Botswana;More economic freedom then France,Germany

And the winner for biggest non-sequitur is...caddawyk!!!

Um, I notice the thing being measured is economic freedom, and not economic prosperity. I take it, then, that you believe that economic freedom and economic prosperity are irreconciliable goals?

 

Yes, but is the standard of living higher in Botswana than in France?

 

So when are you moving to Singapore?

 

Are you kidding, this is brilliant, what he is saying is that standard of living is not necessarily correlated with economic freedom. He has just disproved a large chunk of conservative dogma that the economically freer you are, the better off you are. I've said it before, and I'll say it again, economic well-being and growth is tied more to recognition and protection of private property rights. As long as you are sure that your property will not be nationalized and that titles will be honored in a court of law and any judgements will be enforced, the rest is just a bump in the road.

 

Other interesting rankings (taken from the UN's Human Development Report 2004)


Folks in Botswana live to an average age of 41.4! Wow, that's old
(Compared to "socialist" Sweden's age 80)

Also, they make an average of almost $8200 a year.
You'd be a millionaire quicker than they can build a baseball stadium in Texas.
(Though, not terrible for Africa, compare to "socialist" Norway's $36,600)


Penarol1916 is right. If anything, this shows that economic freedom, or lack thereof, is not determinative of a country's actual standard of living.

 

yeah lets compare standard of living. see where those socialist scandanavian countries rank... see where the US ranks...

 

You need to look at how this came about. When African countrys were defaulting on their payments to western banks the IMF & World Bank came in and as part of the deal for restructuring loans neo-liberal economic policy was part of the deal in the form of structural adjustment programs. Now Milton Friedman has come out recently and said that his advice of liberalize, liberalize, liberalize was a poor solution for developing countires, he admitted to being wrong. Two reasons for this are the lack of basic infrastructure and wealth in the first place, and secondly and very interesting from an economic/political theory point of view is the lack of rule of law. Infrastructure such as electricity and water is not easily built in a laissez faire economy much less in an extremely poor one.
Further the rule of law is no better than under the original post-colonial African "crony capitalism" which was extremely corrupt oligarchy and not conducive to economic prosperity (except for the few).

So in conclusion you can hardly say this confutes "neo-liberal" economics, rather that it helps to have fundamental infrastructure and NEEDS rule of law in place in order to thrive as is the case in Singapore, USA, UK et al.

 

All things being equal, in a western society with rule of law the more economic freedom the more prosperous the society. This is a no-brainer.
Looking at similar countries: France and Germanys economys are fvcked, the UK and Irelands are doing well, it's common knowledge that over regulation is the major factor, as these are all in the EU free trade zone buisnesses move where they can be left alone most.

 

Well duh. This is more about making fun of this idiot who points out this poll as actually having meaning. You and most economists still fail to account how "socialist" Scandinavian countries have managed to continually do better than more liberalized economies in general. What is it about them that makes things not equal.

 

OK, I can't be bothered to get in depth but what I'll say is that firstly I refer you to my other post for the point that economic freedom is no panacea it needs other factors and as you rightly point out is not a directly proportional measure of wealth.
Secondly regarding Scandinavia, and here's where I'll have to be rather terse, the multitude of factors for this seeming "contradiction" are not easily discerned in their relevance. What we can do is firstly disregard as case studies nations with bountifull essential natural resources such as oil & gas (Norway) which has an enourmous effect on wealth, such examples belie what effect economic liberalisation or lack thereof have. So lets take the obvious, Sweden I posit that the relatively small populous has a beneficial effect on "socialist" programs in that as the size of a system increases the waste does so as well (at a higher rate). As with all bureaucracy, as size increases it wastes more (another reason for Swedens general government efficiency). Sooo there is my answer to that. But this is a lesser factor when compared with actual government interference with enterprise (which is where economic growth is smothered), how easy is it to start up a buisness? How many regulations do you have to comply with? How unionized is the workforce? What sort of worker benefits are legislated by law? These are more important questions when it comes to productivity of a nation. Now I don't know much about the details in Sweden but I venture a guess that they are as an abstract whole, less prohibitive than Germany and France.

Anyway that's a basic rundown of my opinion.

 

A good article on this: http://www.hooverdigest.org/012/pipes.html

Property rights are the basis of not only economic prosperity but freedom. They are as John Locke and other erudite peoples of the time explained are also well grounded in natural law, they are irrefutably the basis of a free and just society.

This can be circumvented and subverted though in the name of "the common good", statism as a philosophy is ungodly, immoral, nonsensical and absurd.

 

After four more years of George Bush we'll be living like Botswanans. That's a real selling point. Bravo!

 

Market Reform: Lessons from New Zealand:
http://www.policyreview.org/apr03/darwall.html

Empirical evidence of how small government works. Good job NZ

 

Well hyperbole aside, George Bush is no free-market small government president so yeah things will get worse (Kerry and boyfreind not the answer).

 

In another thread you wrote something that strongly suggests you're a very committed Christian.

What can you tell us about the Biblical concept of the jubilee?

 

Er actually having been to both countries a number of times id rather live in Botswana. Much more friendly, and at the moment one of the most stable countries (both economically and politically) in Africa. The weather is super and Germany is very boring.

The major reason why Botswana is surprisingly high on this table is their safari business. Their policy is high value, low density tourism. Since Zimbabwe's tourist market has gone down the drain, Botswana (next door for those who don't know geography) has taken over. Their tourism ministry has doubled the amount of safari camps in the Okavanga Delta and Chobe, making it a very attractive business proposition for ex Zimbabwe safari guides, hunters e.t.c Many South Africans have moved north too. This has of course led to increased demand for luxury foods, vehicles, small aircraft, luxury electrical goods and of course employment amoungst the local population has risen nearly an eighth in the past 4 years. This has led to the country finally being able to do something about the horrific AIDS figures. The drugs are now becoming available and the country is looking in much better shape than it was even 5 years ago.

 

Bullshit. The rest of your post describes why you would rather vacation in Botswana. But if somebody were to stick a gun to your head and tell you were going to spend the rest of your life in one of the two countries, you'd get yer ass to Germany quicker than I can say weisbier.

 

Er actually as you know nothing about me or quite obviously Botswana, id keep quite if I was you. But as you haven't.....

I actually own a house in Zimbabwe, and have many friends and some family over in southern Africa. Therefore I know what the situation is like in Botswana to both live and work. It's a beautiful country with a very laid back style of living. Germany on the other hand, like most EU countries has many restrictions on opening businesses, is a rushed way of life and is generally not an interesting country. If you ever manage to shake off your stupid pre-conceptions of Africa, maybe you'll go there someday. On second thoughts don't bother, you'd spoil it for everyone already there.

 

It's called a "vacation cottage." I have one in El Salvador.

But you have forced me to restate my opinion. If, indeed, you are a foreigner with money already in the bank, then I'm sure Botswana is a splendid place to live. Especially considering all that cheap labor and property. But I don't think that's what El Jefe's point was.

But don't suggest that Botswana offers a standard of living desirable or even comparable to Germany's. Some stats for you:

Life Expectancy: 30
Population below poverty line: 47%
Unemployment rate: 40%
Infant mortality rate: 69.98 deaths/1,000 live births

 

It's funny how some people don't stop for a minute and actually think that just maybe some other people have a different opinion than their own and that neither have to be wrong.
You replied to a general comment I was making about Botswana showing how and why it is on the up in terms of economic recovery. I was 'adding to the debate' so to speak and was making no insulting comment to anyone. Your first word in response to my post was '****************'. Does it make you feel big to insult those who just happen to have a different opinion than you?

Foreigner to whom? Im English. Many people from this country (and yours in fact) own property in Southern Africa and live there making a living. As I suspect your dismissel of Botswana as nothing but a holiday retreat shows your ignorance for a country that has one of the highest populations of Asians and Whites after South Africa. (And before you start on some P.C. bull, in Africa this is a well used measure of future prospects)

And as for your little stats. Grow up. Do you really think anyone is ignorant to African Aids and mortality rates? Botswana has what is estimated to be the highest Aids rate in sub saharan Africa. Unfortunatly it is near impossible to be precise as there are only testing centres in the towns of Kasane, Maun, Francistown and 2 in the capital, Gaborone. Before the ecomomy got completly revitalised the education of Aids was poor, there was no accsess to expensive drugs and the government was led by Christian do-gooders who try to put off people from using contraception. Yet now, Botswana is able to afford so much more. The drugs are being delivered to rural area's and the kids are getting hospital treatment for minor ailments that in the past would of killed them. That is what a developing country is all about. This thread started with a post about how Botswana has more economic freedom than several EU countries. I posted to show how really that is not that unusual amoungst developing countries that are finally going somewhere. It won't happen overnight, but Botswana has a lot of hope. And yes, id much rather live there than Germany, and if you ever bothered to get off your arse and find out first hand instead of quoting stats that are blatently obvious, so would you.
As for my 'vacation home', no you are wrong. I'll state again - many friends nd some family who live there, were born there and hold Zimbabwe passports because they are Zimbabwean.

 

Meanwhile on the UN's 'development-index'.... dumbass.

 

The standard of living in Botswana has nothing to do with your opinion. To suggest so smacks of post-colonial paternalism.

No, I was replying to your specific comment that Botswana offered a more desirable standard of living than Germany. I actually agree with you about Botswana's economic recovery.

The term "bullshit effectively and expressively summed up my feelings about your opinion that Botswana offers a more desirable standard of living than Germany. Don't take it personally. I'm sure you're a great guy and I would love to go on a Safari hunt with you and bang hot Zimbabwe chicks in your house afterwards.

I have a pretty good idea- I lived and worked in Central America for five years.

Again, your opinion as a white, monied foreigner on the swell standard of living in Botswana is irrelevant. Your experience is very much a minority one. It has absolutely nothing to do with the ridiculous premise of this thread, which is that Botswana's economic policies make it a better society than Germany.

 

I know Ruth Richardson, she is quite an impressive lady, and she is none to pleased with what is going on in New Zealand now, in the past two years it has undergone an immense slump, due primarily to two factors, the world downturn, and continued protectionism by so-called free economies around the world that do not practice what they preach. It is not that great a lesson if it you look at it right now.

In regards to your other article posting, if you are going to use a Hoover fellow's article on this subject why not go to the master- Douglas North, his writing is much more clear and concise and more on this point. Might I suggest you read: Institutions, Institutional Change, and Economic Performance from the Cambridge University Press. For a much better explanation of the performance of Scandinavian economies than what you provided, might I suggest this: http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/lindertpaper.pdf
Which is entitled: Why the Welfare State Looks like a Free Lunch.