Comments by "Stephen Jenkins" (@stephenjenkins7971) on "Jake Tran" channel.

@daviddanielng Roads to where? Airports for whom? Bridges connecting what? Have you ever once wondered whether these new infrastructure projects actually HELPED the people? To put this into perspective, Africa in general didn't have increased growth after Chinese loans started. The period from 2000 to now, there wasn't any significant changes, at least nothing that points to China's loans. Indeed, Chinese build infrastructure, but the West generally doesn't do this because you'd need to either bring your own people and companies to build it (what China does) which does NOTHING for the local economy. It destroys the purpose of investment; that the local economy, people, and governments get experience doing things themselves so as to build MORE LATER. Its supposed to be a feedback loop, and instead someone else is doing FOR YOU to such an extent that the money literally is given back to the loaner's economy while the loaned country STILL OWES THE LOANER. This is literally how European colonizers manages to take swaths of Africa by taking advantage of the corrupt African leaders prior to the Scramble. "West created corruption in African policies" That's the most absurd logic I have ever heard. It's pathetic, actually. China loans vary wildly. Highest I've heard it go is as high as 17% interest. Lowest I've heard is 2.7%. IMF sometimes doesn't charge interest rates or keeps it low at 1.5%. The point being that institutions MEANT to be used in emergencies are not comparable to debt from a government entity in China. General private debt tends to be between 2-5%, and this private debt is dominated by the West; but its also not promising literal construction and infrastructure work, nor are they backed by the government power of another country. Worse yet, there have been more than a few times that infrastructure projects led to collateral in those same projects, such as the lease of the Sri Lankan port for 99 years. Or is that "no strings attached"? Hey man, when a deal sounds too good to be true, 100% it is too good to be true.
1
@daviddanielng People like you act like listening to the propaganda of someone else equates to "not listening to the MSM!" or some crap. In reality; taking anything at face value is a fool's errand, but have some common sense here. I never once claimed that Chinese debts caused the Sri Lankan crisis, nor have I implied that Chinese debts caused any other crisis. I only have said that Chinese debt policies are VERY immoral, and people like you act like I've insulted your mom and get all defensive. If you're THAT defensive, then take your own advice and stop listening to the propaganda that promotes that viewpoint fi you can't stand having it questioned. Heck, you're the one that said that the West is "selfish", which implies that the Chinese are not; so I have literally only responded to YOUR logic. All I see is a vague hope born out of some weird ass envy. Why do you need to build something better than the Europeans? Build something to improve your country, not to show off; and its this mentality that makes China's loans so predatory; its like giving loans to people who easily buy into pyramid schemes; at a certain point it looks less like trying to improve your lot in life and more like trying to get back that the haters. And this mentality, more than anything else, is why Africa stagnates in many areas. For the record, I ain't even White. I'm Afro Hispanic, and I find your comments more depressing than anything else.
1
@MingYeeLim Problem here is that these "neutral" viewpoints never seem to appear when other countries are talked about. Where is this "neutrality" when talking about China's actions. for example? Most often these stances are anti-Western contrarianism than actual reasonable stances. Because @ThePunisher's comment effectively co-opts the very real fact that small nations WANTED to join NATO and he turned it around to "US wants blood money" instead.
1
@devourthepower007 There was a will that Serbs stop genociding Bosnians and then Kosovars. Then that Gaddafi stop mass murdering protestors. If they didn't do it, then the US wouldn't have bombed them lol
1
@devourthepower007 You know I'm right. People like you cry when the US does something, but when Russia does something you twist yourselves into pretzels to justify it. I hope you're happy that tens of thousands of Russian dead because of Putin's ambitions.
1
@Jordan Williams In what realm of reality did I call that a GOOD thing, bot? That was a very screwed up thing. Not that you care. People like you tend to screech when the US does anything wrong but then justify anything any other nation does.
1
@kofiboateng9181 The last time there was a multipolar world, both big powers funded and backed groups which caused massive instability and destruction across the planet. The last thing we need is another Cold War.
1
@kofiboateng9181 The fact that you're using the Plaza Accords as some kind of proof that eth US wanted Japan to falter is exactly the issue. If you actually read up on Japan's issues; you'd know that the Plaza Accords only burst a bubble that was massively inflated rather than brought Japan down. It wasn't malicious. Edit: Basically, stop trying to make everything about the US. It's American Exceptionalism at its absolute worst. The rest of the world exists beyond US action.
1
@cyborgchicken3502 >Russia threatens nuclear response to anyone stepping into Ukraine war >Western nations don't step in You: "oBvIouSlY tHeY jUsT wANT moRe mOnIEs!" Pathetic. Just admit that the US can do everything and no matter what you'll assume the worst of it. If the US stepped in earlier, you'd just claim that Russia had no choice but to invade for its security. No one in the EU has been abandoned, hell it isn't even the US' responsibility to defend the EU -only nations in NATO.
1
@ravanpee1325 None of these States were forced to join the US; all of them joined the US willingly via territorial exchange (Spain) or revolting against their former owners (Mexico).
1
@ravanpee1325 After Russian troops coincidentally entered the regions and coincidentally created referendums without the option to rejoin Ukraine. I guess if US troops suddenly end up in Kaliningrad and make a referendum to join the US, you'd be okay with it, right? This is 19th century logic, old man. Get your wrinkly butt back there or wake up; that crap isn't acceptable anymore. Russia also slaughtered its way east of the Urals, that doesn't justify actions TODAY.
1
@Calebe428 After they adopted the Constitution that only allows states to leave via the rest of the States supporting it. They literally signed the contract. Besides, slavers have no right to such things to begin with.
1
@Calebe428 It isn't acceptable for a foreign state to send troops and start a referendum. Idk why you're acting like that's the same as a referendum of peoples within a territory that feels so mistreated as to need to secede; there is a case by case basis here. But before that conversation can be had, we have to point out the obvious which you seem to be unable to. That FOREIGN countries can't just STEAL land anymore.
1
@gmodrules123456789 RIghtoids complaining about unions existing is pretty funny. But so are Lefties screeching when they try to defend their favorite left-wing dictators that love crushing worker's rights and trying to act like the Nordic countries would ever accept them as anything but lunatics.
1