3 ms·
Sounds like a pretty good argument that South Africa's previous regime should not have given up power.
by slavboj 3y ago
Sounds like a pretty good argument that South Africa's previous regime should not have given up power.
- benj111 3y agoIs it? Are you suggesting apartheid should have continued?
- dotancohen 3y agoSounds to me that he is arguing that sometimes, in fact, exchanging power for solving a problem is a worthy trade-off.
- chmod600 3y agoThe people could have a new government without buying into promises about "an efficient state-led economy".
- nine_k 3y agoThe previous South African regime was somewhat economically liberal, and that was good, But it was very politically oppressing based on race, and that was bad. Now it has reversed: the current regime is not racially oppressing, which is good, but it's not economically liberal, and the results are sad. Not nearly as bad as in Zimbabwe, but still could be much better. So far, a properly run free market has been showing the best results of all approaches tried by humanity. Any attempts at controlling economy against its laws ended up in really poor results. The market works best under self-governing regimes, like republics and constitutional monarchies, where the law is equal for everyone, and is enforced. It still performs reasonably well in visibly authoritarian conditions, like (prewar) Russia, Turkey, or Xi's China, where some amount of rule of law remains, and corruption does not run rampant. But the less efficiently run is the state (and efficiency correlates heavily with democratic regimes), the more the market deteriorates, and with it, does all economic prosperity. This only makes governmental inefficiency felt more heavily, the more prominent the corruption becomes, and the vicious circle continues. AFAICT this is what is happening in South Africa for last few years.