NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7312649.stm
Mugabe seeks election price cuts

Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has threatened to force businesses to cut prices ahead of the 29 March elections.

Prices have again shot up after Mr Mugabe awarded huge pay rises to teachers and civil servants last month.

"We are going to read the riot act to them [businesses]," he told a campaign rally in Hwange.

The government last year ordered prices to be reduced, leading to widespread shortages. Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate is 100,000% - the world's highest.

The state-owned Herald newspaper reports that Mr Mugabe has ordered business leaders to attend a meeting with government officials.

"We want them to reduce prices to those which were in effect before the salary hike," he said.

[...]

Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?

Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?

Mugabe has the economic understanding of a 7 year old. Does this idiot have a brain?

Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?
I'm pretty sure he's killed them all.


Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?

He'll win again. But maybe after a year the split in the party, Makoni might come through to topple him. Mugabe is resilient, but damn is he old now. Question is after he's gone, does Zanu-PF continue or does it reform and modernise?

I don't see the MDC doing much this time, but one can hope.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7312649.stm


Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?

Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?
He could institute price controls, but that would just produce shortages.

But he'd have his lower prices. Somehow I doubt that would make him happy.

Mugabe is a clown, most surely. But even western governments do ridiculous and harmful things to win elections. How often have we seen this pattern: huge round of tax cuts and/or new spending before the election, similar-sized round of tax raises or spending cuts by the new government. Regardless of how that spending or saving fits into a business cycle: buying votes works to an extent.

Given the cronyism in Zimbabwe, I imagine someone is very happy with the price controls. And the voters could be forgiven for thinking that trying to vote out the gangsters will have unpleasant repercussions.

A classical case of a place so fucked up economically that completely getting rid of currency would actually help, as people get back to bartering and learning the value of material goods.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

Mugabe has the economic understanding of a 7 year old. Does this idiot have a brain?

That's like asking if Bush has anything between the left and the right ear. Sorry, but he's an a-brainist.

You don't control inflation by say "Reduce prices or I'll have a fit!" Hate to say it, but even if you don't understand how, people operate under the laws of economics.

Inflation THAT high can only be the result of bad, bad monetary policy.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

Well he doesn't stand a chance against Saddam's record of 99%.

99.9% with eight votes in opposition because of counting errors.

Anyway, this sounds like something Chavez would do.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

If Mugabe didnt station his soldiers inside polling stations/booths to kill those who dont vote for him would he be getting 98% of the vote?

*cough*blatantlybeingsarcastic*cough*

If Mugabe didnt station his soldiers inside polling stations/booths to kill those who dont vote for him would he be getting 98% of the vote?

He would probably get even higher numbers, since the soldiers are only making people nervous and make mistakes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7312649.stm


Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?

Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?


If there are any elections...

He could institute price controls, but that would just produce shortages.
He already has price controls, but people don't stick to them. AFAIK there are a few people in jail or badly beaten up because the police happened to single them out, but overall you can't force price controls on an entire country if there are empty shelves everywhere and people sneak across the border to get to a supermarket.

If there are any elections...
They're due on the 29th, so if he's gonna cancel them, he needs to say something soon.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7312649.stm


Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?

Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?

The election system will be rigged again, as it has been for 28 yeras.

Well he doesn't stand a chance against Saddam's record of 99%.

That's nothing. François Duvalier won the 1961 Haitian election by 100%. The official count was 1.32 million votes for Duvalier and none against.

That's nothing. François Duvalier won the 1961 Haitian election by 100%. The official count was 1.32 million votes for Duvalier and none against.

Papa Doc FTW?

In his defense, he probably thinks he's doing the right thing and has his country's best interests in mind. Whether it actually is right or not is up to individuals.

Personally, I think he's going about it badly. He's also like 80 and probably senile.

I think Mugabe should be left in power so long as his people want him there, the moment an election kicks him out Britain should invade and rule it as a colony.

I think Mugabe should be left in power so long as his people want him there, the moment an election kicks him out Britain should invade and rule it as a colony.

I was just going to post that I was surprised Dukeburyshire hadn't popped up with a bizzare colonial suggestion. You need help.

I was just going to post that I was surprised Dukeburyshire hadn't popped up with a bizzare colonial suggestion. You need help.

Why?

Colonialism works. Look at Africa in the 1940s.

Why?

Colonialism works. Look at Africa in the 1940s.

Yes, Africans had virtually no rights back then and lived in squalor, while the colonialists had a cushy lifestyle and the colonial powers acquired lots of wealth.

Yes, Africans had virtually no rights back then and lived in squalor, while the colonialists had a cushy lifestyle and the colonial powers acquired lots of wealth.

Source?

Look at any British Colony and the poor had safer lives then than now, South Africa possibly excepted.

LOL @ colonialism. It's a spent force (I hope) mate.

To be fair, though, the problems in Africa have to do with no transition plans being made.

Source?

Look at any British Colony and the poor had safer lives then than now, South Africa possibly excepted.
Yeah, it's a real pity we stopped playing White Man's Burden in the 1960s.:rolleyes:

Yeah, it's a real pity we stopped playing White Man's Burden in the 1960s.:rolleyes:
Say what you will, there are no western politicians who think they can order prices about. Outside of France, at least. ;)

Anyways, let's try and direct it back towards Mugabe, shall we? The man obviously wasn't a fan of the colonial rulers and wasn't installed by them. He also inherited a well-functioning and comparatively rich country. So he screwed this one up all by himself - no reason to bring colonialism into this.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!
*election results come in, Mugabe looks unhappy*

Advisor: 'But sir, only 2% of the population didn't vote for you. What more could you want?'

Mugabe: 'Their names.'

So he screwed this one up all by himself - no reason to bring colonialism into this.

True.

Why?

Colonialism works. Look at Africa in the 1940s.That disproves your point. Why did you mention it?

*election results come in, Mugabe looks unhappy*

Advisor: 'But sir, only 2% of the population didn't vote for you. What more could you want?'

Mugabe: 'Their names.'
LOL. :D

Colonialisation, like everything else, would work well if adapted to modern times.

Were I Govenor of Zimbabwe (And I Would take the Post) I would:

Introduce the pound as the currency and stock the shops.

Imprison the old Government and put it on trial for high treason.

Begin exploting natural resources so that the people will have work.

Start teaching the people how to farm properly.

Bring in Teachers from England to help create a succesful, free education system.

Open free hospitals and clinics for all.

Improve the railways, roads and other transport so that industries will be attracted to the country.

Encourage foreign investment with low taxes for Commonwealth Countries.

Say what you will, there are no western politicians who think they can order prices about. Outside of France, at least. ;)
Well, we did right up until we put Mugabe in power, no?

Anyways, let's try and direct it back towards Mugabe, shall we? The man obviously wasn't a fan of the colonial rulers and wasn't installed by them. He also inherited a well-functioning and comparatively rich country. So he screwed this one up all by himself - no reason to bring colonialism into this.
Functioning and wealthy, insofar as a country in a civil war where the vast majority of people have virtualy no access to the national wealth is functioning and wealthy, but that's by the by. The problem is, whenever someone mentions Mugabe, someone else, in this case Dukeburyshire, suggests we go back to the good old days of Southern Rhodesia for some bizarre reason. People just seem to make the 'Mugabe screwed up, therefore Africans can't govern themselves' leap in this kind of debate, I suppose.

Anyways, let's try and direct it back towards Mugabe, shall we? The man obviously wasn't a fan of the colonial rulers and wasn't installed by them. He also inherited a well-functioning and comparatively rich country. So he screwed this one up all by himself - no reason to bring colonialism into this.

Mugabe wasn't a fan of Colonial rulers due to the time of Independent Rhodesia and it's sectarian government. Mugabe's appointment was arranged from London, which didn't officially grant Rhodesia independence until the 1980s, when Mugabe came in.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

You really have no idea what dictatorships are capable of are you?

Colonialisation, like everything else, would work well if adapted to modern times.You mean like slavery?
Were I Govenor of Zimbabwe (And I Would take the Post) I would:

Introduce the pound as the currency and stock the shops.

Imprison the old Government and put it on trial for high treason.

Begin exploting natural resources so that the people will have work.

Start teaching the people how to farm properly.

Bring in Teachers from England to help create a succesful, free education system.

Open free hospitals and clinics for all.

Improve the railways, roads and other transport so that industries will be attracted to the country.

Encourage foreign investment with low taxes for Commonwealth Countries.
How would you deal with the people that don't like you? And what would you do once the pound is no longer Britain's legal tender?

Functioning and wealthy, insofar as a country in a civil war where the vast majority of people have virtualy no access to the national wealth is functioning and wealthy, but that's by the by. The problem is, whenever someone mentions Mugabe, someone else, in this case Dukeburyshire, suggests we go back to the good old days of Southern Rhodesia for some bizarre reason. People just seem to make the 'Mugabe screwed up, therefore Africans can't govern themselves' leap in this kind of debate, I suppose.

We need to go beyond seeing Rhodesia as a colonial oppression. It was 2 countries. The Colony of Southern Rhodesia, a nation ruled directly from Britain, and The White Rogue State of Rhodesia, under Ian Smith, which is now viewed fondly by any in Zimbabwe.

You really have no idea what dictatorships are capable of are you?
I think he might be being sarcastic.

The White Rogue State of Rhodesia, under Ian Smith, which is now viewed fondly by any in Zimbabwe.

Quite.

Those in the west are now seeing the direct result of selling out your loyal allies to communist terrorists.

I think he might be being sarcastic.
I think not!

Why?

Colonialism works. Look at Africa in the 1940s.

And look at Africa today because of what the European Colonial Powers did to Africa. You really need a serious case of history 101.

We need to go beyond seeing Rhodesia as a colonial oppression. It was 2 countries. The Colony of Southern Rhodesia, a nation ruled directly from Britain, and The White Rogue State of Rhodesia, under Ian Smith, which is now viewed fondly by any in Zimbabwe.
Well, Ian Smith held power both as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and Prime Minister of the Republic of Rhodesia. The two were relatively synonomous, and the latter de facto succeeded the former.

And this is the point where you offer some form proof that a majority of Zimbaweans 'look back fondly' on white minority rule.

You mean like slavery?

How would you deal with the people that don't like you? And what would you do once the pound is no longer Britain's legal tender?

Well, nearly everything. There are one or two things I suppose will never adapt. Colonialism isn't one such thing however, it can adapt.

The people would like anyone that brought peace and Prosperity and gave them a good standard of living, and reasonable autonomy. Also, I would soon set up a democratic council to help in running the new Rhodesia.

If the pound were to stop being Britain's legal tender, heaven Forfend, I would still use it for Rhodesia. If The EU were to be too powerful and start ruling Britain, I would ask the Rhodesians if they wanted rule from Salisbury or Brussels, and I should assist them whatever they chose.

Quite.

Those in the west are now seeing the direct result of selling out your loyal allies to communist terrorists.
We shouldn't have sold out the Internal Settlement government, but I suppose to armchair politicians, everything is easier with the benefit of hindsight.

The people would like anyone that brought peace and Prosperity and gave them a good standard of living, and reasonable autonomy.

That must be why developed nations don't have opposition parties.

Well, Ian Smith held power both as Prime Minister of Southern Rhodesia and Prime Minister of the Republic of Rhodesia. The two were relatively synonomous, and the latter de facto succeeded the former.

And this is the point where you offer some form proof that a majority of Zimbaweans 'look back fondly' on white minority rule.

There were lots of articles after Ian Smith died assesing his reign compared to Mugabe. I read one in the Daily Mail (not my usual newspaper).

There were lots of articles after Ian Smith died assesing his reign compared to Mugabe. I read one in the Daily Mail (not my usual newspaper).
Case closed.

Well, nearly everything. There are one or two things I suppose will never adapt. Colonialism isn't one such thing however, it can adapt.

The people would like anyone that brought peace and Prosperity and gave them a good standard of living, and reasonable autonomy. Also, I would soon set up a democratic council to help in running the new Rhodesia.

If the pound were to stop being Britain's legal tender, heaven Forfend, I would still use it for Rhodesia. If The EU were to be too powerful and start ruling Britain, I would ask the Rhodesians if they wanted rule from Salisbury or Brussels, and I should assist them whatever they chose.
You are heartily deluded and not a good choice for dictator.

That must be why developed nations don't have opposition parties.

If your country goes from basket case to prosperity and continues to prosper why should It need opposition? That said, I should allow democracy in Rhodesia to all degrees asap.

CNN denied permission to cover elections in Zimbabwe (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/25/zimbabwe.cnn/index.html)

This comes as no surprise. This just makes it far easier to rig it since no one will be covering it.

There were lots of articles after Ian Smith died assesing his reign compared to Mugabe. I read one in the Daily Mail (not my usual newspaper).
Waste of time. Grab an IHT.

You are heartily deluded and not a good choice for dictator.

Why should I be a dictator? And Why am I deluded?

If I were to be in charge in Zimbabwe I should be a good, kind ruler, and treat the people as they deserve to be treated, as human beings with their own minds. I should also stand in all their elections. After all, I would always strive to assist a country that needed help I had agreed to provide.

If your country goes from basket case to prosperity and continues to prosper why should It need opposition? I don't know, you tell me why people should be entitled to a different opinion.
That said, I should allow democracy in Rhodesia to all degrees asap.You mean you could get voted out of office?

If your country goes from basket case to prosperity and continues to prosper why should It need opposition? That said, I should allow democracy in Rhodesia to all degrees asap.

Um...because having no opposition makes you no more than a dictator!

I don't know, you tell me why people should be entitled to a different opinion.
You mean you could get voted out of office?

Opinions are free. They always were in the colonies. If they weren't Ghandi wouldn't have seen WWI.

I could, but I should stand in the elections afterwards.

If your country goes from basket case to prosperity and continues to prosper why should It need opposition? That said, I should allow democracy in Rhodesia to all degrees asap.
Interesting. The same logic was, being integral to Marxism-Leninism, used to justify rule in every Soviet dictatorship, as well as most other dictatorships across the world.

Including, no doubt, Zimbabwe.

CNN denied permission to cover elections in Zimbabwe (http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/africa/03/25/zimbabwe.cnn/index.html)

This comes as no surprise. This just makes it far easier to rig it since no one will be covering it.
Well, they've already banned the BBC. It doesn't come as a surprise they'd want to ban more. We don't want people reporting all the dead people voting, do we?

And this is the point where you offer some form proof that a majority of Zimbaweans 'look back fondly' on white minority rule.

Well... I don't think many of them 'look back fondly' upon it, but you have to remember that Rhodesia wasn't just South Africa. There was no apartheid, no townships, blacks were not rejected from schools and healthcare... The wealth was spread far more fairly than many people here believe.

Source one (http://rhodesian.server101.com/life_was_better_in_rhodesia.htm)
Source two (http://www.cwporter.com/rhodesia.html)

I know that the reliability of these sources (especially the latter, which appears to be written by a White Nationalist?) can be brought into dispute but I doubt there is ever an unbiased view of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.

And of course, you too will be able to provide your own sources saying that it is not the case, that in fact many blacks hated Ian Smith, which is true. But many blacks also despised the CTs - the men that brought VD to their wives and the men who burned down their farms in the name of 'liberation' and 'communism'.

70% of the Rhodesian Army was black - and it would have been more had they allowed them in. In fact, the most successful anti-terrorism group in the Rhodesian Army, the Selous Scouts was a mixed race force. Rhodesia is not a black vs white matter - its not all the blacks loved all the whites and hated Mugabe/Nkomo or all the blacks hated the whites and were glad to see IDS die.

If Rhodesia was allowed to trade freely, it would no doubt have been wealthier and no doubt would have provided a better standard of living for its populace. There's no evidence that Ian Douglas Smith wanted to put down his black population like the South Africans did, there's no evidence that he hated blacks or the intent of his Government was for all whites to get rich off the back of the blacks. Don't ever think that is true.

Why should I be a dictator? And Why am I deluded?So far, your governing style sounds little different from a dictatorship. An appointed Governor... How exactly would this not be a dictatorship?

As for the delusions, believing that people will immediately flock to you and praise you as their savior after bringing peace and prosperity is delusional, so is that said goals would be easily achievable, as is the idea that the pound would somehow remain a strong currency if Zimbabwe were the only country using it (especially if you consider the likelihood of Zimbabwe being denied the right to mint its own GB £).
If I were to be in charge in Zimbabwe I should be a good, kind ruler, and treat the people as they deserve to be treated, as human beings with their own minds. I should also stand in all their elections. After all, I would always strive to assist a country that needed help I had agreed to provide.I can't think of a tyrant that didn't say the same when they took office.

Opinions are free. They always were in the colonies. If they weren't Ghandi wouldn't have seen WWI.I distinctly remember footage of Ghandi and his followers getting the crap beaten out of them during their protests. Some freedom there.
I could, but I should stand in the elections afterwards.Your assumption that you'd win reelection is remarkably delusional.

Opinions are free. They always were in the colonies. If they weren't Ghandi wouldn't have seen WWI.

Gandhi was imprisoned numerous times and his supporters met with violence. The only reason he wasn't killed was the effect that martyrdom would have.

So far, your governing style sounds little different from a dictatorship. An appointed Governor... How exactly would this not be a dictatorship?

As for the delusions, believing that people will immediately flock to you and praise you as their savior after bringing peace and prosperity is delusional, so is that said goals would be easily achievable, as is the idea that the pound would somehow remain a strong currency if Zimbabwe were the only country using it (especially if you consider the likelihood of Zimbabwe being denied the right to mint its own GB £).
I can't think of a tyrant that didn't say the same when they took office.

Democracy would be restored once peace was. After all, you can't have a vote during a war.

A currency is strong if it is supported with good National resources. Something Zimbabwe can be.

I shouldn't be a tyrant. I am a kindly person who likes peace and prosperity. I wouldn't even have the death penalty!

I distinctly remember footage of Ghandi and his followers getting the crap beaten out of them during their protests. Some freedom there.


The Britsh Government could've bumped off Ghandi or exiled him any time they liked. But they didn't, because they chose instead to be good and allow him speech. He caused a nuisance to the colony and so had to be controlled.

Democracy would be restored once peace was. After all, you can't have a vote during a war.

Um...Dukie? The US had elections during every war we have fought in. INCLUDING THE CIVIL WAR!!!!

The Britsh Government could've bumped off Ghandi or exiled him any time they liked. But they didn't, because they chose instead to be good and allow him speech. He caused a nuisance to the colony and so had to be controlled.

You really are ignorant aren't you? You have zero clue as to what you are talking about.

Democracy would be restored once peace was. After all, you can't have a vote during a war.

A currency is strong if it is supported with good National resources. Something Zimbabwe can be.

I shouldn't be a tyrant. I am a kindly person who likes peace and prosperity. I wouldn't even have the death penalty!This is supposed to convince me you're not deluded how exactly? You've painted a rose picture of what the future will be like and planned accordingly. And then you'd be surprised why people don't like you, come up with a scapegoat, and start repressing. Much like Mugabe is doing today.
The Britsh Government could've bumped off Ghandi or exiled him any time they liked. But they didn't, because they chose instead to be good and allow him speech. He caused a nuisance to the colony and so had to be controlled.You seem to have a definition of freedom that's out of sync with reality.

Um...Dukie? The US had elections during every war we have fought in. INCLUDING THE CIVIL WAR!!!!



You really are ignorant aren't you? You have zero clue as to what you are talking about.

Yes, and look how you turned out. In Britain during wars we have a coalition government. That way we fight our enemies, not ourselves.

I know about India. I know that Ghandi is responsible for the Independence for India and that he was a hopeless idealist. If he'd had his way India would be like Iraq is now!

This is supposed to convince me you're not deluded how exactly? You've painted a rose picture of what the future will be like and planned accordingly. And then you'd be surprised why people don't like you, come up with a scapegoat, and start repressing. Much like Mugabe is doing today.
You seem to have a definition of freedom that's out of sync with reality.

If there were problems I should deal with them without killing. Murder isn't necessary.

People don't need repressing. There is no need for scapegoats, if you mess it up you should take responsibility.

Freedom: The right to think and act as you wish providing you don't hurt or inconvenience others.

Yes, and look how you turned out. In Britain during wars we have a coalition government. That way we fight our enemies, not ourselves.

You have a problem though. Britain has proportional representation. Also, you forget that during the American Revolutionary War, there was much infighting in the halls of Parliment. Actually...if memory serves me right, there was much political fighting during most of the wars you have fought in.

As to how we turned out...we are the most powerful nation on earth, eclipsing Britain. That's how we turned out. However, let us not compare political systems. You have been debunked on your statement.

I know about India. I know that Ghandi is responsible for the Independence for India and that he was a hopeless idealist. If he'd had his way India would be like Iraq is now!

Just keep thinking that. Its obvious you need a good old fashion wake up call to the real world.

If there were problems I should deal with them without killing. Murder isn't necessary.

People don't need repressing. There is no need for scapegoats, if you mess it up you should take responsibility.

Freedom: The right to think and act as you wish providing you don't hurt or inconvenience others.

And what if they do not like you and begin to use violence to get you out?

Yes, and look how you turned out. In Britain during wars we have a coalition government. That way we fight our enemies, not ourselves.The US is currently the most powerful country in the world. You may need to be more specific than "look how you turned out" unless that's what you meant.
I know about India. I know that Ghandi is responsible for the Independence for India and that he was a hopeless idealist. If he'd had his way India would be like Iraq is now!I'm pretty sure you've told us before that you still go to school. It shows. Your posts are filled to the brim with extreme juvenile idealism and a general lack of historical education.

I had a chat with someone becoming a teacher in the UK last weekend, and he regretted to inform me that "Blackadder goes Forth" is probably the best education in colonial history that British school children get. I'm not surprised in the least as to how you've turned out.

If there were problems I should deal with them without killing. Murder isn't necessary.

People don't need repressing. There is no need for scapegoats, if you mess it up you should take responsibility.Should, yes. Most people in positions you are willing to be in fail to realize that they messed up. Your posts only serve to convince me that you lack the insight necessary to differentiate between the two as well.
Freedom: The right to think and act as you wish providing you don't hurt or inconvenience others.That is a pretty damn repressive definition there.

The US is currently the most powerful country in the world. You may need to be more specific than "look how you turned out" unless that's what you meant.



No, I meant with a loon in charge, going off to wars for no reason and with an economy that can fall at any time. Yes, I am aware of the position Britain is in.

Should, yes. Most people in positions you are willing to be in fail to realize that they messed up. Your posts only serve to convince me that you lack the insight necessary to differentiate between the two as well.
That is a pretty damn repressive definition there.

If the people are rioting I'm sure you've messed up.

Inconvenience meaning blocking the streets and disrupting lives.

No, I meant with a loon in charge, going off to wars for no reason and with an economy that can fall at any time.

:headbang:

Irrelevent.

If the people are rioting I'm sure you've messed up.

Inconvenience meaning blocking the streets and disrupting lives.

You really are ignorant in politics! Go study it and come back when you have an understanding.

No, I meant with a loon in charge, going off to wars for no reason and with an economy that can fall at any time. Yes, I am aware of the position Britain is in.Then mayhap you'll notice just how insanely hypocritical that statement was.
If the people are rioting I'm sure you've messed up.You won't be able to cure decades, if not centuries, of conflict in one short term. There will likely be riots and most definitely be dissent.
Inconvenience meaning blocking the streets and disrupting lives.Yes, exactly. Allowing only easily ignorable protest isn't freedom of speech.

You have a problem though. Britain has proportional representation.

Erm... no.

Just no.

Erm... no.

Just no.

Yea a parlimentary system which uses the westminster system.

And look at Africa today because of what the European Colonial Powers did to Africa. You really need a serious case of history 101.
This sort of attitude may have been defensible in the 60s, but not really any longer. Hong Kong was just as destitute as much of Africa in 1945, yet today it has a higher GDP per capita than Britain, "despite" remaining under British control for far longer.

Yea a parlimentary system which uses the westminster system.
British elections for the House of Commons use first past the post.

This sort of attitude may have been defensible in the 60s, but not really any longer. Hong Kong was just as destitute as much of Africa in 1945, yet today it has a higher GDP per capita than Britain, "despite" remaining under British control for far longer.Hong Kong also has a rather homogenous population and is virtually limited to being a city. Although if you can give a reason why it would be comparable to any given African nation other than "owned by UK", we're listening.

Hong Kong also has a rather homogenous population and is virtually limited to being a city. Although if you can give a reason why it would be comparable to any given African nation other than "owned by UK", we're listening.
I would be far more interested in seeing you try to justify having "a rather homogenous population" or being "virtually limited to a city" as alternative drivers for economic growth.

This sort of attitude may have been defensible in the 60s, but not really any longer. Hong Kong was just as destitute as much of Africa in 1945, yet today it has a higher GDP per capita than Britain, "despite" remaining under British control for far longer.


The British didn't run Hong Kong anything like its African colonies so I can't see how that would be a useful comparison.

I would be far more interested in seeing you try to justify having "a rather homogenous population" or being "virtually limited to a city" as alternative drivers for economic growth.Makes ethnic hostilities less likely. Also, infrastructural development is completely different.

Yea a parlimentary system which uses the westminster system.

No, don't try and tell me what electoral system my own country uses. Westminster system is a first-past-the-post system. It's not proportional representation. Jesus Christ.

I would be far more interested in seeing you try to justify having "a rather homogenous population" or being "virtually limited to a city" as alternative drivers for economic growth.

It's a major port, and thus business hub, that has also been, and still is, a primary entryway to the Chinese mainland. This, accompanied by the fact that it really is geographically tiny, are obvious drivers for economic growth. The homogeneity of the population, though...I don't know much about that. It's a pretty international city.

Surely Hong Kong being part of a world economic superpower might have something to do with it too?

The British didn't run Hong Kong anything like its African colonies so I can't see how that would be a useful comparison.
Well quite, Britain had no significant African colonies in the time period under consideration. They ran themselves into the ground perfectly well, while HK was able to develop. My point isn't so much that Britain was responsible for HK's development - Britain's principal contribution was to keep the place stable, defended and the government out of the economy for the most part, not to take an active, centrally planned role in development - but that whatever destitution existed in the 40s in Africa is not responsible for subsequent failure to develop, as it has not prevented it elsewhere, and that Africa is therefore largely responsible for its own fate.

Makes ethnic hostilities less likely. Also, infrastructural development is completely different.
Even in African countries without significant "ethnic hostilies" (which erupted, principally, after the stabilising influence of Britain left) there has not been development on the scale of HK. Similarly, in South Africa, a country justly infamous for its ethnic tensions, economic development was very much stronger than in the rest of Africa. Rhodesia, to be topical for a moment, was a lot more prosperous at the height of the Bush War than Mugabe's Zimbabwe is today.

It's a major port, and thus business hub, that has also been, and still is, a primary entryway to the Chinese mainland. This, accompanied by the fact that it really is geographically tiny, are obvious drivers for economic growth. The homogeneity of the population, though...I don't know much about that. It's a pretty international city.
It is those things now. Until recently China was nothing and nowhere economically, and it banned outside trade - HK's development started a long time before that. Similarly, "Made in HK" used to be synonymous for cheap crap and knock-offs, much as "Made in Japan" was in the 70s and "Made in China" is today - HK built its way out of poverty, it didn't start off without all these advantages.

Being "geographically tiny" is an interesting justification for economic growth that I would like to see substantiated. Are you saying that if one were to divide up Kenya into thousands of tiny fiefdoms, economic growth would significantly increase? I don't think that makes any sense. Traditionally, lack of land and natural resources are held as factors opposing economic growth.

Surely Hong Kong being part of a world economic superpower might have something to do with it too?
Maybe if you think HK's economic growth started in 1997. In which case we probably shouldn't be taking your opinion very seriously.

R is for the Regiments who fight the winning fight
H is for the Home-fires that the folks are keeping bright
O is for the Other Ranks and officers as well
D is for the Die-hards who will even fight in hell
E is for the Enemy, that just won't ever win
S is for the Spirit of our men that won't grow dim
I is for the Independence that we have to share
A is for the Arms that we will always have to bear

And the first word in Rhodesian is Rhodes
That's the name that everybody knows
It may be as Rhodesian as flag of white and green
But the last word in Rhodesian is Ian
----------

I'm not a neo-con, but it doesn't take much to recognize the difference between prosperity from poverty. On the otherhand, it only goes to show how the white man's burden mutated into multiculturalism for the sake of those who wished to avoid the blame off Zimbabwean distress. If anyone really cares about Zimbabwe today and the regional strife it's generated for the greater African community, they need to ignore the historical blame towards oppressing democracy while showing that human rights are not guaranteed or preserved by democratic institutions. Only economic incentive complemented and balancedby moral fundamentals, cultural mores, and societal laws can do that. Democracy isn't universally effective and executive decision making isn't universally detrimental.

You don't control inflation by say "Reduce prices or I'll have a fit!" Hate to say it, but even if you don't understand how, people operate under the laws of economics.

Inflation THAT high can only be the result of bad, bad monetary policy.

Hit the nail right on the head. On the head.

Even in African countries without significant "ethnic hostilies" (which erupted, principally, after the stabilising influence of Britain left) there has not been development on the scale of HK. Similarly, in South Africa, a country justly infamous for its ethnic tensions, economic development was very much stronger than in the rest of Africa. Rhodesia, to be topical for a moment, was a lot more prosperous at the height of the Bush War than Mugabe's Zimbabwe is today.You can continue to make a fool of yourself by comparing countries to cities, or you could, you know, stop.

Maybe if you think HK's economic growth started in 1997. In which case we probably shouldn't be taking your opinion very seriously.

No, but it has grown a lot more since 1997, which is relevant to the subject. I'm not actually trying to give a concrete opinion here, just musing, but would Hong Kong's GDP be higher than Britain's without its close association with China? I don't think so.

No, don't try and tell me what electoral system my own country uses. Westminster system is a first-past-the-post system. It's not proportional representation. Jesus Christ.

I see you cannot comprehend that I corrected myself. Not surprising really.

I see you cannot comprehend that I corrected myself. Not surprising really.

Um, how?

You can continue to make a fool of yourself by comparing countries to cities, or you could, you know, stop.
...can you actually sustain this bizarre assertion that a small land area somehow boosts growth, because right now you are just asserting your premise as a conclusion and assuming that it is an opinion universally shared when, clearly, it is not.

No, but it has grown a lot more since 1997, which is relevant to the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong#Macro-economic_trend

According to those figures growth since joining the PRC has been below the historical trend.

I'm not actually trying to give a concrete opinion here, just musing, but would Hong Kong's GDP be higher than Britain's without its close association with China? I don't think so.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong#History

HK's GDPPC was higher than Britain's for 7 years before the handover.

What's more, HK's fastest growth occured (see figures attached to previous quote) while China was still a tinpot economy that was isolating itself from the outside world.

...can you actually sustain this bizarre assertion that a small land area somehow boosts growth, because right now you are just asserting your premise as a conclusion and assuming that it is an opinion universally shared when, clearly, it is not.Any given land area, no. A major trading port, most definitely. Opinion universally shared is largely irrelevent to whether you can compare a trading city to a former colony made up of the territories of several different tribes, spanning a much larger area and lacking previous infrastructure.

To be fair, though, the problems in Africa have to do with no transition plans being made.
They did have transition plans, based on the divide and conquer strategy: They split various ethnic apart and stuck the remnants with other split groups.


Say what you will, there are no western politicians who think they can order prices about. Outside of France, at least. ;)
You can put price controls on something, either if there is an artificial shortage of a good (though stopping the shortage would be better) or having a price dictated in the assumption that a windfall of a good will arrive just as the reserve amounts of product are used. I would agree that price controls are pointless in Zimbabwe.

With Zimbabwe any economic plan is going to screw up, mainly due to the immense corruption and the lack of hard currency and little importation of basic goods.

Why?

Colonialism works. Look at Africa in the 1940s.

I hope H.G Wells' War of the Worlds comes true so that you can see first hand that imperialism is crime against humanity. You who would order the death and enslavement of millions while sitting comfortably at your computer, snug with your notions of Empire and Monarchy.

I see you cannot comprehend that I corrected myself. Not surprising really.

I see you cannot comprehend that Britain does not use the proportional representation system, since you didn't actually correct yourself. Not surprising really.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong#Macro-economic_trend

According to those figures growth since joining the PRC has been below the historical trend.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Hong_Kong#History

HK's GDPPC was higher than Britain's for 7 years before the handover.

What's more, HK's fastest growth occured (see figures attached to previous quote) while China was still a tinpot economy that was isolating itself from the outside world.

Just reading those links I noticed the Asian financial crisis of '97. Forgot about that *facepalm*. That kind of throws a spanner in the works of the growth figures. I see what you mean about the GDPPC though.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7312649.stm


Is there not one economist in Zimbabwe who can spare half an hour to explain this to the guy?

Anyways, what do you think will happen with the election? Will Zanu-PF be unified behind Mugabe? How will the opposition react to the more than likely fraud that will happen? And what will Mugabe's response be?

Anyone who tries to correct Mugabe risks being beaten, imprisoned, or shot.

The opposition can't really do anything.

As long as his thugs back him, this will continue.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

Are you serious? He only gets that % because a, he made up or changed that figure or b, had evrybody so scared that they'd vote for him regardless. And he definately IS that bad.

If Mugabe's really all that bad, would he be getting 98% of the vote. I think not!

Um he gets that amount because people are scared witless not because he's such a great president! He doesn't need much of a brain-just a whole load of other people to act as his lackeys and kill for him! The reason he has kept hold of power is because he either locks away or kills all the people who dare to openly (or privately) disagree! The country will never be truly free until Mugabe is 6ft under and pushing up the daisies and until he is he will always be trying to hold on to power, and succeeding too because if anyone else wins he ousts them with military force. He has that country in an iron grip that needs to be broken, but I can't see it happening any time soon.:mad:

Are you serious? He only gets that % because a, he made up or changed that figure or b, had evrybody so scared that they'd vote for him regardless. And he definately IS that bad.

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a205/ulteriormotives/Irony2.jpg

Well... I don't think many of them 'look back fondly' upon it, but you have to remember that Rhodesia wasn't just South Africa. There was no apartheid, no townships, blacks were not rejected from schools and healthcare... The wealth was spread far more fairly than many people here believe.

Source one (http://rhodesian.server101.com/life_was_better_in_rhodesia.htm)
Source two (http://www.cwporter.com/rhodesia.html)

I know that the reliability of these sources (especially the latter, which appears to be written by a White Nationalist?) can be brought into dispute but I doubt there is ever an unbiased view of Rhodesia/Zimbabwe.
I too doubt whether there is an unbiased view of Rhodesia or Zimbabwe, but that doesn't mean one should accept what does seem like a biased view as correct. However, assuming that the Black African majority had, relative to the era, a better quality of life (which is likely to be true, but one mustn't paint a too rosy picture of public services for Black Africans), that does not mean that people look back fondly upon it. Certainatly dislike of the reign of Robert Mugabe and criticism of the way he has handled (or dismantled) the Zimbabwean economyy does not explicitly mean that one would want to go back to White minority rule.

And of course, you too will be able to provide your own sources saying that it is not the case, that in fact many blacks hated Ian Smith, which is true. But many blacks also despised the CTs - the men that brought VD to their wives and the men who burned down their farms in the name of 'liberation' and 'communism'.
I'm sure many Blacks hated both.

70% of the Rhodesian Army was black - and it would have been more had they allowed them in. In fact, the most successful anti-terrorism group in the Rhodesian Army, the Selous Scouts was a mixed race force. Rhodesia is not a black vs white matter - its not all the blacks loved all the whites and hated Mugabe/Nkomo or all the blacks hated the whites and were glad to see IDS die.
By the end of the Bush War, Rhodesia had a democratically elected African government, so considering that, and the fact that whites made up only 5% of the population, does not surprise me that Rhodesia had a partially Black African army. I'd also like to know how many came into the army as a result of support for minoroty rule (assuming that joining the army did indicate support) or out of economic concerns. It may not be a simple Black vs. Whites matter, but that deosn't mean the issue of white minority rule, and opposition to it, should be overlooked. When given the opportunity under universal suffrage, a Black government was elected before Mugabe came into power.

If Rhodesia was allowed to trade freely, it would no doubt have been wealthier and no doubt would have provided a better standard of living for its populace. There's no evidence that Ian Douglas Smith wanted to put down his black population like the South Africans did, there's no evidence that he hated blacks or the intent of his Government was for all whites to get rich off the back of the blacks. Don't ever think that is true.
I doubt he hated Blacks either. But whether he did or didn't, he denied basic civil, economic and political liberties to the vast majority of Black Africans. Regardless of whether he wanted to 'get rich of the back of Blacks', his government, to all intents and purposes did, usually be denying land. Whether he did so because he was a racist, a paternalist and a white supremacist, which I certainatly think he was, or whether he hated Blacks, which I don't think he did, does not seem to me particulary relevant.

No, don't try and tell me what electoral system my own country uses. Westminster system is a first-past-the-post system. It's not proportional representation. Jesus Christ.
Proportional representation tends to produce bigger government. That's not a positive outcome.

Proportional representation tends to produce bigger government. That's not a positive outcome.

Yes, I'm aware, and yes, I agree, but I don't see the relevance.

New Burmecia, I don't really believe that he denied the blacks any economic liberties - if that's true, I'd like to see some evidence. The land issue was no longer run on racial lines any more than it was on property lines, because land reform is a simple process of property stealing. It wasn't like black land was redistributed to the whites and to be honest, the blacks didn't own most of that land in the first place anyway.

I don't have any more sources for the Rhodesian Army - I would like to find some, whatever the outcome, though.

Smith was definetly a Paternalist and a White supremacist, but I don't know if you could neccessarily call him racist. Perhaps it was racism without hate, because he and many White Rhodesians genuinly believed their actions were to the benefit of the black majority.

I'd also like to know how many came into the army as a result of support for minoroty rule (assuming that joining the army did indicate support) or out of economic concerns.

I highly doubt most blacks supported minority rule. However, many did enlist in the military because they hated the communists (ZANU and ZAPU), who committed atrocities worthy of the National Socialists (cutting off peoples' body parts, cooking them, and feeding it to their spouses; mutilating peoples' faces with rusty bayonets; herding people into huts and burning the huts down with everyone inside; etc.).

IMO, we should have worked together with Smith and moderates like Bishop Muzorewa to bring about peaceful, non-communist majority rule gradually.

As for Smith himself, I think he was just a product of his times. Undoubtedly he was a white supremacist, but of the same ilk as Rupyard Kipling, i.e., he subscribed to the "White Man's Burden" mindset. He and his government were far from perfect, and he did not do nearly enough for the black majority, but I think that, for what it's worth, he was an honest man who honestly thought he was doing the best for his country. Unfortunately, he refused to change with the times, and that led not only to the downfall of Rhodesia, but eventually to Zimbabwe, as well. At any rate, he was much better than Mugabe.

Yes, I'm aware, and yes, I agree, but I don't see the relevance.
That's what I get for not reading enough of the thread.

Sorry about that.

Anyone realize that Dukieboy hasn't responded in awhile?

Anyone notice Corneliu still didn't accept Britain uses FPTP?

That's what I get for not reading enough of the thread.

Sorry about that.

It's okay, I just thought you were accusing me of wanting a bigger government :P

Anyone realize that Dukieboy hasn't responded in awhile?He still goes to school. Don't chide people for not being available to you 24/7.

Anyone notice Corneliu still didn't accept Britain uses FPTP?
I'm not sure he understands what proportional representation is.

I don't know if this has been posted, but Mugabe may be facing some powerful opponents and is quote "fighting for his political life" (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080328/ap_on_re_af/zimbabwe_votes;_ylt=AsEOIYq903txw_ZDEdrCeM9vaA8F). Let's see how it goes.

Mugabe needs to abolish capitalism completely, it's the wage-mercantillistic system which is the problem, he needs to disconnect the economy from any foreign influence and develop industrial self-sufficiency.

I don't think anything drastic will happen until a concerted effort by those who know that Mugabe's policies and whole style of rule is wrong lift a finger but that won't happen until they are threateaned themselves which seems to be the prevailing attitude in that country

I don't think anything drastic will happen until a concerted effort by those who know that Mugabe's policies and whole style of rule is wrong lift a finger but that won't happen until they are threateaned themselves which seems to be the prevailing attitude in that country

I just posted that he is facing credible challengers in the election.

Mugabe needs to abolish capitalism completely, it's the wage-mercantillistic system which is the problem, he needs to disconnect the economy from any foreign influence and develop industrial self-sufficiency.
If he does that can we stop sending him humanitarian aid? Because I'd like us to do that.