• jonne
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 days ago

    I mean, it would be nice to see a comparison between a Chinese loan and a loan by the IMF. Maybe the sting still has to come because they haven’t been doing it for as long, but there’s got to be a good reason those countries go with China instead of the IMF.

    To me it seems like IMF loans involve privatising revenue generating assets, lowering taxes on the wealthy and austerity on the masses. The biggest criticism of the Chinese way of financing is that if you default on the loan you used to build a port/highway/railway line, they keep that specific asset. And I guess instead of using local labour they use Chinese workers.

    There’s definitely things to criticise there, but I know which option I’d pick if I needed a port in my country.

    • TheOubliette@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      9 days ago

      The IMF also often includes terms that prevent food sovereignty, require food imports, and require anti-labor legislation.

      IMF loans are used to shackle a country to the neoliberal world order. All it takes us a single right wing government to take on one or more loans and now every government for decades on has to deal with the terms and the debt that prevent the country from developing and gaining security.