@rafsanmahboob9634
Underrated channel !
@davidmeyers8230
Even blind Freddie can see what this was all about. Dominates and ease of invasion.
@pablosskates7067
Forest City was a success?! Sure it got finished (talk about lowering the bar) but because it’s close to empty and not being maintained, long term it will cost many times that to fix or keep from falling apart.
@waffle_burger8499
It's almost like lending billions of dollars to poor countries with no chance of paying it back is a bad idea. Who would have thought?
@yingkittham9998
It’s interesting you mentioned Forest City, a ghost city which the Malaysian is trying to revive and the developer, on life support as we speak.
@buck8801
I always thought chinas plan is not to get reimbursed rather seize whatever they could in these countries in stead of payment the way the Dutch did to Indonesia jn 17th/18th century
@karlphillips8310
When you over stretch yourself and rely on silk strings to keep you going, don't be surprised if they get cut, for silk may cloth the false emperor but it will not put food in his banquetting hall if he doesn't feed the people who plant the seed, harvest the seed or process the seed.
@pennycandyys
“If this starts to go wrong,” If? I think we’re way past that stage.
@thejoyofreason8692
Forest city is having a lot of empty apartments and closed or never opened shops. In the long run Chinese speculators will not have the money to pay for the upkeep to the management company and it will end up as forest slum
@lindadeeds5326
I thought that Forest City in Malaysia was pretty much unlived in. There are videos of people going there and walking around in empty buildings. The problem was that it was built for Chinese people to own, and then rent out to local Malaysians, but it was not built in an area, or for a price that Malaysians would want.
@blackbelt2000
Did he just claim that Forrest City in Malaysia as successful?!??! It is like 90% abandoned. 😅😂
@rationalsamrat3247
So they didn't calculate the most basic rule of inverstment "ROI" .
@unogal5906
Is it truly a failure if it guarantees a steady supply chain. A supply chain to skirt embargos, a trade chain to skirt tariffs and a long term trade network. You can't just make decisions and expect to gain in everyway possible, sometimes you pay to gain strategic advantages that will come handy for the future.
@psychos1s.
Mostly are abandoned projects, my country projects like forest city, malacca gateway and the others are abandoned.. half way then failed
@ralphmueller3725
So the pooh bear got his hands stuck in too many honey pots.
@fernandomontesnegret4224
Do not confuse the IMF for the World Bank (IBRD)! The first does NOT finance projects!
@robhappe2705
Why should you pay for a failed project?
@ruicarvalho1026
I really like your content and i think you do a professional job, but please, please!! State your sources! This puts more credibility into your work. For example, how can i check graph 9:50?
@martinchow4162
Let's have another perspective ... on how the US Government spend their money and the Chinese Government spend their money. One spend to destroy and the other spend to build. Which spending would be right spending in the future? ### US Military Spending Over the Last 30 to 40 Years The United States has spent significant amounts on its military over the past several decades. Adjusted for inflation, defense spending has increased by 62% since 1980, from $506 billion to $820 billion in 2023. The peak in inflation-adjusted defense spending occurred in 2010 at $964.4 billion, largely due to operations in the Middle East. The U.S. consistently allocates a substantial portion of its federal budget to defense, with the 2023 defense budget making up 13.3% of total federal spending. The total U.S. military spending after World War II, based on the available historical data, is approximately $5.92 trillion (adjusted for inflation). This calculation includes selected years with significant changes in military spending. ### Impact on Local Populations U.S. military spending is intended to address strategic threats, ensure national security, support global stability, and protect allies. However, the direct benefits to local populations in countries where the U.S. operates can be mixed. While military presence can stabilize regions, contribute to humanitarian aid, and bolster local economies through base-related jobs and infrastructure, it can also lead to unintended consequences such as civilian casualties, displacement, and long-term dependency on military aid. ### Comparison with Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) Spending The $1.3 trillion Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) by China aims to build infrastructure in developing countries, often where Western financiers are reluctant to invest. Critics argue that BRI projects frequently lead to debt dependency and do not always benefit local populations due to issues such as corruption, mismanagement, and environmental degradation. A significant portion of BRI loans has led to financial distress in recipient countries, with around 60% of loans considered to be in default or in need of restructuring. In contrast, U.S. military spending focuses on defense and strategic interests rather than direct economic development. While both forms of spending have their justifications and criticisms, the U.S. approach emphasizes security and geopolitical stability, whereas China's BRI focuses on infrastructure development, albeit with considerable financial and operational challenges. ### Justification of Spending The justification for U.S. military spending is often framed around national and global security, deterrence of strategic threats, and protection of international order. The effectiveness and ethical implications of this spending can be debated, particularly regarding the long-term impacts on local populations and the global balance of power. In comparison, BRI spending is justified by China as a means to enhance global trade, economic development, and regional connectivity. However, the financial strain on participating countries and the mixed outcomes of many projects raise questions about the long-term sustainability and benefits of the initiative. In conclusion, both U.S. military spending and China's BRI have complex impacts and face scrutiny regarding their true benefits and costs to local populations and global stability. Each approach serves different strategic goals and is subject to its own set of challenges and criticisms. Only time would tell ... I hope I will be still alive to see who is right and who is wrong. How much good does the $1.3 trillion spending by CCP (Chinese Communist Party) does as compared to $6 trillion spending by USA?
@williamchow7533