Zimbabwe - Page 4 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

pj67coll · #46 07-08-2008, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

This too is not correct. Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980,

It did not. The rest of the world recognized it's independence in 1980 because it was handed over to "bmr" black majority rule as opposed to the unrecognized "wmr" white minority rule under which it had operated since 1965.

- Peter.

Medmech · #47 07-19-2008, 12:37 PM

Zimbabwe introduces $100 billion banknotes

Story Highlights
New bills officially come into circulation Monday
Bills aren't enough to buy a loaf of bread. They can only buy four oranges
Gideon Gono: Notes for "convenience of the banking public and corporate sector"
The new note is equal to just one U.S. dollar

HARARE, Zimbabwe (CNN) -- Zimbabwe's troubled central bank introduced new $100 billion banknotes Saturday in a desperate bid to ease the recurrent cash shortages plaguing the inflation-ravaged economy.

The new bills officially come into circulation Monday, although they were already on the foreign currency dealers market Saturday.

As high as they are, though, the new bills still aren't enough to buy a loaf of bread. They can only buy four oranges.

The new note is equal to just one U.S. dollar

Once-prosperous Zimbabwe has seen an unprecedented economic meltdown since it gained independence in 1980, with the official inflation rate now at 2.2 million percent.

Gideon Gono, governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, said the new notes are for "the convenience of the banking public and corporate sector" in light of price hikes.

"The RBZ has noted with concern the unjustifiable and incessant general increases in prices of goods and services. It is therefore appealing to the business community to follow ethical business practices as well as take an interest in the plight of the general public," Gono said in a statement dated Friday.

Zimbabwe started issuing large banknotes in December, starting with denominations of $250,000.

In January, the government issued bills in denominations of $1 million, $5 million, and $10 million -- and in May, it issued bills from $25 million and $50 million up to $25 billion and $50 billion.

The new bills are actually bearer checks and have an expiration date of December 31. Zimbabwe has not had formal currency since the introduction of bearer checks as a temporary measure in 2003.

"The RBZ is fighting a losing battle," said economist John Robertson in Harare. "As long as the inflation remains high, cash shortages will persist. There is need to address the inflation by increasing production so that too goods do not (cost) a lot of money."

Hatterasguy · #48 07-19-2008, 01:30 PM

Some "peoples liberation" army or a group with a noble name will come in and overthrow the government, and oh wait fix nothing...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G5L60KqRZS4&feature=related
What do you expect when you have this guy running the country!

Medmech · #49 07-19-2008, 06:46 PM

A used car will set you back about 5 Trillion.

tankdriver · #50 07-19-2008, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

It did not. The rest of the world recognized it's independence in 1980 because it was handed over to "bmr" black majority rule as opposed to the unrecognized "wmr" white minority rule under which it had operated since 1965.

- Peter.

The ones who declared independence in '65 were the white minority rulers, and they maintained allegiance to England. Real independence was achieved in 1980.

Botnst · #51 07-19-2008, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

The ones who declared independence in '65 were the white minority rulers, and they maintained allegiance to England. Real independence was achieved in 1980.

Was it really, "allegiance"? Is so, then they did not declare independence.

B

tankdriver · #52 07-19-2008, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Was it really, "allegiance"? Is so, then they did not declare independence.

B

It's sort of a gray area. The white minority declared independence, but it was the Brits who officially handed over the country in 1980.

pj67coll · #53 07-20-2008, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

It's sort of a gray area. The white minority declared independence, but it was the Brits who officially handed over the country in 1980.

There's nothing grey about it. UDI "Unilateral decleration of Independence" was proclaimed in 1965 by Ian Smith and his government. They wished to remain part of the British commonwealth and so paid lip service to the Brit monarchy but were treated as a pariah nation by the worlds governments because they were a white minority government and the country was immediately embroiled in civil war with Mugabe and Nkomo and their bands of thugs battling the government and their bands of thugs. The "official" handing over of the country in 1980 to Mugabe and his gang was as meaningless as the pretence that the country was now a representative democracy. It's been in a downhill slide ever since and has now fallen off the cliff.
- Peter.

Botnst · #54 07-20-2008, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

There's nothing grey about it. UDI "Unilateral decleration of Independence" was proclaimed in 1965 by Ian Smith and his government. They wished to remain part of the British commonwealth and so paid lip service to the Brit monarchy but were treated as a pariah nation by the worlds governments because they were a white minority government and the country was immediately embroiled in civil war with Mugabe and Nkomo and their bands of thugs battling the government and their bands of thugs. The "official" handing over of the country in 1980 to Mugabe and his gang was as meaningless as the pretence that the country was now a representative democracy. It's been in a downhill slide ever since and has now fallen off the cliff.
- Peter.

That's the history I remember.

B

tankdriver · #55 07-20-2008, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

There's nothing grey about it. UDI "Unilateral decleration of Independence" was proclaimed in 1965 by Ian Smith and his government. They wished to remain part of the British commonwealth and so paid lip service to the Brit monarchy but were treated as a pariah nation by the worlds governments because they were a white minority government and the country was immediately embroiled in civil war with Mugabe and Nkomo and their bands of thugs battling the government and their bands of thugs. The "official" handing over of the country in 1980 to Mugabe and his gang was as meaningless as the pretence that the country was now a representative democracy. It's been in a downhill slide ever since and has now fallen off the cliff.
- Peter.

Seems pretty gray to me. A self governing colony's minority government declared independence but maintained allegiance to the crown. No one ever recognized them, and as you said, a civil war immediately erupted. Like Botnst, I don't see how one could be independent while maintaining allegiance.
There was a news story a little while ago about a Scottish guy who owns a tiny island, Forvik Island (and is its sole inhabitant) who declared independence from the UK. I guess it's about equivalent.

In any case, as I said before, when I was there in 86-88, Zimbabwe was one of the strongest economies and safest places in southern Africa.

Botnst · #56 07-20-2008, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Seems pretty gray to me. A self governing colony's minority government declared independence but maintained allegiance to the crown. No one ever recognized them, and as you said, a civil war immediately erupted. Like Botnst, I don't see how one could be independent while maintaining allegiance.
There was a news story a little while ago about a Scottish guy who owns a tiny island, Forvik Island (and is its sole inhabitant) who declared independence from the UK. I guess it's about equivalent.

In any case, as I said before, when I was there in 86-88, Zimbabwe was one of the strongest economies and safest places in southern Africa.

Are Australia, Canada, and New Zealand independent? I am not knowledgeable at all about this royalty thing so I'm probably wrong. It's my assumption that they remain loyal to the Crown but independent in government.

B

pj67coll · #57 07-21-2008, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Are Australia, Canada, and New Zealand independent? I am not knowledgeable at all about this royalty thing so I'm probably wrong. It's my assumption that they remain loyal to the Crown but independent in government.

B

Correct. Though they all have to bob and scrape before the Queen whenever she shows up. If you are a "royalist" in any one of these nations that makes you very happy. If you are a "republican" you seethe in impotent rage and write letters to the press at every state visit expounding on the idiocy of the situation.

- Peter.

neanderthal · #58 02-14-2009, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pj67coll

Quote:

Originally Posted by Howitzer

When it was Rhodesia all was well what happened?

The monkeys got control of the zoo.

- Peter.

F*ck you. Gently. With a chainsaw.

Signed. One of "The Monkeys."

neanderthal · #59 02-14-2009, 01:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Lol. A more accurate comparison would be former British colonies in which whites settled/lived and British colonies where there were few whites/they left with the Brits.

In Africa (and India), British rule consisted of subjugating the people first. Basic to little education, except for a minority group. Any jobs given to locals were the terrible jobs, except the minority group. This group was then given the low level civil service jobs, which were the top of the totem of all the jobs available to natives. No one was ever educated or trained in any of the white collar jobs, economics, politics, management, etc.. In addition, as a form of passive resistance, natives would do their jobs poorly - after all, it was hard menial work for laughable pay. It is so stark a contrast with how America was colonized that if one ignorant of the colonizer, one would deny they were the same.
3rd world colonialism was so effectively brutal, it's going to take a long time, if ever, for former colonies to get out of the gutter.
Two countries really stand out as successful former British colonies, and they have one thing in common. Great men leading the revolution. We've got Washington/Franklin, India's got Nehru/Gandhi.

This too is not correct. Zimbabwe gained independence in 1980, and Mugabe was elected President. From then until after I left Zambia in 1988, Zimbabwe was the jewel of Sub-Saharan Africa. The currency was strong (about 4:1USD), and economy was strong. At some point after, supposedly right after he got remarried, he just went nuts.

i completely forgot this thread, but i'm glad someone posted the truth.

Black education in colonial africa. Thats it. Thats the joke. There is no other punchline.

I love how quickly the "white is right/ the colonists had it working" mentality showed up in this thread. With no basis in fact. Like the inequitable distribution of land, resources, education, etc

When you have 95% of a nations resources being committed to 5% of the population, including such basics as running water, electricity, healthcare, education etc, a 10X pay disparity based on race for doing the same job, there is bound to be great difficulty, immense difficulty in righting those inequities. See the rest of Africa as example. See just about any former colony as example. (Australia, Canada and New Zealand are very specific cases that would be exception. Kill most of the local population, stay and become the majority. The same rules apply vis a vis indigenous education, health, welfare etc though)

You think South Africa is going to be different? I mock, I scoff at your naivete. The vast majority of South Africans are still living way below their poverty line. The dissent is rising. The inexorable shall soon be.

pj67coll · #60 02-14-2009, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by neanderthal

F*ck you. Gently. With a chainsaw.

Signed. One of "The Monkeys."

Truth hurts does it? Too bad.

- Peter.