You may not have heard of Chinese firm Transsion – but it is currently dominating the mobile phone market in Africa and the Middle East with three brands that have never been sold in China.
Chinese-made phones are calling the shots in Africa as they beat global giants Samsung and Apple::undefined
Honestly, I’m not surprised considering China has invested a lot into exploiting African resources. China saw a huge market most of the west was ignoring and like we exploited China, China will do the same to Africa.
I don’t have one at hand right now but back on reddit I saw a couple bootleg videos of Chinese foremen in in Africa, overseeing black laborers.
They act just as colonial as the Europeans back in the day, one of the videos shows an overseer literally lashing some poor underperformer.
I would also remind everyone that virtually all asian cultures are more or less overtly racist towards black or generally dark skinned people. All China is doing in Africa is pursuing its geopolitical and strategic interests.
Different exploiters, same exploitation. Well, perhaps a bit more insidious because their strategy is to undercut the market, saturate it with Chinese (-controlled) technology and infrastructure, and in the process create resource rich debtors with critical infrastructure under implicit control of the chinese government.
Compared to historical treatment of africa, no argument china is far better. Compared to modern treatment, nah they’re just the same as the rest of us bastards.
The IMF loots countries that take loans and in contrast China forgives loans. The reason Africa is aligning more with China is because they’re getting a better deal. If they really were just the same as the West then China wouldn’t be winning the continent.
Part of the reason also has to do with the fact that China will write loans for stupid crap when Western banks and the IMF won’t. You want a loan to build a giant statue in the middle of the desert? Chinese banks have got you covered. Western banks will laugh you out the door. Loan to build a new train line? Western banks want assessments, revenue estimates, feasibility studies, and ten other things. Chinese banks will ask “Are you going to hire a Chinese contractor to build it?” and if the answer is yes, they’ll write the loan.
If we assume the loans will implode either way, the Chinese model at least funnels some of the money back to their own contractors, and ends with some goodwill and infrastructure. It’s an aid programme with extra steps.
I wonder if the western model optimizes for loans doomed to fail to use them as a lever to extract structural and political concessions, or if it’s just a happy accident.
Western banks are privately held so they are only interested in profit. Western governments rarely give big loans to developing countries (except indirectly through institutions like the IMF), but China does, through its state-owned banks.
In many cases, Western banks gamble on junk loans unlikely to be repaid written to these countries and cry to their governments when they lose. Then these governments then pressure the debtor countries to try and extract payment.
I notice that Western nations like to keep these loans separate from aid. If the goal is to make money, it’s called a loan, and if the goal is to help out, it’s called foreign aid. China realised there’s no particular reason to do this and mixes them freely so it has the flexibility to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid when that suits them or treat it as aid that will be forgiven.
Both are forms of economic colonialism in my book. Just slightly different modus operandi.
Honestly, I’m not surprised considering China has invested a lot into exploiting African resources. China saw a huge market most of the west was ignoring and like we exploited China, China will do the same to Africa.
Like how the kid who gets abused by his parents becomes a schoolyard bully. The cycle of exploitation and abuse continues
We exploit Africa. China has begun to take up Western marketshare in Africa because they’re less exploitative and offer a better deal.
I don’t know about them being less exploitative, but I’m sure they’re offering a better deal to steal the market share.
I don’t have one at hand right now but back on reddit I saw a couple bootleg videos of Chinese foremen in in Africa, overseeing black laborers.
They act just as colonial as the Europeans back in the day, one of the videos shows an overseer literally lashing some poor underperformer.
I would also remind everyone that virtually all asian cultures are more or less overtly racist towards black or generally dark skinned people. All China is doing in Africa is pursuing its geopolitical and strategic interests.
Different exploiters, same exploitation. Well, perhaps a bit more insidious because their strategy is to undercut the market, saturate it with Chinese (-controlled) technology and infrastructure, and in the process create resource rich debtors with critical infrastructure under implicit control of the chinese government.
Compared to historical treatment of africa, no argument china is far better. Compared to modern treatment, nah they’re just the same as the rest of us bastards.
A comforting lie.
The IMF loots countries that take loans and in contrast China forgives loans. The reason Africa is aligning more with China is because they’re getting a better deal. If they really were just the same as the West then China wouldn’t be winning the continent.
Part of the reason also has to do with the fact that China will write loans for stupid crap when Western banks and the IMF won’t. You want a loan to build a giant statue in the middle of the desert? Chinese banks have got you covered. Western banks will laugh you out the door. Loan to build a new train line? Western banks want assessments, revenue estimates, feasibility studies, and ten other things. Chinese banks will ask “Are you going to hire a Chinese contractor to build it?” and if the answer is yes, they’ll write the loan.
This isn’t as absurd as it looks.
If we assume the loans will implode either way, the Chinese model at least funnels some of the money back to their own contractors, and ends with some goodwill and infrastructure. It’s an aid programme with extra steps.
I wonder if the western model optimizes for loans doomed to fail to use them as a lever to extract structural and political concessions, or if it’s just a happy accident.
Western banks are privately held so they are only interested in profit. Western governments rarely give big loans to developing countries (except indirectly through institutions like the IMF), but China does, through its state-owned banks.
In many cases, Western banks gamble on junk loans unlikely to be repaid written to these countries and cry to their governments when they lose. Then these governments then pressure the debtor countries to try and extract payment.
I notice that Western nations like to keep these loans separate from aid. If the goal is to make money, it’s called a loan, and if the goal is to help out, it’s called foreign aid. China realised there’s no particular reason to do this and mixes them freely so it has the flexibility to treat it as a loan that needs to be repaid when that suits them or treat it as aid that will be forgiven.
Both are forms of economic colonialism in my book. Just slightly different modus operandi.