[Tubby Isaacs]

This is a bit, er, broadbrush.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/us-def ... iberalism/

US defeat in Afghanistan marks the end of neoliberalism
The past 50 years of Western economics are rooted in imperial exploitation. But if the US’s military can be beaten, it can’t rule global markets

I mean there's more than one way to see the invasion of Afghanistan, but it's a struggle for me to see it as having been done to extend US markets. 20 years and a trillion dollars and you don't even come away with some minerals? Far cheaper and less contentious ways to get your feet in the door with asset rich poor countries (the US understands that as well as anyone).

Lots of places have moved towards neoliberalism, as he calls it, because trade is generally a good thing, not because they've had the IMF and the US enforce the shock doctrine on them. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. They'll likely carry on wanting to try, irrespective of Afghanistan.

[kreuzberger]

China's belt & road knocks that in to a cocked hat.

Seeing the influence of the PRC in far flung places such as Matara in Sri Lanka, Prague, Berlin, Sizewell C is notable and not just for its speed of development.

More or less than $2tn, $20tn? I really don't know and find it difficult to keep track of that many zeros. However, while the US was shovelling unaudited cash to anyone with handmade shoes and a Nehru-collar, China has been running a tick-book.

Imperial literacy. Economic dexterity. Call it what you will.

[Tubby Isaacs]

China even made lots of poor Muslim countries support them on sticking Muslims in concentration camps, so it's obviously doing something right diplomatically.

How secure are their investments? Above my pay grade.