|
The Beeb posted:Zimbabwe says public account stood at $217 last week That's what I call tight budgeting. Then again, their well-managed and totally not corrupt diamond business makes one wonder how they managed to end up with any money in the bank whatsoever...
|
| # ? Jan 31, 2013 22:01 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 02:51 |
|
|
Sounds more like
|
| # ? Jan 31, 2013 22:12 |
|
|
It's a good feeling when you realize you have more money in your account than at least one government.
|
| # ? Jan 31, 2013 23:55 |
|
|
Meanwhile, the US bank account stands at negative sixt- *yanked off stage with an oversized hook by Paul Krugman*
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 03:20 |
|
|
They didn't go to negative, which makes them better with their finances then I am...
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 03:26 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:It's a good feeling when you realize you have more money in your account than at least one government. Well, it sure isn't a good feeling to realize you have less...
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 03:49 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:It's a good feeling when you realize you have more money in your account than at least one government.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 04:03 |
|
|
That's enough for a very reasonable vacation here, where Zimbabwe can wash away its cares in the warm waters of the Gulf of Thailand before retiring to a private bungalow for barbecue and a fire show.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 04:06 |
|
|
Bazinga (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 04:19 |
|
|
Basically the entire economy of Zimbabwe crumbled after their president (Robert Mugabe) made a series of irrational, idiotic decisions, like the seizure of white-owned farms. The policies he put in place pretty much alienated all foreign investment and repelled any growth or economic stimuli it would have otherwise had. Administrative action at work. 
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 07:44 |
|
|
Constant goblin explosions can be quite a damper on economic activity, let me tell ya.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 09:33 |
|
|
Nksor posted:Basically the entire economy of Zimbabwe crumbled after their president (Robert Mugabe) made a series of irrational, idiotic decisions, like the seizure of white-owned farms. The policies he put in place pretty much alienated all foreign investment and repelled any growth or economic stimuli it would have otherwise had. Ah yes, foreign investment in Africa. There's a growth plan that always seems to work out for the citizens of the nation being invested in. Why isn't Mugabe courting more of that?
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 10:09 |
|
|
Nksor posted:Basically the entire economy of Zimbabwe crumbled after their president (Robert Mugabe) made a series of irrational, idiotic decisions, like the seizure of white-owned farms. The policies he put in place pretty much alienated all foreign investment and repelled any growth or economic stimuli it would have otherwise had. 3% of the population owning 60% of the arable land. And that 3% being composed of white settlers. White people, not happy with the fact that their stolen land was stolen back, slapped all kinds of sanctions on Zimbabwe that crippled the economy.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 10:45 |
|
|
Nksor posted:Basically the entire economy of Zimbabwe crumbled after their president (Robert Mugabe) made a series of irrational, idiotic decisions, like the seizure of white-owned farms. The policies he put in place pretty much alienated all foreign investment and repelled any growth or economic stimuli it would have otherwise had. This isn't actually true- the land reform was quite successful: quote:Another new book argues Zimbabwe land reform is a success Although there's no doubt that other parts of the economy have been ran very badly.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 10:58 |
|
|
It's funny to me how the western backed Zimbabwe opposition, which has been running the country together with Mugabe in a power sharing deal after the last election, has lost most popular support by being insanely corrupt since the minute they got in power and now Mugabe is more popular than ever and he's gonna win the next elections without a sweat. Also funny to me is how rabid and vitriolic the anti-Mugabe propaganda is in the western press. There are a lot of way worse dictators in Africa and other parts of the world but they haven't commited the ultimate sin: killing or deporting white people and taking their poo poo. I guess you can be as bad a dictator as you want and nobody gonna care, they'll even support you if they got something to gain, but the moment you touch whitey then oh my god, you're the Hitler of Africa and what have you
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 12:07 |
|
|
lil sartre posted:Also funny to me is how rabid and vitriolic the anti-Mugabe propaganda is in the western press. There are a lot of way worse dictators in Africa and other parts of the world but they haven't commited the ultimate sin: killing or deporting white people and taking their poo poo. I guess you can be as bad a dictator as you want and nobody gonna care, they'll even support you if they got something to gain, but the moment you touch whitey then oh my god, you're the Hitler of Africa and what have you See: Cuba.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 16:07 |
|
|
ANYTHING YOU SOW posted:Although there's no doubt that other parts of the economy have been ran very badly. That's a bit of an understatement- they had one of the worst hyperinflationary episodes in history. Triggered by the massive drop in government revenues that followed the land reforms, by the way.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 17:42 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:That's a bit of an understatement- they had one of the worst hyperinflationary episodes in history. Triggered by the massive drop in government revenues that followed the land reforms, by the way. Well yeah, the land reforms did trigger hyperinflation in an indirect way. The West flipped the gently caress out at the reforms and crushed Zimbabwe's economy. If they'd never scared the man robbing the bank they never would have been shot, therefore it's their fault. quote:As a reaction to the fast-track land reform the United States government put the Zimbabwean government on a credit freeze in 2001 through the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act of 2001 (specifically Section 4C titled Multilateral Financing Restriction),[25] which collapsed the trade surplus in 2002. Where there was a trade surplus of $322 million in 2001, in 2002 the credit freeze led to a trade deficit of $18 million, to grow rapidly in subsequent years.[26] quote:Tabeth Gorovo (centre in the photo), sitting proudly in her round Shona kitchen on her six hectares in Mashonaland East in Zimbabwe, seems an unexpected subject of European and British sanctions. She is not named on any list, but she is sanctioned. All EU and UK aid to Zimbabwe is channelled through international NGOs (non-government organisations), and both the EU and the UK make it a condition that none of their aid can go to the 175,000 land reform families like Tabeth’s. Paul MaudDib fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 17:58 |
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 17:46 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Well yeah, the land reforms did trigger hyperinflation in an indirect way. The West flipped the gently caress out at the reforms and crushed Zimbabwe's economy. If they'd never scared the man robbing the bank they never would have been shot, therefore it's their fault. I agree with you that the West's response was unfair, but it was also thoroughly predictable. There are some very clear rules to the contemporary global economic order, one of which is respect for private property. Most countries understand this and work with it as a constraint on their policy; Mugabe chose not to and knew there would be consequences. Whether those consequences are fair or not is, for most purposes, irrelevant. He chose to pursue a policy that he knew would bring severe negative repercussions on his people: to me, that's bad policymaking. You don't get bonus points for having a vague notion of 'historical justice' on your side. If you'd rather try to pin the blame on a single actor, be my guest, but outside of a schoolyard playground there's no particular reason to do so.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 18:04 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:I agree with you that the West's response was unfair, but it was also thoroughly predictable. See you don't get to pin that on the land reform, then. The crash wasn't "triggered" by the land reform, as you claim. Zimbabwe's economy shat itself because the biggest economies in the world set out to make it poo poo itself, not because black people don't know how to run a farm.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 18:10 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:See you don't get to pin that on the land reform, then. The crash wasn't "triggered" by the land reform, as you claim. Zimbabwe's economy shat itself because the biggest economies in the world set out to make it poo poo itself, not because black people don't know how to run a farm. They must have started putting Wi-Fi in schoolyards, cause you seem intent on playing some elementary-school blame game. I think I've made it pretty clear that I take a more nuanced approach than that. Hell, I take a more nuanced approach to my choice of breakfast than you're displaying here. I never tried to pin the blame for the entirety of Zimbabwe's problems on land reform. I certainly made no statements about black people's ability to run farms, even indirectly. What I said in my last post is that, taking the West's response as given, Mugabe's policy failed in a very predictable way, and that makes it bad policy. edit: You even acnowledged earlier that "the land reforms did trigger hyperinflation in an indirect way," which is all I'm trying to say!
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:See you don't get to pin that on the land reform, then. The crash wasn't "triggered" by the land reform, as you claim. Zimbabwe's economy shat itself because the biggest economies in the world set out to make it poo poo itself, not because black people don't know how to run a farm. I forgot who it was probably pith helmet or that tpm carpathia guy who claimed he was an ancient farmer family in zimbabwe, and that the blacks who replaced them on their zimbabwe farm didn't know how seeds worked, or kept junk cars on the land, and boy it was just awash in racist ramblings.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 18:27 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:I never tried to pin the blame for the entirety of Zimbabwe's problems on land reform. I certainly made no statements about black people's ability to run farms, even indirectly. What I said in my last post is that, taking the West's response as given, Mugabe's policy failed in a very predictable way, and that makes it bad policy. The land was stolen with the use of force in the first place, there's no defense on that front. If the only analysis you're willing to give to the policy is that it pissed off America and so it's bad then you're arguing nothing more complex than might makes right, simple as that. Apart from pissing off rich foreign investors the initiative seems moderately successful. Zimbabwe is transitioning back from cash crop exports to foodstuffs and the distribution of land ownership is less unequal than before. Long term it seems like this will help drop income inequality as well.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 18:45 |
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:3% of the population owning 60% of the arable land. And that 3% being composed of white settlers. White people, not happy with the fact that their stolen land was stolen back, slapped all kinds of sanctions on Zimbabwe that crippled the economy.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 19:22 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:"Stolen back" and largely handed to Mugabe's completely unqualified cronies, which isn't much of an improvement. This. The land "reform" did very little for most Zimbabweans, it basically benefitted Mugabe and the officials of his ZANU-PF Party. You can't really defend a situation where a few white people own most of the land in a mostly black African country, but handing the land to the elite of a one-party regime is no better. As far as I can see, Mugabe's a classic case of absolute power corrupting absolutely. He started out as about the only Marxist ever to win an election in Africa and he's ended up as the stereotypical African dictator of the Idi Amin/ Mobutu school. Blaming "the West" for this is just knee-jerk leftism of the worst kind; he screwed up his own country through being a corrupt, power-crazed dictator. The only reason he's still in power is that the regional governments don't want to be seen to kow-tow to Western pressure. And "we can't afford elections" is just another convenient excuse for not having them.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 19:48 |
|
|
That and the fact that Mugabe has no idea how economies actually work. I understand why the idea of taking land from white settlers and giving it to the native black population is nice in theory, the idea of reclaiming their land, but the critical failure is that it was handed to people who had no idea what they were doing, causing Zimbabwean agriculture to fall flat on its face. But this is only one facet of the failure of Mugabe's policies, the bigger, more important one being that Mugabe thought he could just print more and more money to pay mercenaries and whoever else he wanted, leading to the insane hyperinflation graphs we've all seen and laughed at.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 19:49 |
|
|
Cymbal Monkey posted:That and the fact that Mugabe has no idea how economies actually work. I understand why the idea of taking land from white settlers and giving it to the native black population is nice in theory, the idea of reclaiming their land, but the critical failure is that it was handed to people who had no idea what they were doing, causing Zimbabwean agriculture to fall flat on its face. But this is only one facet of the failure of Mugabe's policies, the bigger, more important one being that Mugabe thought he could just print more and more money to pay mercenaries and whoever else he wanted, leading to the insane hyperinflation graphs we've all seen and laughed at. http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13405 quote:one third of white farmers were insolvent and a third were just about breaking even. Only 5% (300 people!) could be described as ‘very profitable’. The biggest difference here is that the banks were denying financing to the new owners. And no, quote:Has most land gone to government cronies? No. Large-scale black commercial farmers have received just 7% of the land handed out since independence. I guess stop reading propaganda from the sad brits who lost their empire?
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 20:00 |
|
|
The reforms put a lot of land into the hands of a displaced millions of people and the economy is now more focused on being self sustaining rather than existing for export to western countries. It was a pretty solidly good choice.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 20:25 |
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:http://www.oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/?p=13405 I stand corrected. I do love facts so.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 21:01 |
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:The biggest difference here is that the banks were denying financing to the new owners. I'm skeptical of the 7% claim since that's usually been reported as households rather than land area, and original reports from the first round of transfers (which were some of the juicier plots) were something like 30%. The core problem isn't the mere idea of land redistribution either, they weren't having these problems under the original subsidized (by the UK) buyout version of it, they started having them under this new uncompensated expropriation to totally inexperienced not-actually-owner operator version of it. OneEightHundred fucked around with this message at Feb 1, 2013 around 21:41 |
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 21:05 |
|
|
OneEightHundred posted:Foreign banks were denying financing because the government just got done pulling the rug out from under a bunch of debtors and told the banks to get hosed, the new operators can't put the land up as collateral because they don't own it (the state does and the operators are considered lessees), they have few assets, and are generally inexperienced. They ganked the land from 4000 people and distributed it to a whole lot more. quote:In 1930 the British colonisers in Southern Rhodesia defined that the best half of the land was “white” and any non-whites living there were “squatters” – despite living there for generations. Initially there were few white farmers. But white war veterans were encouraged to settle after World War II, and in the next decade 100,000 families were violently moved off the land; their homes were burnt and they lost what they could not carry, including cattle and all their investments in their farms. With independence in 1980, Southern Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe – did one of the largest resettlements in Africa, of 75,000 families. But this depended on farmers on formerly “white” land voluntarily selling their farms; most did not, and only the poorest land was sold. So, they tried in the western-approved way, and that failed entirely for some 20 years. South Africa is also a country where a similar policy is failing entirely. Hmm, I wonder why they want to demonize land reform by the rightful owners. Might it possibly have something to do with scared white people? Probably. quote:The experience of white farmers in the 1950s and 1960s is that it takes a generation – 20 years – to become an effective commercial farmer. And of course during that time... quote:Government policy favored commercial farming as the return to the economy through taxation and profit was huge. Commercial farming enterprise benefited from training support, organised grants, loan guarantee schemes and funding for agricultural research all of which enabled the commercial farming sector and the economy and secondary agricultural industries to flourish. The main take away here is that while small plots are not the most efficient or productive, they benefit the majority and provide a livelihood which was entirely lacking previously. Some cronies got some farms... ok, so what? The vast majority went to the families who had their poo poo ganked previously by settlers. It really doesn't matter if they are inexperienced farmers, they'll learn it or they'll lease out the land and provide a livelihood. Either way, it's a much better system and much more equal, and equally scary to the rest of the settlers in Africa. Foreign aid basically stopped entirely after 2000, as did financing and western sanctions on all the new farms. For the sake of 4000 farmers who stole the land in the first place.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 21:47 |
|
|
lil sartre posted:you're the Hitler of Africa and what have you To be fair Mugabe actually likes that moniker.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 21:58 |
|
|
Land reform has the come with the attendant assurance that the new land titles will be respected, at least domestically. Otherwise you don't get the hypothetical access to credit that comes with ownership of land as collateral. Zimbabwe did not carry out the land reform via the legislative process; instead the famous seizures of the commercial farms come about via popular militias grabbing what they can, with the Mugabe administration opting to pursue the reform by declining to enforce claims at all - thus leaving the new domestic claims to titles unclear. If there's some chance that a disgruntled militia will come and displace the previous militia leader, what worth is that collateral? Land reform by postcolonial left-wing governments is hardly new. There is nothing wrong with it, in principle. For instance, India carried it out on a massive scale decades ago by straightforwardly capping how much land individual families could own, with compensation deliberately fixed below market value. But the new farmers need to enjoy all the rights to property in full confidence, not have both the previous and new farmers have their rights in limbo. Since this needs to include the right to stake it as collateral (and quite possibly seized if the loan goes bad, or it's worth nothing as collateral), there needs to be some acceptance that future re-concentration in the hands of a different set of owners can occur. But why not? Land reform allows more people to eat now; it never leads to industrialized takeoff growth, since there is only so much you can wring from the soil and Malthus is tapping you on the shoulder. So it just buys you some time to move people wholly away from farming and toward the cities anyway. If you blow that chance, you wind up as Bangladesh, where the staggering achievements of the green revolution still leave you stuck with the same problems decades later. Relatively equitable ownership or not, people will still starve if they are all have to be farmers on increasingly subdivided land.
|
| # ? Feb 1, 2013 22:59 |
|
|
Pro-PRC Laowai posted:They ganked the land from 4000 people and distributed it to a whole lot more. So you consider Zimbabwe's land reform to be more successful than South Africa's. Do you think the average South African would prefer to live in Zimbabwe, or vice versa?
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 16:47 |
|
|
Guy DeBorgore posted:So you consider Zimbabwe's land reform to be more successful than South Africa's. Do you think the average South African would prefer to live in Zimbabwe, or vice versa? Standard of living is irrelevant to whether a policy benefited the population.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 18:44 |
|
|
Paul MaudDib posted:Standard of living is irrelevant to whether a policy benefited the population. Clearly the population benefits, look how wealthy Zimbabwe is.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 18:55 |
|
|
There's a tendency for D&D posters to bend over backwards to take the most anti-West position even if it leads to hilarious statements like this -Paul MaudDib posted:Standard of living is irrelevant to whether a policy benefited the population. What exactly would be the suitable metric for judging a policy then?
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 18:59 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:What exactly would be the suitable metric for judging a policy then? How much it sticks it to the west. 
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 19:05 |
|
|
shrike82 posted:What exactly would be the suitable metric for judging a policy then? Change in the standard of living caused by the policy. I don't know why you're going to bend over backwards to defend using "where would you rather live, $DEVELOPING_NATION or $DEVELOPED_NATION" as any kind of a yardstick. Under that logic any policy a developing nation takes is a bad one because their standard of living is low.
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 19:08 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 25, 2013 02:51 |
|
|
Why it's almost as though Zimbabwe is doing terribly even by African standards. http://hdrstats.undp.org/en/countries/profiles/ZWE.html HDI 1980-Present 
|
| # ? Feb 2, 2013 19:14 |
|
