On Jul 16, 5:44 pm, John Holmes <jhol...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> On Wed, 16 Jul 2008, nada wrote:
> >...
> > But John, all imperialist investment does the *exact same thing*.
> > Certainly you are not for *imperialist* investment that contorts local
> > economies around ex****t capitalism are you? What *difference* is there
> > between Chinese investments and Imperialist ones, pray tell? Does the
> > local victims, the working class and farmers, see a difference?
>
> > David
>
> These are very good questions, to which the Northites do not supply
> any real answers in their piece, other than assertions.
>
> The very fact that the Chinese are investing nine billion dollars in
> of all places the Congo seems to imply to me that this is not quite
> like the reality of the Marshall Plan, although it may correspond to
> the *imagery* put forth to embellish it by the American government.
>
> I do not, personally or politically, have any investment in what the
> answer to these very good questions are. I would like to know. I don't
> consider the Northites' assertions to be adequate answers.
>
> I don't think all nine billion of those dollars are going solely to
> get the mines up and running and fixing up railcars and track to
> trans****t precious metals out of the Congo to China. If so, that
> sounds like a poor investment choice and bad business. Too much
> overhead for too little return.
>
> Sure, a billion dollars ain't what it used to be, but a billion here
> and a billion there, sooner or later it adds up to real money.
>
> -jh-
China needs raw materials for its industry.
The Northites being Americans see this as 'evil' for they just put the
word 'imperialist' infront of the investment and all is solved.
The Chinese will deal with Africa a lot more fairly than the Euro-
Americans.
David assumes that Russian investment to for instance Bulgaria after
WW2 was also ...imperialist.
Hence he is against it.
The use of Chinese labour in Africa where africans could be used is
reprehensible...
|
