US Funded World Bank "Climate Program" – Helping China put American Farmers Out of Work

China's burgeoning coal power industry
China can pay for its own infrastructure

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

The World Bank, to which the USA is by far the largest contributor, has launched a climate program in rural China, to help Chinese farmers improve infrastructure and productivity. This will in turn help the Chinese drive down the profits and job opportunities in rural America.

Project Helps Farmers Adapt to Climate Change in China

About 380,000 rural households in six Chinese provinces are benefiting from a project that helps build sustainable and climate-smart agriculture. The project is funded by the World Bank and the Government of China, with additional technical expertise from the Investment Centre of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations.

The $313.14 million Integrated Modern Agriculture Development (IMAD) Project, the largest World Bank- supported project of its kind in China, combines complementary investments in infrastructure, on-farm technologies, and institutional support by improving irrigation systems, boosting climate-smart agricultural practices, building the capacity of water-user associations and farmers’ cooperatives, and strengthening project management.

In the last two years, the project has helped improve infrastructure for 236,000 mu (38,880 acres) of farmland across 33 counties and districts in the provinces of Gansu, Hunan, Jiangxi, and Liaoning, plus the Xinjiang Uygur Autonomous Region and Chongqing Municipality. Investments in irrigation have included aqueducts, drip irrigation, and improved drainage systems, to name just a few. Before these investments, the irrigation and drainage in many project areas were inconsistent and unreliable.

Read more:

I have no problem with China spending their own money improving Chinese infrastructure. It is not like China is short of cash – thanks to China’s vast national savings surplus, China owns at least $1.25 trillion of US government debt. But China only contributes around $6.6 million per annum to the World Bank.

Through its climate program, the World Bank is effectively providing largely US funded soft loans and grants to Chinese farmers, to pay for Chinese infrastructure improvements. Not only are Americans deprived of the use of their own money, these improvements to Chinese infrastructure will drive down profits and job opportunities, for the Americans who help fund those soft loans via the US federal taxes they pay.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Robert from oz
July 14, 2016 12:50 am

You reep what you sow America .

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 14, 2016 3:53 am

or reap

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 14, 2016 5:17 am

Robert from OZ: you are correct … on more than a few levels.
a. another BIG bank-BIG govt — centralized command and control govt — as opposed to a MARKET solution … will we, the voters, continue/refuse to learn that these non-market solutions, the vast majority of times do NOT work
b. will the tax-paying public ever ask for, let alone, get an account of how much good/bad change this money ever brought about?
c. let me speculate: how much of the actual hard cash — similar to the end-pocket of our “stimulation” program here in USA — ever get to the farmers on whose needs this money was intended?
conversely: how much of the cash ended up in the pockets of the corrupt crony profiteers and their political enablers?
d. most likely, this will do nothing except to make the problem worse
e. in the end, most likely, it will hurt the taxpayers … the indication of which seems to be, and, rightly so, the primary intent of this article;
f. this scam program, a characterization which i am willing to bet is proper, will serve as a propaganda item by the world bank and other big govt people [read: globalists]
yes: read ’em and weep.
ps: these are our elected big western govts — and their agents — alive and well … due to our mis-directed support, which we, as freeborn citizens, have demonstrated, time and time again, a refusal to recognize the damage which they are doing … ultimately, destroying our nations and our cultures … all for the sake of their greed-filled quest for command and control globalization.
may God help us all …. but, first, we must help ourselves. vote for freedom … in whatever and whichever way one can!

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 14, 2016 1:06 pm

I was astonished to be informed about five years ago, by a farmer here in the Golden State, that the huge hay crops he was harvesting at the time were almost all going to China. We export hay to China. China apparently prefers grass fed beef – I do too – and imports the grass to feed them. The hay consisted a mix of bailed “orchard hay” – plain grass, bailed oat hay, and bailed alfalfa.
The following link gives a view of that. Exports of hay have dropped off in the last couple of years. As the article points out we also ship to such countries as the UK and the UAE. So, when you consider what to sow, maybe think grass or alfalfa rather than corn and soy. It will actually help get the farmer out of hock and away from the grip of Cargill and Monsanto, both very dominant in their say as to what gets planted in much of the grain belt.

Reply to  Duster
July 15, 2016 4:25 am

in aus far too much of hay fodder goes to china also
and the rest instead of going back into our soils…get used to make paper n board with
company called BALCO in SA was one of the early startups.
and the short stemmed crops from that overpraised GMO fella..names not worth remembering. won a nobel. that also doesnt stand for much now..
also meant all our machinery had to be upgraded or replaced to pick up grains n cut crops
cost us billions

Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
Reply to  Robert from oz
July 14, 2016 8:09 pm

It is a quite surprising change in World Bank. In fact this is the system I was advocating for the past few decades — this is the system I followed in my work, in my books and as well in daily newspaper articles, letters to the government in India. This is completely change in World Bank plocy on which I presented strong criticismss on several occasions. I advocated study of agroclimate of a location/region instead of wasting time on global warming based theoretical exercizes.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy

Reply to  Robert from oz
July 15, 2016 6:10 pm

We’ve sown a bunch and reaped nothing. Time for another waste of money to end. The rest of the world is welcome to fund itself…… just like America does.

July 14, 2016 12:50 am

Never buy food products made in China. Ever.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  njsnowfan
July 14, 2016 1:16 am

Ha! They got around that here in Australia (Well that is more an Australian regulatory problem than anything else). They have them packaged in New Zealand, and then shipped to Australia. I always check out where my food comes from. Anything ambiguous as to source is swiftly placed back on the shelf!

Alan the Brit
Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 14, 2016 7:05 am

Somewhat reminicent of how the EU allowed East-European countries get around the British Farm Standard, after British farmers presented their food products, the tractor emblem, suddenly everyone seemed to be using it on theirfoord products,appearing to claim that their food was actually produced by them to British Farm standards!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 15, 2016 4:26 am

yeah, made in NZ or packed in NZ goes back into shelf fast!
same as made in usa does unless its gteed GMO free,

Reply to  njsnowfan
July 14, 2016 3:04 am

Even the Chinese know to avoid some Chinese food products. One of my friends has to haul a suitcase of powdered milk and baby formula every time he goes back to China.
On the other hand, the same friend brings back some absolutely delightful Chinese confections.
We have our own nearly poisonous food … soda, high fructose corn syrup, vegetable oil … all government approved.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 4:04 am

Our “poisonous” food is obviously bad for you and when we buy it, we chose to ignore that it is unhealthy. China’s poisonous food is superficially healthy food that has been poisoned. That’s not a minor difference.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 4:50 am

Look up a few of China’s ‘gutter oil’ videos.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 5:44 am

Pleas explain to me what makes high fructose corn syrup “poisonous”. Justify that statement with an explanation based on chemistry, not BS.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 6:26 am

To Don Perry,
“Compared with the high-glucose beverage, the low-fructose beverage impaired hepatic insulin sensitivity, but not whole-body insulin sensitivity, pointing again to the pathophysiological effects that fructose can have on the liver. In addition, they found that total and LDL cholesterol were increased by fructose relative to glucose and that free fatty acids were increased or showed a trend toward an increase in the fructose beverage groups.”
Fructose seems to be somewhat controversial, but evidence against it is accumulating. It may just be the amount taken commonly in soda pop. But for now, a lot of the writings on the web come from soft sources.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 7:07 am

To J
Comparing”high glucose” with “high fructose” is comparing apples to oranges. Plain old table sugar is called “sucrose”, which is made of of equal units of glucose and fructose. It is 50% glucose and 50% fructose. The majority of so-called “high fructose” corn syrup is composed of 45% glucose and 55% fructose. It’s made up of EXACTLY the same substances found in common table sugar. I’m not arguing that table sugar is not harmful. It’s over-consumption likely plays a role in the increase in diabetes. I’m simply saying that to call high fructose corn syrup “poisonous” is utter nonsense.

Dan Hawkins
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 8:00 am

I assume then that honey is “poisonous food,” as its principal component is fructose.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 8:52 am

Dan, that is so funny because, the same people who are against high fructose corn syrup think honey is a magical cure all, best sweetener of all time.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 9:11 am

Sugar as sucrose in slightly acidic (low) pH inverts into glucose & fructose; fluid ( not dry storage) warmth also favors this hydrolysis. Dissolved sucrose in water does not spontaneously undergo hydrolysis into glucose & fructose; however carbonated soft drinks (soda pop) & jams (fruit preserves) are low pH. High fructose corn syrup is glucose & relatively more fructose already free from one another, so to speak.
Extrapolating studies where high fructose is administered should take into account human consumption of store bought products sweetened with sugar may in some products only differ from high fructose corn syrup sweetened items in the amount of free fructose. Fructose as high as 200grams/day has been suggested to have no effect on whole body insulin sensitivity; so even traditional foods with little fiber containing fructose are fine for most people. Of course there are other researched factors I am not including here.
One researcher reports brain activity shows scanned adults administered high fructose corn syrup respond differently than their brain activity from sucrose. I do not remember for sure if sucrose was administered via freshly made sucrose sugar water, although think (pretty sure) it was; suggesting in general population brain activity craves sucrose sugar less strongly & thus is relatively less probable to induce taking in carbohydrate calories if not needed.

Reply to  commieBob
July 14, 2016 1:15 pm

tim maguire,
If you reead up on the trends on our “understanding” of what is or is not healthy to consume, then maybe the distinction is less distinct than we would like. Yeah there HAVE been some notorious cases of adulteration in China, but … A careful study of the history of the last 70 years or so of food “science” reveals that there is no qualitative difference between behind the science backing the advice to avoid cholesterol and the science that says CO2 is a climate control knob. It starts with real or potential correlations, proceeds to cherry pick data, and then to government policy. The adulterated foods in China are bad, but compared to the health results of 50 years or more of advice on what we should and should not eat, well take your pick, but my read is that the adulterants caused less harm and were socially far less costly.

July 14, 2016 1:01 am

Climate policy has its greatest impact on energy, but in the UK we are seeing it now in agriculture, orchestrated by the BBC. Last week on the radio we heard about a small farm, with all the usual guff about sustainability (yeah right, conservative farmers are hell bent on running their farms un-sustainably), the obligatory use of solar panels, and the “very exciting” growing techniques that the owner just knows “captures carbon”, despite a total lack of scientific evidence for that claim, and a total lack of impact on the climate if it turns out to be true.
Farming used to be about growing food, but now, thanks to EU subsidies and protectionism, it is about climate change and wildlife.

Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2016 1:12 am

Are there any plants that do not capture carbon when they are growing? I am looking out of the window at my back garden while writing this and I can see all too much evidence of carbon capture. The lawn needs mowing and the hedges are getting overgrown. My hedge trimmer’s motor has been burnt out and I have not got around to buying a new one yet but perhaps my procrastination is helping to save the world from climate change!

Reply to  Roy
July 14, 2016 2:09 am


Reply to  Roy
July 14, 2016 2:46 am

Stuart, he asked about ‘plants’

Reply to  Roy
July 14, 2016 7:11 am

Ask your friends a simple question. A single tree in your back yard might weight many tons. Where does the mass of the tree come from? It can’t be the earth, because that would leave a hole, while the tree roots plainly push up the soil (and anything in their path like your driveway.
So where does the 5 or 10 tons of mass in a tree come from?

Reply to  Roy
July 14, 2016 10:40 am

Indian Pipe (Monotropa uniflora)
Also, mushrooms aren’t plants; they are fungi, which, in modern taxonomic schemes, are even in their own Kingdom.

Paul Mackey
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2016 1:32 am

The European Central bank did something similar with steel. A few years ago( four or five I think), they gave over 100 million to two Chinese state owned steel producers, to help with their energy efficiency. And now the Chinese are dumping steel on the market and the British Steel industry has been put out of business.

Reply to  Paul Mackey
July 14, 2016 8:14 am

The same has been done to US steel production as well. Perhaps the theory is that we’re allowing China to pollute themselves into oblivion. They’re not known for ensuring any real measure of environmental protections, that’s for sure.

Coach Springer
Reply to  climanrecon
July 14, 2016 5:16 am

Your power company used to be about producing electricity too.

July 14, 2016 1:04 am

But China is a developing nation. 😉

Patrick MJD
Reply to  lee
July 14, 2016 1:12 am

Yes! It is developing in the south China sea, quite aggressively too.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 14, 2016 7:31 am

I imagine your depth of knowledge on the matter is based on main stream media.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 14, 2016 1:20 pm

That would be the very same MSM that is concerned about AGW would it not?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Patrick MJD
July 14, 2016 11:10 pm

“Alex July 14, 2016 at 7:31 am”
The Amricans, Australians, Japanese, Philipines, Koreans etc etc are all concerned for some reason. I wonder why that would be?

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2016 7:06 am

I think you spend too much time on-line searching for conspiracies

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2016 9:24 am

Eric with this blog post of yours you have got it all wrong.
I have spent a fairly good long time once commenting and arguing at Guardian.
Sorry to say but the line of logic and rationale that you hold in your blog post is quasi the same holded at the Guardian.
You are blaming China for doing the right thing, you are blaming China for its investment in farming through investments for better water management, and somehow you blame China and hold China responsible for farming problems in your country.
No one is stopping your country to invest in better farming and better water management and keep ahead with your farming, no one is demanding that your country does not go that way……….
Oh sorry there is some who trying a stop that and demand that you heavily invest in a combat against climate change, by investing and gambling the wealth of your country in the CO2 ponzi schemes.
There is this furious AGW lobby and cabal who is pushing your country in the opposite way of what China is trying a do.
If you are jealous or something like that about the help China is getting from the World Banking system please do be, to your heart content, but you must not blame it because it is a rightful investment in something worth it to invest, not like the ponzi schemes that most of the developed countries are hypnotized by.
China is giving the proper example what the difference between adaptation and a combat against climate change is, and most probably inviting any one else to follow that example.
Eric if your farming will fail one day that is not fault of China. You can’t have it both ways.
You either invest seriously in farming and better water management, or you waste your wealth in wind turbines and carbon markets and such as……. The budget always has its limits especially when mostly based on loans…….
You see, even in your American movie “Idiocracy ” is plainly explained that farming does not fail due to competition, but simply when idiots start thinking that it could be better and thriving by investing in schemes that have to do with any thing but not with water and better water management…..
I do not know how some country like China can be blamed because it is trying to do the best for its self by investing in a proper and right projects that stands to improve its wealth and prosperity………!
Stop blaming others for the failures in your own country, what ever these failures are, stop blaming your neighbors for your own internal problems……………..and yes in these modern times China is your neighbor as any one else…..:)
Who ever s going a be your next President, one thing is sure, you can not blame it on China,…:)

Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 15, 2016 4:30 am

pig iron bob all over again

July 14, 2016 1:14 am

I am not sure why the World Bank is in China and why it has a climate agenda as its only function is to bring the world’s LDC out of poverty.
Hello World Bank, please get off the climate bandwagon, Go back to your day job, and help Somalia, Burundi, Liberia, Congo DR, Niger, Malawi, Madagascar, Central African Republic, Guinea, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Gambia, Togo, Rwanda, Uganda, Mali, Zimbabwe, Haiti, Tanzania UR, Bangladesh, Myanmar, Benin, and Cambodia get out of poverty. This is your job. This has been your job for more than 50 years and you still haven’t done it and now you have abandoned it for climate.
Shame on you.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  chaamjamal
July 14, 2016 1:22 am

Like “diet fads” and diet food suppliers, y’know like “Lite & Easy” here in Aus, they depend on repeat business? Otherwise they would be out of “business” as the problems would be fixed, surely not?

Mark - Helsinki
Reply to  chaamjamal
July 14, 2016 1:27 am

Because the world bank is part of the same globalist machine

Reply to  Mark - Helsinki
July 14, 2016 2:49 am


Reply to  chaamjamal
July 14, 2016 5:22 am

From its own website:- ‘The World Bank Group has two ambitious goals: ending extreme poverty and boosting shared prosperity.’ Throwing money at climate change cannot achieve either of these goals – as you said, shame on them

Reply to  chaamjamal
July 14, 2016 7:35 am

Probably what the Chinese World Bank is doing. Practical people. It will pay off for them in the end.

Tim Hammond
July 14, 2016 1:20 am

I’m not sure why anybody would think helping really poor people is a bad thing? If US farmers cannot compete with food grown in China, then they should be doing something else – they live in one of the world’s most developed countries after all. Economic development and the creation of wealth depends on comparative advantage, not protectionism. And making consumers pay more for their essentials like food to protect some people’s jobs is hardly helping all the relatively poor in the US.
Us farming has taken billions in taxpayer’s money over the years, which has made them uncompetitive. Complaining now that taxpayer’s money is funding World Bank programmes seems churlish at best

Reply to  Tim Hammond
July 14, 2016 2:01 am

” If US farmers cannot compete with food grown in China, ” -Cost of labour, how many do you want to put out of jobs.
” Economic development and the c”reation of wealth depends on comparative advantage, not protectionism” – Chona is NOT a developing nation.
“And making consumers pay more for their essentials like food to protect some people’s jobs is hardly helping all the relatively poor in the US.” – And the “relatively poor” now out of jobs?

Reply to  Tim Hammond
July 14, 2016 7:20 am

If US farmers cannot compete with food grown in China, then they should be doing something else
The problem isn’t competition, it is competition with subsidies.
Look around in your own neighborhood. A large chain store opens up. When it first opens it isn’t paying its own way. It is subsidized by the other stores in the chain. However, the local businesses in your neighborhood are paying their own way.
Pretty soon the subsidized chain store will have driven the local business out of business, because no one can compete with subsidies. And once the local stores are gone, the chain store will raise its prices and start paying its own way. Ready to subsidize the next chain store in a different neighborhood.
Now apply the same model globally and pretty soon there are no jobs in your country. Land prices plummet, crime moves in.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  ferdberple
July 14, 2016 9:08 am

I see your logic, but I have never seen evidence that “once the local stores are gone, the chain store will raise its prices”. A new Walmart and an old Walmart seem to have the same prices.
Also, if the people in your neighborhood actually cared about the local business, they wouldn’t shop at the new big chain to save a couple bucks. But the fact is that no one cares (except for the small business owner who was making good money off the backs of consumers).

Reid from Canada
Reply to  ferdberple
July 14, 2016 10:39 am

US farmers get about $20B a year in subsidies for just growing their crops. I think that makes them the large chain in your example.

Wim Röst
July 14, 2016 2:10 am

Gross domestic product (GDP), purchasing power parity:
Average income in China 2015 (est.) $ 14.100
Average income in the US 2015 (est.) $ 55.800
Incomes in the country side in China mostly are much lower than the average income in China. The figures above are in purchasing power parity.

Wim Röst
Reply to  Eric Worrall
July 14, 2016 3:22 am

“The International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) lends to governments of middle-income and creditworthy low-income countries. ”

July 14, 2016 2:52 am

China recently started its own version of the “World Bank”. Why would the original World Bank be involved in this action? Does this seem odd to anyone else?

Reply to  gudolpops
July 14, 2016 11:21 am

July 14, 2016 at 2:52 am
China recently started its own version of the “World Bank”. Why would the original World Bank be involved in this action? Does this seem odd to anyone else?
Yes it seems a bit odd, but actually is very easy to see the real thing.
World Bank is the main mechanism in World investment from which a lot of undeveloped and third world countries will get the goods from to invest in the development and construction of their own structures which suppose to increase their wealth and well being……and for many that means a lift out of poverty.
But for this you need the “guy” , the one who actually will do the work….
The best and most powerful “guy” there for that task, the one who is going a get the lion share, is China.
And also China is the most affordable “guy”.
The China economy is strong and powerful, but when it comes to the Chinese work force, its construction force and its production force, China is the number one in the world with no any real contenders or competition.
Is not the fault of China if they have managed and succeeded in that department, no matter how much you may envy or hate it..
Many such investments in construction and production will be contracted to ChIna, as it will be more affordable.
Either if the investment schemes will be for more wind turbines and other such renewables or for better farming and better water management, still China will build most of.
What this latter investment of China shows is that both China and the World Bank are sane enough to show the world what could be the best schemes of such investments.
China really needs better farming and better water management supporting the farming, but at this point is in collaboration with the World Bank because this has to be shown as an workable fully detailed pilot investment scheme that can be applied where ever needed or demanded by who ever that is serious enough in farming and water management investment schemes.
Somehow China and the World Bank are showing through this collaboration their stand on favoring the farming and water management investment schemes.
Maybe some are right when claiming that this is not a proper way to lift many out of poverty in the undeveloped countries, but maybe not,,,,,,,,,,,,, it stands to be seen…..
Hopefully this could offer some explanation to your question.

July 14, 2016 3:28 am

Tip in the dough where you want it to land…then fill in a bit of paper saying it was “climate-smart practice”.
Come reeling back from the pub full as a state school having put the week’s pay through the pokies? Just tell the missus it was climate-smart practice.
Climate-smart. Dolphin-friendly. Planet huggy. Whatever.
Think the Chinese will care?

Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
July 14, 2016 4:18 am

Trump will fix this up.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Krudd Gillard of the Commondebt of Australia
July 14, 2016 4:40 am

I was thinking the same thing. He’s got their number. They are riding this “climate” issue and laughing all the way to the bank. Their bank, that is.

July 14, 2016 4:53 am

That’s ok – they’re providing foot pumps made in India for draining the fields to combat global warming. If the World Bank is not there, China might get gas powered pumps instead.

Jeff in Calgary
Reply to  Golden
July 14, 2016 9:10 am

So true. The help will not help at all.

July 14, 2016 5:11 am

All change here in the UK.
The Department of Energy and Climate Change has been scrapped this morning by our new Prime Minister.

Reply to  RB
July 14, 2016 6:08 am

Is this right? Nothing on the web about it, and not on the BBC news I last heard. Not that it means much if its duties are merely reassigned, of course. Now, scrapping the CLIMATE CHANGE ACT – well, that’d be something. But maybe, from tiny acorns…

Reply to  mothcatcher
July 14, 2016 6:45 am
Patrick MJD
Reply to  RB
July 14, 2016 7:12 am

Seriously? We won’t hear about that after the official secrets act expires, 25 years I think on most matters!

Tom Halla
July 14, 2016 6:20 am

This is just what I expect out of international organizations. As if the Chinese are short of development money themselves.

Christopher Paino
July 14, 2016 7:20 am

By reading this thread it becomes apparent that the world would be absolutely perfect if y’all were in charge. You folks know absolutely everything about everything!

Reply to  Christopher Paino
July 14, 2016 7:49 am


Christopher Paino
Reply to  rogerknights
July 14, 2016 8:20 am

No shite Sherlock. You are brilliant! Actually though, it would be a strawman if I was arguing something. Just publishing my opinion. Sorry. No spot taken.

Reply to  rogerknights
July 14, 2016 9:45 am

Home for the Holidays (1995)~ “Opinions are like assholes. Everybody’s got one and everyone thinks everyone else’s stinks.”

Reply to  Christopher Paino
July 14, 2016 8:05 am

Glad you noticed.

Swiss Bob
July 14, 2016 7:52 am

Apologies for being off topic.
New UK Govt has just abolished DECC, the Department of Energy & Climate Change. . .

July 14, 2016 8:54 am

Over a billion and a half dollars! Why are we (the USA taxpayers) contributing anything at all to the world bank? You don’t contribute to banks, they hold your money and are supposed to pay you interest. It’s not the bank’s money but your money is the way it’s suppose to work. What kind of a bank is this – the world bank? It is not a bank.

Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 14, 2016 9:17 am

because taxpayers are codependent bitches in an abusive relationship who can’t say no.
they have a notion they have to ask for ‘rights’, too, which is prima facie evidence that they don’t understand the concept.
they believe
nothing can change that.
it’s the religion of the eloi.

Reid from Canada
Reply to  J. Philip Peterson
July 14, 2016 10:42 am

Complaining about $1.5B to the World Bank which sends money to programs like this is a bit silly when the US government gives away about $20B to mostly large farms in subsidies for doing what they would do anyway.

Reply to  Reid from Canada
July 14, 2016 12:05 pm

Okay, I’ll bite. I was given money to not grow wheat and peas. Instead I pastured that land once a year as allowed. I was also required to keep it free of noxious weeds at my own expense. I was also required to use my water rights and pay the cost of the water master. Why wouldn’t I just farm it? No profit. The price of staples is largely fixed which makes it very difficult for me to have any kind of family supporting wages and put money aside for retirement. On the other hand, these payments kept that agriculture land fenced, watered, and fairly low in weeds, IE in pretty good condition in case some massive emergency needed it put back into production.
Your comment seems targeted at large farms. So what’s the difference between small farms versus large farms? Not a damn thing. They all put very good food on your table. If you have problems with that, get off your duff, change into Bib overalls, and start your tractor. Let’s see if you can make a go of it.

July 14, 2016 9:13 am

Just call the U.S., Uncle Sucker, instead of Uncle Sam.
Trump is right, we have political hacks negotiating these deals and agreements, and this is what we get for it: the Short End of the Stick.
Trump wants to make deals that are fair to the U.S., and fair to everyone else. This kind of expenditure by the U.S. does not qualify as fair.
There is going to be a lot of renegotiation in the Trump administration.

David LeBlanc
July 14, 2016 10:48 am

It’s who we are. Just ask the President.

July 14, 2016 11:25 am

Anyone ever read “Confessions of an Economic Hitman”? Not economically relevant to China but may be in other ways. Anyone here ever done World Bank, African Development Bank, Asian Development Bank or US Aid? Those of us who have, know there are many conditions and often the aid is “tied” so the benefit goes to certain “suppliers”. There is no way to know how much US and other countries benefit from this “aid” to China since a lot of aid money has a rather circuitous flow back to the donors. Not always, but often. Plus sometimes foreign governments find the “aid” useful in other ways. The US is probably not giving away anything, but supporting their network. I have met some very “spooky” people while doing aid work.

July 14, 2016 11:45 am

Might as well flush that loan down the toilet. Humans are meant to own their surroundings and their productivity, individually, for better or for worse. Giving humans the means to toil towards something they have no chance of owning is like telling a horse to become the rider.
As long as the Chinese system of governance insists on treating their citizenry like the horses that transports China, instead of being the riders that transports China, the outcome of this huge loan will be for naught. Investors beware.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
July 15, 2016 5:13 am

Pamela: re your paid to NOT grow comment
so in Aus if we face drought etc we dont get paid to not grow
let alone in good years
if we’re lucky they offer lower percentage loans to the already indebted
we dont get any subsidies to grow and specific crops either )like corn /canola for biofuels..
we pay far higher land /water taxes and wages and our fuel also(some tax back at end of yr re fuel if diesel)
and yet in spite of our dollar being devalued by the ussa$ we still manage to sell os and survive.
oh and we also by law have to maintain land water sources weeds and feral pests out of our own pocket.
the SA local govt are trying to TAX all bar 10% of the dam water we hold to top it off..we pay to dig maintain and help stop erosion and cop no thanks and the threat of charges to do so..
eu and uk get handouts and tariff protection as do you
and yet? we manage

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 15, 2016 3:30 pm

Does your government have a say in food prices or are they reflective of natural supply/demand/cost prices?

Reply to  ozspeaksup
July 15, 2016 3:38 pm

Our government passes a farm bill every so often. It is an interesting read about production/price management with the goal of stabilizing food costs. Don’t want the voting public mad at the government every time bread, milk and eggs change price directly due to farmer costs and the desire to have a family wage.

July 14, 2016 2:38 pm

Maybe Cargill, Monsanto and other companies were having a hard time getting into China without the help. Trump just might approve.

July 14, 2016 6:15 pm

In the meantime, transporting wind turbine parts to their destinations is doing tremendous damage to our infrastructure and farmers’ drainage tiles. I don’t know anyone that’s repairing or paying for all that. Our rural roads are not constructed to bear that kind of load.

July 15, 2016 7:36 am

It’s the old story: institutional reform always lags behind economic reality.
The IMF reflects 1945 not 2016.
Reform it or abolish it.

%d bloggers like this: