"I don’t see the economy collapsing" - Prof. Tony Hawkins
Violet: That’s what I wanted to ask you, is there such a thing as an ultimately collapsed economy because already so much is not functioning? You know the health sector, educational sector, food shortages and fuel shortages.
Tony Hawkins: Well there may well be I have never encountered one. I draw parallels between Zimbabwe today and say Mozambique in the early 1990s and at that time when you were in Maputo you could hear the artillery, the guns from not too far away and the taxi that picked you up from the airport stopped halfway from town because it had run out of petrol and so on. But we haven’t gotten to those stages yet and the Mozambican economy never collapsed. It continued and I tend to use that as a parallel to say I don’t see the economy collapsing. More...
Article courtesy of Newzimbabwe.com
As aptly put by economist David Mupamhadzi, "Zimbabwe's economy has defied all conventional logic." - Financial Gazette, 28 June 2007.
Dave and your 1001 ilk,
You make the headlines again. Yesterday you asked me to "sit back and think" because everyone is against me and therefore I must be wrong. All of you who debated the economic collapse of Zimbabwe viciously attacked me. I stood my ground and refused to submit to your gang's weak and deceiving arguments about economic collapse. Now here is a confirmed Mugabe critic and renowned economist in the opposition camp who is on my side. And I think he is thinking clearly. People, let's face facts, bitter as they maybe to swallow.
4 comments:
There is a little book called "Economics in one lesson" by one Henry Hazli. Published in 1946. This 60 year old book explains exactly where Zim is heading.
Henry Hazlitt
Ha ha ha. Did you even bother reading the article you have posted. Other than his poor definition of the term collapsed which he laters admits to not having a definition for everything he says runs counter to what you have suggested in every single one of your posts to date.
Where can I begin I have so much ammunition I am overwhelmed.
First of all the definition of collapse is at issue. If a country has a GDP of US$1.00 has the economy collapsed? Here is a quote from your economist
"But you have to ask the question. How do you define collapse? When does the economy collapse? What examples do we have of a collapsed economy? Did the DRC economy ever collapse? Did the economy of Somalia ever collapse and so on? The answer is that African economies tend to grind on at very low levels of activity – subsistence levels of activity for long periods of time. It’s only when you get civil unrest or some kind of move of that kind or the government itself decides to change, either because the president or the cabinet or whatever loses the support of their followers or because there is some kind of radical shift in policy. It’s only when those things happen that you get a change in the situation otherwise it can drag on."
According to Tony Hawkins an economy can go from what Zimbabwe was in the 80s to subsistence levels and he would not consider it a collapse. In other words according to him there is no such thing as a collapsed economy only because an economy can always fall further as is the case with Zimbabwe. The very fact that he doesn't admit to any country's economy having collapsed means that he is not really presenting a fair argument. In Tony's world an economy cannot collapse therefore no matter how low Zimbabwe sinks the economy cannot collapse because such condition does not exist.
Unadjusted our dollar has gone from 10:1 with the US in 1995 to 4,000,000:US$1 in 2007 (Unadjusted, remember those 3, zeroes were removed). What percentage decline is that?? But it has not collapsed because we can still go to 10,000,000,000 : 1? That is illogical.
Your argument is basically arguing that you can never reach the bottom of a bottomless pit.
I realize that you are taking the word collapse litterally and not in it's economic sense. I shall give you the definition of economic collapse
"An economic collapse is a devastating breakdown of a national, regional, or territorial economy.
A full or near-full economic collapse is often quickly followed by months, years, or even decades of economic depression, social chaos, and civil unrest. Usually this is eventually corrected at least in part by recovery measures implemented by the government, although some economists (i.e. the Austrian School, in particular Ludwig von Mises) believe that often government intervention and over-regulation of the economy can lead to the conditions for collapse. The most obvious of these examples is the 1929 Stock Market Crash. During the 1980s, the Eastern Bloc experienced a decade-long period of stagnation, stagflation, and eventual collapse from which it never would recover, culminating with revolutions and the fall of communist regimes throughout Central and Eastern Europe and eventually in the Soviet Union."
For every article you produce denying the collapse based solely on a mistaken definition I can present another calling Zimbabwe's situation a collapse. See this article entitled
"Zimbabwe: Economic Collapse Worsens Food Crisis"
http://allafrica.com/stories/200706251044.html
Here is a quote from your Professor Hawkins from your last article
"And this is the point I have been trying to make; that the government for months has been paralyzed – remains paralyzed – it seems to believe by propaganda, by making statements about social contracts, threatening to use draconian price controls, by claiming that people have signed the social contract when in fact they haven’t and so on; that these announcements will somehow check the situation. There’s been no single sensible policy move to address the crisis. All there is - is talk and threats, the brain drain and the western illegal sanctions etc but nobody has actually turned around and said; “this is the policy, this is what we are going to do and we are going to do it.” Start doing it. Nothing has happened."
What he has described is exactly what you do, you talk about the illegal sanctions etc but you have no substantive policy that can be implemented that will help us move on.
There is a certain realm of things that are within our control as a nation, the actions of other countries is not within that realm, why should we focus on these issues instead of figuring out what we are going to do to succeed in spite of the actions of others. That is my main problem with you, you might be very bright and educated but you spend most of your time whining about things beyond our control or tearing down others like Mr. Mutambura whose ideas you think will not solve the problem. At least people like Arthur and Tsvangirai are willing to admit that there is a problem and are are actively trying to change our course. It is a shame that you don't agree that a drastic change is required. I would much rather attempt to achieve a goal and fail miserably than just blame everyone else about my situation while doing nothing to change it.
So what if the MDC fails, can it be any worse that failing under ZPF? Maybe....maybe not but at least we will have given ourselves a chance something we don't have under the current administration.
I also take issue with you saying this president was democratically elected, did you vote? Those of us in the diaspora could not vote even though it is us Zimbabweans outside supporting the country financially. There are over 3 million of us outside Zimbabwe who did not get to cast our ballots. Is that your idea of democracy? 3 million disenfranchised people is over 25% of our population of approximately 11 million and falling.
None of these Facts will have any influence on you I am sure but I will look forward to see how you respond to all of my posts.
P.S. If I insult anyone in my posts it is only because I am a cruel, insensitive, elitist capitalist, omnipotent, supercillious, egomaniacal, vainglorious, narcissistic pig who is not niggardly with my ideas. See I can insult myself too.
Post a Comment