Author
|
Topic: Zimbabwe limits foreign ownership
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 March 2008 01:07 PM
BBC News quote: Zimbabwe's President Robert Mugabe has approved legislation giving local owners the right to take a majority share of foreign companies.Mr Mugabe's formal approval of the Indigenisation and Economic Empowerment Bill comes three weeks ahead of his country's presidential elections. Under the legislation, every company must have at least 51% of their shares owned by black Zimbabweans. If not, the government will block new investment, mergers or restructuring. The new law means some of the country's biggest businesses - such as the mining giant, Rio Tinto, and Barclays Bank - will have to find local partners.
Approximately 25 years late, but still the right direction.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 09 March 2008 01:40 PM
Who exactly would benefit from this?Zimbabweans who are in a position to pony up a 50% interest in investment projects, that's who. And if they happen to have close connections with Mugabe, well, hey: that's just an amazing coincidence.
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 March 2008 02:04 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
That second thing.
Have you noticed that all countries that try to limit foreign ownership tend to get characterized in the same way - incompetents, crooks, fanatics, etc.? I've noticed that for many years. The ones that welcome foreign control and IMF and World Bank guidance are considered as benevolent and rational. Zimbabwe's misery is largely based on having done nothing about land reform and economic self-empowerment for the first 20 years after their revolution. No one called them names then. South Africa appears to me to be following the same Western-blessed path as Zimbabwe did - pandering to foreign investment while unemployment, poverty, health crises, and crime run rampant. As long as they leave the foreign and white owners alone, no one will mind.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stephen Gordon
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4600
|
posted 09 March 2008 02:08 PM
quote: Originally posted by unionist: Zimbabwe's misery is largely based on having done nothing about land reform and economic self-empowerment for the first 20 years after their revolution.
I'd like to see a proper analysis that leads to this conclusion. eta: And how it suggests that the current proposal is a good idea. [ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
From: . | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
unionist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11323
|
posted 09 March 2008 02:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
I'd like to see a proper analysis that leads to this conclusion. eta: And how it suggests that the current proposal is a good idea.
I don't know whether the current proposal is a "good idea". Mugabe and his cronies have been dramatically short of "good ideas" for ensuring their country's progress, and they have substituted force for persuasion in their absence. That's why I said it was 25 years too late. But I still believe that political independence is essentially useless without economic self-empowerment. I'll look around for an analysis that confirms my view that Zimbabwe should have implemented land reform 20 years earlier than it did, and likewise for domestic control of the levers of the economy. Stay tuned.
From: Vote QS! | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fidel
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5594
|
posted 09 March 2008 05:55 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
eta: And how it suggests that the current proposal is a good idea.[ 09 March 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]
So why did the Yanks nix a Chinese company's bid to takeover 3Com? I thought foreign ownership was good, but apparently the U.S. doesn't practice what it preaches. Since convincing our own stoogeocrats to relax foreign ownership rules in Canada's energy sector and manufacturing, the U.S. still hasn't allowed one sector of its economy to be majarity foreign-owned and controlled. Meanwhile the Chinese have loaned Zimababwe $42 million to upgrade farm equipment. And Zimbabwe isn't the only African country in need of investement for basic infrastructure and social needs after years of tutelage from the west. Some comments have suggested that South Africans were actually better off economically under apartheid since Mbeki and advisors made like Margaret Thatcher.
From: Viva La Revolución | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|