Do you think Bangladesh would join Belt and Road Initiative without India?

[Homo Sapiens]

Ok , I choosed wrong word. I mean BD land is locked (Not Sea) all side by only one country and that is India. How can there be a belt and road without India being involved? Can BD connect through road to any other country wothout the road passing throughIndia?

Study attentively this map. I have posted this map already in previous post.

 

[HariPrasad]

Study attentively this map. I have posted this map already in previous post.

Ok Thank you very much.

 

[Centaur]

BD is land-locked? Where you have found this Vedic knowledge?

From mahabharata time superior Internet connection.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

Ok Thank you very much.

Welcome. Wish you will visit this sub-forum more often.

 

[Vijyes Yechury]

The big question is what does Bangladesh have to offer China to make it worthwhile to invest there? As far as I see Myanmar is more important to China as it offers a port and then by a small land route, access to China.

Why would anyone think that China would simply generously give away investment into Bangladesh? Even if Bangladesh joins BRI, it might remain just a tokenism

 

[bête noire]

The big question is what does Bangladesh have to offer China to make it worthwhile to invest there? As far as I see Myanmar is more important to China as it offers a port and then by a small land route, access to China.

Why would anyone think that China would simply generously give away investment into Bangladesh? Even if Bangladesh joins BRI, it might remain just a tokenism

Tokyo based Nomura says otherwise
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/bang...-belt-and-road-initiative-nomura-says.554275/

 

[UKBengali]

The big question is what does Bangladesh have to offer China to make it worthwhile to invest there? As far as I see Myanmar is more important to China as it offers a port and then by a small land route, access to China.

Why would anyone think that China would simply generously give away investment into Bangladesh? Even if Bangladesh joins BRI, it might remain just a tokenism

Why do you think China offered BD over 20 billion US dollars of low-interest loans in 2016?
For China to become a superpower it needs large and rapidly growing countries like BD to at least not be hostile towards it.
You know BD turned down a request from USN for a base in BD?

 

[Vijyes Yechury]

Tokyo based Nomura says otherwise
https://defence.pk/pdf/threads/bang...-belt-and-road-initiative-nomura-says.554275/

It too highlights the risk. The BRI only invests in roads and other simpler infrastructure which does not require any investment at all in the first place. Bangladesh or Pakistan has more than enough technological prowess to make roads and buildings by means of increasing taxes or fiscal deficit. These constructions are primitive technology. The materials for making roads like asphalt, concrete, steel are also mostly produced within the countries.

China insists on importing many of the construction materials from China for BRI, thus depriving local industries. In general, lot of items for the infrastructure constructions are imported from China with less than half being sourced locally, that too primarily low end labour. So, even if the loan is for 20 billion USD, over 10 billion will be used to import materials from China. The rest will be paid as cash loans to the country. Also, the interest rates of 6% is charged on the entire loan including the part which is imported from China which will mean that in this case, annually 1.2 billion USD has to be paid back as interest. If the principal repayment is taken into consideration, within 5 years, the Chinese cash will be repaid.

If the host country has a way of improving its exports using the infrastructure and connectivity, then only will the loan be considered as meaningful. If the loans are taken for unnecessary constructions, then it will only be harmful.

So, just saying that entering BRI will help Bangladesh is short sighted. Only if Bangladesh is capable of using the additional infrastructure by simultaneously improving its manufacturing industry the loans will be worth it. It is a rule of thumb that loans must not be taken for infrastructure projects but only for industrial and technological process unless the situation is too dire

Why do you think China offered BD over 20 billion US dollars of low-interest loans in 2016?
For China to become a superpower it needs large and rapidly growing countries like BD to at least not be hostile towards it.
You know BD turned down a request from USN for a base in BD?

Bangladesh refused to allow US base as Bangladesh is wary of USA. USA has a habit of poking into internal issues wherever it is given a base. Japan, Korea, Germany, Somalia, Arab countries are all witnesses to USA's benign activities by misusing the military assets. Allowing a military base within a country will also eventually result in letting the spies and other agents being allowed inside under disguise. They will then set up "industries" to make "simple" goods for the troops stationed inside and convince the locals that it will provide jobs and hence pressurise the govt to allow them and so on. Pakistan has a good experience of how USA worked within its land.

The decision to not allow foreign bases was a pragmatic one. Also, India and China is likely to be upset at the presence of foreign bases. This will add another negative aspect to allowing a USN base.

China offered BD 20 billion USD loans so as to get assets in BD in return for expending the huge pile of USD accumulated. China considers the 3 trillion USD foreign exchange reserves as wasteful and values them as paper printed by USA. If they can somehow use it to get some additional orders to its industries while creating foreign assets, they would be more than happy to give any amount of loans. Once BD goes into debt trap, they will ask for the ownership of some high value asset.

So, there are 2 scenarios - China offers loans which are harmful to Bangladesh by means of debt trap or China offers a loan to set up industrial units which will compete with China, thus harming China. China is unlikely to take teh second option and Bangladesh does not need the first option.

 

[Mage]

a) 2008 is a bad reference to use given the real increase (ramp) happened in just the last 4 or so years...about a 50% increase in gross intake. India in comparison is around 16% or so increase in same period.

Again....GDP in 2012, 133 Billion. Debt % to GDP = 21%
As of 2016, Debt 18% of GDP.

b) the tax revenue is not SDDS standard and vulnerable to more BBS shenanigans, just like the GDP increasingly looks like (given household income stagnancy, reported by same BBS). Market cap increase (which would correlate to HNIs too) is nowhere near enough to make up the difference, neither the claimed GCF incrase (given effective investment tax is very low for these).

c) DSE market cap and equivalents are really the only denominators that can be 3rd party fact checked (and thus proxy SDDS) because of the ample hedging/transaction inside it....just like foreign trade, investment and debt. It has not increased at any decent clip correlating to previous EM's (claimed or real) revenue pool increase. This is just as concerning as the household income stagnancy.

I don't get the rest......I will look at it later. Gotta go to work.

But can you summarize this post? Do you mean BD's GDP growth for the last few years are all hoax? or something? That's something I'd expect @idune to say..

 

[bête noire]

The big question is what does Bangladesh have to offer China to make it worthwhile to invest there? As far as I see Myanmar is more important to China as it offers a port and then by a small land route, access to China.

Why would anyone think that China would simply generously give away investment into Bangladesh? Even if Bangladesh joins BRI, it might remain just a tokenism

It too highlights the risk. The BRI only invests in roads and other simpler infrastructure which does not require any investment at all in the first place. Bangladesh or Pakistan has more than enough technological prowess to make roads and buildings by means of increasing taxes or fiscal deficit. These constructions are primitive technology. The materials for making roads like asphalt, concrete, steel are also mostly produced within the countries.

You ask one question and when I answer that shows that you are completely wrong and BD will get investment and that it's not just tokeism, now you are saying you were actually asking a completely different question even though you didn't? How were you highlighting all the risk on your first post that I replied?

As for answering your second post, no BD can't do it by themselves. BD has capability but not anywhere near enough money to do any let alone all of this. If BD tries to do it by themselves then it'll take a million years with it's own money. Instead, take loan and Chinese builds and we pay off little by little while using the energy and infrastructure, that the Chinese money builds, to then generate income from other sources.

 

[Vijyes Yechury]

You ask one question and when I answer that shows that you are completely wrong and BD will get investment and that it's not just tokeism, now you are saying you were actually asking a completely different question even though you didn't? How were you highlighting all the risk on your first post that I replied?

As for answering your second post, no BD can't do it by themselves. BD has capability but not anywhere near enough money to do any let alone all of this. If BD tries to do it by themselves then it'll take a million years with it's own money. Instead, take loan and Chinese builds and we pay off little by little while using the energy and infrastructure, that the Chinese money builds, to then generate income from other sources.

Bangladesh can take internal loans like fiscal deficit or loans from banks. There is a difference between taking capital from foreign countries. Foreign exchange does not come easily. No matter how much energy Bangladesh produces and sells to its people, the money obtained will be in Taka, not foreign exchange.

Also, the two questions may appear to be unrelated, but they are not. I meant to ask that China will get nothing back from Bangladesh to give it any investment. China may give loans to Bangladesh with an intent to put Bangladesh in debt trap and then acquire the asset for military purpose. But, if you speak of investments like FDI with long term returns and without any interest rates, China is unlikely to do that. There is simply no way of recovering the cost.

 

[Nilgiri]

Again....GDP in 2012, 133 Billion. Debt % to GDP = 21%
As of 2016, Debt 18% of GDP.

Your GDP is not SDDS standard, thus has too much inflation laundered into it (BBS household income survey shows exactly that), thus not a good denominator to use....given foreign debt is fully logged by non-BD entities (doing the lending) but they have zero involvement for the GDP calculation.

Thus lets look at just the numerator and actual SDDS-worthy (and more relevant Mx) denominators like say your market cap.

When that is done, a (short term debt driven) ramp is definitely seen compared to before.

But can you summarize this post? Do you mean BD's GDP growth for the last few years are all hoax? or something?

Its not "all" a hoax. Just potentially a pretty significant part of it (and could be done simply with intention to try portray a lower debt-GDP loading too)....till BBS corrects and standardises to world standards + requisite transparency of at least a solid GDDS country (forget SDDS for time being).

This is not just what I am saying either (this has more on the household income disparity I mentioned earlier, I can go into why the difference would be mostly inflation laundering afforded by the lax standards if you really want to know about that):

https://opinion.bdnews24.com/2017/12/18/where-did-the-benefits-of-economic-growth-disappear/

There is some disquiet among economists about the quality of data provided by Bangladesh Bureau of Statistics (BBS). No less a person than the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister has expressed his dissatisfaction about the qualifications of the BBS staff and the quality of their work. These are very long standing problems, and yet, very little has been done to improve the quality of the services provided by BBS.

So is your economic adviser to PM "idune" as well? You should really read this whole article thoroughly before your reply.

 

[Homo Sapiens]

For China to become a superpower it needs large and rapidly growing countries like BD to at least not be hostile towards it.

Not being hostile to China's geo-political ambition is certainly an important consideration for the Chinese strategists, but I think even the bigger incentive to Chinese vast assistance to Asia-Pacific region is to turn these China's neighborhood countries into a thriving, prosperous consumer market capable of buying hundreds of billions of dollar Chinese industrial goods.Because unless China's neighborhood become equally prosperous and 'worthy' economic partners, It will be increasingly difficult to maintain China's continued economic expansion in coming decades. I can think of one such similar attempt in history, both in scale and significance. That is American Marshall Plan for Europe after ww2. When America injected billions of dollar into Europe to hasten the post war recovery there. Halting the advance of Communism was an obvious strategy, but equally important was to turn the European people into rich consumers capable of buying a lot of American products.Both the Chinese BRI and American Marshall plan can be termed as ''Co-prosperity'' plan where an economic symbiotic relationship between me and my neighbors can be achieved for the benefit of both.

 

[Nilgiri]

Both the Chinese BRI and American Marshall plan can be termed as ''Co-prosperity'' plan where an economic symbiotic relationship between me and my neighbors can be achieved for the benefit of both.

Problem is:

a) The BRI "beneficiaries" are far stupider and way more corrupt than their European equivalents under Marshall plan

b) None of these beneficiaries ever really experienced a social enlightenment + industrial revolution before in the sense being paralleled here.

c) China (as polity, society, economic theory etc) certainly did not historically originate from/tie in with these BRI countries like the US did w.r.t Europe.

a) b) and c) are all linked to each other too.

Your quack analysis is thus severely deficient as usual, and the time you spent writing it could have been used to save a bunch of BD peasants from selling their meagre land to go to India for basic X-rays even.


@Desert Fox

 

[Desert Fox]

Problem is:

a) The BRI "beneficiaries" are far stupider and way more corrupt than their European equivalents under Marshall plan

b) None of these beneficiaries ever really experienced a social enlightenment + industrial revolution before in the sense being paralleled here.

c) China (as polity, society, economic theory etc) certainly did not historically originate from/tie in with these BRI countries like the US did w.r.t Europe.

a) b) and c) are all linked to each other too.

Your quack analysis is thus severely deficient as usual, and the time you spent writing it could have been used to save a bunch of BD peasants from selling their meagre land to go to India for basic X-rays even.


@Desert Fox

Indeed. People also fail to take into consideration that the German's and the Japanese were already an extremely productive and industrious people by their nature before WW2 and the resulting destruction and the Marshal Plan is given way too much credit than it deserves just as Operation Overlord and D-Day is given too much credit in mainstream culture even though WW2 was decided in the steppes of Russia.

The speed with which the Germans and Europe in general recovered was due to pre-existing work ethic of those people which once again made Germany a powerful economic force in Central Europe, though admittedly an American vassal state nonetheless.

What i see with China is that it is less concerned with the positive development of the countries it is pouring billions into. The investments are mostly beneficial to Chinese and these countries are just massive dumping grounds for Chinese cheap consumer goods.