Without listening to the speech and based on that specific comment, it sure sounds like it. Much better would be simply pooling various private individuals' resources into a pot, utilizing that for this end, and then they can appropriately split any proceeds between them.
Without listening to the speech and based on that specific comment, it sure sounds like it. Much better would be simply pooling various private individuals' resources into a pot, utilizing that for this end, and then they can appropriately split any proceeds between them.
I edited in the time of his explanation (19:40). I'm not sure how the surrounding few details affect the situation, for example he says they eat up to 10% loss if it fails, but overall it sounds like public loss and private gain to me.
I edited in the time of his explanation (19:40). I'm not sure how the surrounding few details affect the situation, for example he says they eat up to 10% loss if it fails, but overall it sounds like public loss and private gain to me.
It sounds like a great humanitarian effort and I am on board with helping the poor countries develop their infrastructure to self sustainability.
However. When asked to elaborate (edit: at 19:40), he said that he is "using public money to derisk specific instruments" to encourage investment. Meaning the risk is public and the reward is private. Isn't it another scheme for the rich to get richer by risking public money while keeping theirs safe?