Thanks Hartmut, more things to think about. I had a section about how the Trojans might be thought of as equivalent to the 'brown people' that Donald referred to in his comment and the way Neoptolemos kills Priam with his own grandchild is probably something that ICE aspires to. We zoom in on the Greeks and we see them as humans and individuals, but we pull back and we see a seething mass of resentment ready to loose all manner of torture and suffering.
That notion of the Trojans as minorities is also explored in KAOS, a TV series that unfortunately was not renewed. The allusions the story makes to Greek myth are outstanding.
A fun quote from the review that gets us to questions of nobility and truthfulness
“He failed to keep them safe,” writes Wilson. “He could not save them from disaster,” is Robert Fagles’ version for Penguin. Chapman has: “But so their fates he could not overcome.” The Greek? “All’ oud’ hos hetairous erruasato” – “but even so he did not protect his companions”. Whereas male translations have a habit, perhaps quite unconsciously, of letting Odysseus off the hook (he tried his best! He just couldn’t manage it!), Wilson is more attentive to the poem’s foldedness, its complexity.
I also may have mentioned this, but if I haven't, you might be interested in the South African translation of the Iliad
Does anyone in Greek myths have a noble character as we would define it? Brad DeLong, long ago, noted that he'd rather have Odysseus as his buddy in a foxhole rather than Achilles, as Achilles only wants kleos, whereas Odysseus, because he has metis, would craft a plan to get everyone out of whatever jam they are in. (with Nolan's film and the Ralph Fiennes movie, the Odyssean pov seems to be ascendent, though I've also noted that people can be too clever) One thing I like about thinking about Greek myths is that what they value and deprecate are often at odds with what we do.
Philoctetes certainly doesn't have any noble traits (those are assigned to Neoptolemus, who was coming fresh to the battlefield) but is identified with a noble act, lighting Hercules funeral pyre when no one else would, which is why he got the bow and arrow. (a quick check shows that another thread has his father, Poeus, lighting the pyre, which then makes the bow and arrows is a tainted inheritance). But in his implacable hatred of those who got him in his situation, I'm really seeing where he is coming from.
It’s interesting, but I realise I don’t really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they’re worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I’ve deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I've been thinking about this a bit. Definitely one of those chacun son gout sort of thing, but Snarki's observation twigged why I don't like Bobo, which is that everything seems to be in service of defending a GOP position and every observation seems to be linked to that.
It reminds me of the banning of Tacitus/Trevino from here. IIRC, he accused _Edward of promoting Islam when he quoted a Saudi cleric on some point. But (again iirc), the final step was when he came in under a different name to participate and try and put the same point across. As cleek mentioned, back in the day, he was part of the thrust and parry of the site, but there are (or at least were) norms and pretending to be someone else was a step too far. I feel like the site was proven right when he found a job that had him playing up the sodomy charges against Anwar Ibrahim because the government wanted him out of the picture. (and in a bizarre turn, Anwar Abrahim ended up forming a coalition with the guy who tried to throw him in prison and is now the current PM)
Now, Brooks hasn't pretended to be someone else, but that unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position suggests that what he says is driven by considerations outside of what I would think are important.
Thanks for the David Brooks link, though let me rag on it a bit. I wish he had spent a little less time the previous 2 years claiming that everyone who was pointing out the direction this clown car was rolling had their hair on fire and a little more time putting up some resistance, even if only by observing it in a column or at a speaking event. I remember him saying that Trump was 'the most consequential president in our lifetime', which sounds a lot like the sentence in the reference letter "When you come to know him as we know him, you will appreciate him as we appreciate him."
The column has Brooks going back to Tacitus, but it would have been nice if he invoked Tacitus to discuss some other points of the MAGA movement, perhaps noting after one of those circle jerk cabinet meetings that 'Flatterers are the worst kind of enemies' or, in considering the whole cult of MAGA "In their ignorance they called it culture, when it was part of their enslavement."
Brooks has spent a lot of time claiming that the judiciary would ultimately function to stop Trump and that what people should do is stay at their desks. He's still playing the same games when he says
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think in response to the line about how everyone needed to stay at their desks, Jamelle Bouie said that this is really hard when the desk is being sold for parts. (I hope you can post Bouie's reply to Brooks, he's weighed in a few times in response, I think, and I'm sure that it will be worth reading)
Battle hardened vets on the blog can also note that Tacitus was the nom de blog of one Josh Trevino (the tilde over the n came later), who got into some problems with editorials on Malaysian politics, but, like a bad penny, pops up again and again. I understand that one can't blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks' mind. The Tacitus quote "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" embodies one notion that has gotten us into this mess, so a little reflection might be in order from Brooks, though that is not his strong suit.
Again, apologies for ragging on the article, but as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.
I suppose that it all bleeds together, but my thought was that this thread might focus on foreign reaction to Trump, while the other post was about the mental gymnastics the people who support Trump engage in.
I don't usually post things from facebook, but this, from the other 98% describes the reaction to Lutnick
Christine Lagarde did what a lot of people in that Davos room were only fantasizing about: she stood up and walked out while Howard Lutnick got booed for lecturing Europe like a rabid Fox News pundit. As the trump commerce chief leaned into his favorite line that “globalization has failed the West and the United States of America” and railed that Europe’s push for net zero would make it “reliant” and even “subservient” to China, the head of the European Central Bank simply decided she was done providing silent reaction shots for his campaign reel. The jeers were already rolling by the time she left, turning the VIP dinner into something closer to a bad town hall than a cozy elites only networking night. Lagarde is not some fragile technocrat. She is a seasoned power player, former IMF boss and now the woman steering monetary policy for the eurozone, and she has spent the week in Davos talking up European unity and strength in the face of trump’s tariff threats and Greenland fantasies. So when Lutnick used a closed door dinner to belittle Europe’s economy and competitiveness compared to U.S. “prowess,” people in the room say that was the point where she quietly stood up and left, a move that read like a hard no to being a prop in a nationalist stump speech. The ECB kept its line with a crisp “no comment,” which only made the gesture louder. The room did not exactly rise to save Lutnick. Reports describe “widespread jeering,” scattered applause from the MAGA curious set and at least one very public heckler in Al Gore, followed by Fink pleading for calm as the scene went off the rails and the dinner ended before dessert. In a week when trump’s people came to Switzerland to project dominance, the enduring image is Europe’s top central banker voting with her feet while the room boos.
I don't know if this was before or after this
https://youtu.be/SOS5LE-JIqE?si=g0csevodCtxm_hX1
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
I'm not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
In a better world, we would be putting our resources into the Global South to help them address climate change. Reducing desertification, creating off grid power, mangrove and rain forest protection and restoration would all have an impact. Unfortunately, the Western model has us look at these sorts of things as extractive, and to be accepted, they have to generate a profit for the people putting money into them.
I quickly dashed off my comment before bed, so let me expand on it a bit.
I can understand cleek's reaction, and the acceptance of Ukrainians was/is a humanitarian impulse. But would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?
Because of the disjunction of the Trump presidency, anecdotes don't really work here. And with the example of Reagan, who I detest, perhaps the only way to move forward is to turn away from what actually happened and come up with bullshit narratives about our past and how we somehow are 'the greatest" of nations.
This is slightly related, not really enough for a post, but in regards to Tony noting the belief that Christians have a monopoly on decency, there was this Brooks and Capehart segment on the PBS newshour.
https://youtu.be/a2a7_mGi3yA?si=_we14pUU6ZV3FDgb
Brooks' had some audio difficulties, so it was mostly Capehart, but before his mike went out, he had this observation
And I have long thought, if Americans see deportations of respectable families, they will finally rebel against this regime, and not just the progressives and not just Democrats, but normal people who are like, what the heck is going on here? And so that's where we're headed.
I'm hoping that the implication that Progressives and Democrats don't count as normal people had someone in the soundbooth say 'fuck him' and shut off his mic.
The Klein shows are available on NYT, if someone has a gift link, I'll add it to the post.
For youtube stuff, click on the description just below and at the bottom of that, you'll get a computer generated transcript. I've occasionally copied the whole transcript and then asked Gemini to format it so I can read it, though that is mostly with japanese stuff.
I assume that the absence of Tibet is related to transitivity, in that Tibet is currently controlled by China so on a map that indicates current borders, it would be inside of China, which was partially controlled by Europe.
That also accounts for the grouping of the Koreas with Japan. Korea was a colony of Japan, which was never colonized by Europe, so gets the same color as japan.
wonkie, tell me about it. Unfortunately, when I find something I think is interesting to post, if it is at all timely, those are the kinds of things that I find have to cite. It also is shitty because I want to be careful about stating what people are saying, but the whole structure makes that difficult if you want to be careful. I'll try and have the video start at the key point, but it is a pain.
Another podcast, unfortunately, with only the youtube computer generated transcript.
https://youtu.be/eOYf0qo9Mco?si=hh5fFoopjfIifald
I like the pair who do this, though it is interesting that they are a lot more negative on the conditions that China is facing then their guest (Michal Meidan, head of China Energy Research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies), is. She doesn't think it as big a speed bump as they do which I agree with, so she is obviously correct.
nous, just a quick note in case you didn't know, you can pull a computer generated transcript off of youtube. I've been listening to this sort of stuff while I'm exercising, I certainly understand not wanting to waste time. I'll go back and do that if there is a point I want to double check, copying it and dropping it into bbedit, though the formatting makes it tough sledding to read the whole thing. It's ironic that while at the same time, instagram and tik-tok are trying to give us these concentrated bursts of info, it's simultaneously accompanied by the podcasts that take 15 minutes of content and stretch it to an hour.
I agree with you about Klein, especially about him talking too much. He seems to be angling to be this generation's Broder, whether he realizes it or not.
I never really understood why the National Review was able to recover from being unapologetically racist
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/05/national-review-william-buckley-racism/
but you can see that deep down, they never really changed.
nous, thanks for that link. The article had this Venezuela has been the biggest recipient of official Chinese loans and grants in South America, accepting about $106bn between 2000 and 2023, according to AidData, a research centre at the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
those dates were interesting, and I asked Gemini about the pattern of Chinese loans to Venezuela and it gave me this
According to data tracking from AidData and the Inter-American Dialogue, there was a massive pivot in Chinese credit starting around 2015–2016.
The Financial Shift (2015–2023)
If we isolate the period from 2015 to 2023, the total amount of new official Chinese loans and grants to Venezuela is approximately $15 billion to $18 billion. While that number sounds large, it represents a dramatic 85% decrease in the pace of lending compared to the previous decade. Here is the breakdown of why that number is so much lower:
The 2015 Peak: 2015 was effectively the "last hurrah" of major lending, highlighted by a $5 billion loan for the "Joint Chinese-Venezuelan Fund" and another $5 billion for oil development.
The 2016 Freeze: After 2016, Beijing largely stopped issuing new, large-scale discretionary loans. From 2017 to 2023, new lending dropped to near zero.
The "Grace Period" Era: Since 2020, the relationship has shifted from providing new cash to managing existing debt. China has primarily focused on granting repayment waivers or "grace periods" rather than sending new capital.
Why the sudden drop?
The transition between these two timeframes highlights a change in Chinese foreign policy and Venezuela’s internal stability: Interestingly, while Venezuela was the top recipient from 2000 to 2023, if you look only at the 2015–2023 window, countries like Brazil and Argentina became more active recipients of Chinese capital (particularly in infrastructure and energy) as China sought more stable investment environments.
Chavez died in 2013, so the Chinese may have seen the writing on the wall for Maduro.
The AidData site is a nice catch and has several working papers that might be of interest, The overall tenor of the papers are that China is being quite resourceful in making sure that they don't get burned.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “Feeling Philoctetes”
Thanks Hartmut, more things to think about. I had a section about how the Trojans might be thought of as equivalent to the 'brown people' that Donald referred to in his comment and the way Neoptolemos kills Priam with his own grandchild is probably something that ICE aspires to. We zoom in on the Greeks and we see them as humans and individuals, but we pull back and we see a seething mass of resentment ready to loose all manner of torture and suffering.
That notion of the Trojans as minorities is also explored in KAOS, a TV series that unfortunately was not renewed. The allusions the story makes to Greek myth are outstanding.
On “Moral insanity”
bc, thanks, appreciate it.
"
bc,
Not really cool combining two people's comments (and removing the context) to make your point.
On “Feeling Philoctetes”
If you haven't, check out Emily Wilson's translation of the Odyssey and the Iliad.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2017/dec/08/the-odyssey-translated-emily-wilson-review
A fun quote from the review that gets us to questions of nobility and truthfulness
“He failed to keep them safe,” writes Wilson. “He could not save them from disaster,” is Robert Fagles’ version for Penguin. Chapman has: “But so their fates he could not overcome.” The Greek? “All’ oud’ hos hetairous erruasato” – “but even so he did not protect his companions”. Whereas male translations have a habit, perhaps quite unconsciously, of letting Odysseus off the hook (he tried his best! He just couldn’t manage it!), Wilson is more attentive to the poem’s foldedness, its complexity.
I also may have mentioned this, but if I haven't, you might be interested in the South African translation of the Iliad
https://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2013/2013.03.06/
"
Does anyone in Greek myths have a noble character as we would define it? Brad DeLong, long ago, noted that he'd rather have Odysseus as his buddy in a foxhole rather than Achilles, as Achilles only wants kleos, whereas Odysseus, because he has metis, would craft a plan to get everyone out of whatever jam they are in. (with Nolan's film and the Ralph Fiennes movie, the Odyssean pov seems to be ascendent, though I've also noted that people can be too clever) One thing I like about thinking about Greek myths is that what they value and deprecate are often at odds with what we do.
Philoctetes certainly doesn't have any noble traits (those are assigned to Neoptolemus, who was coming fresh to the battlefield) but is identified with a noble act, lighting Hercules funeral pyre when no one else would, which is why he got the bow and arrow. (a quick check shows that another thread has his father, Poeus, lighting the pyre, which then makes the bow and arrows is a tainted inheritance). But in his implacable hatred of those who got him in his situation, I'm really seeing where he is coming from.
On “Moral insanity”
It’s interesting, but I realise I don’t really have favourites. I read the arguments of the various commentators, and sometimes I think they’re worthwhile, and sometimes not. Quite frequently, people with whom I’ve deeply disagreed on other subjects say things I think are worth considering, or a hopeful sign from commentators who might influence a constituency with whom I very much disagree (like David Frum), and I take some comfort in that.
I've been thinking about this a bit. Definitely one of those chacun son gout sort of thing, but Snarki's observation twigged why I don't like Bobo, which is that everything seems to be in service of defending a GOP position and every observation seems to be linked to that.
It reminds me of the banning of Tacitus/Trevino from here. IIRC, he accused _Edward of promoting Islam when he quoted a Saudi cleric on some point. But (again iirc), the final step was when he came in under a different name to participate and try and put the same point across. As cleek mentioned, back in the day, he was part of the thrust and parry of the site, but there are (or at least were) norms and pretending to be someone else was a step too far. I feel like the site was proven right when he found a job that had him playing up the sodomy charges against Anwar Ibrahim because the government wanted him out of the picture. (and in a bizarre turn, Anwar Abrahim ended up forming a coalition with the guy who tried to throw him in prison and is now the current PM)
Now, Brooks hasn't pretended to be someone else, but that unerring ability to land on a GOP friendly position suggests that what he says is driven by considerations outside of what I would think are important.
"
Thanks for the David Brooks link, though let me rag on it a bit. I wish he had spent a little less time the previous 2 years claiming that everyone who was pointing out the direction this clown car was rolling had their hair on fire and a little more time putting up some resistance, even if only by observing it in a column or at a speaking event. I remember him saying that Trump was 'the most consequential president in our lifetime', which sounds a lot like the sentence in the reference letter "When you come to know him as we know him, you will appreciate him as we appreciate him."
The column has Brooks going back to Tacitus, but it would have been nice if he invoked Tacitus to discuss some other points of the MAGA movement, perhaps noting after one of those circle jerk cabinet meetings that 'Flatterers are the worst kind of enemies' or, in considering the whole cult of MAGA "In their ignorance they called it culture, when it was part of their enslavement."
Brooks has spent a lot of time claiming that the judiciary would ultimately function to stop Trump and that what people should do is stay at their desks. He's still playing the same games when he says
And no, I don’t think America is headed toward anything like a Rome-style collapse. Our institutions are too strong, and our people, deep down, still have the same democratic values.
I think in response to the line about how everyone needed to stay at their desks, Jamelle Bouie said that this is really hard when the desk is being sold for parts. (I hope you can post Bouie's reply to Brooks, he's weighed in a few times in response, I think, and I'm sure that it will be worth reading)
Battle hardened vets on the blog can also note that Tacitus was the nom de blog of one Josh Trevino (the tilde over the n came later), who got into some problems with editorials on Malaysian politics, but, like a bad penny, pops up again and again. I understand that one can't blame the original Tacitus for the sins of the nouveau Tacman, but I have to wonder about the connection in Brooks' mind. The Tacitus quote "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws" embodies one notion that has gotten us into this mess, so a little reflection might be in order from Brooks, though that is not his strong suit.
Again, apologies for ragging on the article, but as you note, Brooks is certainly not a favorite of mine.
On “Carney’s speech”
I suppose that it all bleeds together, but my thought was that this thread might focus on foreign reaction to Trump, while the other post was about the mental gymnastics the people who support Trump engage in.
"
I don't usually post things from facebook, but this, from the other 98% describes the reaction to Lutnick
Christine Lagarde did what a lot of people in that Davos room were only fantasizing about: she stood up and walked out while Howard Lutnick got booed for lecturing Europe like a rabid Fox News pundit. As the trump commerce chief leaned into his favorite line that “globalization has failed the West and the United States of America” and railed that Europe’s push for net zero would make it “reliant” and even “subservient” to China, the head of the European Central Bank simply decided she was done providing silent reaction shots for his campaign reel. The jeers were already rolling by the time she left, turning the VIP dinner into something closer to a bad town hall than a cozy elites only networking night.
Lagarde is not some fragile technocrat. She is a seasoned power player, former IMF boss and now the woman steering monetary policy for the eurozone, and she has spent the week in Davos talking up European unity and strength in the face of trump’s tariff threats and Greenland fantasies. So when Lutnick used a closed door dinner to belittle Europe’s economy and competitiveness compared to U.S. “prowess,” people in the room say that was the point where she quietly stood up and left, a move that read like a hard no to being a prop in a nationalist stump speech. The ECB kept its line with a crisp “no comment,” which only made the gesture louder.
The room did not exactly rise to save Lutnick. Reports describe “widespread jeering,” scattered applause from the MAGA curious set and at least one very public heckler in Al Gore, followed by Fink pleading for calm as the scene went off the rails and the dinner ended before dessert. In a week when trump’s people came to Switzerland to project dominance, the enduring image is Europe’s top central banker voting with her feet while the room boos.
I don't know if this was before or after this
https://youtu.be/SOS5LE-JIqE?si=g0csevodCtxm_hX1
"
Here is von der Leyen's speech
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/speech_26_150
On “Talarico”
whoa! blast from the past! I've dropped you an email!
On “Rememory”
If you doubt that progress has been made, consider what the chances would have been, in 1960, of a major political party nominating a black man for President. Let alone of him winning. “Inconceivable” is the word.
I'm not sure how much we can bang that drum to indicate our inherent goodness. The fact that he was the first nominated (by a major political party) and went directly on to being elected makes him seem more like an outlier than a true indicator.
"
This is by no means to suggest we not make heroic efforts regarding climate change. Just to say, when it comes to immigration, that’s not going to be part of the solution (supposing that we need one). Economics and safety will. And addressing those is the right thing to do, regardless of your views on immigration.
In a better world, we would be putting our resources into the Global South to help them address climate change. Reducing desertification, creating off grid power, mangrove and rain forest protection and restoration would all have an impact. Unfortunately, the Western model has us look at these sorts of things as extractive, and to be accepted, they have to generate a profit for the people putting money into them.
"
I quickly dashed off my comment before bed, so let me expand on it a bit.
I can understand cleek's reaction, and the acceptance of Ukrainians was/is a humanitarian impulse. But would we have the same time for the person who points to accepting white South Africans to the US as springing from the same sort of impulse?
Because of the disjunction of the Trump presidency, anecdotes don't really work here. And with the example of Reagan, who I detest, perhaps the only way to move forward is to turn away from what actually happened and come up with bullshit narratives about our past and how we somehow are 'the greatest" of nations.
"
I took it as allowing the Ukrainians on the background of keeping out all the rest.
On “Talarico”
This is slightly related, not really enough for a post, but in regards to Tony noting the belief that Christians have a monopoly on decency, there was this Brooks and Capehart segment on the PBS newshour.
https://youtu.be/a2a7_mGi3yA?si=_we14pUU6ZV3FDgb
Brooks' had some audio difficulties, so it was mostly Capehart, but before his mike went out, he had this observation
And I have long thought, if Americans see deportations of respectable families, they will finally rebel against this regime, and not just the progressives and not just Democrats, but normal people who are like, what the heck is going on here? And so that's where we're headed.
I'm hoping that the implication that Progressives and Democrats don't count as normal people had someone in the soundbooth say 'fuck him' and shut off his mic.
"
nous, ooo, nice catch! Thanks!
"
The Klein shows are available on NYT, if someone has a gift link, I'll add it to the post.
For youtube stuff, click on the description just below and at the bottom of that, you'll get a computer generated transcript. I've occasionally copied the whole transcript and then asked Gemini to format it so I can read it, though that is mostly with japanese stuff.
On “An interesting map”
I assume that the absence of Tibet is related to transitivity, in that Tibet is currently controlled by China so on a map that indicates current borders, it would be inside of China, which was partially controlled by Europe.
That also accounts for the grouping of the Koreas with Japan. Korea was a colony of Japan, which was never colonized by Europe, so gets the same color as japan.
On “Talarico”
wonkie, tell me about it. Unfortunately, when I find something I think is interesting to post, if it is at all timely, those are the kinds of things that I find have to cite. It also is shitty because I want to be careful about stating what people are saying, but the whole structure makes that difficult if you want to be careful. I'll try and have the video start at the key point, but it is a pain.
"
We know. You can also have them speaking to each other naked.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
Another podcast, unfortunately, with only the youtube computer generated transcript.
https://youtu.be/eOYf0qo9Mco?si=hh5fFoopjfIifald
I like the pair who do this, though it is interesting that they are a lot more negative on the conditions that China is facing then their guest (Michal Meidan, head of China Energy Research at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies), is. She doesn't think it as big a speed bump as they do which I agree with, so she is obviously correct.
On “Talarico”
nous, just a quick note in case you didn't know, you can pull a computer generated transcript off of youtube. I've been listening to this sort of stuff while I'm exercising, I certainly understand not wanting to waste time. I'll go back and do that if there is a point I want to double check, copying it and dropping it into bbedit, though the formatting makes it tough sledding to read the whole thing. It's ironic that while at the same time, instagram and tik-tok are trying to give us these concentrated bursts of info, it's simultaneously accompanied by the podcasts that take 15 minutes of content and stretch it to an hour.
I agree with you about Klein, especially about him talking too much. He seems to be angling to be this generation's Broder, whether he realizes it or not.
On “An open thread”
Disgusting as that NRO pos is, David Brooks got their first, flying his flag
https://youtu.be/QQiiNa-X_eU?si=GmdEkMAJZmN1qGad&t=141
I never really understood why the National Review was able to recover from being unapologetically racist
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/05/national-review-william-buckley-racism/
but you can see that deep down, they never really changed.
On “¿Qué quieres decir cuando dices China, por favor?”
nous, thanks for that link. The article had this
Venezuela has been the biggest recipient of official Chinese loans and grants in South America, accepting about $106bn between 2000 and 2023, according to AidData, a research centre at the College of William and Mary in Virginia.
those dates were interesting, and I asked Gemini about the pattern of Chinese loans to Venezuela and it gave me this
According to data tracking from AidData and the Inter-American Dialogue, there was a massive pivot in Chinese credit starting around 2015–2016.
The Financial Shift (2015–2023)
If we isolate the period from 2015 to 2023, the total amount of new official Chinese loans and grants to Venezuela is approximately $15 billion to $18 billion.
While that number sounds large, it represents a dramatic 85% decrease in the pace of lending compared to the previous decade. Here is the breakdown of why that number is so much lower:
Why the sudden drop?
The transition between these two timeframes highlights a change in Chinese foreign policy and Venezuela’s internal stability:
Interestingly, while Venezuela was the top recipient from 2000 to 2023, if you look only at the 2015–2023 window, countries like Brazil and Argentina became more active recipients of Chinese capital (particularly in infrastructure and energy) as China sought more stable investment environments.
Chavez died in 2013, so the Chinese may have seen the writing on the wall for Maduro.
The AidData site is a nice catch and has several working papers that might be of interest, The overall tenor of the papers are that China is being quite resourceful in making sure that they don't get burned.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.