Competitive Connectivity - OBOR vs AAGC

Here's a new buzzword for you - "competitive connectivity" - as exemplified by the emerging rivalry between China's OBOR and the Indo-Japanese response (AAGC), which is backed by the US:

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201705291054092997-us-cold-war-obor/

So if your trade route is better than somebody else's, then you get to have more trade and the bigger piece of the economic pie - but if their trade route is better, then you get squeezed out. Welcome to the new Cold War.

So if Orwell was right, Oceania is now at war with Eurasia, while getting help from North America.

sanman said:

Here's a new buzzword for you - "competitive connectivity" - as exemplified by the emerging rivalry between China's OBOR and the Indo-Japanese response (AAGC), which is backed by the US:

https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201705291054092997-us-cold-war-obor/

So if your trade route is better than somebody else's, then you get to have more trade and the bigger piece of the economic pie - but if their trade route is better, then you get squeezed out. Welcome to the new Cold War.

So if Orwell was right, Oceania is now at war with Eurasia, while getting help from North America.

Click to expand...

The keyword is "economic pie." The current Western dynamic of US, UK, EU, SA, and Japan constitute 60% of World money and banks. This gives great stability to the USA dollar,a/k/a Fiat money, money because we say it is, supported by faith/confidence. The OBOR is planned to operate outside those banks and their subsidiary tools for International trading and currency movement. USA hegemony is attempting to maintain this 60% control level, but the future looks like the shift to OBOR banks, China, India, Russia, Brazil, etc. will displace the USA economic alliance and likely destroy the over extended fiat money called the US Dollar. I wouldn't be surprised if the EU officially joins the OBOR because they are physically connected in EurAsia. The USA will create new wars to attempt to prevent the OBOR success. OBOR is a EurAsian trading route and a damn good plan.
/

OBOR will suck a lot of maritime trade inland - away from international shipping lanes, where the US dominates. These new land routes are going to require a lot of security efforts, because they pass through some notorious badlands. It's one thing to fend off sea pirates, but guerilla bandits are a different kettle of fish - not to mention corrupt governments in between.

I wonder if Moody's recent credit downgrading of China is related to China's announcement of OBOR? The timing certainly lines up. OBOR banks may be rising, but at least the credit-rating agencies are still on US soil (so far).

Another thing that's fundamentally important here is the fact that China is trying to plow lots of money into countries whose credit rating is below investment grade - ie. the prospect of recovering money from these countries is low. As a result, China is providing the money through high-interest loans, due to the high risk factor.

We've already seen what happened with lending to Greece - with OBOR, prepare for Greece X 100.

Some of these countries will swallow up Chinese money like opium addicts, without any hope of being able to pay it back. This is a mess that will blow up in China's face - but their political leadership are so full of groupthink that once they make up their minds, they stubbornly keep going - in this case, it'll be like lemmings off a cliff.

sanman said:

............, which is backed by the US:...........

Click to expand...

is it still backed by the US!?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarahs...e-is-bad-for-u-s-good-for-world/#232e8fa13402

The US sent a delegation - not necessarily because it wants to support OBOR - rather because it wants to keep an ear inside the discussions, to keep tabs on what's going on. OBOR is not in the USA's interest.

Also, don't forget that Trump needs China's cooperation on North Korea - so that may have been a factor

Re: Competitive Connectivity - OBOR vs AAGC
※→ sanman, et al,

What is wrong with a very positive effort to build new economic frameworks? These seems to be a very interesting "Silk Road" - "East Indian Trading" type projects. I hope that they will be able to pay for itself in matter of maintenance and upkeep.

sanman said:

... ... ... So if your trade route is better than somebody else's, then you get to have more trade and the bigger piece of the economic pie - but if their trade route is better, then you get squeezed out. Welcome to the new Cold War.

So if Orwell was right, Oceania is now at war with Eurasia, while getting help from North America.

Click to expand...

(OBSERVATION - One Man's View)

My understanding is that the "Asia Africa Growth Corridor" (AAGC) is a project to bring transportation costs down in a new series of arcades, markets, and industrial firms and resources with cost effective and working alternatives Freight-hauling options. But the AAGC is more of a concept inspired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi (India) and Prime Minister Shinzo Abe (Japan); not China.

China has a separate trade route development counterpart; which is not a real competitor; it is called the “One Belt, One Road” (OBOR) Initiative. It was a promotional project of President Xi Jinping (China). It is a series interlocking Land-based trading points and ports with Sea-based commercial exchanges. The initiative seems to be reaching out to points as far away as Tanzania (East Africa and the Zanzibar Archipelago) and Australia. The coordinated project may even make connections between the West Pacific Rim commerce routes and the expanding Mediterranean Sea.

(COMMENT)

The competition in trade between the Oceanian with the Eurasian is just as strong today ⇒ as it was in the days of the "Black Ship." The initial intercontinental Sea Lanes which connected Japan and India with Europe (in and for Portugal) were the first in a series of Sea Lanes of commerce and trade exchanges (all the major powers in Europe). Once the niche commodity markets stabilize, it can be very good for business.

The principle difference between the AAGC and OBOR Trade Plans --- of that with the --- Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) is that the AAGC and OBOR have very strong government support in both infrastructure and free trade. Where as the TPP has bipartisan opposition on trade (no interest in under employment, unemployment, education, science and industry development and improvements) because it may disrupt earnings and profits of the shareholders.

The Leadership and Governments of Japan, China, and India see themselves of bond shareholders to the people and nation. The US Government does not see themselves as having an interest in the constituents; but works in the best interest of improving transnational corporate entities return on investment.


Most Respectfully,
R