Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by coldtea 1119 days ago
Meanwhile the IMF, used as tool by western capitalism, has drove countries to the ground, using its loans to pressure for all kind of unpopular ultra-neoliberal reforms that destabilized countries, driving people to extreme poverty, and shredding their social safety nets.

Then there are the direct loans from those "forgiving" debtors (as per the article) which always come with all kinds of strings attached, political pressure to act as satellites, and policy change instructions.

China learned from the best.

4 comments

This is a completely false narrative.

The IMF is a lender of last resort. Countries only go to it to borrow when they absolutely need money and have nowhere else to go. And for obvious reasons, when countries are in such desperate straits that literally no private or public entity will lend money to them, the IMF requires fairly stringent rules so their leaders don’t just pocket the money and run away, or don’t spend it on buying elections, as opposed to rebuilding the economy. The reason the IMF has refused to allow Pakistan to draw down money from its IMF loans is because under the Imran Khan govt they spent it on oil subsidies and allowing arbitrage on the Pakistani currency (interesting that if as you say the IMF is a tool used by the west to control countries, they are the ones saying no to a country borrowing from the country, while the country is going out of its way to get money from the IMF).

It’s not a surprise that countries that can literally not raise funds from any private or public entities are expected to endure financial restraint (since it was the lack of restraint that brought them there in the first place).

But the Belt and Road loans were not to desperate countries desperately looking for funds. The Belt and Road initiative was for countries, which at the time were financially stable. Their leaders figured that getting sparkly Chinese infrastructure investment would boost their re-election chances. And as a bonus, unlike the World Bank funds (which is the correct equivalent to the BRI loans), the Chinese didn’t require you to prove the economic viability of the projects, they didn’t require you to raise additional private capital for the project, and most importantly, the Chinese had absolutely no qualms about their companies personally bribing the leaders of the recipient companies tens of millions of dollars.

In return, all these countries’ leaders had to agree to was paying higher interest rates, not creating local jobs because the Chinese would export their own workers, and not building local businesses because Chinese companies would get all the contracts. But that was a future leader and citizens’ problem, while they could stash the cool Chinese payoffs in London and Dubai.

This guy's right.

The BRI is sort of like a hybrid merger of the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank (in reality controlled and managed by Japan) aimed at LDCs in Asia+Africa which Japan+SK wouldn't touch (either because it's not within Asia, or it's not financially viable).

The same way the ADB would subcontract with Japanese corporations, you'd see BRI contract to Chinese corporations.

That said, the ADB tended to train+hire local staff, while BRI projects tended to mainly hire solely Chinese. And conversely, the ADB would add additional regulations+scrutiny into potential malpractices, malfeasance, and financial viability while BRI financed projects were much more lax with such compliance.

Added final paragraph:

This is why JP+SK's FDI has been aimed at more mature markets like India, Indonesia, PH, VN, TH, MY, MX, BR while Chinese FDI is aimed at Laos, Cambodia, Central Africa, Central America, South Asia.

> The IMF is a lender of last resort. Countries only go to it to borrow when they absolutely need money and have nowhere else to go.

This is irrelevant.

> And as a bonus, unlike the World Bank funds (which is the correct equivalent to the BRI loans), the Chinese didn’t require you to prove the economic viability of the projects, they didn’t require you to raise additional private capital for the project, and most importantly, the Chinese had absolutely no qualms about their companies personally bribing the leaders of the recipient companies tens of millions of dollars.

May I ask, what is exactly your source for this? This really feels narrated. For one, IMF doesn't really invest in specific projects: https://www.imf.org/en/About/Factsheets/IMF-Lending

> IMF doesn't really invest in specific projects

Neither does the parent poster claim they do. If I read the quoted part correctly, it only talks about the World Bank funds.

Every loan comes with conditions. No one is forcing countries to take those IMF loans. They always have the option of living within their means.
>No one is forcing countries to take those IMF loans

You'd be surprised.

>They always have the option of living within their means.

Yeah, if only their means weren't plundered for centuries by people from countries calling them to do so. Including their countries supporting the most corrupt (but friendly to their companies) politicians to get power there.

Do you mean like how the UK was plundered by Scandanavians and Frenchmen for centuries?
> No one is forcing countries to take those IMF loans.

Was anyone forcing countries to take Chinese loans?

What kind of reforms? Like labor laws, worker protections?
Yes, to be precise, the destruction of labor laws...
The IMF has a history of releasing loans to clear interest payments on older loans.

They also force target countries to grow cash crops instead of wheat, for example. This forces the client country to become dependent on food imports, usually from the US.

Here’s a simple question. If the IMF loans are so terrible, why do countries apply for them? And if giving out loans to countries is such an awesome tool for the IMF, why is it refusing to allow Pakistan to draw down already approved loans?
The comment you're responding to is typical cope from corrupt, inept, and poorly-run countries looking for excuses on why they remain poor. I see this in my country (Nigeria) too...that somehow it's the IMF keeping us poor, not our stupid leaders and an equally stupid populace voting them in.
And the comment above is typical gaslighting from neo-colonialist countries (as often internalized by local people benefiting from the above, or having studied abroad and learned to blame their own) getting the benefits or such deals, "why dont you live within your means" etc (often after centuries of the same countries calling the shots and plundering the means, supporting the most corrupt politicians to get office and punishing said countries when they opted for others, and of course, doing the bribing).
This you? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35474481 I don't trust anything that comes out of your mouth.
Yes, that is me ranting about how my race and continent remains undeveloped…but sure, I guess you’re about to accuse me of racism for stating facts, lol
I have no knowledge about Nigeria, so I'll defer to your superior knowledge of their corruption.

I suggest you look up the IMF's track record. India had to use the IMF in the early 90s due to decades of "socialism."

We are long past that point, forex reserves were close to USD 600 billion last time I checked.

So there's no question of "cope."

>Here’s a simple question. If the IMF loans are so terrible, why do countries apply for them?

For the same reason people get loans from the mafia and loan sharks: they are desperate.

Also because the political personel is encouraged (with "gifts") to go that way (as the loans come with strings that enable the plundering of the country's resources, which they supervise).