Cost of Mugabe and Milošević and Castro

"Market-based steadiness pays.

Socialistic stupidity does not pay."

In fact, we have no examples of succesful market-based economies. The ones in the west are not free-market, demand and supply economies, but are highly regulated. State intervenes when it finds necesserry, as we have recently seen with Greenspam measures and "cash infusions" into borrowing financial markets. Agroculture is subsidesed, etc.
US actually tried true "free-market" economy and it almost ruined the society. It lead to Great Depression, that ended only when President Roosevelt introduced his "New Deal". Ever since we haven't seen completely market-based economy there. It was becoming more so in last few decades, especially with Bush Jr. in the White House. Predictably, there is a chaos, million plus home forclosures, decline in standard of living of average Joe, etc.
The only places that do have market-based economies are found mostly in Latin America, part of Africa and Asia.
Not that this kind of economy is making them any richer, save for few, obscenely wealthy.
Since Mr. Crawford is using a language that is probably at the level of the remaining British diplomats, I'll take the liberty to respond in the same way.

Market-based steadiness stupidity doesn't pay.
As Clinton would say "It's the economy, stupid"

How can you even print this? The man clearly identifies Kosovo as an independent state: "Serbia by contrast got on with more violence against Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo". That is contrary to Serbia's constitution. have you forgotten what coutnry you hail from, b92?

Crawford measures economic wealth only by the wealth of the richest elites. Cuban poor are far better off now than before the Triumph of the Revolution. The man is a scholar? Hardly.

Typical neoliberal, anti-middle class, and anti-labor propoganda from Crawford. Per capita GDP and GDP are almost worthless when determining quality of life for the middle class and poor. I drove through SE Arizona a couple of days ago, and even though this is America with the world's largest GDP, life sucks there. The people in SE Arizona are poor and will be poor, with no health care, no jobs, no education, and no future, other than joining the Army and going to Iraq. And America is full of counties like that. High per capita GDP just means the rich have so much money it looks like the whole country is doing well, even though the middle class is struggling just to survive. Crawford did not once mention the failure of the Western meritocracy. The rich are getting richer, passing their wealth to the offspring whether they deserve it or not, while the poor stay poor, regardless of how talented they may be. Education and health care matter much much more than GDP, and for the sake of Serbia's citizens, I hope Serbia focuses on social justice, not GDP.

"Montenegro and Kosovo have broken away - had Serbia developed to its natural potential they could be clamouring to stay with Serbia and share its success."

I think this comment sums up the shallowness of this analysis - Serbia is still a vastly more prosperous place to live than Kosovo... why aren't Albanians currently "clamouring to stay with Serbia" ?

Because, nationalism (Albanian, Croatian etc) still counts a LOT (not just Serbian).

Also, there is no mention of the impact of foreign governments in stiring that nationalism during Yugoslavia's disintergration. Proxy wars in the balkans are nothing new.

Finally, if the USA and the British systems of government/economy are so outstanding a model, (I am personally neutral here), I ask myself, why after nearly 10 years of absolute control by them has Kosovo gone BACKWARDS?

Can you please draw a graph of Kosovo from 1999 to 2008 vs Serbia?... that might be a little embarrasing, correct?

To CGac.
"To all leftists out here:If socialism is so good,why don`t move to North Korea ?"

One could also say:
If capitalisam is so good why don't you move to Haiti? one of the poorest countries in the world, no doubt.
You are forgeting that majority of countries today are capitalist economies. Very small percentage of them are developed.

Of course that I would rather live in capitalist Sweden, for example, then in North Korea.
Not only because of standard of living, but also personal rights and freedoms.
Standard of living isn't everything. There are many countries with weaker economies, that I would choose as preferred country of residence to say, Saudi Arabia, that has a good standard of living.
When it comes to former Yugoslavia, it had highest standard of living of all socialist countries at the time. And considerable rights and freedoms of citizens.
Even Article 143 "Verbal delict" was thrown out in 1982. It was a rough equivallent to "hate" laws that exist in many Western countries.
To me, should someone choose North Korea over Sweden just because it's socialist country, has very strange ideas, indeed.
And other way around, if someone had choosen some central American country lead by military junta, in charge of death squads, and in daily bussiness of disappearing its citizens that dare to think differently, over socialist Yugoslavia, has very strange ideas, indeed.
When it comes to economy, we have been hearing constantly that Yugoslavia's good standard of living was due to country's debt, living beyond means, etc.
But, Yugoslavian debt wasn't so big at all.
How is this measured? It's natural that country with bigger GDP can have more debt, in the same way that person with higher income can have more debt on his/hers credit card.
Person making 30,000 a year with debt of 20,000, is more in debt then peson with annual income of 100,000, with debt of 50,000.
In the first case debt/income ratio is at 66.66%, in second 50$.
Same applies to countries. Yugoslavia's debt/annual GDP ratio was at 32%. Even today with weakenedGDP (and same debt) Serbia's national debt/GDP is at 57.3% and that is with Kosovo included until debt is divided.
And GDP is much lower then it was, and there is still long way to go. What Mr. Crawford said
"In GDP per capita terms, Serbia is still struggling to match its economic position of 1991. "
This is very high, but not compared to US 69.7% ratio or Italy's 108%.
Given the figures I don't understand how was it that Yugoslavin standard of living was good due to country's debt (as they all want us to believe). One could rather conclude that Italians, for example are the ones that are living beyond their means, and enjoying standard of living that they did not deserve.
But, thanks to guys like Crawford the story appears to have some impact in Serbia. Yugoslavian high standard of living was all due to debt (not so in "market-based" economies, appearantly).
And poor standard of living today is all because of "socialist stupidity", etc.
Country of simmilar size but "market-based", could be exposed to crippling sanctions, and then later bombed inflicting demage of 150 - 180 billions of dollars without any drop in standard of living.
To me, it's a bit hard to swallow.
I wouldn't call it "market-based". "Magic-based" would be more appropriate.

Interesting article and as usual blaming the the victim from western point of view of cause.

West destroyed their country and every time Serbs try to go forward they were held back so that west can make them weaker in order to manipulate them better.

Yes, some of you will say playing victim again. No, just stating the fact. Whatever Serbs do is not good enough for west because they occupied serbs country and to keep serbs in check, they must make world hate them in order to control them- Familiar tactic.

Enough of this nonsense-let those people live in peace. Get of their back please. They will be fine without your "help".

Charles, there is no mention of the "stupidity" of US intervention in Iraq. Trillions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, the US taxpayer has been heavily burdened with debt, the consequent fiscal position in the US is impacting significantly on US GDP growth and monetary policy.No discernable increase of world oil supply has occurred, as the markets will adequately demonstrate.Socialist stupidity?More like racist,self serving Americans shooting themselves in the foot.On the other hand,we can look to China and see how they are going.Not too bad judging by their rates of growth and foreign currency reserves.

Crawford's graph is quite misleading, but also highlights many of the flaws in his arguments.

The blue line which I assume to be Slovenia shows that its economy was at the same level from 1995 to 2001. If Slovenia couldn't grow at this this consistant 3% per year how could he of expected Serbia to do so even without having sanctions and being bombed etc.

I agree totally with Mr.Crawford`s analysis.
Unfortunately social demagogy,the notion that the state is somehow obliged to give social benefits to the citizens from the cradle to the grave is in Serbia very popular.
What the business community in Serbia needs to create new jobs is a clear path forward to EU and NATO membership,political stability,straight talk to its citizens and not pre-election social demagogy,higher entrance age for retirement so the budgets will get out of its deficits and a consequent implementation of market economy rules. All this requires a change in the mentality of the people and stright talk of the politicians.
To all leftists out here:If socialism is so good,why don`t move to North Korea ?

By now it is clear that the celebrated Free Market economy is a fraud.
Example.
It has transformed the U.S. in a Socialist Country of the Multi-National Corporations.
The Government intervenes any time to bail out any of the corporations when they get into trouble due to their corruptions and mismanagements.
It is also an undisputable fact that in the West in general, the lower class is getting poorer and more insecure whilst their corporations live in their orgy of the Socialism among the reach.

Why even print this, next he'll draw three lines on a page and blame Putin for Americas rising petrol prices..........makes about as much sense. He also forget to mention Milosevic was reacting to a situation ie. the breakup of Yugoslavia caused by external forces...........yet still finds it easy to put all the blame fairly and squarely on Serbia. Again where is the editor from on this site, definitely not Serbian. I bet you guys voted DS:)

The US have had a very strong bias against Serbia.

As he says - Slovenia started the problem. The fact that they were able to escape the consequences is no credit to them.

What he does not say is the current US policy of insisting on independence for Kosovo is what has bought Serbia back to the point where Milosevic's party has a role - and the radical party too.

Instead of insisting on a properly negotiated internationally supported autonomy for Kosovo, the US has rewarded the mono-ethnic ambitions of the Albanians in Kosovo.

What he does not say is that Kosovo is a land occupied by Albanians who have been driving out Serbs for long before Milosevic.

Democratic forces within Serbia got rid of Milosevic but the US has not given the level of support to the democratic government that it gave to the nationalistic governments of Croatia, Bosnia and now the illegal Kosovo UDI.

Serbia in the last few years could have been supported but instead of responding positively the US still insists that Serbia is the problem.

In fact, the problem started with Slovenia, then Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo joined in. They were all part of the federation that they decided to break up - they are all responsible for what happened.

Still blaming Serbia suits the narrow line of 'goodie-baddie' thinking that is the intellectual height of US thinking.

On the other hand....

Serbia has been its own worse enemy. Instead of taking its case to the international community, it spends its time blaming everyone else. Milosevic was terrible in the way he dealt with international policy. He 'played clever' and so it is no surprise that he lost out badly (at Serbia's expense) - the international community do not take lightly to being treated like fools.

I hope that the next few months will not see a return to failed Milosevic policy - however, I think that is what the radicals have in mind.

Yugoslavia fell apart because the UK - among others - preferred to support secessionist republics above federal elections.

As for Slovenia: they nicely got on with cleansing their gypsies and Albanians after independence (Google on "erased"). They were no very free market either. Among the formerly communist states they were the slowest to privatise - and it worked out quite well for them.

The problem with Mugabe is that those whose opinion counts for him (the South-African Leaders) have until now refused to condemn his policies. Without this consent from his neighbours he would long ago have felt the pressure to behave.

The bad economic fate of Serbia and Cuba is more than anything else the product of an immmoral political weapon with the name boycott. The use of this weapon is the ultimate hate crime.

Typical neoliberal, anti-middle class, and anti-labor propoganda from Crawford. Per capita GDP and GDP are almost worthless when determining quality of life for the middle class and poor. I drove through SE Arizona a couple of days ago, and even though this is America with the world's largest GDP, life sucks there. The people in SE Arizona are poor and will be poor, with no health care, no jobs, no education, and no future, other than joining the Army and going to Iraq. And America is full of counties like that. High per capita GDP just means the rich have so much money it looks like the whole country is doing well, even though the middle class is struggling just to survive. Crawford did not once mention the failure of the Western meritocracy. The rich are getting richer, passing their wealth to the offspring whether they deserve it or not, while the poor stay poor, regardless of how talented they may be. Education and health care matter much much more than GDP, and for the sake of Serbia's citizens, I hope Serbia focuses on social justice, not GDP.

Interesting article and as usual blaming the the victim from western point of view of cause.

West destroyed their country and every time Serbs try to go forward they were held back so that west can make them weaker in order to manipulate them better.

Yes, some of you will say playing victim again. No, just stating the fact. Whatever Serbs do is not good enough for west because they occupied serbs country and to keep serbs in check, they must make world hate them in order to control them- Familiar tactic.

Enough of this nonsense-let those people live in peace. Get of their back please. They will be fine without your "help".

The US have had a very strong bias against Serbia.

As he says - Slovenia started the problem. The fact that they were able to escape the consequences is no credit to them.

What he does not say is the current US policy of insisting on independence for Kosovo is what has bought Serbia back to the point where Milosevic's party has a role - and the radical party too.

Instead of insisting on a properly negotiated internationally supported autonomy for Kosovo, the US has rewarded the mono-ethnic ambitions of the Albanians in Kosovo.

What he does not say is that Kosovo is a land occupied by Albanians who have been driving out Serbs for long before Milosevic.

Democratic forces within Serbia got rid of Milosevic but the US has not given the level of support to the democratic government that it gave to the nationalistic governments of Croatia, Bosnia and now the illegal Kosovo UDI.

Serbia in the last few years could have been supported but instead of responding positively the US still insists that Serbia is the problem.

In fact, the problem started with Slovenia, then Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo joined in. They were all part of the federation that they decided to break up - they are all responsible for what happened.

Still blaming Serbia suits the narrow line of 'goodie-baddie' thinking that is the intellectual height of US thinking.

On the other hand....

Serbia has been its own worse enemy. Instead of taking its case to the international community, it spends its time blaming everyone else. Milosevic was terrible in the way he dealt with international policy. He 'played clever' and so it is no surprise that he lost out badly (at Serbia's expense) - the international community do not take lightly to being treated like fools.

I hope that the next few months will not see a return to failed Milosevic policy - however, I think that is what the radicals have in mind.

"Market-based steadiness pays.

Socialistic stupidity does not pay."

In fact, we have no examples of succesful market-based economies. The ones in the west are not free-market, demand and supply economies, but are highly regulated. State intervenes when it finds necesserry, as we have recently seen with Greenspam measures and "cash infusions" into borrowing financial markets. Agroculture is subsidesed, etc.
US actually tried true "free-market" economy and it almost ruined the society. It lead to Great Depression, that ended only when President Roosevelt introduced his "New Deal". Ever since we haven't seen completely market-based economy there. It was becoming more so in last few decades, especially with Bush Jr. in the White House. Predictably, there is a chaos, million plus home forclosures, decline in standard of living of average Joe, etc.
The only places that do have market-based economies are found mostly in Latin America, part of Africa and Asia.
Not that this kind of economy is making them any richer, save for few, obscenely wealthy.
Since Mr. Crawford is using a language that is probably at the level of the remaining British diplomats, I'll take the liberty to respond in the same way.

Market-based steadiness stupidity doesn't pay.
As Clinton would say "It's the economy, stupid"

I agree totally with Mr.Crawford`s analysis.
Unfortunately social demagogy,the notion that the state is somehow obliged to give social benefits to the citizens from the cradle to the grave is in Serbia very popular.
What the business community in Serbia needs to create new jobs is a clear path forward to EU and NATO membership,political stability,straight talk to its citizens and not pre-election social demagogy,higher entrance age for retirement so the budgets will get out of its deficits and a consequent implementation of market economy rules. All this requires a change in the mentality of the people and stright talk of the politicians.
To all leftists out here:If socialism is so good,why don`t move to North Korea ?

Charles, there is no mention of the "stupidity" of US intervention in Iraq. Trillions of dollars have been spent in Iraq, the US taxpayer has been heavily burdened with debt, the consequent fiscal position in the US is impacting significantly on US GDP growth and monetary policy.No discernable increase of world oil supply has occurred, as the markets will adequately demonstrate.Socialist stupidity?More like racist,self serving Americans shooting themselves in the foot.On the other hand,we can look to China and see how they are going.Not too bad judging by their rates of growth and foreign currency reserves.

How can you even print this? The man clearly identifies Kosovo as an independent state: "Serbia by contrast got on with more violence against Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo". That is contrary to Serbia's constitution. have you forgotten what coutnry you hail from, b92?

Crawford measures economic wealth only by the wealth of the richest elites. Cuban poor are far better off now than before the Triumph of the Revolution. The man is a scholar? Hardly.

"Montenegro and Kosovo have broken away - had Serbia developed to its natural potential they could be clamouring to stay with Serbia and share its success."

I think this comment sums up the shallowness of this analysis - Serbia is still a vastly more prosperous place to live than Kosovo... why aren't Albanians currently "clamouring to stay with Serbia" ?

Because, nationalism (Albanian, Croatian etc) still counts a LOT (not just Serbian).

Also, there is no mention of the impact of foreign governments in stiring that nationalism during Yugoslavia's disintergration. Proxy wars in the balkans are nothing new.

Finally, if the USA and the British systems of government/economy are so outstanding a model, (I am personally neutral here), I ask myself, why after nearly 10 years of absolute control by them has Kosovo gone BACKWARDS?

Can you please draw a graph of Kosovo from 1999 to 2008 vs Serbia?... that might be a little embarrasing, correct?

To CGac.
"To all leftists out here:If socialism is so good,why don`t move to North Korea ?"

One could also say:
If capitalisam is so good why don't you move to Haiti? one of the poorest countries in the world, no doubt.
You are forgeting that majority of countries today are capitalist economies. Very small percentage of them are developed.

Of course that I would rather live in capitalist Sweden, for example, then in North Korea.
Not only because of standard of living, but also personal rights and freedoms.
Standard of living isn't everything. There are many countries with weaker economies, that I would choose as preferred country of residence to say, Saudi Arabia, that has a good standard of living.
When it comes to former Yugoslavia, it had highest standard of living of all socialist countries at the time. And considerable rights and freedoms of citizens.
Even Article 143 "Verbal delict" was thrown out in 1982. It was a rough equivallent to "hate" laws that exist in many Western countries.
To me, should someone choose North Korea over Sweden just because it's socialist country, has very strange ideas, indeed.
And other way around, if someone had choosen some central American country lead by military junta, in charge of death squads, and in daily bussiness of disappearing its citizens that dare to think differently, over socialist Yugoslavia, has very strange ideas, indeed.
When it comes to economy, we have been hearing constantly that Yugoslavia's good standard of living was due to country's debt, living beyond means, etc.
But, Yugoslavian debt wasn't so big at all.
How is this measured? It's natural that country with bigger GDP can have more debt, in the same way that person with higher income can have more debt on his/hers credit card.
Person making 30,000 a year with debt of 20,000, is more in debt then peson with annual income of 100,000, with debt of 50,000.
In the first case debt/income ratio is at 66.66%, in second 50$.
Same applies to countries. Yugoslavia's debt/annual GDP ratio was at 32%. Even today with weakenedGDP (and same debt) Serbia's national debt/GDP is at 57.3% and that is with Kosovo included until debt is divided.
And GDP is much lower then it was, and there is still long way to go. What Mr. Crawford said
"In GDP per capita terms, Serbia is still struggling to match its economic position of 1991. "
This is very high, but not compared to US 69.7% ratio or Italy's 108%.
Given the figures I don't understand how was it that Yugoslavin standard of living was good due to country's debt (as they all want us to believe). One could rather conclude that Italians, for example are the ones that are living beyond their means, and enjoying standard of living that they did not deserve.
But, thanks to guys like Crawford the story appears to have some impact in Serbia. Yugoslavian high standard of living was all due to debt (not so in "market-based" economies, appearantly).
And poor standard of living today is all because of "socialist stupidity", etc.
Country of simmilar size but "market-based", could be exposed to crippling sanctions, and then later bombed inflicting demage of 150 - 180 billions of dollars without any drop in standard of living.
To me, it's a bit hard to swallow.
I wouldn't call it "market-based". "Magic-based" would be more appropriate.

Crawford's graph is quite misleading, but also highlights many of the flaws in his arguments.

The blue line which I assume to be Slovenia shows that its economy was at the same level from 1995 to 2001. If Slovenia couldn't grow at this this consistant 3% per year how could he of expected Serbia to do so even without having sanctions and being bombed etc.

By now it is clear that the celebrated Free Market economy is a fraud.
Example.
It has transformed the U.S. in a Socialist Country of the Multi-National Corporations.
The Government intervenes any time to bail out any of the corporations when they get into trouble due to their corruptions and mismanagements.
It is also an undisputable fact that in the West in general, the lower class is getting poorer and more insecure whilst their corporations live in their orgy of the Socialism among the reach.

Why even print this, next he'll draw three lines on a page and blame Putin for Americas rising petrol prices..........makes about as much sense. He also forget to mention Milosevic was reacting to a situation ie. the breakup of Yugoslavia caused by external forces...........yet still finds it easy to put all the blame fairly and squarely on Serbia. Again where is the editor from on this site, definitely not Serbian. I bet you guys voted DS:)

Yugoslavia fell apart because the UK - among others - preferred to support secessionist republics above federal elections.

As for Slovenia: they nicely got on with cleansing their gypsies and Albanians after independence (Google on "erased"). They were no very free market either. Among the formerly communist states they were the slowest to privatise - and it worked out quite well for them.

The problem with Mugabe is that those whose opinion counts for him (the South-African Leaders) have until now refused to condemn his policies. Without this consent from his neighbours he would long ago have felt the pressure to behave.

The bad economic fate of Serbia and Cuba is more than anything else the product of an immmoral political weapon with the name boycott. The use of this weapon is the ultimate hate crime.