Acme Nation-Building

[Kandahar]

So I was thinking today about what I'd like to do to change the world if I had hundreds of millions of dollars to spend, and was wondering why no eccentric billionaires have tried this yet. Obviously it's not a practical way to make money and probably not even the best humanitarian use of the money, but I would think someone would've just done it for the coolness of it.

I'd start by spending hundreds of millions of dollars on a private military, or perhaps contracting with the US Department of Defense. Next, I'd invade some tyrannical African country with incompetent leadership and a small military, and I'd declare myself the dictator. After establishing law and order, I'd work on fixing the economy. Since the steps to building an economically successful nation are not as complex as American politicians would have us believe, I would implement pro-growth policies and pull the nation out of poverty within a very few years. Once the nation was sufficiently wealthy and educated, I could restore democratic rights to the people.

Would this be in violation of any US laws? Tactical problems aside, is there any reason this plan couldn't work?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Most modern military weapons are illegal for civilian ownership and use-- and regardless of the legality of your actions, if you start building a private army, they will either find or manufacture an excuse to destroy you.

If you launched a coup d'etat in another country-- especially one in which UN or American humanitarian missions are active-- you will call down all the forces of Hell upon your head.

Also, in the absence of abundant natural resources, I do not think it is nearly as easy to build a successful economy as you assert.

 

[Kandahar]

Most modern military weapons are illegal for civilian ownership and use-- and regardless of the legality of your actions, if you start building a private army, they will either find or manufacture an excuse to destroy you.

If you launched a coup d'etat in another country-- especially one in which UN or American humanitarian missions are active-- you will call down all the forces of Hell upon your head.

Obviously the plan would fall apart if one didn't have the backing, or at least the tacit look-the-other-way approval, of the US government. But I would think that they'd welcome a coup d'etat in lots of African countries. Surely the American government would approve of a liberal American capitalist getting rid of an anti-American, corrupt, protectionist despot? I would think that they'd view it as having someone else do their dirty work for them.

There are plenty of good candidate countries: Zimbabwe, Cameroon, D.R. Congo, Angola. The governments there basically exist to rob the citizens. Simple good governance could easily turn these nations from some of the poorest in the world to some of the most vibrant economies.

Also, in the absence of abundant natural resources, I do not think it is nearly as easy to build a successful economy as you assert.

The island of Hong Kong is a barren rock with no natural resources, yet the inhabitants are some of the wealthiest people in the world. Most of the candidate African nations, on the other hand, are very resource-rich.