HappySqurriel said:
Redistribution of wealth worked so well in Zimbabwe; after all, taking the farms away from the wealthy land-owners who knew how to produce food efficiently and giving it to uneducated and inexperienced individuals lead to a green-explosion of food production.
Wealth is a by-product of efficiency, and people who build wealth have demonstrated the reason why they’re the individual who is best suited to manage and control economic resources; certainly, there are individuals who inherit wealth but if that wealth is no managed well it tends to be lost rather quickly (where it can then be managed very efficiently by another individual). Extreme poverty (the kind of poverty requiring foreign aid to prevent starvation) tends to be the result of heavy government control, mismanagement of the economy, lack of economic freedoms, and lack of adequate credit for individuals to produce wealth. If you take a country like Zimbabwe, institute a legal system based on British Common Law, and convert foreign aid to micro-loans to build an economy starvation would become a distant memory. |
Yes, this is point that I would second. In a case like Zimbabwe it is very easy to see why the people are starving and why the economy is none existent. It is caused by Mugabe's complete mismanagement of the country. Giving the farmland to soldiers was a very bad move. They were innexperienced, it meant that Zimbabwe was no longer the bread basket of Africa. Removing someone like Mugabe and replacing him with a competent leader, with a government that is low in corruption and high in efficiency is a good move. But that is easier said than done.
The thing about Zimbabwe is that it is a country that could potentially thrive and become prosperous, what is holding it back is an extremely bad government.







