NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751346
A worthless currency

The local dollar is fast shrivelling away

WITH prices doubling every few days, Zimbabweans now spend huge amounts of time and energy preventing their meagre cash resources from completely evaporating. Trying to catch up with galloping hyperinflation, now officially running at 2.2m per cent a year and at least four times faster in reality, the central bank has been printing ever bigger denominations. But it is outrun by galloping prices: at last count, the most valuable banknote available was for 50 billion Zimbabwean dollars, now worth barely 70 American cents on the black market, and the stock of Zimbabwean dollars is dwindling. Local cash could become scarcer still, now that the German company that was providing Zimbabwe with paper to print its banknotes has cancelled its contract; the Zimbabwean monetary authorities are likely to turn to a less specialised supplier. Meanwhile, people do not even bother to pick up notes of hundreds of thousands on the pavements of Harare, the capital. At independence in 1980, the Zimbabwe dollar was more valuable than the American greenback.

Now, Tsvangirai and Mugabe just agreed to talk (the terms are here in pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_07_08_zimbabwe_deal.pdf)), and as much as I hate it, it seems like Mugabe will remain in power under such a deal and probably never face justice (a big shout-out to South Africa at this point).

But that got me thinking - as many people as his goons murdered, maimed, injured and hurt over the years, he probably caused damage to more people with his economic policies. Now, if someone were to walk into someone's house, take all their wealth and lock their access to their savings, that'd be a crime of sorts. And of course, even governments can be found guilty of crimes against their own populations.

Yet at this point there exists no way I know of in which a government or leader can be held responsible to the massive damage he or she may cause with bad economic policies - particularly in this case, where everyone had all the information available to do better, and there was no surprising, sudden outside force that caused the collapse.

Do you think it should make the list, alongside (though perhaps of less severity than) things like other crimes against humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity).

It depends. Who is it being decided by? What would be the punishment? Was it out of stupidity, or did they know what they were doing? Etc,etc, Mugabe, however, should be punished, for one thing or another.

It depends. Who is it being decided by?
The same way other crimes against humanity are handled in Den Haag or wherever: you get a bunch of lawyers and add a bunch of specialist experts and then try to figure out the details of what happened, what the intentions were and what could and should have been done differently.

What would be the punishment?
That would depend on the judge more than anything, with input from the relevant law.

Was it out of stupidity, or did they know what they were doing?
The question is: can one really defend themselves with stupidity in these times? Macroeconomics is hardly perfect, but it couldn't have been difficult to find someone on the planet who could have predicted the outcomes of Mugabe's policies.

Some cases are marginal, as are many instances of people dying in combat situations. But other cases are quite clear-cut, and this one is. By the same token, North Korea's famines were (and may yet be again).

Everybody likes to condemn Mugabe for the land reforms and the hyperinflation. Lord knows the Zimbabwean economy is a basket case. But few people acknowledge that his policies were a (albeit poor) response to the crisis brought about by structural adjustment in the 1990s. Are we going to punish the World Bank for the havoc they wrought, in Zimbabwe and elsewhere? There's plenty of blame to go around under the heading of "incompetent economic management".

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751346


Now, Tsvangirai and Mugabe just agreed to talk (the terms are here in pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_07_08_zimbabwe_deal.pdf)), and as much as I hate it, it seems like Mugabe will remain in power under such a deal and probably never face justice (a big shout-out to South Africa at this point).

But that got me thinking - as many people as his goons murdered, maimed, injured and hurt over the years, he probably caused damage to more people with his economic policies. Now, if someone were to walk into someone's house, take all their wealth and lock their access to their savings, that'd be a crime of sorts. And of course, even governments can be found guilty of crimes against their own populations.

Yet at this point there exists no way I know of in which a government or leader can be held responsible to the massive damage he or she may cause with bad economic policies - particularly in this case, where everyone had all the information available to do better, and there was no surprising, sudden outside force that caused the collapse.

Do you think it should make the list, alongside (though perhaps of less severity than) things like other crimes against humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity).

Poor economic management out of genuine incompetence is different than a purposeful genocide. Herbert Hoover≠ Adolf Hitler

What Mugabe did to or allowed to happen to Zimbabwe's economy is nothing short of criminal negligence. I don't really know what could be done about it, though. I don't *think* Zimbabwe is a signatory to the ICC and, short of war crimes, it's not likely Mugabe would otherwise be prosecuted.

What Mugabe did to or allowed to happen to Zimbabwe's economy is nothing short of criminal negligence. I don't really know what could be done about it, though. I don't *think* Zimbabwe is a signatory to the ICC and, short of war crimes, it's not likely Mugabe would otherwise be prosecuted.

Zimbabwe was caught between a rock and a hard place. The neoliberal reforms imposed by the the World Bank through Structural Adjustment Program in the 1990s were unraveling health and education initiatives, creating social unrest and undermining economic development. Going back on SAP meant losing restructured credit terms and defaulting on loans. Almost every Third World government has faced the same dilemma in the last ten or fifteen years, and most have stood by and let their population fall into squalor while the investment bankers collect their interest payments. Mugabe tried to take the other path...turns out it wasn't much better. I don't know what you call that exactly, but it's not negligence.

Are we going to start suggesting that big tycoons who cut and run with their employees' pensions when their corporation goes under be charged with crimes against humanity as well?

Because I could get behind that.

If economic incompetence was a punishable offense, Beloved Dear Leader would be on Death Row. And his record even before Office alone would be sufficient for that sentence.

Not to mention the World Bank itself...it's SAPs have reduced food self-sufficiency across Africa and Southeast Asia, as well as parts of the Americas...a trend that has simply been exacerbated by recent crop failures and rising food prices...not to mention the damage they've had in other areas such as health care and education. Let's lynch THOSE fuckers. The Chicago Boys should have been facing the music a looooong time ago.

Not to mention the World Bank itself...it's SAPs have reduced food self-sufficiency across Africa and Southeast Asia, as well as parts of the Americas...a trend that has simply been exacerbated by recent crop failures and rising food prices...not to mention the damage they've had in other areas such as health care and education. Let's lynch THOSE fuckers. The Chicago Boys should have been facing the music a looooong time ago.
There's a world bank? *Becomes more paranoid about world government*

There's a world bank? *Becomes more paranoid about world government*

Seriously (http://www.worldbank.org/)?

You might be more familiar with the IMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMF).

Seriously (http://www.worldbank.org/)?

You might be more familiar with the IMF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IMF).

Nah, I knew there was a world bank. *Is still paranoid about a world government*

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11751346


Now, Tsvangirai and Mugabe just agreed to talk (the terms are here in pdf (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/21_07_08_zimbabwe_deal.pdf)), and as much as I hate it, it seems like Mugabe will remain in power under such a deal and probably never face justice (a big shout-out to South Africa at this point).

But that got me thinking - as many people as his goons murdered, maimed, injured and hurt over the years, he probably caused damage to more people with his economic policies. Now, if someone were to walk into someone's house, take all their wealth and lock their access to their savings, that'd be a crime of sorts. And of course, even governments can be found guilty of crimes against their own populations.

Yet at this point there exists no way I know of in which a government or leader can be held responsible to the massive damage he or she may cause with bad economic policies - particularly in this case, where everyone had all the information available to do better, and there was no surprising, sudden outside force that caused the collapse.

Do you think it should make the list, alongside (though perhaps of less severity than) things like other crimes against humanity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimes_against_humanity).

I'm not really sure about this. It opens up the door to other sorts of government incompetence being considered a crime, opening all kinds of cans of worms.

There's a world bank? *Becomes more paranoid about world government*

http://209.85.48.9/10438/178/emo/sad.gif

http://www.worldbank.org/

Maybe a nice fine would work.

http://209.85.48.9/10438/178/emo/sad.gif

http://www.worldbank.org/

Read my above post. I knew. I was using it as an excuse to warn everyone about the IMPENDING WORLD GOVERNMENT! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Maybe a nice fine would work.

1% of all the damage you do.:salute:

Maybe a nice fine would work.

Hehehehehehehehe.

Read my above post. I knew. I was using it as an excuse to warn everyone about the IMPENDING WORLD GOVERNMENT! AHHHHHHHHH!!!!

Heh. Xposting FTL.

People are only terrified of World Governments if they're under the impression that they won't be in charge of it.

After living through Yeltsin's years, I can say it should.

It's not a crime against humanity unless it's deliberate and huge (which falls under corruption). If it's deliberate but not huge (see Enron) it's a crime, but not a crime against humanity. If it's not deliberate it's not grounds for criminal proceeding, although it is grounds for being fired (or, in some circumstances, impeached and convicted), and possibly civil action.

It depends. Who is it being decided by? What would be the punishment? Was it out of stupidity, or did they know what they were doing? Etc,etc, Mugabe, however, should be punished, for one thing or another.

Decapitation by angry mob. Or in extreme cases, by unpaid bodyguards.

Yes it should, which is why capitalism should be punishable by Troika-squad.

Are we going to punish the World Bank for the havoc they wrought, in Zimbabwe and elsewhere? There's plenty of blame to go around under the heading of "incompetent economic management".
If you're going to rant, at least get the basics right. The World Bank doesn't do structural readjustments, that's the IMF. And the IMF is very up-front about what it does, why it does it and how to avoid having to do it.

Every client country the IMF has ever had came voluntarily, after getting themselves into a mess. And as plenty of countries demonstrated, structural readjustment programs are not an excuse for leaving one's populace in poverty or without food.

Why do you need a currency anyways? A currency is a deeply flawed medium for coordination the distribution of the social product, it distorts the real value and the value of what is really needed for common working people. Currencies have revealed themselves as unstable every since they ceased to be a tangible commodity (gold).

Currencies are fundamentally incapable of reconciling their dual-purpose as a measure of value and a medium of circulation.

I say the State should just seize all the means of production and distribute them according to need without a currency, and looting and other activities could be prevented by using a National ID card system to track the distribution of products.

Currencies have revealed themselves as unstable every since they ceased to be a tangible commodity (gold).
Wait, are you saying that inflation or BOP crises didn't happen before the gold standard was dropped?

Because I've got a link in my signature that says otherwise.

Wait, are you saying that inflation or BOP crises didn't happen before the gold standard was dropped?

Because I've got a link in my signature that says otherwise.
No, I meant that the real anarchy and decay in capitalist production was properly revealed after the currency conversion from the gold standard.

No, I meant that the real anarchy and decay in capitalist production was properly revealed after the currency conversion from the gold standard.
You were saying it in a very round-about, factually inaccurate way is all...

Anyways, that's not the topic, nor are the IMF or the World Bank. And many countries occasionally hit tough economic times. Sometimes those times turn out to be very tough and take a while to get out of. Those aren't really what I'm worried about.

But when the North Korean planning department doesn't make provisions for a bad harvest, or simply doesn't supply farmers with fuel or fertilisers and that kills a million people in a famine, or the Zimbabwean land reform/price control package empties shelves and destroys one of the better African economies completely, those aren't accidents. Those things happen as a result of ongoing mismanagement of a kind that can easily be avoided. If it isn't malicious, at best it would count as criminal negligence in any other case.

You were saying it in a very round-about, factually inaccurate way is all...

Anyways, that's not the topic, nor are the IMF or the World Bank. And many countries occasionally hit tough economic times. Sometimes those times turn out to be very tough and take a while to get out of. Those aren't really what I'm worried about.

But when the North Korean planning department doesn't make provisions for a bad harvest, or simply doesn't supply farmers with fuel or fertilisers and that kills a million people in a famine, or the Zimbabwean land reform/price control package empties shelves and destroys one of the better African economies completely, those aren't accidents. Those things happen as a result of ongoing mismanagement of a kind that can easily be avoided. If it isn't malicious, at best it would count as criminal negligence in any other case.

In the case of Zimbabwe and the DPRK, economic decay and decline only happens because of the introduction of market mechanisms. It's never socialism that collapses or wanes economically, it's the capitalism imposed over it that fails.

Interesting proposal, but impossible to in practice.
One cannot hamper an independent country's freedom to make his own economical policies.

In the case of Zimbabwe and the DPRK, economic decay and decline only happens because of the introduction of market mechanisms. It's never socialism that collapses or wanes economically, it's the capitalism imposed over it that fails.
In which case it would still constitute economic mismanagement. Punishable, or no?

One cannot hamper an independent country's freedom to make his own economical policies.
Apparently we can on, for example, demographic and electoral policies. And given how much damage bad economic policies do, I don't see why it is any different.

Granted, there can be debate about what's right and wrong sometimes. But regardless of which school of thought you're from, you're not going to argue that Zimbabwe or North Korea did the right thing. In fact, basically everyone must surely agree that they did the wrong thing, repeatedly, over a long period of time and in plain view of the consequences.

I'm generally against finding new reasons to punish people, but this one's easy to make a case for.

One of the advantages of the peaceful transfer of power from one regime to another is that the outgoing leaders needn't fear being persecuted by the new. If something like economic mismanagement were criminalized, a bitter person coming into power could misuse it to crush the outgoing leader and their people.

Are we going to start suggesting that big tycoons who cut and run with their employees' pensions when their corporation goes under be charged with crimes against humanity as well?

Because I could get behind that.That's what I thought this thread was going to be about... locking up bank executives in the slammer for their woefully inadequate performance.

I don't see how this would generally work. I think you'd have to show that whoever put the economic policy in place intended all the starvation and misery and wasn't just a fuckwit. Otherwise, who do you pick? You could have complete assholes that have bad policies during exceptional times and so they get away with it, on the other hand people with the best of intentions and 'best' advice might end up in court just because there were unusual stresses in the world financial system.

And in the more obvious cases like Zimbabwe, there is usually other stuff going on anyway, so it's sort of over-egging the pudding.

In any event, it's pretty well settled that you can be as much of an ass in respect of domestic policy as you want.

That's what I thought this thread was going to be about... locking up bank executives in the slammer for their woefully inadequate performance.

No: they get taxpayer bailouts.

No: they get taxpayer bailouts.
I know. Lucky bastards.

I think that the effects of a bad economic policy is its own punishment. However, the ucompensated seizure of private property based on race is pretty evil and there should be some remedy through international law.

I think that the effects of a bad economic policy is its own punishment. However, the ucompensated seizure of private property based on race is pretty evil and there should be some remedy through international law.

Remedy through law, international or otherwise, means nothing unless there is an enforcer of law. The Sherrif is currently busy in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the Deputies are tied up with Afghanistan and Former Yugoslavia.

Don't hold your breath waiting for fresh volunteers.

*your call is important to us, please stay on the line.... we're sorry, but all free world soldiers are busy. Please hold on, and your crisis will be resolved in the order of its perceived political and economic importance...your call is important to us...

Since no one is going to stop him, my prediction is Mugabe will do what he pleases.

Another thing the international law crowd should remind themselves of. You don't simply send a cop in to arrest a tyrant. He has guards, and they will shoot your cop. You have to send an army in. This involves lots of shooting and explosions, and some of those explosions will be where you didn't want things exploding. The Bad Guy will create as much misery as he can, because he knows that the media will blame it all on you. Every throat slit by one of Mugabe's thugs will be pinned on those sent to remove him.

I'm not saying I wouldn't support the liberation of Zimbaber. err.. RE-liberation, right? But let's be mindful of the cost.

Interesting proposal, but impossible to in practice.
One cannot hamper an independent country's freedom to make his own economical policies.

"His" own policies... a nation is gender neutral, it would be "its" own policies.

Or is this a Freudian slip?

Intentional satire?

Decapitation by angry mob. Or in extreme cases, by unpaid bodyguards.

It sounds kind of like ancient Rome...

I like it.:)

I think that the effects of a bad economic policy is its own punishment.
Except that the people who are guilty don't actually suffer them. Kim Jong-Il or Robert Mugabe presumably don't have to worry about getting enough food on the table, petrol into their armoured Mercs or jewellery around their daughters' necks.

A economia de um pais é como o sangue desse mesmo pais, por essa razão quem têm uma má politica económica devia de ser castigado como se fosse um crime contra a humanidade porque não podemos pensár individualmente mas sim no colectivo são milhares de vidas que estão em risco por uma má dessisão de um palhaço.
Claro que se deveria de se apurár os factos de como as politicas seguidas por um certo governo não atingiram o sucesso e apartir dai apurar a culpa pelo o seu crime.

A economia de um pais é como o sangue desse mesmo pais, por essa razão quem têm uma má politica económica devia de ser castigado como se fosse um crime contra a humanidade porque não podemos pensár individualmente mas sim no colectivo são milhares de vidas que estão em risco por uma má dessisão de um palhaço.
Claro que se deveria de se apurár os factos de como as politicas seguidas por um certo governo não atingiram o sucesso e apartir dai apurar a culpa pelo o seu crime.

no hablo espanol