What you say is true in regard to my post above. I was using “different” as a weasel word.
Yet would you say that Africans had a better work ethic than Native Americans when it came to slavery? The Africans seemed to be the slave of choice. Disregarding disease resistance, Africans were still more economically useful. Maybe “work ethic” is then the wrong word. Perhaps different values and measures of utility?
First you claim that investors aren’t interested in an African country because the people have a shitty work ethic…now you’re saying their work ethic was so good it made them the “slave of choice”? Are you sure you even know what you’re saying any more?
Zimbabwe not = all of Africa
I ceded that I was wrong in the work ethic bit. But I stand on culture. Because in the modern day, we don’t wanna go into Africa to develop agriculture, really. And that is what slaves were used for. Africans know/knew how to farm. That’s not what is relevant these days (or is this another assumption I make?)
Then what the heck was the point of that entire last post?
I’ll read more about Zimbabwe before bashing by head against a topic I’m not familiar with. Hopefully I will the be able to then clarify my last post or refute it myself.
But do you really think that Zimbabwe is a sound refutation of the idea that money goes to nations with weaker currencies? What about when someone brings China into the equation, saying that China has a weak currency and keeps it that way to draw investment? I’m asking to learn now, not to argue. Well, I mean that’s always my goal, but more so now.
If you sufficiently devalue your house, car, truck, cattle, and farm produce (i.e. offer them at sufficiently low prices) then money will go to you, as well.
I don’t think that’s the same case 
If your currency weakens, foreigners see greater investment opportunities (as their currency’s purchasing power grows) and invest more in your country. No such dynamic exists in your scenario.
I also want to ask another question. I’m reading about “Dutch Disease,” where the Dutch discovered large natural gas reserves and experienced a boom in that sector. The spike in exports drove the Dutch currency up, making life more difficult for other exporters. Is it really the appreciation of the currency that hurt the Dutch or something else (movement of capital towards natural gas, weakening other manufacturing sectors which promote more long-term growth)?
I was just pointing out that “money coming to you”, in and of itself, may not always be the most optimal outcome for you.