lament no fuel, no truck-drivers and a host of other shortages, China faces its own problems.
China’s factory activity contracted in September for the first time since the pandemic took a grip in February 2020.
The figures showed that output fell thanks to a marked slowdown in high-energy consuming industries, such as plants that process metals and oil products… also highlighted a fall in new orders, employment and new export orders… its sprawling manufacturing sector hit by rising costs, production bottlenecks and electricity rationing…
the Russian state energy company Inter RAO said China had asked it to increase electricity supplies to offset shortages at home.
TS, better double-check your own sources. Having accused me of using the Guardian, you just cited a religious Christian liberty site.
“The unique feature of Bitter Winter was, and is, its network of correspondents in all Chinese provinces. At high risk for their security – some have been arrested – they report on what happens in China and how religions are treated or mistreated”
Whereas I referred to an official pronouncement of the Chinese government that it intends to narrow the inequality gap.
“Whereas I referred to an official pronouncement of the Chinese government that it intends to narrow the inequality gap.”
All the more reason to take what it says seriously.
“the Russian state energy company Inter RAO said China had asked it to increase electricity supplies to offset shortages at home”
China is short of electricity mostly because it is moving to meet its climate targets. The power cuts are to industry rather than civilian use. The resultant decline in manufacturing was thus planned for, rather than being purely a result of market forces.
https://www.reuters.com/world/china/what-is-behind-chinas-power-crunch-2021-09-27/
If you consider what is most likely a Jesuit religious site (I am guessing and might be far off the mark) as a reliable source of information, why do you discount the many other stories it contains critical of the Chinese regime.
As for the Xi’s 10 points, over the years I have read fairly similar intentions from all manner of governments. Yours is a blind faith that Xi will succeed in carrying out his promises while all the previous futile attempts say otherwise.
I interpret the power outages as unintended consequences of the shift from coal power and actual evidence that market forces were determining production output.
But what China is experiencing is exactly the contradictory conditions many other nations such as India are facing to meet the Paris agreement. Profit versus planet. Again, it shows China is no exception to the laws of capital, despite its high State direction in the economy.
“If you consider what is most likely a Jesuit religious site (I am guessing and might be far off the mark) as a reliable source of information, why do you discount the many other stories it contains critical of the Chinese regime.”
Because if a source that is critical of China says something positive about the country it’s probably true.
“As for the Xi’s 10 points, over the years I have read fairly similar intentions from all manner of governments. Yours is a blind faith that Xi will succeed in carrying out his promises while all the previous futile attempts say otherwise.”
No one can predict the future but if Xi’s faction (the left faction) remains in power then I am confident the goal of “fully socialist” country will be met by 2121. I am not arrogant enough to say I am certain of it.
“I interpret the power outages as unintended consequences of the shift from coal power and actual evidence that market forces were determining production output.”
You’re free to interpret things however you like, Alan.
“But what China is experiencing is exactly the contradictory conditions many other nations such as India are facing to meet the Paris agreement. Profit versus planet. Again, it shows China is no exception to the laws of capital, despite its high State direction in the economy.”
The profit motive is not the overriding concern of the CCP. Thus, China looks to meet its climate goals nine years early.
Because if a source that is critical of China says something positive about the country it’s probably true.
If a source critical of China says something negative about the country it means it is a lie, is your logic, isn’t it?
Again like all other industrialised nations China issues optimistic projections
e.g.
Haikun Wang at Nanjing University in China thinks the shift to a more service-based economy means emissions could still peak within the next five years, ahead of the official “around 2030” target.
An update on the 2019 New Scientist appraisal
China’s official short-term goal remains for emissions to peak around 2030, which is unchanged since it was set six years ago in the run-up to the Paris climate summit.
“The short-term reality is China is still growing. It’s going to double the size of the economy, it’s still urbanising, energy demand is still increasing. There is still an imperative for growth,” says Michal Meidan at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in the UK.
China’s new five year-plan, approved last month, was also a “big disappointment” in terms of its carbon-intensity targets – a measure of emissions per unit of electricity generated – and continued coal power expansion, says Isabel Hilton of UK and China-based non-profit organisation China Dialogue.
I’m intrigued that you admit that a right-faction exists, perhaps you can identify it for me and indicate its influence.
“If a source critical of China says something negative about the country it means it is a lie, is your logic, isn’t it?”
Enemies, ideological or otherwise, are incentivized to tell lies about you not the truth. So when they do say something favourable about you it is more likely to be true. For example, the EU despises Russia yet its findings about Russia’s war with Georgia concluded that Georgia was at fault. You wouldn’t expect the EU to tell the truth about this event, a positive for Russia, yet they did. Which is why I think Georgia was almost certainly to blame for the conflict despite all those who crow otherwise.
“and continued coal power expansion, says Isabel Hilton of UK and China-based non-profit organisation China Dialogue.”
China will no longer build coal plants abroad.
https://phys.org/news/2021-09-china-longer-overseas-coal-power.html
The IEA certainly thinks China can exceed its targets.
- The topic ‘Hong Kong’ is closed to new replies.