Egypt has become an economic basket case since Mubarak was ousted | Hacker News Reader

Egypt has become an economic basket case since Mubarak was ousted

qz.com

21 pointsgasull19 comments

I am based in Cairo.

1. Egypt's tourism sector got hammered after the revolution, especially in the "Ancient Egypt" route. The beach based tourism remain high.

2. Head of local governments keep changing every 6 months or so. The same thing applies for Cabinet Ministers.

3. Egyptian 25 Jan revolution lasted in full 18 days. It's quite short for a revolution although the repercussion ripples.

4. Basic infrastructure such as electricity and gasoline distribution got affected which adds cost and uncertainty into manufacturing.

5. There are tons of political motivated persecution such as the NGO trials which really scared off Western investors.

6. American Chamber of Commerce invited a hundred US businessmen for investment and arranged them to meet President Morsi only to be evacuated the next day after the Anti-Islam YouTube video.

7. The whole MENA region got engulfed in revolution which really affects the movement of goods and people.

8. Investors from the Gulf really eyed the MB with suspicions. UAE officials routinely publicize sharp comments against the MB.

Anyway, I expect the economy to bounce back strongly in the near future. I am not Egyptian myself although I've lived here for many years. My country Indonesia went through similar revolution 14 years ago and now we are a trillion dollars economy.

There's been a huge influx of Russian tourists here in Vietnam lately. Apparently a large factor is the instability in Egypt. People that previously would have planned vacations there are now coming here.

I think freeing the terrorist that organised the Luxor attack didn't really help tourism much:

http://frontpagemag.com/2012/dgreenfield/muslim-brotherhood-...

He also named a member of the terrorist group (Al-Jamaa Al-Islamiya) that organized the massacre to be the governor of Luxor:

* http://disquietreservations.blogspot.fr/2013/06/morsi-picks-...

* http://www.latimes.com/news/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-morsi-is...

Same US Chamber of commerce, a private creation whose name is made to mirror government entities, involved in plot to undermine/smear Wikileaks supporters, dissidents, political activists via corporations like Palantir/HBGary?

http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/02/11/143669/chamberle...

I recall the "U.S.-EGYPT BUSINESS COUNCIL," part of the US Chamber of commerce. From their website: "The USEBC, located within the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.."

http://www.usegyptcouncil.org/about/

Also a part of this group inviting businessmen around to meddle in nations: Booz Allen Hamilton.

http://www.usegyptcouncil.org/member-companies/

Yea these gents are not involved in global market manipulation on the backs of the unwashed masses. Not at all.

edit: duped link

Incase I was not entirely clear, I am accusing those personally invested in companies that deal with world's secrets like James Clapper of using companies like Booz Allen to aid other corporations that are given legal immunity.

The trade of insider secrets, exploits, bugging diplomats and world leaders. Collecting 'metadata' from the rest at the very least. Turning intel into for-profit ventures while granting legal immunity to corporations that are given preferential market treatment.

This is global manipulation. It burdens us all eroding chances for creation and innovation while keeping a few monied and out of prison.

>Revolution generally isn’t good for business. So it shouldn’t be much of a surprise to learn that the ouster of Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak in February 2011 didn’t exactly set up the Egyptian economy for a record-setting growth spurt.

Indeed, it ought to be common sense that social and political upheaval means people stop going to work so that they can protest, and therefore the economy tanks.

Is there a dearth of newsworthy issues to write about or something?

It's not only about people not going to work but about most of the investors who can't take the risk to do business in a region where "Law" is changing too fast and are uncertain. Same happened in Belgium three years ago when we had no government. Of course some speculate about that economic down-sizing as well.

So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit?

Compared to having the government you want and social justice, who the fuck cares for "investors"?

> So what does the author try to say? People should bend over and accept dictatorships and such, lest their economy takes a hit?

Nobody has said anything of the sort except for you.

You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes, and doing so is not the same as arguing any other particular course of action should (or should not) have been taken instead.

> who the fuck cares for "investors"?

The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs.

>You don't solve economic problems by failing to analyze them and their causes

Sure, but you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious (a country after a revolution and an army involvement, in social turmoil is off-putting investors).

>The people who just ejected yet another government because they don't have jobs.

That was not their reason, neither was "lack of investors". They rebelled for political and social demands, not for jobs. If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak.

> you also don't analyse economic problems by stating the obvious

Most fields of study involve a great deal of stating the obvious, as does much of human conversation.

> If anything the job situation was better under Mubarak.

Since you're actually agreeing with me, I believe you misread my comment as referring to the original revolution.

"who the fuck cares for "investors"?"

People who want a non-shitty economy so they can, you know, eat?

Wrong and out of context.

See my complete question, not the butchered part you quote.

Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat? I'm not saying that North Koreans are enviable or that dictators are right, it's just that it's easy to make off-the-cuff judgements over people who have to trade off today's reality of having a crying baby because there is no food versus an abstract ideal life with benevolent, competent leaders and ponies dancing under rainbows. I'm not saying it's right, but I can imagine why some people in Russia long for the days of socialism.

>Huh? What do you think people would choose, not having a dictator and having a government they chose, or having something to eat?

I don't have to think about it personally, we have history to tell us.

People risk their LIVES to get rid of dictators -- compared to that their economy (or even food) is of little importance.

Indeed, it ought to be common sense that social and political upheaval means people stop going to work so that they can protest, and therefore the economy tanks.

And if the economy had gone well I suspect you would instead by saying, "Indeed, it ought to be common sense that corrupt dictatorships are bad for the economy."

Well no, I certainly would not have said that because quite frankly there is no way in hell that the Egyptian economy booms during a revolution.

Not to mention that totalitarianism is often good for struggling economies.

Uncertainty is the single worst thing for investment. So it's really no surprise that investors are avoiding Egypt, and that the economy is hardly growing...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com