157
Poorest 75 nations face ‘tidal wave’ of debt repayments to China in 2025, study warns
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 27 May 2025
157 points (96.4% liked)
News
37921 readers
2239 users here now
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Our discussion is between China lending and the IMF lending, not the USA.
Long term disturbances like losing your port nation's seaport to China for 99 years? Also with the distance possibility it will be a Chinese military base on your own soil without your consent?
Also you're mixing to concepts as equal when they aren't. IMF austerity is an imposed condition for getting a loan. A country considering an IMF loan can choose to not take IMF money and therefore not impose austerity. China is doing worse here where they're allowing bad loans with no conditions, but write into the agreements that China gets national assets when the country defaults. As in, the country doesn't have a choice to forgo the Chinese money and keep their assets that ship (pun intended) has already sailed.
I'm not defending the IMF's actions. They're no angels. However it seems you're answering you'd prefer to deal with China and lose your countries land and national assets.
Now hold on, so if someone agrees to the conditions of the loan for the IMF (austerity), that's just business, but it isn't if they agree to the conditions of the loan from China (99-year lease on a port on default)? Those both sound like Caveat Emptor to me, but only one of them is laser targeted on hurting the most disadvantaged in a country.
With the IMF terms, the negatives are all up-front. As in: you want this money, you will have to have this negative. The China deal is "take the money and spend it on whatever you want. Oh, you're broke now and can't pay us back? Well, we're going to break your legs now for non-payment."
The IMF loan would be the equivalent of having a bank loan with a high interest rate (meaning you have less money to spend on other things). The China deal is getting deferred payment on drugs from your drug dealer. He knows you're not going to be able to pay him back and will extract the value of the drugs in some other worse way. Its predatory lending only apparent on the back end after the choice is removed from you.
Fair enough