Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Reelya]

But things like infant mortality are a better yardstick for overall wellbeing than an artificial money comparison.

Also, the media isolates specific nations even if worse things are happening in a nation they don't care about e.g. if you look at zimbabwe's change in life expectancy, you can see it dropped then rose again, but so did at least three other reference nations that Google brings up on the chart. In fact Botswana's life expectancy nose-dived at the same time as Zimbabwe's but didn't recover. nobody is reporting that.

Basically, a whole slew of African nations had the same thing happen around the same time. Kinda hard to say it's a specific policy of Mugabe to blame, if other nearby non-Mugabe nations also had it happen around the same instant in time.

[Sheb]

But things like infant mortality are a better yardstick for overall wellbeing than an artificial money comparison.

Maybe you should not bring up GDP in the first place then. Because right now it looks like you're just shifting the goalpost.
But sure, let's have a look at Zimbabwe infant mortality rate since you're bringing that up. And let's compare it to all its neighbours (Mozambique, South Africa, Botswana, Zambia, Namibia). Zimbabwe is fifth  of the six, with child mortality rate of 46.6 per 1000 live birth. Only Mozambique is worse. However, let's have a look at the reduction in infant mortality rate since 1980. (Note, I made a mistake, it's data for 2015, not 2016).

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Zimbabwe has the lowest rate of reduction since Mugabe came to power, with about 30%. Mozambique is still worse, but reduced its rate by over 70% during the same period.

Also, the media isolates specific nations even if worse things are happening in a nation they don't care about e.g. if you look at zimbabwe's change in life expectancy, you can see it dropped then rose again, but so did at least three other reference nations that Google brings up on the chart. In fact Botswana's life expectancy nose-dived at the same time as Zimbabwe's but didn't recover. nobody is reporting that.

Yeah, the AIDS epidemic was brutal in that region. Thank god anti-aid drugs brought the life expectancy back up. BTW, I suspect the lack of recovery in the google thing is an issue from google. It cites the World Bank as source, but the world bank website shows that life expectancy in Botswana did recover, sooner and faster than in Zimbabwe (and the drop wasn't as steep or deep). Right now, their LE is seven years higher than Zimbabwe. Notably, life expectancy in Zimbabwe is actually less than before Mugabe, while it increased since 1980 in Botswana.

[Strife26]

Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Zimbabwe is not, to put things very lightly.

[ChairmanPoo]

the North Korean won

The North Korean ALWAYS wins

[Loud Whispers]

Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa. Zimbabwe is not, to put things very lightly.

Just look at the case of Zimbabwe. European colonists colonized Zimbabwe calling it Rhodesia, and it was the breadbasket of Africa, producing everything from cereals to maize and even cash crops like tobacco. Mugabe comes along and fucks all their shit up; some people talk about how his persecution of white farmers fucked up Rhodesia but he could've (or rather, someone competent) could've done land reform successfully. The goal was to take away economic dominance of Zimbabwe's industry from the white minority and give it back to the black majority, however this was not what completely fucked up Zimbabwe's agriculture. Sure agriculture would've taken a dive with the loss of wealthy and skilled supervisors but in the long term Zimbabwe had good options. Zimbabwe had a whole class of educated black citizens who were the ones who worked on the very self-same farms that the whites profited from under colonial rule; obviously these citizens weren't in need of European education or high-tech equipment, they had all they needed to take over agriculture successfully. Problem is Mugabe was a paranoid git more concerned with his own power than his nation, and like Stalin did to Kulaks, for the imagined treason of supporting this guy democratically, got fucked over. Kidnappings, expulsions, torture by the green bombers under the banner that they were supporting whites, loads of educated black farmers got wrecked, whilst their farms were given over to loyal soldiers, officials, friends and family members who saw the farms as prestige items but otherwise had no idea how to run a farm. Starving to death his opponents is as much a deliberate strategy as a result of incompetence and corruption.

Compare the failures of Zimbabwe with the success of Nigeria. Whilst Nigeria has problems with corruption (and princes), it is not nearly the same level as with Zimbabwe, and its government is relatively stable with rule of law at the very least not impeding farmers, and instead, the state helping them. So you see stuff where Nigeria reduced their tariff rate on agricultural machinery to 0% to increase foreign imports of commercial farming machines, government subsidized rice mills, government subsidized fertilizer for poor farmers, road, rail and port development so farmers have better access to markets and the national bank reserving capital for agricultural loans with interest rates at half the commercial rate so even poor Nigerian farmers have access to capital needed to run a large farm. I'm not saying Nigeria's at the point where it's a proper garden of eden without criticisms to mention, but it's certainly the case that in the near-future it could become a net exporter of food and set an example of how to put the sheer mass of arable land it has at its disposal to efficient and sustainable use:

Consider, for example, Africa’s agricultural land. According to an influential recent analysis, Africa has around 600 million hectares of uncultivated arable land, roughly 60 percent of the global total.

It may not be the case that Africa is overpopulated, rather, that its land is underutilized

I made a thing on this

[Strife26]

That is a pretty nice thing.

[Sergarr]

South Africa Will Allow Expropriation Of Land Without Compensation

South Africa will amend its laws to allow expropriation of land without compensation for owners as it tries to speed up the redistribution of land to its black majority, President Jacob Zuma said on Friday.

Expropriation without compensation would mark a radical policy departure for Zuma's ruling African National Congress (ANC), shifting from a willing buyer-willing seller approach to more radical alternatives.

Most of South Africa's land remains in white hands over two decades after the end of apartheid.

"We need to take bold steps that will transform our economy, including land ownership, very fast," Zuma said in a speech outlining agricultural policy.

"We are busy amending (laws) to enable faster land reform, including land expropriation without compensation as provided for in the constitution."

Zuma referred a bill allowing state expropriation of land back to parliament last week because lawmakers failed to facilitate adequate public participation.

That bill enabled the state to acquire land without the owners' consent by paying an amount determined by the office of the Valuer-General.

Analysts say the ruling party's new, more hardline approach is in response to calls for the seizure of white-owned land by the opposition Economic Freedom Fighters party. It is also a way to shore up support in the ANC's rural political base ahead of internal party elections in December.

I predict that in 5-10 years, South Africa will be starving, just like Zimbabwe. Stupid people, why do they never learn...

[smjjames]

Why would South Africa be starving in 5-10 years just because more landowners are black? Makes no logical sense to me. Arguably mismanagement maybe, but I'm sure they can find qualified people if they look hard enough.

[Sergarr]

Why would South Africa be starving in 5-10 years just because more landowners are suddenly black? Makes no logical sense to me. Arguably mismanagement maybe, but I'm sure they can find qualified people if they look hard enough.

Private property is sacrosanct for a reason. Forceful expropriation of land with no compensation by the state always ends up in famine and starvation, or at least a severe loss in agricultural sector resulting in its inability to feed the people of the country by itself. That's what happened in USSR, that's what happened in Zimbabwe, that's what is going to happen in South Africa.

[Wolfhunter107]

Why would South Africa be starving in 5-10 years just because more landowners are black? Makes no logical sense to me. Arguably mismanagement maybe, but I'm sure they can find qualified people if they look hard enough.

The problem is that there's no way to know if the new owners are qualified. And given why they're doing this, I'm very much doubtful that they will be.

[Reelya]

btw, the main reason for the decline in food crops in Zimbabwe was actually price controls not handing farms to black folks:
http://www.irinnews.org/news/2010/08/10/more-food-production-not-enough
Basically food crops declined because those had price controls on them, whereas export crops like tobacco did not, so as inflation rose, food crops became ridiculously cheap at "official" prices, so farmers switched to things like tobacco where you could still make money. Price controls are also responsible for:

- hyperinflation in Zimbabwe
- the massive inflation in Venezuela
- russia queues, shortages and inflation in 1970s

So most of these crises are actually directly attributable to Price Controls. But "politics" drives the media to blame various other things like "socialism", "communism" and "black people being farmers". Whereas none of those things is a proximate cause and the negative effects of Price Controls are in fact a well researched phenomena:

- government caps e.g. food prices in response to inflation
- food becomes ridiculously cheap (and gets even cheaper as inflation rises)
- people hoard the cheap food, leading to shortages

(this is the main reason for the queues in 1970s Russia. the government was obligated to sell the store food at price-controlled prices which ended up being below the cost of production, and then to prevent one person hoarding it all, they enacted limits on purchases. people still hoarded anyway and sold stuff on the black market for a profit. food production didn't actually decline at all. This was purely a self-inflicted monetary crisis)

- a black market opens up, people sell the hoarded food at inflated prices
- the more food that is hoarded, the more people hoard (either to eat or to profit)
- stores start to empty out as it costs more to sell things than you get from them.

At this point you have a runaway process. Price controls themselves create artificial scarcity and themselves are the leading cause of hyperinflation.

So nope. Unless South Africa enacts price controls, none of this is going to happen. It's well known why Zimbabwe had hyperinflation, because it did the same thing other countries who have suffered hyperinflation did. And "giving land to black people" wasn't part of that process.

[Wolfhunter107]

So you're telling us that taking farms away from people who knew how to farm and giving it to people who had no idea what they were doing caused no problems at all.

Please excuse me if I find that extremely hard to believe.

[Sergarr]

South Africa does have price controls on "coal, petroleum and petroleum products, and utilities". So it wouldn't be unprecedented for the idiots in charge to start expanding them to food, as well, "for the good of the people".

[Teneb]

So you're telling us that taking farms away from people who knew how to farm and giving it to people who had no idea what they were doing caused no problems at all.

Please excuse me if I find that extremely hard to believe.

First, we have no idea if the people getting that land do or don't have any experience at farming.

But most importantly, land that get redistributed tends to be handled so because they are often idle. As in, producing nothing. Buying a lot of land and then not really doing anything with it is one of the many ways to launder money.

Governments don't redistribute lands that are being used because that is not beneficial to them. After all, that land is generating product and said product can be taxed.

That said, we don't have enough information.

South Africa does have price controls on "coal, petroleum and petroleum products, and utilities". So it wouldn't be unprecedented for the idiots in charge to start expanding them to food, as well, "for the good of the people".

Maybe. Or maybe it will actually be for the good of the people. Problem is that, from what I've gathered from other posts by you, is that you only see things from what I interpret as a neo-liberal capitalist viewpoint. It's not that you shouldn't view things from that perspective, but that you should also look at issues from many perspectives.

[Wolfhunter107]

So you're telling us that taking farms away from people who knew how to farm and giving it to people who had no idea what they were doing caused no problems at all.

Please excuse me if I find that extremely hard to believe.

I was talking about what happened in Zimbabwe, in response to Reelya.