Mutumwa Mawere

The idea of empowering the people to empower Africa is a good idea given like minded stewards tending to the cause. While the people are ultimately responsible for their future, in Africa it is hard to disassociate politics and the negative power it exudes, hence the effect it has on the individuals affected on a macro and micro scale.

It is my assumption that is the discussions I read on this forum weekly, one of the goals is to bring ideas together. That is a good thing, the hope then is that fruitfulness will stem from the efforts made here.

It is high time Africans in general relied on each other and not just on the few at the top but most of all, Africa needs to stop relying on help from elsewhere. Success will come from within and therefore the fight that was won by the likes of Miko can be replicated and emulated in different areas of society bringing forth a better Africa.

I was listening to an African born finance expert and author earlier today. She has a new book out that discusses aid and how it has done little to help Africa. She discussed how thinking from the standpoint of self reliance would be better for Africa. Africa is rich...

May I suggest a book club where books that are relevant to current affairs are shared in the AHS membership or on this forum? Books that are enlightening and broaden thoughts...

Here's one suggestion: Dead Aid by Dambisa Moyo, a Zambian born woman with some interesting thoughts.
www.dambisamoyo.org/deadaid.html

My first contribution relates to attributions that successful people in Africa thrive through political ties. A lot of successful African entrepreneurs have fallen prey to this allegation. If we consider the whole story critically, people would really be tempted to draw such conclusions because African governments make it generally difficult to succeed without some sort of support for their own political ideologies. More bluntly, state actors wield a certain measure of power, if not the whole of it, in the allocation of resources, and being in their circles carry certain advantages (e.g. preferential treatment or being privy to certain information etc). We tend to have very few examples of such iconic business people, so people would rather treat the exceptional few, feeding from the troughs of political patronage.

Disentangled from colonial dominance, the independence era was strewn with a culture of promising people that the government will look after them, which governments generally did not conceive of any immediate role of the private sector in preparing and advancing alternative solutions to a nation's problems. Governments continue to play provider with dismal results, and still stifle entrepreneurial flair with poor policies and promoting unyielding operational environments. The fact of the matter is that government policies play a critical role in creating an enabling environment for people to exercise their faculty without fear or hesitation or being subjected to any form of discrimination. We will continue to count the few who fight the odds and become prolific achievers as long as we allow certain retrogressive policies and legislative boundaries to survive in our society.

Regarding the issue of nationality and economic participation, it can be argued that SA took a somewhat protectionist approach, perhaps informed by an admittance that local back Africans where not only at a disadvantage against the whites, but also against blacks from other African countries who had relatively superior educational backgrounds. However, the SA economy is the one that has dominated the continent with regards to economic advancement, thereby becoming a preferred destination for Africans of virtually all walks of life. With an apparent skills deficiency in SA, employers were left with little choice but to engage expatriates. The government of SA felt like it was unfairly bearing the brunt of failed economic policies in other African countries, thus it took a defensive position.

Here are a few questions that I would pose:
Is a government right in preserving opportunities for its citizens? How effective have been such African blocs like SADC and Comesa, among others, in creating economic opportunities? How sustainable have been the forms of government adopted by African politicians? Is there any space for a model African politician? What limits should be recognized in protectionism policies in terms of economic skills acquisition?

www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=13216025

mutumwa yu have said it ryt

""We are all human and as we wait for our turn to exit, we must be reminded that no amount of wealth or power can extend life and yet in the final analysis what it all boils down to is not the amount of money you make when alive but your actions in being the change that you want to see"

NHodges

I believe sharing literature ideas would make a lot of sense. My initial contribution, directed at anyone who wants probably the most comprehensive, well thought out, and insightful views on the world we live in are

1. Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy by J.A Schumpeter. By a wide margin the best book on the three issues available today, written by the most erudite scholar of entrepreneurship and economic sociology that ever wrote anything down
2. The road to Serfdom by F. A Hayek. Probably the best "political book" one will come across, with an excellent bibliography

The dynamics of human development are clouded in myths and half truths and a constant belief that the world cannot change. And unfortunately Africa has been caught in this world view as people believe that they cannot change their existence. In comes the most revered philosophy of the 19th century, the existentialist movement that totally repudiates these defeatist dogmas and locates the individual as the locus and focus on which the world changes- and our experience of the world changes. Miko for Africa represented this movement… I believe he is the pioneer of the romantic philolosphers in Africa as he debunks all notions of race, citizenship, empowerment and creed.

In trying to understand entrepreneurship, given the case of Miko, its foolhardy then to look at the demand side of entrepreneurship. This is the mistake a lot of governments in Africa are making, that is if we legislate affirmative action all of a sudden entrepreneurs will appear. Quite contrary- in simple terms for example, some people are more risk takers than others regardless of the prevailing conditions. If anything governments should clone Miko’s psyche – and fertilise the corners of Africa with this breed.

As for Books to read I agree with Oracle on his first book. But with a caveat- schumpeter’s better writings are contained in his journal articles.
As of the second book- its hardly the best political book around, nonetheless a good read. Most of the thoughts are borrowed from Ludwig von Mises and Austrian school of thought. The best political book around is Karl Popper “ the open society and its enemies” this seminal work is clearly a must read for any serious understanding of politics….premised on debunking the whole theory of Plato’s republic- and historicism.
Dead Aid is a good book but in need of further revisions. The entreprenuer has to be the centre of any development

Sage

1. Unfortunately, Schumpeters Journal articles and his more technical texts, whilst containing more meat, may prove to be on the heavy side for the non-technical reader. C.S.D was written specifically for a broad audience
2. Hayeks writing was very much a seperate construction to that of Mises. Despite being a student of Mises, what is written in T.R.S is largely influenced by the thought of Edmund Burke, Lord Acton, De Tocqueville, Von Humboldt, Lionell Robbins etc. You will probably find the only reference to Mises in a footnote.
3. The problem with Popper is that he centers too much of his arguement around economics, whilst having an unfortunately poor grasp of the subject (he was a philosopher of the mechanical sort of science). He goes as far as to attempt to justify the labour theory of value propagated by Karl Marx (debunked before my grandparents were born). But his critical failing is that he fails to see the conflict between individual freedom and economic interventionism, two policies he purpots to champion but which are in many cases mutually exclusive. His thought reflects the mindset of the "intellectuals", eg Bertrand Russel, which was very much standing in awe of the now long ridiculed Keynesian fables. However, if you remove the economic and sociological analysis, the philosophical residue left is still worth reading; I have both volumes in my library.

Oracle

With regards to Hayek, the following might be useful , (Walter Block- hayek's road to serfdom) The views expressed in this book are fundamental in us understanding the consequences of socialist/central planning spews. But as can be read in the article above, he falls short of totally enouncing libertarian views. But we cannot in all honest prove that indeed a libertarian society is the best society we can live under. The jury is out- and Schumpeter does identify the apt demise of capitalism as a social system. Which by the way I believe he was wrong, the rise of capitalism will be just as fatuous as the fall of tyranny in recent decades. Fatuous because it will not be the intention e.g the failure of a totalitarian state in Zimbabwe has totally burnt to ashes any beliefs of communistic leanings- notice how Zimbabwe now has a multi-currency state-which by all intents is the most liberal of monetary systems in the world ever. In time, One can easily have 5 different credit cards denominated in 5 different currencies. It does away with any exchange rate gains any company could have enjoyed and places any firm growth to production. Because of the dire consequences of not only interventionist but total takeover of the economy by Gono, the public mood is that the central bank should be highly limited…..unintentionally we get on the road to Utopia.

As for Popper, maybe you missed the text- which I will admit is a bit daunting for the average reader but the notes should have shed to light his better argument. He argues vehemently indeed more than any philosopher the dangers of Plato’s philosophy, Hegel and Marx assumptions and all contexts of the roman governance. Popper argues in the most erudite of ways that it does not matter how you choose political leadership- as any leadership regardless will always want more power than less of, it is more important that we create structures that limit the excesses of power. Indeed any libertarian will cry interventionist instead of understanding the premise in which he comes to this conclusion. As for Keynesian thoughts- i worry a lot that many politicians eager to push their agendas have muddied this great economist who ever lived!

Oracle

1. There is nothing like good ideas or bad ideas- you and i have not the right to determine. What we can do is expose and refute ideas in terms of the truths inherent in the idea, and even this is contentious depending on which school you belong to, classical imperialism or classical rationalism. Mind you a society is different from a school of thought.
2. ummmm
3.off course income tax was 2%, the printing machine was hard at work at the time in America/Britain.
4. i fail to see how you can disagree with Popper. The alternative is tyranny So?
5. yes Britney is silly, and to equate this with Keynes is daylight murder

Oracle

1. The reason I provided that reference its because it’s a journal article from the libertarian society about Hayek, I used this to back my earlier opinion about Hayek short-comings which still stand. I am mindful that this is a brilliant book and the thoughts better enouncing the folly of central planning. But that hardly recommends it as the best political book, quite contrary. Its like trying to feed a kid candy for dinner- its sweet to the tongue but hardly useful as a nutrient.
2. Your assertions about the current state of the world, and how then this precipitates the death of capitalism – reveals the type of scholar that you are, embedded in Historicism and unable to detach yourself from the world and look into the future and the patterns inherent. As a futurist I am concerned about certain patterns that are emerging and what the consequences would be. The rise in communist-central planning is etched in wrong assumptions, wrong methodologies and thus will result in wrong outcomes calamitous to the ground on which present government stands on. From this rubble, the entrepreneur shall rise and build the future. I highly recommend you watch Wall-E, and see the connection to what I am talking about. Thus your fait accompli is only as far as a drunken man can see. As for examples, Singapore, India and Panama come to mind, and of course I would like to add that libertarianism as a political and social system is different from capitalism as an economic system.
3. In my student days, the political book of note was Plato’s republic- this was a hand book for any serious political scientist/ philosopher- having travelled the world I then became aware of how almost every government espouses pseudo democratic tendencies and tyranny of sorts etched in misplaced notions of politics. Popper was the first in a line of philosophers who were equally appalled about the ground on which political systems are based- this ground was, he argued based on false assumptions/ illogical treatise which he located as the brain works of Plato, Hegel and Marx. His attack of Marx is built on Marx as a philosopher and not as an economist- his attack is to follow through Marx philosophical argument. He agrees in certain parts on the soundness of the logic presented- but refutes the core thesis. It might do you good to read the notes to understand the premise. For example- I could disagree totally with the thesis of your argument but agree on the logic of the argument. There is a reason why foot-notes are there. But in the case of Popper these are not simply footnotes but the very argument he posits in greater depth. Alas he makes the theoretical logical conclusion in his argument for a free society- and in the same breath acknowledges the impracticality of the theory. Being practical he believes that government will always be there- but the rise of the omnipotent government can be counteracted and indeed the destruction of the potency lies in institutions- built by the social engineer. I could go on but ….(NB throwing quotes all over the place proves nothing but childish visions of grandeur and little understand of the text- every dog, the saying goes can bark!)
4. I would have debated with you the nature of Keynes and why he is great- but your example of comparing him to Britney leaves me without a doubt that you have little knowledge of Keynes. So you win on that one!

Sage

1. Your so called “shortcomings about Hayek” referred to him being a parrot of Mises, which anyone who has actually read the book would know is false. Scroll through the index and see how many Misesian references there are if actually reading the book appears too challenging, and you will see that the foundation of your personal critique is baseless, and there is no way your claims “still stand”. Refer to my earlier post to see the authors who actually influenced the Road to Serfdom, most of whom are English, German, or French as opposed to Austrian.
2. My view has nothing to do with Historicism; my point is that the prediction of the current state of the world was made by Schumpeter in the 1930’s and has been ultimately proven right by contemporary developments. He has been vindicated by how the world has developed since he made his prediction; it was the future to him at the time of writing but is the past and present to us. Your original claim that he was wrong in his prediction is therefore without foundation, unless you intend to rewrite the history of the world since 1930 to now, as well as deny the current state of play as being none existent. We are referring to the current and prior state of affairs as conforming to what was predicted, and we certainly would be bordering on the ridiculous if we were to argue that despite the history of the past 80 years conforming to what was projected, we cannot accept the validity of that prediction because we think things will change in the future.
3. Referring to India as capitalist only shows that one is unaware that its government debt exceeds 58% of GDP (if you need a metric of the states involvement in the economy), or how infrastructure development is still largely the preserve of the state (despite attempts to bring in the private sector), and that India’s labor laws are amongst the most restrictive and complex in the world (read the 2008 world bank report on India). Similarly, referring to Singapore as capitalist highlights ignorance of the fact that government entities such as the sovereign wealth fund Temasek control corporations responsible for 60% of GDP. And in the same vein, classification of Panama as capitalist shows you are totally in the dark regarding the funding deficits of its social security fund and its position regarding agricultural tariffs. A list of facts the length of my arm could be submitted, but the point has been made. In future, a thorough knowledge of contemporaneous fact would aid you greatly before making such claims.
4. I am already aware of the Popper footnotes, I have read the text at least twice end to end and I can confirm that there are no additions/subtractions of any worth that change what is said in the text. “Throwing quotes” as you call it, simply shows that one has read the book, and from your arguments it is patently clear to anyone who has a copy that you are unfamiliar with it, despite trumpeting its praises. I challenge you to “throw a quote” regarding the footnotes you refer to if they exist (which I can guarantee they don’t). Perhaps you should actually read the book as opposed to someone’s summary/commentary of it on the internet, and we will then be able to take the discussion further.
5. It is not about winning arguments; it is about exposing assertions to the full light of critical review and analysis, based on facts and logical consistency. Where you have no facts or familiarity with the underlying argument, then you are right to concede defeat, as in this case.

Oracle

1. to answer this question, I ask you if Hayek’s thoughts are any different from the libertarian school. My follow up to this is that if any serious scholar of ideas wants to understand libertarian thoughts Hayek’s book is hardly the bible. And to dispute your claim I then directed to the libertarian society themselves to find out what they think. Now if the believers do not buy wholeheartedly into Hayek’s argument, how can the book become a serious contender in politics? At least Marx’s texts are highly revered by his followers!
2. As of Schumpeter- that he is a brilliant scholar and his book amongst the great is without doubt. But I worry about you and the logic of your thoughts. For one you accuse me of reading internet extracts- and yet on one hand you parrot internet frenzy on “prophet” Schumpeter and how he was right. Yet if you were a true scholar of ideas then you would know that being right his hardly the essence of brilliant ideas, whether in the past or the future. Schumpeter’s brilliancy is in capturing in our minds in the most erudite of way the essence of the entrepreneur in the capitalist system- branching away from the evolutionary thoughts of equilibrium to revolutionary thoughts of disequilibrium as the basis of economic growth.
3. my reference to the countries stands more firm than ever. If the 18th/19th century was the height of capitalism- if you may indulge how much of America did the state contribute in terms of GDP- do the same analysis for Britain. Whereas you simply want to focus on government debt levels as a percentage of GDP, admittedly no comparison is in sight with the 19th century America/Britain, but what might be useful for scholars is the monetary system based on the gold standard- where upon governments had a total monopoly in the money market but consequently near monopoly status in the goods market- (this differentiation was non-existent at the time). Invariably the state in todays’ parlance was heavily interventionist at best. This was the most restrictive monetary policy the folly of which ended through the marvellous work of one Keynes after 10 years of serious debate on this issue.
4. Anyone who has grasped Popper simply has to read my post. How different is your post from someone who has never read the book but randomly opens the book and the first quote they see informs their theory about the book. You need to own the passages and text and then explain in your words, for us to appreciate your understanding of the text.
5. Britney will sound silly in 50 years time compared to Beethoven. I am sure you got a laugh from this jib, and it may make you “popular” for using such anecdotes, but any serious scholar can see the folly of your words. It reveals how presumptuous you are and how your mind set is purely historicism. My question to you is, what if in 50 years time Britney does not sound stupid and is more popular than Beethoven then what does it say about your argument? This is again a classic case where I may agree with you that Britney might sound silly in 50 years time, but disagree with the logic, the logic used besides being highly desperate for further schooling and refinement is down right populist.

1. The libertarian society has absolutely nothing to do with the thoughts propagated by Hayek, besides similarity. The group of thinkers associated with Hayek (including, for your own information, Karl Popper) founded what was is called the Mont Pelerin society. The society you are talking about is a group started by random individuals with their own interpretation of the political question. There are many issues where Hayek differs with prior liberal thought (such as the issue of social welfare), and Edmund Burke/Lord Acton/De tocqueville are more reliable proxies of many of his ideas. You must also appreciate that the term libertarian is only a recent outgrowth, taken up after the corruption of the words liberal (and conservative)in American politics as socialists usurped that name to disguise the intention of their programs, which is why current democrats in america are refered to as liberals, when historically that name (going as far back as the Whig party in England and Gladstonian liberalism) refered to those who believed in personal freedom (note that these names originated in europe, and meant very different things to what they are made to mean today). Hayeks thought is therefore what is known as "classic liberalism". Also note that there is no such thing as "schools" in the social sciences, simply good ideas and bad ones.
2. I am yet to read a single review of Schumpeters work. I usually make up my own mind.
3. In the periods you refer to, (industrial revolution etc) government income taxes were in the region of 2% or less, and in many cases were seen as temporary measures during wars. You do the math.
4. The reason I disagree so strongly with Poppers ideas is that I believed them once myself, but thought long and hard about them. And as far as I remember, I have been reviewing the key points in my own words, with specific quotes to prove that I am not picking things from thin air.
5. Britney spears already sounds silly

Sage

1. It is folly to reference another mans critique of a text without presenting our own judgment. To make discussion intelligible, we would have to direct our arguments to the source and not the messenger, and given that we are unaware of the premises and reasons on which he makes his judgments, responding to an arbitrary fragment would be an exercise in futility. Your own analysis, reflecting an actual reading of the text by Hayek as opposed to the reading of a book review on the internet, would be more appreciated.
2. I cannot see how anyone, in an environment in which most of the worlds citizens commit half of their earnings to the state directly or indirectly via taxation, and banks are routinely nationalized en masse, whilst the tentacles of the state intervene in every aspect of the economy, and legislation is enacted that favors the bureaucratization of the firm as well as the marginalization of the shareholder, can claim that the prediction of capitalisms demise was wrong. That demise is essentially a fait accompli; 99 percent of world economies can safely be classified as interventionist or socialist, very few as capitalist (feel free to name three that aren’t capitalist in name alone or in tourist brochures)
3. The section in volume 2 of the open society by Karl Popper titled “Marx method” is an attempt to justify the Marxian message whilst decrying the application of it. One does not need to dig deep in the footnotes to see the internal contradiction of statements such as “If we wish freedom to be safeguarded, then we must demand that the policy of unlimited economic freedom be replaced by the planned economic interventionism of the state” (Quoted Verbatim from volume 2). The guy goes on to say, a few pages lower, “ But I wish to add here that economic interventionism, even the piecemeal methods advocated here, will tend to increase the power of the state. Interventionism is therefore extremely dangerous”. It appears he was aware of the fatal flaw that was inherent in his schema, namely the impossibility of limiting the power that the state can appropriate to itself in an interventionist society. He goes on to say “We thus see that there is not only a paradox of freedom but also a paradox of state planning. If we plan too much, if we give too much power to the state, then freedom will be lost, and that will be the end of planning”. It is obvious that in the real world, whether planning is too much or too little cannot be determined objectively and will be an arbitrary and subjective decision made by those in power i.e it will be one of political expediency and not of economic rationale. This vitiated the core of Poppers message, making it yet another utopian prescription whose shortcomings have been exposed in practice despite being easily predictable from the premises alone.
I agree that the book is daunting for the average reader; it is also daunting for those whose only reading of it is from summaries, book reviews, commentaries, and internet excerpts as opposed to the actual text.
4. Comparing Keynes to the true greats is like comparing Britney spears to Beethoven; she is more popular temporarily, but will simply sound silly 50 years hence. Keynes was a popular economist, but the repeated refutation of virtually ALL of his doctrines in theory and in practice is evidence that he generated much more heat than light.

Sage

1. All that exists in science are ideas that have been proved wrong and those that are yet to be proved wrong, hence the reference to good and bad ideas. What distinguishes science from theology etc is that a proposition called scientific can be falsified, whilst a metaphysical/theological one cannot. It is therefore in the power of any man to prove any idea as wrong conclusively if he has such falsifying facts or can demonstrate logical inconsistencies. The “school” mentality is a relic of the times when men used to gather around a single man and get taught all they knew by him, the way Aristotle or Confucius did it, and has no place in any discipline calling itself a science. All it does is provide blinkers to the unaware which forces them to uncritically accept the proposition of whatever “school” they believe they belong to. The wise man, however, takes whatever good ideas he comes across irrespective of the inclinations/biases/affiliations of their author, and discards bad ideas on the same principle. That is what makes him a scholar as distinct from a political party cadre, zealot, or Muppet. That is also why you have never heard of an Einstein school, a relativity school, Newtonian School etc. Also note that there is no such thing, unless you have just invented it, as a “classical imperialism school”.
2. My own reading of a text is a critique in itself, and in any event meaningful critiques of the core ideas of any scholar are in journal articles and not book reviews.
3. What printing presses are you talking about? The Bank of England only received a monopoly in the issuance of notes in 1844, prior to that private banks could issue their own notes. It was also a private business, and was only nationalized much later. More importantly, paper money was freely convertible to metallic currency (i.e. Gold) in much of the period you refer to, providing an obvious brake to any wild inflation (until they temporarily suspended convertibility) and limiting the extent to which any single entity could “print money”. If you were familiar with the history of monetary controversies over the past 300 years, you would know that the main reason the gold standard was opposed was because it was not amenable to manipulation by governments vi-a-vis playing with the money supply, as no government can “print gold”. Again, familiarity with actual facts as opposed to conjecture could have cleared this up for you.
4. The alternative to Popper is Individual economic responsibility and Freedom

Oracle


i get confused at times with your accusations, i refer you to journal articles and you attack my reference, only to come back and claim the only critique of any scholar is in journal articles. In another breath you claim to be a scholar of social science only to then refute my schools of thought analysis with "scientist text" claiming there is no such thing as imperialism when if you had actually read and understood Popper and falsifiable logic then you would appreciate the schools of thoughts. Using the logic of falsifiable cause Popper attacks Marx thoughts as purely " religious views" and thus stuck in historicism prophecies which if they turn out to be untrue the followers use classical rationalism to justify purity of the idea. Popper debunked Marxism firstly as un falsifiable and also unable to stand any rational analysis. Thus again from your posts i am led to believe you simply quoted Popper out of context with little understanding of his ideas.

Then you express total ignorance of the history of money- but to claim credibility quote 1844 monopolisation of money printing by BOE but do not explain why, and to show greater understanding the reason why BOE was founded. I suggest you understand the crisis that occurred after the English revolution and the developments that occurred circa 1650-1750 in monetary policy and effectively government's ability to print money worse than what Gono has done in recent times.

In truth i fail to see how you are a student of ideas. Indeed you may not be a party cadre but a muppet is not too far off.

Sage

1. I simply said Journal articles may be too heavy for the casual reader, which I am not. At no point did I say journal articles are taboo, a point which you can easily confirm by re-reading what I said. I even went so far as to highlight that most of the substance is contained in the more technical texts and the journal articles. When a man is drowning in the quicksand of false ideas, trying to stay afloat through false accusations only serves to quicken the descent. The confusion on your part is therefore perfectly understandable; intellectual debate is clearly foreign to you.
2. I said there is no such thing as a “classical imperialism school”, unless this is a recent creation by yourself. In addition, Poppers falsifiability criterion was not intended to be applied to “schools”, it is applicable to theories/hypothesis/conjectures which need not be part of any elaborate schema. One does not have to belong to a “classical school” or “Keynesian school” to believe in the postulate of supply and demand, and it is such postulates which make up economic science.
3. The philosophy of Historicism is attributable to Hegel. Marx used this philosophy as part of his schema; what Popper did was to attempt to show that the historicist element (and a few others) was mistaken, whilst seeking justification for many of Marx’s other tenets. Far from trying to paint Marx as a knave, he actually sang his praises. Do not confuse criticism, which could actually represent an attempt to fine tune what you believe is largely correct, with “debunking”.
4. If anything, you are working as hard as possible to expose that you are unfamiliar with monetary history. Government never had a monopoly to print money prior to the granting of such to the Bank of England. The Bank was a private company incorporated to make a profit like any other business which itself issued notes in competition with other private banks, and advanced funds to the state via loans as opposed to “giving it banknotes to spend”. At no point was there hyperinflation in England; the highest UK inflation on record was 36% per annum due to the wars with France in 1800! And the reason why the bank of England received a monopoly in the printing of notes, via the Bank Charter act of 1844, was simply to restrict the powers of British Banks. And far from being intended as an avenue for wild government inflation, this act stated that all of the Bank of Englands notes were to be backed 100% by gold, except in financial crises. The act was flawed in itself, especially in its treatment of bank deposits, but that is another story for a different audience. As stated earlier, your unfamiliarity with historical fact leads you up yet another blind alley in an attempt to regain a credibility long lost to fictitious declarations.
5. Given the tone of arguments, which has now devolved into thinly veiled personal affronts and unsubstantiated historical fables, I believe this is the point at which Gentlemen should simply agree to disagree.

When we are talking about indigenization, we should talk about creation of new enterprises.

See article on

www.kufaragwenzi.blogspot.com

the debate above is good and useful.

I agree - the debate between Oracle and Sage is very enlightening and makes for interesting reading. Both very intellectual people.

The recent decline of foreign investment in Zimbabwe’s richly endowed minerals sector has been over determined by the country’s high-risk political environment. But this risk factor alone does not sufficiently account for the parlous and uneven fall in inward capital flows – or for the heightened activity of regional investors in the local industry in the 2000s. The erratic development of an indigenisation policy for the minerals sector is an important reflection of this broader trend. Recent policy and practice in mining starkly reflects government’s precarious capacity and equivocal will to pursue a transparent approach to indigenisation. It also points to the wider, profoundly negative consequences for the national economy, local communities and indigenous entrepreneurs, and raises questions around the options for State and civil society interventions aimed at leveraging greater local participation in the foreign-led sector. The collapse of key parts of the mining sector mirrors the collapse of the State’s own capacity to manage the economy. At the same time, the survival and expansion of some operations – dominated by South African players and including platinum, diamonds and some gold – reflects both a regional appetite for seizing opportunities emerging from crisis, and a corresponding capacity to mobilise political assets to diminish investment risk.
Is a new pattern of cross-border investment emerging? If so, who are the primary beneficiaries and what roles have governments in Zimbabwe and the region played in enabling the new dispensation? Are we seeing, in fact, a resurgence of intra-regional mining imperialism? I say no,we as a continent need to integrate and consolidate.... Yes we can like Mr Mawere said..