It’s amazing how often the word “unexpectedly” appears in the public discourse when it comes to government policy, e.g. “we provided free housing for poor people, but we still have a homeless problem”.
So this probably comes as unexpected news to those of the socialist persuasion, but to the rest of us, it’s as predictable as the dawn:
The prime minister of Sri Lanka, Ranil Wickremesinghe, declared in remarks to the nation’s parliament on Wednesday that its economy had “completely collapsed.”
The socialist country is facing the worst economic crisis in its modern history, prompting acute shortages of food, medicine, gasoline, natural gas, and other core goods since March. Lavish spending under the Rajapaksa dynasty’s rule coupled with socialist mismanagement of the economy, a “green” policy that banned chemical fertilizers and made the country reliant on food imports, and trade deals in which Sri Lanka took out predatory loans from China all contributed to the nation’s rapid decline.
Almost sounds like 2022 Murka, dunnit? But most importantly: is Sri Lanka running short of Tampax?
Honestly though, when you have no natural resources, and your primary exports are tea and Sri Lankans, you probably need to be a little more careful in how you run things.
Of course, Sri Lanka is no longer “Ceylon” (part of the terrible British Empire), so there’s that.
too many folks need to touch the hot stove to realize that doing so is dangerous. Unfortunately we get burned when these chowderheads learn that socialism doesn’t work. ever
JQ
Even intestinal parasites know enough to not kill the host. But not Socialists.
I can’t remember his name but it was years ago an economist or historian or somesuch made the “Olive” argument. Basically Socialist countries that can’t grow olives (Germany, Sweden) manage to survive because they moderate their Socialism with some level of pragmatism, whilst countries that CAN grow olives (Greece, Portugal) don’t and eventually collapse. With predictable shrieks about raycisssss.
I’m not sure most of the world wasn’t better off under the boot heel of ye olde British Empiah, but I doubt the Britain of today could manage such a feat, as the Britain of Disraeli did.
They could hardly do worse.
It is indeed a low bar
I remember reading some economist saying that the regions in Africa that had resources that could be dug out of the ground were more prone to revolution and other socialist problems than the regions that had to rely on trade with other countries. I would have thought Zimbabwe (where Rhodesia used to be) would have been in the second group, being the breadbasket of Africa as it was under PM Ian Smith, but Mugabe proved me wrong.
Food has to be grown in, and dug out of, the ground.
Rhodesia is still in the 1st Group.
re: Ceylon vs. Sri Lanka
Help me out here. Which was a haven for pedophiles? Ceylon, Sri Lanka, or both?
More now than under British rule, or less?
They obviously have other priorities then fiscal solvency.
I thought that was Thailand but I dunno because they sort of tourism doesn’t interest me at all. In fact, I want to avoid that sort of smut.
^ what he said.