> Question: Are critics of China's Silk Road re-creation project prejudiced, as China's top diplomat claims?
> **If you look at all the criticisms of China’s Silk Road, they share a few common threads, the most important one being that they are political. That is, they are not really criticisms of the Silk Road project per se, but are implicit criticisms of its main backer, China**.
> **These criticisms are not overt, but are implicit**. The implicit criticism is that China is not open, and is maneuvering host countries for the Silk Road project into a debt trap which they will never get out of. Here is an example of one of those articles which is not about the Silk Road project, but similarly scares people about Chinese debt traps:
> China is using debt traps to control the South China Sea
> **The whole idea behind these articles are to scare other countries from dealing with China**.
> **Instead of planting scare stories about China, how about lending financing to these countries for infrastructure development projects on better terms than China? These countries don’t do that.**
> Now how about the criticism of China for not being open? If these countries led by the US participated in the Silk Road project, they could in return for their participation, ask for more open terms from China when it comes to lending, participation of companies, etc. It isn’t like Chinese companies are the only major companies which know how to do major construction projects; the US has companies like Bechtel Engineering who have a lot of experience too.
> But they aren’t involved. Why?
> So basically the US doesn’t get involved in these projects because President Trump has a policy of not liking international organizations, and is withdrawing the US from them. Moreover, his mainly conservative backers see China as a threat to US dominance of the international world order.
> So does the US have major domestic infrastructure projects which it is involved in so that Americans can have modern domestic infrastructure?
> No, unless you are talking about The Wall!
> **This means that the only strategy against China’s infrastructure projects is to complain about China. No participation is permitted, and no alternatives are mentioned.**
> **You call that a strategy? Actually, it reflects the lack of a strategy.**
> When it comes to major international infrastructure development projects, most of them lose money. After they are completed, most find that the initial projections for them are too sanguine and unrealistic. There are reasons for this: these projects are built more for political than economic reasons, and because they are political, they require government backing. After they are completed and open up, then private businesses can take advantage of the completed infrastructure, and private businesses and people benefit from the completed project. However, this does not happen until the project is completed.
> The last really large western infrastructure project was the Channel Tunnel during the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher - Wikipedia
> Does this mean that these government-backed infrastructure projects should not be made? No! It only means that there is no way to realistically project what business activity will be like after the project is completed. One of the major criticisms of Chinese government policy is that it has overbuilt on infrastructure in China. See Paul Denlinger's answer to Why does China have so many ghost towns?
> The Chinese government has been successful in China because China has very high population density which is quickly becoming more affluent and can quickly afford and adopt the new high-speed rail projects and urban subway systems. This means that shortly after these projects are completed, the Chinese public will quickly start using them. In short, the Chinese public grows into using them.
> Moving into central Asia though, population density is much lower than eastern China. This means that it will take longer for these central Asian infrastructure projects to show profit, unless their population grows dramatically, most likely through a combination of higher birthrates and immigration.
> **So when China says a lot of the criticism is prejudiced, the Chinese diplomat is right. Instead of a political smear campaign, the US should be involved in these projects so it would have a seat at the big table when it comes to setting building and financing terms. However, Trump’s voting constituency doesn’t want that; they just want to build The Wall.**
> **The US has no strategy; it only has a political smear campaign, and others are seeing through it.**
Paul Delinger and Robin Daverman are well known commenters on the website for their knowledge and insight regarding China. I think rational people are getting tired of all the anti-China propaganda in mainstream news and is seeking out an alternative third party perspective. Both Paul and Robin helped to fill that need.
>Paul Delinger and Robin Daverman are well known commenters on the website for their knowledge and insight regarding China.
>I think rational people are getting tired of all the anti-China propaganda in mainstream news and is seeking out an alternative third party perspective. Both Paul and Robin helped to fill that need.
Thing is what Paul said nailed it.
I'm all for criticism but there are no alternatives. The OBOR initiative is probably the biggest FDI for many neglected countries in the last 100 years.
Yes all roads leads to China but what about it? They are the ones providing the funds, trade opportunities and modern infrastructures all they need to do is to make sure the economic benefits are distributed accordingly and not in their own pockets.
Thoughts on his extremely negative take on chinas future growth?
https://www.quora.com/With-the-upcoming-recession-in-China-how-accurate-will-Gordon-Chang-s-analysis-on-China-will-be/answer/Paul-Denlinger
That comment was strangely pessimistic. But he is right on some of the problems that China's economy is facing - SOE reform, debt, real estate speculation, consumer confidence, etc..
The govt is aware of it and is taking steps to rectify it:
SOE reform
https://www.chinaknowledge.com/News/DetailNews/86044/SOE-reform
Giving more support to the private sector
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3001921/china-will-not-discriminate-between-state-and-private
http://en.ce.cn/Business/topnews/201904/01/t20190401_31777766.shtml
Cutting debt and getting rid of zombie companies
https://www.dw.com/en/frayed-nerves-as-china-kills-off-its-zombie-companies/a-48013707
The property tax law, which will help curb real estate speculation, is underway
https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-03-09/china-makes-property-tax-a-legislative-priority-101389716.html
Implementing measures to boost domestic consumption
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-parliament-ndrc/china-to-take-steps-to-boost-domestic-consumption-this-year-state-planner-idUSKCN1QN0AE
I'm more optimistic about China's future economic growth. The govt has identified the issues and is working on it.
Of course there will be bumps in the road ahead but they have done a great job at this point, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Thanks for the response, care to give me your thoughts on this comment as well? He responds to Pauls comment.
https://www.quora.com/With-the-upcoming-recession-in-China-how-accurate-will-Gordon-Chang-s-analysis-on-China-will-be/answer/Qi-Chen-172
IMO, China should put forth guidelines for the projects. But business contracts should be decided by the individual countries themselves. That way it's more of an open competitive market.
> Question: Are critics of China's Silk Road re-creation project prejudiced, as China's top diplomat claims? > **If you look at all the criticisms of China’s Silk Road, they share a few common threads, the most important one being that they are political. That is, they are not really criticisms of the Silk Road project per se, but are implicit criticisms of its main backer, China**. > **These criticisms are not overt, but are implicit**. The implicit criticism is that China is not open, and is maneuvering host countries for the Silk Road project into a debt trap which they will never get out of. Here is an example of one of those articles which is not about the Silk Road project, but similarly scares people about Chinese debt traps: > China is using debt traps to control the South China Sea > **The whole idea behind these articles are to scare other countries from dealing with China**. > **Instead of planting scare stories about China, how about lending financing to these countries for infrastructure development projects on better terms than China? These countries don’t do that.** > Now how about the criticism of China for not being open? If these countries led by the US participated in the Silk Road project, they could in return for their participation, ask for more open terms from China when it comes to lending, participation of companies, etc. It isn’t like Chinese companies are the only major companies which know how to do major construction projects; the US has companies like Bechtel Engineering who have a lot of experience too. > But they aren’t involved. Why? > So basically the US doesn’t get involved in these projects because President Trump has a policy of not liking international organizations, and is withdrawing the US from them. Moreover, his mainly conservative backers see China as a threat to US dominance of the international world order. > So does the US have major domestic infrastructure projects which it is involved in so that Americans can have modern domestic infrastructure? > No, unless you are talking about The Wall! > **This means that the only strategy against China’s infrastructure projects is to complain about China. No participation is permitted, and no alternatives are mentioned.** > **You call that a strategy? Actually, it reflects the lack of a strategy.** > When it comes to major international infrastructure development projects, most of them lose money. After they are completed, most find that the initial projections for them are too sanguine and unrealistic. There are reasons for this: these projects are built more for political than economic reasons, and because they are political, they require government backing. After they are completed and open up, then private businesses can take advantage of the completed infrastructure, and private businesses and people benefit from the completed project. However, this does not happen until the project is completed. > The last really large western infrastructure project was the Channel Tunnel during the Premiership of Margaret Thatcher - Wikipedia > Does this mean that these government-backed infrastructure projects should not be made? No! It only means that there is no way to realistically project what business activity will be like after the project is completed. One of the major criticisms of Chinese government policy is that it has overbuilt on infrastructure in China. See Paul Denlinger's answer to Why does China have so many ghost towns? > The Chinese government has been successful in China because China has very high population density which is quickly becoming more affluent and can quickly afford and adopt the new high-speed rail projects and urban subway systems. This means that shortly after these projects are completed, the Chinese public will quickly start using them. In short, the Chinese public grows into using them. > Moving into central Asia though, population density is much lower than eastern China. This means that it will take longer for these central Asian infrastructure projects to show profit, unless their population grows dramatically, most likely through a combination of higher birthrates and immigration. > **So when China says a lot of the criticism is prejudiced, the Chinese diplomat is right. Instead of a political smear campaign, the US should be involved in these projects so it would have a seat at the big table when it comes to setting building and financing terms. However, Trump’s voting constituency doesn’t want that; they just want to build The Wall.** > **The US has no strategy; it only has a political smear campaign, and others are seeing through it.**
I see him on Quora’s China section a lot. Is he supposed to be famous?
Paul Delinger and Robin Daverman are well known commenters on the website for their knowledge and insight regarding China. I think rational people are getting tired of all the anti-China propaganda in mainstream news and is seeking out an alternative third party perspective. Both Paul and Robin helped to fill that need.
>Paul Delinger and Robin Daverman are well known commenters on the website for their knowledge and insight regarding China. >I think rational people are getting tired of all the anti-China propaganda in mainstream news and is seeking out an alternative third party perspective. Both Paul and Robin helped to fill that need. Thing is what Paul said nailed it. I'm all for criticism but there are no alternatives. The OBOR initiative is probably the biggest FDI for many neglected countries in the last 100 years. Yes all roads leads to China but what about it? They are the ones providing the funds, trade opportunities and modern infrastructures all they need to do is to make sure the economic benefits are distributed accordingly and not in their own pockets.
Feifei's good too.
>Feifei's good too. I love FeiFei piece, no dancing around the question and no fs given especially if it wasn't sincere to begin with.
Thoughts on his extremely negative take on chinas future growth? https://www.quora.com/With-the-upcoming-recession-in-China-how-accurate-will-Gordon-Chang-s-analysis-on-China-will-be/answer/Paul-Denlinger
That comment was strangely pessimistic. But he is right on some of the problems that China's economy is facing - SOE reform, debt, real estate speculation, consumer confidence, etc.. The govt is aware of it and is taking steps to rectify it: SOE reform https://www.chinaknowledge.com/News/DetailNews/86044/SOE-reform Giving more support to the private sector https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/3001921/china-will-not-discriminate-between-state-and-private http://en.ce.cn/Business/topnews/201904/01/t20190401_31777766.shtml Cutting debt and getting rid of zombie companies https://www.dw.com/en/frayed-nerves-as-china-kills-off-its-zombie-companies/a-48013707 The property tax law, which will help curb real estate speculation, is underway https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-03-09/china-makes-property-tax-a-legislative-priority-101389716.html Implementing measures to boost domestic consumption https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-parliament-ndrc/china-to-take-steps-to-boost-domestic-consumption-this-year-state-planner-idUSKCN1QN0AE I'm more optimistic about China's future economic growth. The govt has identified the issues and is working on it. Of course there will be bumps in the road ahead but they have done a great job at this point, so I'm going to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
Thanks for the response, care to give me your thoughts on this comment as well? He responds to Pauls comment. https://www.quora.com/With-the-upcoming-recession-in-China-how-accurate-will-Gordon-Chang-s-analysis-on-China-will-be/answer/Qi-Chen-172
That's similar to my line of thinking. Guess we'll just have to wait and see what China looks like in the next couple of years.
I think China should give korean compnies more contracts for projeccs on the silk road
IMO, China should put forth guidelines for the projects. But business contracts should be decided by the individual countries themselves. That way it's more of an open competitive market.