• naturalgasbad@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    16
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    This is where China’s “debt trap diplomacy” might actually be beneficial for Kenya…

    China’s loans serve to improve the top-line (economic growth), and China’s loan concessions don’t affect that. When Kenya puts Mombasa Port’s 50-year operating and port fees up for collateral, that’s a hit on the bottom line (Kenya’s government revenues) but does not change the fact that the port still exists to drive economic growth. Moreover, often the short-term hit in port revenues is less than the interest that would’ve been paid on the loan, so these collateralized loans are often cashflow neutral or even cashflow positive to default on.

    The IMF and World Bank are more focused on padding the bottom line (tax revenues) by increasing taxes and decreasing subsidies. What an insane policy.

    If a country can’t grow, how can you expect it to pay off it’s loans? The entire principle of government loans in the 21st century is that GDP growth makes loans progressively less expensive. The IMF and World Bank exist only to keep developing countries poor.

    • possibly a cat@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 days ago

      I agree that China would be better to work with than the IMF.

      Closing some of the international investor tax exemptions that were on the chopping block might still be beneficial in that case though, imo.