We can agree to disagree on hegemonic power being a bigger deal than dictators. But regardless, saying China is insular is ridiculous. They have a very public plan to expand their hegemony by taking over the infrastructure of other nations by way of “developmental loans”.
Re:GPT 4.5 level for 1% of the price
by tm-infringement on Sunday March 16, 2025 @09:05AM
(#43378730)
The BRI is just the Temu version of the IMF with Chinese industry upsell.
It is not. The IMF does not demand collateral for the loans that they then hand over to foreign governments. China does.
https://theconversation.com/mombasa-port-how-kenyas-auditor-...
Re:GPT 4.5 level for 1% of the price
by somenameforme on Sunday March 16, 2025 @11:14AM
(#43379689)
That article says the exact opposite of what you are claiming. This is the lede paragraph:
"In December 2018, a leaked letter from the Kenyan auditor-general’s office sparked a rumour that Kenya had staked its bustling Mombasa Port as collateral for the Chinese-financed Standard Gauge Railway. Our new research shows why the collateral rumour is wrong."
LLM much?
IMF forces countries to adopt austerity politics[1], causing lower economic activity and often leading to economy shrinkage[2], and forces countries to open their markets to foreign capital, which leads to surplus extraction abroad. Both of those measures lead to impoverishing the country that is taking the loan.
[1] https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/04/05/imf-austerity-is-alive-and... and https://academic.oup.com/book/11959?login=false
[2] https://accountinginsights.org/austerity-principles-economic...
And historically many of the greatest eras under Ancient Greece and Rome were under autocratic systems that advanced humanity by essentially every single metric. For that matter China has been among the most powerful countries in the world countless times - yet I think relatively few would ever know this because it's always been a quite insular nation, and never pursued hegemony in the same way as Western empires. Of course that could change but it seems extremely unlikely. Pursuing the perpetuation of global hegemony has been anything but fruitful for the US, and it should be a great lesson for the rest of the world. Those times, not just of the US - but of any global hegemon, are probably behind us.