An economic nightmare

[The Economist]

I honestly dont believe a word you wrote there.

Zimbabwe failed because its farms failed. Basic economics 101. If your farms are not producing then your country will fail. Thats just how it is. The farms failed because of forced removals and lack of skills by the people who stole the farms. Black racism killed Zimbabwe.

A massive drop in farm goods (not just tobacco but everything), lead to the fall of Zimbabwe. Townies like you seem to forget that farms are the base of your civilization, if they fail your civilization will fail.

FYI, I dont think SA will go Zimbabwe`s way (as long as we keep little Malema`s from becoming president).

What's hard to believe?

Zimbabwe's exports failed, completely. So Mugabe wanted money from Britain to appease the economy, they refused so he took land from white people and exacerbated the problem.
Think of it this way, if you sell apples for R10, and everyone bought it for R10, but now its worth R2, and you've got this excess supply of apples, which has no demand and gets even more cheaper, what happens?

Stealing land? It's like stabbing someone then stinging them in the wound with a needle. Sure enough, if land wasn't taken, Zimbabwe's recovery would have been more speedy, ie. people would have invested in a safe African country. Regardless of that, Zimbabwe would have failed, under black or white rule.

 

[The_Assimilator]

Regardless of that, Zimbabwe would have failed, under black or white rule.

You cannot make that assertion since we have no experience of a Zimbabwe not run by Mad Mugs.

And your logic is completely bogus. Under Ian Smith, Rhodesia was hit by crippling sanctions, and fighting a war against ZANU-PF, yet the country's economy was nowhere near collapse. Mugabe's regime had no sanctions and no war expenditure, yet the economy tanked under their control. How can you claim it was primarily external factors to blame when the evidence so obviously points elsewhere?

 

[killadoob]

I honestly dont believe a word you wrote there.

Zimbabwe failed because its farms failed. Basic economics 101. If your farms are not producing then your country will fail. Thats just how it is. The farms failed because of forced removals and lack of skills by the people who stole the farms. Black racism killed Zimbabwe.

A massive drop in farm goods (not just tobacco but everything), lead to the fall of Zimbabwe. Townies like you seem to forget that farms are the base of your civilization, if they fail your civilization will fail.

FYI, I dont think SA will go Zimbabwe`s way (as long as we keep little Malema`s from becoming president).

No sure how on earth people see it any other way .

Take from the farmers who are good at their jobs, give to dumb idiots who have no clue and then blame the price of tobacco . Africa baby the land of logic

 

[The Economist]

You cannot make that assertion since we have no experience of a Zimbabwe not run by Mad Mugs.

And your logic is completely bogus. Under Ian Smith, Rhodesia was hit by crippling sanctions, and fighting a war against ZANU-PF, yet the country's economy was nowhere near collapse. Mugabe's regime had no sanctions and no war expenditure, yet the economy tanked under their control. How can you claim it was primarily external factors to blame when the evidence so obviously points elsewhere?

Yes I can. What part of what I said doesn't make any sense? If your livelihood is dependant on the sale of one product, and that one product's values drops as much as it did (Tobacco prices are still not as high as they were in real prices since). Your country is broke. It's buggered and regardless of the colour of your skin or political affiliation, your economy will collapse.

Look, I'm not debating whether or not Mugabe and the Zanu-PF are terrible leaders, WE ALL KNOW they are. I'm reaffirming blunomore's comment.
The current government is terrible yes, but what else is terrible is the ridiculous notion that Zimbabwe would have never collapsed had it been run under whites.

 

[blunomore]

The problem is that people are extremely narrow-minded and lazy to read and to find out about the history of a specific country and to take off the blinkers. Hence they find it easier to blame it all on Bob, with no regard for extraneous circumstances.

Of course Bob messed up Zim. My point was that were various economic factors which did that country no favours.

 

[The Economist]

Of course Bob messed up Zim. My point was that were various economic factors which did that country no favours.

That is my point as well. Neither of us denied Mugabe was an exacerbation on a strained economy.
Everyone simply assumes that farm grabs ergo Mugabe was the reason for the collapse, when a simple google search will reveal the true answers.

Get this guys, the market doesn't care about your colour. I'll say it again, Zimbabwe was doomed to collapse, Mugabe and Zanu only made things worse.

 

[Jabberwocky]

That is my point as well. Neither of us denied Mugabe was an exacerbation on a strained economy.
Everyone simply assumes that farm grabs ergo Mugabe was the reason for the collapse, when a simple google search will reveal the true answers.

Get this guys, the market doesn't care about your colour. I'll say it again, Zimbabwe was doomed to collapse, Mugabe and Zanu only made things worse.

Could be debated whether the govt. could be partly blamed for zim being a Banana republic in the first place.

But I would think that the fact that one simply does not invest in a country that does not respect property rights, would have far worse economical consequences than a drop in value of one or two resources.

 

[killadoob]

Yes I can. What part of what I said doesn't make any sense? If your livelihood is dependant on the sale of one product, and that one product's values drops as much as it did (Tobacco prices are still not as high as they were in real prices since). Your country is broke. It's buggered and regardless of the colour of your skin or political affiliation, your economy will collapse.

Look, I'm not debating whether or not Mugabe and the Zanu-PF are terrible leaders, WE ALL KNOW they are. I'm reaffirming blunomore's comment.
The current government is terrible yes, but what else is terrible is the ridiculous notion that Zimbabwe would have never collapsed had it been run under whites.

Who said anything about it being run by whites?

The notion is that if mugabe had not kicked out the white farmers that Zimbabwe would have survived or the very minimum when he did kick them out he should have ensured intelligent farmers were put in place not dumb idiotis claiming land that now lies baron because they have no clue what to do.

This is not a notion this is fact, if the white farmers were still applying their trade Zimbabwe would not be in ruins. Kick out the whites(perhaps i should people who know how to farm) the country collapses. How you can see it any other way is mind boggling .

Anyways if people want to believe zimbabwe would be a worthless shytehole with or without mugabe that is their thing i guess.

 

[MidnightWizard]

Nonsense

Everyone simply assumes that farm grabs ergo Mugabe was the reason for the collapse, when a simple google search will reveal the true answers.
Get this guys, the market doesn't care about your colour. I'll say it again,
Zimbabwe was doomed to collapse, Mugabe and Zanu only made things worse.

YES

Zimbabwe was / is doomed to collapse

Hey were you ever in Rhodesia -- have you ever been to Zimbabwe ?????

Even during the height of International sanctions and in the middle of a war Rhodesia managed

Ever hear of Lions Den or Kadoma-Chakari or Sable

Tobacco -- ever hear or read about the Great Dyke or the Byrd amendment

PLEASE change your nic to something else -- because "Economist" it definitely is not
and
Oh -- please do not think of using "Historian" either.

Rhodesia in Brief

 

[The Economist]

If any of you guys read properly, you'd realise I have said Mugabe made things worse as investors would not invest in such a country that would kick out an ethnic minority that controls agriculture, which is a huge sector for the country. What I am saying is, Zimbabwe's economic depression was inevitable as global prices of tobacco, asbestos and gold tumbled, this collapse expediated or caused Mugabe to heighten rhetoric against the Britain: asking for things Britain wouldn't do/give. Hence, the land grabs, hence, further exacerbation of the economy.

@Midnight Wizard, please write properly, you just sound like you are mad and shouting nonsense.
If you agree that when the prices of your crucial export tumbles, your economy tumbles with it, you're on the right track. If not, heed your own advice and read about market prices of goods during the 80's and 90's. It would enlighten you on the actual subject matter.

@killadoob You yourself said in this thread Zimbabwe would have been fine if whites were still in.

 

[Arthur]

... If your livelihood is dependant on the sale of one product, and that one product's values drops as much as it did (Tobacco prices are still not as high as they were in real prices since). Your country is broke. It's buggered and regardless of the colour of your skin or political affiliation, your economy will collapse.

Perhaps. But this theoretical notion doesn't apply to Rhodesia, so it's just an abstract observation.

In reality: By 1965, manufacturing in Rhodesia was equal to agriculture in GDP contribution. So how then was Rhodesia dependant on sale of one product? Which one - tobacco? What are you smoking?

But we're wandering off topic.

The more significant collapse is that of culture. The economic collapse we all face has its roots in our cultural collapse. The West has abandoned the principles that made it great. Japan's Lost Decade is into its third lost decade. And China is on the brink ... within 20 years the Great China Bubble will burst, without a shadow of doubt - driven largely by the inexorable logic of demographics. And unlike Japan, China will grow old before it grows rich.

 

[The Economist]

I used the "one product" as an example. I'm sorry if that caused confusion.

EDIT: And agriculture was the larger sector, employed more people.
Manufacturing has a higher value per product than value for product over an agricultural good, hence it will have a higher bearing on GDP.

 

[BBSA]

Perhaps. But this theoretical notion doesn't apply to Rhodesia, so it's just an abstract observation.

In reality: By 1965, manufacturing in Rhodesia was equal to agriculture in GDP contribution. So how then was Rhodesia dependant on sale of one product? Which one - tobacco? What are you smoking?

And surly if the tobacco prices was falling you could produce something else. Farmers does that all the time.

 

[The Economist]

And surly if the tobacco prices was falling you could produce something else. Farmers does that all the time.

No?

It's not simple for farmer who are specialised in one sector to adopt another just like that. Where are the skills and knowledge for other products?
How long will it take to build up a comparative advantage in that sector over the same sector in another country who is more efficient as they have been in it longer? Answer: Long

Also, you tell me what farmers are gong to do with excess stock that is worthless? Throw it away? Make that a waste on money and time?

 

[BBSA]

No?

It's not simple for farmer who are specialised in one sector to adopt another just like that. Where are the skills and knowledge for other products?
How long will it take to build up a comparative advantage in that sector over the same sector in another country who is more efficient as they have been in it longer? Answer: Long

Also, you tell me what farmers are gong to do with excess stock that is worthless? Throw it away? Make that a waste on money and time?

You will be surprised how adaptable farmers are. With proper planning you can predict market trends and adapt. Everybody knew demand for tobacco was going down

Were you an adviser to Bob?

 

[MidnightWizard]

More Nonsense

this collapse expediated or caused Mugabe to heighten rhetoric against the Britain: asking for things Britain wouldn't do/give.

Please explain -- WHAT were these things that Britian had promised

Hence, the land grabs, hence, further exacerbation of the economy.

The land grabs were as a reult of the povo ( war vets ) getting restless at all the empty unfulfilled promises made by the ruling party.

Remember -- in these early days Zim was under an economic plan of the World Bank / IMF

Britian had agreed to compensate the white farmers whose land was being taken.

Apparently this compensation money was dissapearing into someones pockets -- in the ruling party.

Britian then refused further payment and the farmers lost trheir land without compensation.

@Midnight Wizard, please write properly, you just sound like you are mad and shouting nonsense.

Hard to write "properly" when you talk such nonsense

ANSWERTHE QUESTION .......

Were you ever in Rhodesia -- have you ever been to Zimbabwe ??????

If you agree that when the prices of your crucial export tumbles, your economy tumbles with it, you're on the right track.
If not, heed your own advice and read about market prices of goods during the 80's and 90's. It would enlighten you on the actual subject matter.

IF you have a ONE commodity economy like BOTSWANA

Rhodesia was NOT a ONE commodity economy. It might have taken a knock but NOT a collapse

Enlighten -- I think that you are the one needing that.

 

[killadoob]

If any of you guys read properly, you'd realise I have said Mugabe made things worse as investors would not invest in such a country that would kick out an ethnic minority that controls agriculture, which is a huge sector for the country. What I am saying is, Zimbabwe's economic depression was inevitable as global prices of tobacco, asbestos and gold tumbled, this collapse expediated or caused Mugabe to heighten rhetoric against the Britain: asking for things Britain wouldn't do/give. Hence, the land grabs, hence, further exacerbation of the economy.

@Midnight Wizard, please write properly, you just sound like you are mad and shouting nonsense.
If you agree that when the prices of your crucial export tumbles, your economy tumbles with it, you're on the right track. If not, heed your own advice and read about market prices of goods during the 80's and 90's. It would enlighten you on the actual subject matter.

@killadoob You yourself said in this thread Zimbabwe would have been fine if whites were still in.

Yes i did but that only because you made it sound like it would have gone better if whites had been running the show, all i said is by kicking out the whites he condemned the country to it's current state purely because he never gave land to people who could do anything with it.

You can adapt and ride out a depression, you cannot however pull a mugabe and expect anything different.

 

[Vrotappel]

No?

It's not simple for farmer who are specialised in one sector to adopt another just like that. Where are the skills and knowledge for other products?
How long will it take to build up a comparative advantage in that sector over the same sector in another country who is more efficient as they have been in it longer? Answer: Long

Also, you tell me what farmers are gong to do with excess stock that is worthless? Throw it away? Make that a waste on money and time?

With a mad dictator ruining the country the farmers never had a change...

 

[Grhardt]

The Economist definitely get some other nick . . . Feel sorry for you - unfortunately for you there is no substitute for intelligence. Not yet And obviously it does not help to reason with you . . .