[Tainari88]

How many movies @Beren is about CIA conspiracies. Oliver Stone's JFK....lol.

[Rancid]

It may be more plausible than that it was the CIA or at least the CIA was involved, but it's still a conspiracy theory. If you're smart and educated enough (or even academia perhaps) as I am, you learn to live with it as one of many unanswered questions rather than being a conspiracy theorist to any extent.

Well aren't you fun.

[Fasces]

Sri Lanka asked for debt restructioning and only China didn't agree to it compared to all the other lenders which kinda screwed Sri Lanka. Not sure what is the state nowadays.

As for other smaller examples at the current: Ghana, Ethiopia, Pakistan, Djibouti... Not yet that catastrophic as Sri Lanka but getting close.

What? China agreed to restructure Sri Lankan debt in March, and again, their debt to China is less than 10% of total debt - why are we singling out China? I notice you completely ignore the meat of the post.

And Ghana, Ethiopia, Pakistan... what are you talking about? That they have debts? Less than 10% of Ghanian debt is, again, Chinese - most of these countries owe exhorbirant amounts to Western states, and have gotten relatively little for it beyond financial restructuring, austerity, and lectures.

[JohnRawls]

What? China agreed to restructure Sri Lankan debt in March, and again, their debt to China is less than 10% of total debt - why are we singling out China? I notice you completely ignore the meat of the post.

And Ghana, Ethiopia, Pakistan... what are you talking about? That they have debts? Less than 10% of Ghanian debt is, again, Chinese - most of these countries owe exhorbirant amounts to Western states, and have gotten relatively little for it beyond financial restructuring, austerity, and lectures.

It is around 20% and as I understand it is the largest debt holder. And before March it didn't so Sri Lanka basically bancrupted since that blocked the restructuring of others who agreed but couldn't do it since China didn't agree.

Well those countries are defaulting or near defaulting on parts of Chinese debt.

[Fasces]

It is around 20% and as I understand it is the largest debt holder.

Neither of these are true. Again, a lot of "I feel" and "I believe" wishy-washiness when it comes to our internalized views of China, a country we apparently hold to a much higher moral standard than any other.

[late]

Sure, it's entirely possible if you religiously believe in blind chance or 'luck' or you're too much into fiction while dogmatically refusing even the mere possibility of any conspiracy.

Conspiracy theorists don't talk about "mere possibility"...

They think they know, which they don't. The JFK assassination, in particular, has a ton of 'mere possibilities'. The problem, as always, is sorting the gold from the debris.

[JohnRawls]

Neither of these are true. Again, a lot of "I feel" and "I believe" wishy-washiness when it comes to our internalized views of China, a country we apparently hold to a much higher moral standard than any other.

What do you mean. China refused restructuring and for the whole idea suggested to Sri Lanka to borrow more from China to cover old debts now it exploded even more in their face in 2022. They might have agreed now but China did like everything it could to delay it and to pile even more debt on Sri Lanka. Now they seems to agree to a moratorium for 2 years and not a restructuring, well something i guess.

You can literally google it.

Just a handful of days after it was announced that China is providing $2.5 billion monetary help to crisis-hit Sri Lanka, it has now come to light that China had refused Sri Lanka’s appeal to reschedule its huge debt burden, as reported by ANI.

In the face of the deepening foreign exchange crisis, Sri Lanka President Gotabaya Rajapaksa sought China’s help in December 2021 as he requested a debt restructuring in a meeting with China Foreign Minister Wang Yi. However, Beijing had reportedly shown Colombo the door.

Updated on Mar 24, 2022
https://www.indiatimes.com/worth/invest ... 65226.html

According to the China Africa Research Initiative (CARI) at Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies, China is Sri Lanka’s first foreign creditor.

Sri Lanka owes Chinese lenders US$ 7.4 billion, almost a fifth of its total foreign debt in 2021. The other major lenders are the Asian Development Bank, the World Bank, Japan, and India.

According to CARI, the Export-Import Bank of China (EximBank) and China Development Bank are the two largest Chinese lenders, respectively for US$ 4.3 and US$ 3 billion.

Critics note that Sri Lankan authorities have used Chinese loans primarily for "white elephants": large infrastructure projects, including the port of Hambantota, that have proved unprofitable if not useless.

According to several observers, when the Sri Lankan government proved unable to repay its debts, “the port was effectively ceded to Chinese control.”

12/05/2022, 13.45
https://www.asianews.it/news-en/For-Chi ... 57253.html

Sri Lanka will not receive an International Monetary Fund loan until it reaches debt agreements with China and India, its central bank governor said. The IMF reached staff-level agreement with Sri Lanka on a $2.9 billion package in September, but its executive board has not yet approved the loan. The country could receive the funds in January if the two creditor countries reached an agreement on Sri Lanka’s debt repayments, P Nandalal Weerasinghe told the BBC.

13 Jan 2023
https://www.centralbanking.com/central- ... ernor-says


Just to make it clearer. China refused moratorium/rescheduling/restructure in 2020, 2021, 2022 when most did agree to it so it prevented it -> China suggested to borrow more from Chinese banks instead -> Sri Lanka did -> Sri Lanka is even more in debt -> Sri Lanka is even more fucked now and China still semi-refusing it until recently which allowed for a moratorium for like 2 years which means they still need to pay everything. Oh Yeah and a lot of infrastructure projects seems to have been taken also.

[Fasces]

I want to have a conversation with you, but if you say "A and B are true" and I directly quote you and respond "neither A or B are true"... if your response is to talk about C, it comes off as bad faith...

China does not own 20% of Sri Lankan debt, and it is not the largest foreign debt holder of Sri Lankan debt. (It holds ~10%, and...

Sri Lankan External Debt

• USA - 24 billion
• EU - 16 billion
• France - 6 billion
• Germany - 6 Billion
• Japan - 5 billion
• Netherlands - 3.5 billion
• Spain - 2.5 billion
• Canada - 2.5 billion
• China - 2.4 billion

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/s ... ernal-debt

China does not hold such a huge % of Sri Lankan debt that the West cannot restructure without China, and again, China agreed to restructure its debts.

[skinster]

What's the apocryphal quote? "When China shows up, we get a hospital; when Britain shows up, we get a lecture."

Some recent examples of support of China by African leaders here


And here:

[skinster]

Also:

"The goodness, solidarity and selflessness of China cannot be understood by those on the other side of the moral spectrum. They can't see we have a relationship that's not abusive, exploitative, but treated with respect as equals."
https://youtu.be/xlEZcTQWskM

[skinster]

Finally:

China forgives 23 loans for 17 African countries, expands ‘win-win’ trade and infrastructure projects

Excellent speech by leader of Zambia's Socialist Party calling out U.S. imperialism, racism and arrogance and praising Chinese-African relations: "They used to say all roads lead to Rome. Today we can confidently say all roads to progress and what is better for humanity lead to Beijing."

Cough Sri Lanka Cough... Did China finally allow to restructure the debt or not?

Why Chinese “debt trap diplomacy” is a lie

[Steve_American]

IMHO, before China invades Taiwan, if it ever does, it should give its US bonds to African nations to pay off much of their debt.
Why? Because the US will just take it away anyway.

.

[Puffer Fish]

IMHO, before China invades Taiwan, if it ever does, it should give its US bonds to African nations to pay off much of their debt.
Why? Because the US will just take it away anyway.

I think you have a poor understanding of how the debt works.
If the U.S. refuses to pay back their debt, any portion of their debt, even to one country, what do you think that will do to their credit rating?

As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

I'm sure I must have made a thread in the past about the dangers that China could use all the U.S. debt they hold as a weapon against the U.S.

If that credit rating goes bad, no one will lend to the U.S. again. This has huge national security implications. Imagine a major war some time in the future and the U.S. is unable to borrow money to pay for it.
They can always of course print money, but that will just lead to inflation. (Although of course we all know you don't agree with that view of reality, Steve_American)

Even if the interest rates go up a little bit as a result of damage to the U.S. credit worthiness, that could still very much hurt the U.S., make it much more expensive to maintain the debt. (Could easily consumer a quarter of total government revenue, which would be unimaginable and completely devastating. A topic for another thread)

[late]

I'm sure I must have made a thread in the past about the dangers that China could use all the U.S. debt they hold as a weapon against the U.S.

You really shouldn't write about economics.

[Rich]

Humans don't like unanswered questions. It's why we have religion, and other fiction.

But, in academia, there are endless tons of unanswered questions. You learn to live with it.

We just don't know. But it is entirely possible that it was a one in million circumstance, a loser that got 'lucky'. But, again, we just don't know.

Talking about the Kennedy or JFK assassination is fundamentally intellectually dishonest. It should be referred to as the Kennedy - Oswald assassinations. It is not the lone gunman theory. It is the lone gunmen theory. It is this that stretches credulity.

The President is killed
A suspect is arrested.
42 hours later that suspect is assassinated by another lone gun man.
The second "Lone gun man" will himself be dead a little over 3 years later at only 55 years old.

[late]

Talking about the Kennedy or JFK assassination is fundamentally intellectually dishonest.

It's not called the Lincoln-Booth assassination...

Are we trying to make cover for a conspiracy theory?

Hmm?

[Steve_American]

I think you have a poor understanding of how the debt works.
If the U.S. refuses to pay back their debt, any portion of their debt, even to one country, what do you think that will do to their credit rating?

As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me."

I'm sure I must have made a thread in the past about the dangers that China could use all the U.S. debt they hold as a weapon against the U.S.

If that credit rating goes bad, no one will lend to the U.S. again. This has huge national security implications. Imagine a major war some time in the future and the U.S. is unable to borrow money to pay for it.
They can always of course print money, but that will just lead to inflation. (Although of course we all know you don't agree with that view of reality, Steve_American)

Even if the interest rates go up a little bit as a result of damage to the U.S. credit worthiness, that could still very much hurt the U.S., make it much more expensive to maintain the debt. (Could easily consumer a quarter of total government revenue, which would be unimaginable and completely devastating. A topic for another thread)

Recently, Russia invaded Ukraine. Then the US sanctioned Russia. It can't access the dollars it was holding at the Fed as US Gov. bonds. The US may have already taken it.

Has this slowed the foreign buying of US bonds? AFAIK, no.

I think the US took Japanes holdings of dollars in 1941.

If China invades Taiwan, then the US Navy will be fighting China. Do you really think that the US will not sanction China like it did Russia?

.

[Rich]

It's not called the Lincoln-Booth assassination...

Booth was not assassinated in police custody. But anyway my understanding is that most Liberals believe in a conspiracy theory for the Lincoln assassination not the lone gun man theory.

Are we trying to make cover for a conspiracy theory?

Hmm?

Maybe English is not your first language but you are using the first plural, when I think you want to use the second person singular. Perhaps you are meaning to imply that there is a conspiracy behind my posts, even so in modern English the 2nd person plural "you" is the same as the 2nd person singular.

The double assassination plus the untimely death of Jack Ruby do not prove that there was a conspiracy at any stage, but such an unusual sequence of events must raise suspicions and I would argue does shift the burden of proof.

[late]

Booth was not assassinated in police custody.

But anyway my understanding is that most Liberals believe in a conspiracy theory for the Lincoln assassination not the lone gun man theory.


Maybe English is not your first language but you are using the first plural, when I think you want to use the second person singular.


The double assassination plus the untimely death of Jack Ruby do not prove that there was a conspiracy at any stage, but such an unusual sequence of events must raise suspicions and I would argue does shift the burden of proof.

That's what we call a distinction without a difference...

I am speaking for the forum. Yes, it's presumptuous, and a bit pretentious, but it is very much common usage.

Ahh, there is this thing called history, we know there was a conspiracy. Facts ain't theories...

Yes, it is suspicious. But you said proof, and proof doesn't like maybes... Btw, it took me decades to wean myself off JFK conspiracy theories.

[Rich]

I am speaking for the forum. Yes, it's presumptuous, and a bit pretentious, but it is very much common usage.

My apologies I misinterpreted your usage.

Btw, it took me decades to wean myself off JFK conspiracy theories.

Ah well its not my wish to drag you down the rabbit hole again if you've already served your time. My own interest in the matter is fairly casual

That's what we call a distinction without a difference...

Ahh, there is this thing called history, we know there was a conspiracy. Facts ain't theories...

Yes, it is suspicious. But you said proof, and proof doesn't like maybes...

That Oswald might want to assassinate JFK is hardly implausible. The thing that is most remarkable, bordering on implausible is Jack Ruby's motivation. Why should he risk almost certain death or life imprisonment to kill Oswald who was going to face the death penalty anyway. We're supposed to believe he did it to bring closure to JFK's wife. Well he certainly failed in that mission.