China Banks Lend More than World Bank

China Banks Lend More than World Bank

www.bbc.co.uk

Two Chinese state controlled banks have lent more to developing countries than the World Bank, according to a report.

The China Development Bank and the China Export Import Bank offered loans of at least $110 bn (£69.2 bn) to governments and firms in developing countries in 2009 and 2010.

The research was undertaken by the Financial Times newspaper.

Between mid-2008 and mid-2010, the World Bank's lending arm issued loans of just over $100bn (£63bn).

(visit the link for the full news article)

The World Bank lent out just over $100 bn in 2009 and 2010.

By comparison in the same time period, two Chinese banks loaned at least $110 bn. The amount is probably much, much higher because only publicly released information was used - and most deals are private.

Money makes the world go round. ...So what might this mean? Does it lend credence to Drudge claims that China wants the yuan to be the new global currency?

At the very least, this news means China won't be starting any major wars. They don't need too - they already own most of the world.

Ain't captlism wunnaful?







www.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

China wants to win the unrestricted warfare. It can't win militarily hence it goes the economy route.

Wiki

Unrestricted Warfare (超限战, literally "warfare beyond bounds") is a book on military strategy written in 1999 by two colonels in the People's Liberation Army, Qiao Liang (乔良) and Wang Xiangsui (王湘穗). Its primary concern is how a nation such as China can defeat a technologically superior opponent (such as the United States) through a variety of means. Rather than focusing on direct military confrontation, this book instead examines a variety of other means. Such means include using International Law (see Lawfare) and a variety of economic means to place one's opponent in a bad position and circumvent the need for direct military action.[1]t

reply to post by Jazzyguy


You got it!

Thanks for the link. The strategy is old stuff, much used throughout history and certainly by American-based corporations. But the US military's focus is limited, and seems to carry too much weight in Foreign Policy decisions?

The book argues that the primary weakness of the United States in military matters is that the US views revolution in military thought solely in terms of technology. The book further argues that to the US, military doctrine evolves because new technology allows new capabilities. As such, the book argues that the United States does not consider the wider picture of military strategy, which includes legal and economic factors. The book proceeds to argue that the United States is vulnerable to attack along these lines.

Originally posted by soficrow
But the US military's focus is limited, and seems to carry too much weight in Foreign Policy decisions?

Yes, a bad habit of cowboy diplomacy, but then again it depends on who's currently in charge of the government. Still, China shouldn't underestimate the US, it's not in the bag yet. If china becomes cocky and over confidence, it'll be their biggest mistake.

From what I have read it looks like the loans are a lot more fairer than the ones provided by the IMF. By contributing to the social stability, the long term projects undertaken have better returns than trying to bankrupt a nation and take the resources for a short term profit. I have not gone into all the nitty gritty but that is how it is looking on the surface.

reply to post by kwakakev


Maybe - looks like China is trying to build strong partners for solid long-term partnerships, not "bring down the competition and take over their turf." (More the Western corporate strategy.)

Be interesting to see how it all turns out. ...The corporate NWO bought the middleclass with affordable microwaves and iPods, now China's gonna buy the developing world with affordable food.

Ah. The moves, the games, the feints and parries.

...I NEVER watch reality shows - but if someone did one on International Politics and Economics, I might be interested.