Please focus on the cash flows. In your first paragraph, the IMF loan for the electricity grid is cash flow #1, presumably denominated as a loan to Country to fund construction of the grid. But then, you say, the grid was in fact not built [so what happened to the loan proceeds of cash flow #1?] such that there is need for a cash flow #2, which you say is paid [by whom? the IMF again?] to Western companies "to build it." Can't you see that this scenario describes a situation in which the IMF has badly lost money? The loan it advanced to Country (cash flow #1), instead of helping to build an economic asset (the grid) that could (ideally) throw off enough cash as part of its ongoing operations to repay the loan to IMF, has instead disappeared into the ether somewhere, thereby requiring a second cash flow (#2) to "Western companies" to build the grid.

Far from a scenario in which the IMF can reap enormous profits by "looting" Country (presumably in cahoots somehow with its bankster cronies, despite the fact that the IMF is not structured as a private corporation with shareholders), what you describe is a scenario in which the IMF would be repeatedly on the short end of the stick on the loans it makes - though, admittedly, it might retain the right - on paper - to try and recover the debt, perhaps at higher interest rates due to the default - but unless and until it actually collects on that debt, it has still suffered an economic loss!

Or, focus on the example in your second to last paragraph - where the interest rate has jumped to 10%-20% and the loan cannot be repaid. Can't you see that in that situation the lender (IMF again?) has (most likely) lost money on the deal? For example, let's say IMF originally loaned $1 billion to Country at 4% interest, to fund some public works project. Country begins making its 4% interest payments. Some time later (but well before the 4% loan has been repaid to IMF), IMF discovers Country lied about its fiscal health when it took out the 4% loan. This triggers an interest rate jump to 10%-20%, and the re-payment schedule is sharply increased as a result - increased so high, in fact, that Country realistically has no chance to ever pay off the loan. Even so, as an economic matter, the IMF has still lost out on the deal at that point in time. Sure, it has a claim against Country at a punitively high interest rate - but that's on paper only. A focus on the cash flows would likely show that IMF is the party that has suffered the economic loss. It loaned $1 billion out but likely has been paid back only a fraction of it at that point.

Replies: @Kiza, @Joseph E Fasciani

ah, ivan the indian who was given a russian name by his father who loved ussr so much.
ironically these days ivan turned into an uncle sham apologist and china baiter !

ivan
'The Chicoms took the opportunity to teach the Vietnamese a ‘lesson’, which as is usual with the Chinese military, ended up teaching them a lesson on their own incapabilities.''

perhaps u should tell that to the indian troops who intruded into chinese territory 1962 despite numerous warning , got routed and chased all the way back into india. the pla could've recovered its lost territory robbed by the brits in 1903 and later 'bequeathed' to india . it could even rode right up to delhi cuz there's nothing infront to stop them. but beijing ordered pla to retreat after achieving its objective of 'teaching bharat a lesson'.


the same in the 1979 war with vn.
pla broked thru vn defence and advanced deep into the country, after achieving its objective voluntarily pull back, never pursued by a 'victorious' vn army.
its not an easy 'victory' like in india tho, chinese own accounts readily admitted heavy casualities suffered when troops and armours were trapped in the treacherous terrain and bombarded by vn artillery embedded up on the hill sides. one account estimated chinese/vn casualties both in tens of thousands.


these days western, especially murkkan msm all parroted the meme that 'china got its ass kicked in vn',
its part and parcel of the incessant propaganda game, or perhaps its a way of 'getting back' at beijing for helping vn to kick the french ass at dien bien fu and later sent the last murkkans scurrying away home dangling below a helicopter from the top of murkkan embassy.

unlike indians and their murkkan soul mates, i dont normally indulge in such military bravdo and triumphalism, but western propaganda repeated Ad nauseam is getting tiring.

the moral part.
unlike the indians and their murkkan bed fellows, china's action has always been reactive.
prior to vn attack, practically every day i read about beijing warning hanoi to stop its border provocations.
vn troops had been lobbing shells into chinese villages wreaking extensive damage and casulaties.
chinese accounts also mentioned vn special forecs sneaking into chinese border towns to terrorise the villagers until chinese special forces counter raids forced them to call a truce.

then i suppose u'r old enough to hear about the 'boat people'.?
hundreds of thousands of vn, mostly ethnic chinese were driven out of the country , sent out to sea on rickety sampans. many ended up at the bottom of scs. worst fate awaited those who were waylaid by pirates, men were thrown overboard, daughters, wives, sisters were taken for sex slaves, later sold to brothels in sea .

china's 'punitive' action in vn was defensive like all wars fought by the pla, it was also the pioneer of r2p.
western imperialists in later yrs hijacked this nobel concept and turned it into r2p[lunder].

Replies: @Joseph E Fasciani