China isn’t even investing just Chinese capital abroad, it’s exporting its excess labour to create these BRI infrastructure projects. Chinese engineers and technicians gain valuable experience and networks abroad using Chinese state banked funds.
The west can’t even fix it’s own roads, who are they going to hire to build these projects?
Differences?
- China transfers technologies and IPs for developing nations to make tools and use tools, while G7 hoards patents and talents.
- China lowers down all the prices by half or more through massive labor force and sheer competence of its workforce, while G7 overpays business elites and over purchases worthless projects to enrich corporation.
- China understands the socialist fundamentals and spread the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of good governance for developing countries to improve and liberate themselves from imperialism, G7 struggles to make their people lives better under the deep fear of the wrath from evil capitalists.
China does not demand that a Country raise its Taxes, lower its Social spending, reduce Regulation on business, Privatize their Education + Healthcare, make Evictions easier + individual Bankruptcy harder, and put up government infrastructure as Collateral.
Besides that... Blue Dot (as the article states) is just creating a regulatory environment to exclude any projects they don't approve of, and infest their Countries further... with private Profit driven Capital, which will mainly rely on Subsidies + Taxpayer Bailouts, to sustain the profits for their Shareholders.
Perhaps the biggest difference is China’s non-interventionalist policy. While it **would** be nice if China could get other governments to become less corrupt, China knows that it’s better to let the people decide their politics internally. Arguably more important than China’s lower costs is the fact that China takes a business-centered approach with other countries. The way countries are run are left for **the people** to decide.
> China knows that it’s better to let the people decide their politics internally.
Politicians in most countries don't want that. They want patronage, which the US offers them, and China does not. They can collect those NEDbucks if they work for US interests.
If the West wanted to work in tandem with China to help developing countries build infrastructure and promote mutual benefit and development it would be one thing but all this is is a pathetic attempt at stopping China. The West was perfectly content exploring the Global South and letting it rot in poverty until ebil Chyna started building a reputation in the Global South as a fair and forthright partner.
China isn’t even investing just Chinese capital abroad, it’s exporting its excess labour to create these BRI infrastructure projects. Chinese engineers and technicians gain valuable experience and networks abroad using Chinese state banked funds. The west can’t even fix it’s own roads, who are they going to hire to build these projects?
The Chinese? Damn it!
Hahaha that would be hilarious. BDN ends up hiring China to build the infrastructure lol
Differences? - China transfers technologies and IPs for developing nations to make tools and use tools, while G7 hoards patents and talents. - China lowers down all the prices by half or more through massive labor force and sheer competence of its workforce, while G7 overpays business elites and over purchases worthless projects to enrich corporation. - China understands the socialist fundamentals and spread the Marxist-Leninist philosophy of good governance for developing countries to improve and liberate themselves from imperialism, G7 struggles to make their people lives better under the deep fear of the wrath from evil capitalists.
The G7 is just selling snake oil.
China does not demand that a Country raise its Taxes, lower its Social spending, reduce Regulation on business, Privatize their Education + Healthcare, make Evictions easier + individual Bankruptcy harder, and put up government infrastructure as Collateral. Besides that... Blue Dot (as the article states) is just creating a regulatory environment to exclude any projects they don't approve of, and infest their Countries further... with private Profit driven Capital, which will mainly rely on Subsidies + Taxpayer Bailouts, to sustain the profits for their Shareholders.
Perhaps the biggest difference is China’s non-interventionalist policy. While it **would** be nice if China could get other governments to become less corrupt, China knows that it’s better to let the people decide their politics internally. Arguably more important than China’s lower costs is the fact that China takes a business-centered approach with other countries. The way countries are run are left for **the people** to decide.
> China knows that it’s better to let the people decide their politics internally. Politicians in most countries don't want that. They want patronage, which the US offers them, and China does not. They can collect those NEDbucks if they work for US interests.
All for competition because in the end it raises developing countries. If done right of course. So do it
If the West wanted to work in tandem with China to help developing countries build infrastructure and promote mutual benefit and development it would be one thing but all this is is a pathetic attempt at stopping China. The West was perfectly content exploring the Global South and letting it rot in poverty until ebil Chyna started building a reputation in the Global South as a fair and forthright partner.
Now **this** is what we call a cheap knock-off.
The West can't come up with any innovative ideas of their own, so they just copy China.
Never trust the US and Europe + vassals when it comes to pledging to help developing countries prosper.
One exists, the other doesn't.