I would love to invest in different countries in Africa especially in stocks and commodities. Im most interested in South Africa and Kenya but dont know how to get started. I bet a lot of guys in the diaspora would love to help our continent develop. I ran into an african investment website which had good info but still left me with some questions. If any of you have any expertise please elaborate.

link: http://www.investinginafrica.net/default.aspx

are you looking at investing in the equity markets like Johannesburg, Nairobi, Nigerian stock exchanges? There are various areas that are exploding right now for example.

I can confirm that in South Africa :-

construction, hotel and hospitality, property, retail, financial services, auto and telecommunications sectors (especially internet, mobile is done) are all experiencing a boom largely driven by the growing consumer demand (the exploding black middle class is mostly driving this), a $60 billion public sector investment program, 2010 FIFA World Cup. Other sectors are also benefiting from a spill-over effect.

Nigeria is definitely financial services, telecommunications, energy and real estate sectors would be my targets. Right now, i would be eying anyone who is investing in retail property like Malls etc. This is going to explode like crazy, so much so i am trying to convince some guys that we should be floating a listed property fund in SA just to focus on retail and commercial property market in West Africa. I am planning on getting some serious cash and big name players in this. I am just filling you in on my own observations of Southern and Western Africa. As for East Africa (Kenya), i would rather leave it up to the other guys to do as i am not too familiar with that part of Africa.

Ghana's hotels are fully booked all year round and yet they charge a steep $200 per night. I was so surprised when i saw that. So there you have it.

Thanks Kulani :) That was some helpful information and South Africa and Nigeria look very promising. I will probably invest mostly in commodities and stocks and I like Kenya as an investment destination for me. I'm more familiar with them because I know of so many Kenyans. I think agriculture is very important because the continent needs a green revolution. Things are looking up for the continent and we all should invest before the last true frontier of global investment gets token over by westerners. :cheers:

The Kenyan market is also booming:the agricultural sector,financial sector, industrial sector, telecommunications, tourism, energy are all doing very well due to the upswing of the economy. The stock market is also being driven by the privatization of several large profitable government parastatals and an increase in consumer spending in the country.

Right now, everyone is eyeing the telecommunications sector and especially the listing of East Africa's largest mobile phone company-Safaricom in what is likely to be one of Africa's largest initial public offering. It will definitely be the largest IPO in East Africa's history.

As for the other East African countries, the Ugandan securities exchange and Dar es salaam stock exchange are also performing very well (among the best performing in Africa). A good number of companies on these two exchanges have been cross-listed from the Nairobi stock exchange and it is palnned that all three stock exchanges will be merged to form an East African stock exchange. In Uganda, the leading company trading on the exchange appears to be Stanbic Bank (representative of Standard Bank of S.A.). Rwanda is expected to start a stock exchange soon.

I know it may sound crazy, but I think Zimbabwe may also be a good market to invest in. Some analysts say its among the best markets to invest in the world. I also think that its the best time to pick shares in companies there while their prices are still low. It will be a windfall later when the economy picks up. Read the article below.


Zimbabwe: Best Performing Stock Market in 2007?
By John Paul Koning
Posted on 4/10/2007

CNBC and other stock market tabloids are notorious for making simplistic linkages between the stock market and gross domestic product (GDP). They tell us that any event that stimulates GDP growth inevitably drives stock prices up, and any event that hurts GDP growth pushes stocks down.

Since the largest share of GDP is consumption, consumer demand becomes the all-important figure driving growth. When the consumer gets too excited, the Fed must step in to cool them down with interest-rate hikes. When the consumer isn't spending, Fed interest-rate cuts stimulate demand.

The tragedy currently occurring in Zimbabwe completely contradicts this sort of logic. Zimbabwe is in the middle of an economic disintegration, with GDP declining for the seventh consecutive year, half what it was in 2000. Ever since President Mugabe's disastrous land-reform campaign (an entire article in itself), the country's farming, tourism, and gold sectors have collapsed. Unemployment is said to be near 80%.

Yet something odd is happening.

The Zimbabwe Stock Exchange (the ZSE) is the best performing stock exchange in the world, the key Zimbabwe Industrials Index up some 595% since the beginning of the year and 12,000% over twelve months. This jump in share prices is far in excess of increases in consumer prices. While the country is crumbling, the Zimbabwean share speculator is keeping up much better than the typical Zimbabwean on the street.


CNBC logic fails to explain the coincidence of a rising ZSE and collapsing GDP because it entirely ignores the monetary side of the economy. At this point Austrian economics makes its contribution to our story. According to Austrian Business Cycle Theory (ABCT), the peak-trough-peak pattern that economies demonstrate is not their natural state, but one created by excess growth in money supply and credit. New money is not simply parachuted to everyone equally and at the same time — it is sluiced into the economy at certain initial "entry points." From these entry points, a number of initial goods are bought by recipients of new money causing a rise in price for these initial goods relative to other goods.

Because entrepreneurs react to this observed but unjustified change in the structure of prices by investing their capital, misallocation occurs. As money-supply growth continues and prices become more contorted, more and more ventures are undertaken that would not be undertaken in a regime without money-supply growth. When, for whatever the reason, money supply finally contracts, the artificial strength in prices that encouraged unprofitable ventures is removed, prices collapse, and large numbers of ventures go bankrupt. Thus we have the recession part of the business cycle, the simultaneous failure of many firms at the same time.

If, as the Austrian theory states, money enters the economy at certain points, it is likely that a nation's stock market will become a prime beneficiary of any monetary expansion. Fresh money enters the economy first through banks and other financial entities who may invest it in shares, or lend it to others who buy shares. Thus stock prices rise relative to prices of things like food and clothes and will outperform as long as this monetary process is allowed to continue.

This is what we are seeing in Zimbabwe. With the country suffering from Mugabe's catastrophic policies, increasingly the only means for the government to fund itself has been money-supply growth. This has only exacerbated the economy's problems. The flood of new money that authorities have created has caused the existing value of money in circulation to plummet, i.e., the prices of all sorts of goods to explode, some rising more than others.


As prices become more misaligned, basic decision-making abilities of normal Zimbabweans are impaired and the day-to-day functioning of the economy deteriorates. Perversely, all of this has forced the government to issue even more currency to make up for budget shortfalls and to buy support. At last measure, the country's consumer price index was rising (i.e., the purchasing power of currency declining), at a rate of 1,729% a year.

The ZSE is growing some three times faster than consumer prices. This relative outperformance versus general prices is a result of stocks being a chief entry point for the flood of newly created money. Keep Zimbabwean dollars in your pocket, and they've already lost a chunk of their value by the next day. Putting money in the bank, where rates are pithy, is not much better. Investing in government bonds is the equivalent of financial suicide. Converting wealth into foreign currency is difficult; hard currency is scarce, and strict rules limit exchangeability.


As for capital improvements, there is little incentive on the part of companies to invest in their already-losing enterprises since economic prospects look so bleak. Very few havens exist for people to hide their wealth from the evils created by Mugabe's policies. Like compressed air looking for an exit, money is pouring into shares of ZSE-listed firms like banker Old Mutual, hotel group Meikles Africa, and mobile phone firm Econet Wireless. It is the only place to go. Thus the 12,000% year over year increase in the Zimbabwe Industrials.

$45
Our Zimbabwe example, though extreme, demonstrates how changes in stock prices can be driven by monetary conditions, and not changes in GDP. New money gets spent or invested. In Zimbabwe's case, because there are no alternatives, it is stocks that are benefiting.

This sort of thinking can be applied to the stock markets in the Western world too. Though western central banks have not been printing nearly as fast as their Zimbabwe counterpart, they do have a long history of increasing the money supply. It forces one to ask how much of the growth in Western stock markets over the preceding twenty-five years has been created by a vastly increasing money supply, and how much is due to actual wealth creation. Perhaps stock prices have increased faster than goods prices for the last twenty-five years because, as in Zimbabwe, Western stock markets have become one of the principal entry points for newly printed currency.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I know it may sound crazy, but I think Zimbabwe may also be a good market to invest in. Some analysts say its among the best markets to invest in the world. I also think that its the best time to pick shares in companies there while their prices are still low. It will be a windfall later when the economy picks up. Read the article below.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is crazy to invest there. After this article was published the stock exchange in Zimbabwe crashed and lost 40% of its value when Mugabe announced the draconian price controls in June. The market's rise in the last few years should be regarded as a bubble because it is driven by currency speculation between the official and parallel black market rates rather than by conventional measures of corporate productivity, financial strength and economic expansion.

can you post an article that states zim's stock exchange lost 40% of its value after that article. not that i doubt you, but we benefit from articles posted here

I know it may sound crazy, but I think Zimbabwe may also be a good market to invest in. Some analysts say its among the best markets to invest in the world. I also think that its the best time to pick shares in companies there while their prices are still low. It will be a windfall later when the economy picks up. Read the article below.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
one of the underhanded things done by the west and parroted by thier followers is to stop all FDI into zim. this is why this news never makes it big. zim needs investment and this is good news

hahaha go ahead and invest there, would love to see the outcome of that

one of the underhanded things done by the west and parroted by thier followers is to stop all FDI into zim. this is why this news never makes it big. zim needs investment and this is good news

South African companies, including ones owned by whites, still have considerable business investment in Zimbabwe and have not yet pulled out of the country. South Africa is by far the largest foreign investor in Zimbabwe. Sure many of SA's companies have disinvested and pulled out but not to the same extent as British and American companies have done. But the reason why Western companies have disinivested and pulled out of Zimbabwe it is for similar reasons why they pulled out of apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. They did not want their reputation to be associated with or tarnished by tyranny whether it has a white face or a black face. Aside from that Mugabe's Zimbabwe is not a profitable place to do business just as apartheid South Africa was not profitable either. The latter reason is the most credible one as far as Western multinational corporations are concerned. Can you really blame them.

South African companies, including ones owned by whites, still have considerable business investment in Zimbabwe and have not yet pulled out of the country. South Africa is by far the largest foreign investor in Zimbabwe. Sure many of SA's companies have disinvested and pulled out but not to the same extent as British and American companies have done. But the reason why Western companies have disinivested and pulled out of Zimbabwe it is for similar reasons why they pulled out of apartheid South Africa in the 1980s. They did not want their reputation to be associated with or tarnished by tyranny whether it has a white face or a black face. Aside from that Mugabe's Zimbabwe is not a profitable place to do business just as apartheid South Africa was not profitable either. The latter reason is the most credible one as far as Western multinational corporations are concerned. Can you really blame them.

So aparthied began in the 80s. each post of yours shows how far and invested you are with the old racist guards. I tell you, you and the aparthied folks are like twins.

Why did it take until the 80s for them to move out? and can you deny the greta deal of smuggling and black market clandestine business that too place, especially in oil and the like.

So aparthied began in the 80s. each post of yours shows how far and invested you are with the old racist guards. I tell you, you and the aparthied folks are like twins.

Why did it take until the 80s for them to move out? and can you deny the greta deal of smuggling and black market clandestine business that too place, especially in oil and the like.

Mr ZANU-PF, apartheid began in 1948 when that fool DF Malan took power when the Nats took over and made a mess of SA. It took the foreign companies until the 1980s to leave because the unrest and economic decline brought on by apartheid's social engineers made it a liability for them to stay.

But needless to say that Mugabe's Zimbabwe has come to resemble apartheid in it's ugliest form given the fact that 2 million people have been forcibly displaced by both the illegal land invasions and Operation Drive out the Trash (Murambatsvina). This is no different than the "forced removals" that took place under apartheid where blacks were removed from cities and later dumped in black homelands. But while apartheid displaced 3.5 million people (10% of the total), Mugabe displaced 20% of Zimbabwe's population of 11 million. And that is not including the 4 million Zimbabweans who have fled the country since the crisis began, most of whom are now living in South Africa with the rest in Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and overseas.

It would be a great idea to invest in Zim after Mugabe dies. It's a shame to see it go the way it is now, it has some of the best agricultural land in Africa, yet the people are living like junk.

You may as well use the Zim dollar as toilet paper at this point. :ohno:

Places that are recovering from instability are good places to invest in, if the country is starting to go in the right direction. I plan to invest some money in Somalia after I graduate university and get a good job. If the monkeys in power ever get their acts together, it could be a recovering power.

Africa overall isnt a good place to invest now, but it will be soon, IMO.

Mr ZANU-PF, apartheid began in 1948 when that fool DF Malan took power when the Nats took over and made a mess of SA. It took the foreign companies until the 1980s to leave because the unrest and economic decline brought on by apartheid's social engineers made it a liability for them to stay.

But needless to say that Mugabe's Zimbabwe has come to resemble apartheid in it's ugliest form given the fact that 2 million people have been forcibly displaced by both the illegal land invasions and Operation Drive out the Trash (Murambatsvina). This is no different than the "forced removals" that took place under apartheid where blacks were removed from cities and later dumped in black homelands. But while apartheid displaced 3.5 million people (10% of the total), Mugabe displaced 20% of Zimbabwe's population of 11 million. And that is not including the 4 million Zimbabweans who have fled the country since the crisis began, most of whom are now living in South Africa with the rest in Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and overseas.

you're so phony you can't even admit that it took these guys close to 40 years to divest from a racist system. instead you say they left "because the unrest and economic decline brought on by apartheid's social engineers made it a liability for them to stay. "

not only does that contradict your previous position that they left because they didnt want to be associated with a racist government (proving my point about the west's AND YOUR position on racism in africa); but its also telling. basically: if the aparthied government was able to keep a lid on protest and the like, the west would have continued to invest in aparthied SA openly. but either way, what informed thier decision to leave SA was not the racist policies, but pure economics.

so how does that make sense in the light of zim. how does divesting from zim , thereby harming a great deal of people, jive with aparthied? zim today is far more peaceful that SA was with all the bombings. the greatest pain today in zim is as a result of the west removing investments, not from mugabe's policies. but bigots like you already know that. thats why you contradict yourself in every post because you're lying through your teeth.

you're so phony you can't even admit that it took these guys close to 40 years to divest from a racist system. instead you say they left "because the unrest and economic decline brought on by apartheid's social engineers made it a liability for them to stay. "

not only does that contradict your previous position that they left because they didnt want to be associated with a racist government (proving my point about the west's AND YOUR position on racism in africa); but its also telling. basically: if the aparthied government was able to keep a lid on protest and the like, the west would have continued to invest in aparthied SA openly. but either way, what informed thier decision to leave SA was not the racist policies, but pure economics.

so how does that make sense in the light of zim. how does divesting from zim , thereby harming a great deal of people, jive with aparthied? zim today is far more peaceful that SA was with all the bombings. the greatest pain today in zim is as a result of the west removing investments, not from mugabe's policies. but bigots like you already know that. thats why you contradict yourself in every post because you're lying through your teeth.

The devastation of Zimbabwe today is worse than apartheid. It would take the people there 40 years of steady 5% economic growth to get back to the position they were in just in the year 2000, which since then the economy has contracted 60% in real GDP terms in just eight years, the fastest decline outside a war zone.

On the other hand, South Africa was a hopeful place in 1994, despite the fact that GDP per capita declined 25% in real terms over the ten-year recessionary period of 1984-93. But when Nelson Mandela was elected president after an orderly transition of power from the Nats to the ANC, SA was a hopeful place for black South Africans who were 10-times better off than the people in Zimbabwe will be when Mugabe goes. At least the ANC inherited a country with a diversified economy and industrial base, even though the economy was a mess with high inflation, high interest rates, bulging budget deficits, depleted foreign currency reserves, onerous trade protectionism, and overregulation of industries many of which were still state-owned not to mention mass unemployment caused by apartheid mismanagement and economic stagnation. Even SA's modest annual economic growth of 3.4% between 1994-2005 reversed the decline of the the last ten years of NP rule. That said GDP growth in SA for the last four years has averaged 5% GDP growth, which is the fastest rate of growth since the 1960's. The economic expansion under ANC management has now lasted nine years, the longest expansion period in the modern history of SA. The last time the GDP declined was in 1992 when the economy contracted by 2.5%, which was the worst year in SA's history including the depression years of the 1930s.

That said that is nothing compared to 12% negative GDP growth in Zimbabwe in 2007 after a 50% accumulated decline over seven years.

of course the present situation of zim cant be compared to that of SA or just about any country. zim is in trouble. we were discussing why. i pointed out to you that the reasons given for them divesting from SA are false and more importantly do not apply to zim. and you give me figures on SA's recent growth? i take that as a tacit admission that my position is correct.

post mugabe, zim will grow faster than 5%. recovering from such a low base will not take much effort. the long term solution is to integrate further into africa economies so that the west can not put the min this position again by taking away investment

of course the present situation of zim cant be compared to that of SA or just about any country. zim is in trouble. we were discussing why. i pointed out to you that the reasons given for them divesting from SA are false and more importantly do not apply to zim. and you give me figures on SA's recent growth? i take that as a tacit admission that my position is correct.

post mugabe, zim will grow faster than 5%. recovering from such a low base will not take much effort. the long term solution is to integrate further into africa economies so that the west can not put the min this position again by taking away investment

You sound like Muommar Khadafi and his anti-imperialist rhetoric. I agree Zim will grow by 5% a year once Mugabe and ZANU-PF are removed and the country renintegrates into the global economy but despite such growth it will take many years to reverse this massive decline. Even SA having seen almost 4% GDP growth per year still has a long way to go to eradicate both mass unemployment and widespread poverty. In the case of SA which is on a much higher base it would require 7% GDP growth per year to meet the UN Millenium development challenge by 2015 and right now SA's GDP will grow by 4.5% in 2007 down from more than 5% last year. In Zimbabwe it would have to take GDP growth of 25% to 30% a year to reverse this massive decline and the only country that comes close to that in Africa right now is Angola, although much of this growth is pumped up by high oil prices that are likely to decline with the slowdown in the US economy. But I would like to see the end of this tyrant's rule too so that Zimbabwe can be reintegrated into the southern African economic region which apart from Zimbabwe is experiencing booming levels of economic growth.

of course the present situation of zim cant be compared to that of SA or just about any country. zim is in trouble. we were discussing why. i pointed out to you that the reasons given for them divesting from SA are false and more importantly do not apply to zim. and you give me figures on SA's recent growth? i take that as a tacit admission that my position is correct.

post mugabe, zim will grow faster than 5%. recovering from such a low base will not take much effort. the long term solution is to integrate further into africa economies so that the west can not put the min this position again by taking away investment

You sound like Muommar Khadafi and his anti-imperialist rhetoric. I agree Zim will grow by 5% a year once Mugabe and ZANU-PF are removed and the country renintegrates into the global economy but despite such growth it will take many years to reverse this massive decline. Even SA having seen almost 4% GDP growth per year since 1994 still has a long way to go to eradicate both mass unemployment and widespread poverty. In the case of SA which is on a much higher base it would require 7% GDP growth per year to meet the UN Millenium development challenge by 2015 and right now SA's GDP will grow by 4.5% in 2007 down from more than 5% last year. In Zimbabwe it would have to take GDP growth of 25% to 30% a year to reverse this massive decline and the only country that comes close to that in Africa right now is Angola, although much of this growth is pumped up by high oil prices that are likely to decline with the slowdown in the US economy. But I would like to see the end of this tyrant's rule too so that Zimbabwe can be reintegrated into the southern African economic region which apart from Zimbabwe is experiencing booming levels of economic growth.

you call me ghadaffi like its an insult.

anyway, the new growth from zim will be more equal and will result in less of an imbalance. zim gini index will be closer to 50 than south africa and it will cease to be a nation with such great divides in wealth, hopefully namibia is next

you call me ghadaffi like its an insult.

:uh:

you call me Hitler like its an insult.
next

:eek:

:eek:

i actually thought you had half a brain there. so ghadaffi is akin to hitler? ghadaffi has killed millions of peopel based on their ethnicity? caused a world war and invaded countries. no wonder africa is a mess with fools like you

Michaelda, nobody is calling you neither Hitler nor Ghadaffi. So why are you pumping hot air? Calm down!

Hitler was a devil who gazed millions of people and blew Germany to bits, thanks to Hitler most of old Germany´s structures have been wiped out! :ohno:

Ghadaffi is a dangerous and paranoid fool. I have aboslutely no respect for him, I even hate him. What are his true aims? After his panarab dreams of the early 70´s dissolved into thin air, he shifts his interest to Africa. He plays Mr "Sugar Daddy" with poor(er) african nations by splashing around his petro-billions, the sooner he is gone, the better for the world, hopefully after he accomplished the Ghadaffi tower in Dakar , After its completition, it can then be renamed "Le Tour D´Afrique"! :banana: It gives me a shudder that this beautiful tower will bear his name.

you call me ghadaffi like its an insult.

anyway, the new growth from zim will be more equal and will result in less of an imbalance. zim gini index will be closer to 50 than south africa and it will cease to be a nation with such great divides in wealth, hopefully namibia is next

I reakon if you are right it will be equal like North Korea but still starving and begging for handouts from the very "imperialist" countries they lambast.

Michaelda, nobody is calling you neither Hitler nor Ghadaffi. So why are you pumping hot air? Calm down!

Hitler was a devil who gazed millions of people and blew Germany to bits, thanks to Hitler most of old Germany´s structures have been wiped out! :ohno:

Ghadaffi is a dangerous and paranoid fool. I have aboslutely no respect for him, I even hate him. What are his true aims? After his panarab dreams of the early 70´s dissolved into thin air, he shifts his interest to Africa. He plays Mr "Sugar Daddy" with poor(er) african nations by splashing around his petro-billions, the sooner he is gone, the better for the world, hopefully after he accomplished the Ghadaffi tower in Dakar , After its completition, it can then be renamed "Le Tour D´Afrique"! :banana: It gives me a shudder that this beautiful tower will bear his name.

I agree with that. Either it should be Le Tour D'Afrique, Le Tour Dakar or Le Tour Senegal that takes pride in either the continent or the country of Senegal and not to fulfill the egoism of that megalomaniac.

Michaelda, nobody is calling you neither Hitler nor Ghadaffi. So why are you pumping hot air? Calm down!
.
did you read any of the previous posts?


anyway, folks can call me what they want. i can also engage in name calling and also defend my position.

I reakon if you are right it will be equal like North Korea but still starving and begging for handouts from the very "imperialist" countries they lambast.

no, it'll be more like venuzuela is today

no, it'll be more like venuzuela is today

Well that's great. Then we model after Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian caudillo-style authoritarianism of the state runs all things.

Well that's great. Then we model after Hugo Chavez and his Bolivarian caudillo-style authoritarianism of the state runs all things.
states go thru stages and need not be static. a state like venezuela has a better chance of developing evenly than the mess in namibia n the long term

states go thru stages and need not be static. a state like venezuela has a better chance of developing evenly than the mess in namibia n the long term

Well Venezuela developmentally is more like South Africa with massive inequalities but with developed and underdeveloped components while Namibia is a tiny mineral-rich country without a large industrial base while Zimbabwe is now a Least Developed Country (LDC) which ranks as one of the world's poorest along with Malawi and Ethiopia.

Well Venezuela developmentally is more like South Africa with massive inequalities but with developed and underdeveloped components while Namibia is a tiny mineral-rich country without a large industrial base while Zimbabwe is now a Least Developed Country (LDC) which ranks as one of the world's poorest along with Malawi and Ethiopia.
thats not my point. one of the reasons chavez came to power is to remove the inequalities found in his country. something that needs to be done in namibia.

thats not my point. one of the reasons chavez came to power is to remove the inequalities found in his country. something that needs to be done in namibia.

Well President Hifikipunye Pohamba's SWAPO government is conducting land reforms but unlike Zimbabwe in an orderly manner where white farmers are being compensated and experienced black farmers are buying the farms. But unlike Venezuela, Namibia follows market-oriented economic policies that has seen GDP growth of 5.5% in 2006 after 15 years of 4.0% economic growth since independence that was even higher than in South Africa. Namibia's economic expansion is like SA's, the longest in its history. Under South African rule before 1990, GDP growth was 0.5% per year between 1970 and 1990.

Venezuela on th other hand is a boom/bust cycle over the last 40 years similar to what we saw in apartheid SA where there were five years of six percent growth followed by eight years of negative 5% growth. While the economy in Chavez Venezuela is booming with 5% GDP growth since 2002 thanks to high oil prices it has come at the cost of 20% annual inflation while in SA and Namibia the annual inflation rate has averaged 5% in the last five years.

thats not my point. one of the reasons chavez came to power is to remove the inequalities found in his country. something that needs to be done in namibia.

Michaelada, so what do you propose for Namibia? Have you looked at Namibia photos? If you have convincing non-socialist non-radical thoughts, I am happy to hear your words of advice ´cos this is a question that has been on my mind for a while, too....but Africa can´t afford another Zimbabwe, Namibia is a scenic and beautiful country where more and more tourists flock to.

Well President Hifikipunye Pohamba's SWAPO government is conducting land reforms but unlike Zimbabwe in an orderly manner where white farmers are being compensated and experienced black farmers are buying the farms. But unlike Venezuela, Namibia follows market-oriented economic policies that has seen GDP growth of 5.5% in 2006 after 15 years of 4.0% economic growth since independence that was even higher than in South Africa. Namibia's economic expansion is like SA's, the longest in its history. Under South African rule before 1990, GDP growth was 0.5% per year between 1970 and 1990.

Venezuela on th other hand is a boom/bust cycle over the last 40 years similar to what we saw in apartheid SA where there were five years of six percent growth followed by eight years of negative 5% growth. While the economy in Chavez Venezuela is booming with 5% GDP growth since 2002 thanks to high oil prices it has come at the cost of 20% annual inflation while in SA and Namibia the annual inflation rate has averaged 5% in the last five years.

chavez has not been at the helm of venezuela for 40 years.

you must not realize the agitation for land and equality in namibia. have you looked at its gini index? its one of the most unequal societies out there. no matter what you say about its growth, is it reaching the entire population