This is a worthwhile thread.
Pity that posters can't refrain from top-posting, and too long lines.
My input is at the bottom.
---------
someone wrote:-

3. Evidence on the impact of land reform in Zimbabwe
A panel survey of resettlement households started in 1983 shows
clearly that resettled
households' well-being has improved dramatically over the past 20
years: imes as high;
see table 1).
The 70,000 households which have so far benefited from land
redistribution, represent
about 5% of the peasant farmer population, but produce between 15
and 20% of the
marketed output of maize and cotton, while also largely satisfying
their own food
consumption needs (Moyo, 1995).
Redistribution efforts so far (3.2 million ha) have had no
negative impact on large-scale
commercial farm output, given the extent of underutilization of
arable land in the large-
scale commercial farm sector.
---------

Well their are short term benefits in enabling families to employ
themselves in subsistance farming.
------
From those who know about southern african agriculture, I'm
interested in an opinion on the recent massive vegetable price
increases in south africa. I see no climatic reason for this.

Is this due to the murdering of the many afrikaans and portuguese
farmers ? Is it that much of vegetable production is on a smaller
scale than grain, and that the veg-farmers cannot amortise the
cost of a private army to protect them ?

So would this then be a 'leading indicator' ?

-- Chris Glur.

Increase in labour cost, increase in pesticide and fertilizer cost ......

As for the land reform contributing to economic growth ..... you call what's
happening in Zim growth and development?! Let me see:
Petrol price somthing like R70 a litre that's about U$10 a litre, que's for
food, no more electricity, agricultural production went through the floor
(there's hardly any left etc etc etc. THINK AGAIN!!!!

wrote in message
...
This is a worthwhile thread.
Pity that posters can't refrain from top-posting, and too long lines.
My input is at the bottom.
---------
someone wrote:-

3. Evidence on the impact of land reform in Zimbabwe
A panel survey of resettlement households started in 1983 shows
clearly that resettled
households' well-being has improved dramatically over the past 20
years: imes as high;
see table 1).
The 70,000 households which have so far benefited from land
redistribution, represent
about 5% of the peasant farmer population, but produce between 15
and 20% of the
marketed output of maize and cotton, while also largely satisfying
their own food
consumption needs (Moyo, 1995).
Redistribution efforts so far (3.2 million ha) have had no
negative impact on large-scale
commercial farm output, given the extent of underutilization of
arable land in the large-
scale commercial farm sector.
---------

Well their are short term benefits in enabling families to employ
themselves in subsistance farming.
------
From those who know about southern african agriculture, I'm
interested in an opinion on the recent massive vegetable price
increases in south africa. I see no climatic reason for this.

Is this due to the murdering of the many afrikaans and portuguese
farmers ? Is it that much of vegetable production is on a smaller
scale than grain, and that the veg-farmers cannot amortise the
cost of a private army to protect them ?

So would this then be a 'leading indicator' ?

-- Chris Glur.

wrote in message ...
This is a worthwhile thread.
Pity that posters can't refrain from top-posting, and too long lines.
My input is at the bottom.
---------
someone wrote:-

3. Evidence on the impact of land reform in Zimbabwe
A panel survey of resettlement households started in 1983 shows
clearly that resettled
households' well-being has improved dramatically over the past 20
years: imes as high;
see table 1).
The 70,000 households which have so far benefited from land
redistribution, represent
about 5% of the peasant farmer population, but produce between 15
and 20% of the
marketed output of maize and cotton, while also largely satisfying
their own food
consumption needs (Moyo, 1995).
Redistribution efforts so far (3.2 million ha) have had no
negative impact on large-scale
commercial farm output, given the extent of underutilization of
arable land in the large-
scale commercial farm sector.
---------

Well their are short term benefits in enabling families to employ
themselves in subsistance farming.
------
From those who know about southern african agriculture, I'm
interested in an opinion on the recent massive vegetable price
increases in south africa. I see no climatic reason for this.

Is this due to the murdering of the many afrikaans and portuguese
farmers ? Is it that much of vegetable production is on a smaller
scale than grain, and that the veg-farmers cannot amortise the
cost of a private army to protect them ?

So would this then be a 'leading indicator' ?

-- Chris Glur.

This threads a bit strange. The original report is using information
from pre 1995....ie the resettlements they are talking about were
voluntary, compensated at market rate and were legal. Such things were
written into the original Lancaster House agreement.

And then the whole argument explodes about what the racist dictator
Mugabe has been doing in the last two or three years.

So what´s everybody talking about ?

Tim Worstall

wrote in message ...

edit

From those who know about southern african agriculture, I'm
interested in an opinion on the recent massive vegetable price
increases in south africa. I see no climatic reason for this.

Is this due to the murdering of the many afrikaans and portuguese
farmers ? Is it that much of vegetable production is on a smaller
scale than grain, and that the veg-farmers cannot amortise the
cost of a private army to protect them ?

So would this then be a 'leading indicator' ?

-- Chris Glur.

Since the early 90's there has been approximately 1400 farm murders.
There are about 40 000 white commercial farmers in S.A. Furthermore
most of the farms affected are still functioning as commercial
enterprises and have not been occupied or redistributed.
The rise in food prices was the result of a) the devaluation of the
rand, commodities like food are bought and sold on a global market b)
ridiculously expensive fuel and high interest rates, which reduces
farmers profit margins consequently pushing some farmers out of the
industry and drives up prices and c) severe drought in the Limpopo
valley, Zimbabwe and Botswana.

It is a myth that white farmers in S.A. are under siege, they have
legitimate security concerns and are being targeted by _criminals_,
but there is no evidence which suggests that this is a planned and
directed campaign. The issue has been seized upon by opportunist
politicians (who care nothing for the farmers or their safety) as a
means to mobilize white support against the South African government.

Sarel S Marais
There's lots of whackos out there.

On 26 Apr 2003 09:14:42 GMT, wrote:

someone wrote:-

3. Evidence on the impact of land reform in Zimbabwe
A panel survey of resettlement households started in 1983 shows
clearly that resettled
households' well-being has improved dramatically over the past 20
years: imes as high;
see table 1).
The 70,000 households which have so far benefited from land
redistribution, represent
about 5% of the peasant farmer population, but produce between 15
and 20% of the
marketed output of maize and cotton, while also largely satisfying
their own food
consumption needs (Moyo, 1995).
Redistribution efforts so far (3.2 million ha) have had no
negative impact on large-scale
commercial farm output, given the extent of underutilization of
arable land in the large-
scale commercial farm sector.
---------

Well their are short term benefits in enabling families to employ
themselves in subsistance farming.

This is a rather dishonest comment, to say the least. Clearly Mr.
Glur wants us to believe that the short-term effects of violent,
uncompensated transfers of land from competent farmers to incompetent
thugs are somehow merely the long-term effects of orderly and
compensated transfers from larger to smaller competent farmers.

-- Roy L

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:42:52 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:

In Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, however, the post 1945 land reforms
are one of the pillars of both agricultural productivity and of their
now fully emerged democracy.

And they implemented land taxes at the same time, of course. Japan
has since abolished its land tax, and now suffers the inevitable
economic stagnation that results, while Taiwan and South Korea have
kept their land taxes, and consequently continue to post good economic
growth.

-- Roy L

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 21:41:43 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:

wrote:

On Sat, 26 Apr 2003 13:42:52 GMT, David Lloyd-Jones
wrote:

In Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, however, the post 1945 land reforms
are one of the pillars of both agricultural productivity and of their
now fully emerged democracy.

And they implemented land taxes at the same time, of course. Japan
has since abolished its land tax, and now suffers the inevitable
economic stagnation that results, while Taiwan and South Korea have
kept their land taxes, and consequently continue to post good economic
growth.

As usual you grossly overstate your case.

No. Overstating the case would be claiming that low or absent land
taxation wiped out the dinosaurs.

The land tax give-away is far
from the only damaging thing the LDP has done in the post-Tanaka -- or
perhaps post-Ikeda! -- years to undermine the Japanese economy.

That is definitely true. One reason I left Japan was that I couldn't
stand how blatant and accepted the exploitation of working people was:
welders squinting into the arc with no eye protection; window washers
hanging onto the outside of buildings with their other hand, with no
safety harness; no ear protection on road workers standing right next
to a screaming concrete cutter that had me wincing from 20 meters
away; thousands pretty, intelligent, and well-educated young girls
hired to do nothing but bow, serve tea, and submit to the unwelcome
sexual demands of executives; and the microscopic pens they were all
expected to raise their families in.

Imho you've nailed on of the evils, but only one of several equally
important.

The LDP has pursued many foolish, wicked, and destructive policies,
and the only thing that keeps Japan functioning is the long-suffering
Japanese worker. Place needs a revolution. But land, as usual, is
the key.

-- Roy L