News $100 billion note

pikeh

Resident Freddy
Joined
Aug 28, 2004
Messages
5,032
"just this loaf of bread please mate"




"That'll be ONE HUNDRED BEEEELLION DOLLARS! please"
 

haarewin

Fledgling Freddie
Joined
Jan 19, 2004
Messages
2,756
crikey. can you imagine a loaf of bread costing £50billion?
 

Litmus

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 30, 2003
Messages
1,576
Probally cheaper to burn money notes rather then spend the money on wood etc ;o
 

kiliarien

Part of the furniture
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
2,478
Crazy stuff, like the German problems in the early 1920's - the bank issued a 100,000,000,000,000 Mark note back then I think. If only someone would wipe out Mugabe, the crazy mofo.
 

kiliarien

Part of the furniture
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
2,478
Must be insane working out change
Lol - imagine using a vending machine, idly putting a coin in to get a Mars bar and then thinking 'Oh fuck, that was 6 months' wages'.
 

kivik

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
2,623
It's not all blame on Mugabe really. Have every country in the world put up embargoes/sanctions against your country and see what a nice economy you will get. Was the same in Cuba.
 

cHodAX

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
19,742
It's not all blame on Mugabe really. Have every country in the world put up embargoes/sanctions against your country and see what a nice economy you will get. Was the same in Cuba.
I am sorry, you are good guy but that is the most uninformed post in the history of Freddyshouse.

First of all, the sactions only came 5 years after he evicted all the white farmers off the land. Those farms were what fed the people of Zimbabwe and accounted for the majority of the countries exports as well. From that day people in Zimbabwe have constantly struggled for food and the damage it did to the economy has caused hyper-inflation. It is entirely Mugabe's fault, he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the outcome would be, during the turmoil his actions have caused the guy has used it as a smokescreen to bank hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable accounts. He has bankrupt his country to make a few people in his political party and army extremely rich. All the while his people have starved in thier millions.

No one else is to blame, Mugabe fucked that country over because the guy is a thief.

Oh and as for the embargos, only a few countries have done that, 95% of the world still trades with Zimbabwe despite the genocide going on there.
 

kiliarien

Part of the furniture
Joined
Mar 14, 2004
Messages
2,478
I am sorry, you are good guy but that is the most uninformed post in the history of Freddyshouse.

First of all, the sactions only came 5 years after he evicted all the white farmers off the land. Those farms were what fed the people of Zimbabwe and accounted for the majority of the countries exports as well. From that day people in Zimbabwe have constantly struggled for food and the damage it did to the economy has caused hyper-inflation. It is entirely Mugabe's fault, he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the outcome would be, during the turmoil his actions have caused the guy has used it as a smokescreen to bank hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable accounts. He has bankrupt his country to make a few people in his political party and army extremely rich. All the while his people have starved in thier millions.

No one else is to blame, Mugabe fucked that country over because the guy is a thief.

Oh and as for the embargos, only a few countries have done that, 95% of the world still trades with Zimbabwe despite the genocide going on there.

Agreed. Mugabe's land reform programme (which btw, he didn't even pass legally and sensibly) did not take into account that the 'veterans' who, fair play to them, had worked the land for some period of time, but had very little knowledge on many of the methods of common agri-business and most definitely had no grasp of the international or domestic markets that their crops were destined for.

Even with the minority of countries embargoing him, he is still welcomed in those countries . He was in the UK less than three months ago. I do not advocate violence but in this case something has to be done.

I was also a little disappointed by Morgan Changerai stepping down during the 'elcetions' - I see why he did it, but I feel it let down those people who had already died for the cause.

Blimey this is all a bit somber! :(
 

kivik

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
2,623
I am sorry, you are good guy but that is the most uninformed post in the history of Freddyshouse.

First of all, the sactions only came 5 years after he evicted all the white farmers off the land. Those farms were what fed the people of Zimbabwe and accounted for the majority of the countries exports as well. From that day people in Zimbabwe have constantly struggled for food and the damage it did to the economy has caused hyper-inflation. It is entirely Mugabe's fault, he knew exactly what he was doing and exactly what the outcome would be, during the turmoil his actions have caused the guy has used it as a smokescreen to bank hundreds of millions of dollars in untraceable accounts. He has bankrupt his country to make a few people in his political party and army extremely rich. All the while his people have starved in thier millions.

No one else is to blame, Mugabe fucked that country over because the guy is a thief.

Oh and as for the embargos, only a few countries have done that, 95% of the world still trades with Zimbabwe despite the genocide going on there.
Fair enough. I, admittely, didn't know much about the (economical) history of Zimbabwe.

But surely, sanctions doesn't really help the economy and I wouldn't blame Mugabe for the sanctions. He might be the reason for them, but we are the ones issuing them.
 

tierk

Resident Freddy
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
2,884
This is where it all started....

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | US backed Zimbabwe land reform

Basically a deal was agreed on and worked for eighteen years. Then.......

BBC said:
But the UK government found that some of the farms were being given to President Mugabe's close associates, and refused to continue the payments.

Mr Mugabe was furious, claiming bad faith.

The path to the seizure of white farms was opened and thus began the long slide to today's economic chaos.
From a Zimbabwean official point of view....

KELEBERT NKOMANI said:
It all boils down to the issue of land redistribution, which almost derailed the independence talks at Lancaster in 1979. Andrew Young, the then US secretary of state, helped broker an agreement that the land would be bought from the white farmers systematically over time with assistance and funding from the British government, besides multilateral and bilateral assistance from donors.

It was important that more resources be made available to complete the process of moving land from the white community to the black majority on a willing-seller-willing- buyer basis.

The process went on well during the Conservative rule of Margaret Thatcher and John Major, but when the Labour government came into power, they said they did not feel they had an obligation to fulfil this pact. That it was not their job to adopt the policy of the conservatives.

This was a major departure, because it meant that the British government was disowning what we thought was the agreement at Lancaster House. As a result, Zimbabwe, through a legislative process, adopted a new policy on how to acquire land

The owners of the land would be paid for whatever development they had made on the land: If they had fenced the land, built a road, homestead etc, they would be compensated. But the Zimbabwe government felt that it would not be proper for us as a country to compensate the landlords for the land itself because that land was in the first instance not bought from the African original owners but taken away from them.

After we adopted this policy, the UK and US took a strong position against Zimbabwe. The UK organised the European Union against Zimbabwe, while the US passed what they call the Zimbabwe Democracy and Economic Recovery Act, which essentially made it obligatory for all their representatives in international institutions to ensure that no financial resources would flow to Zimbabwe, particularly from the likes of the IMF and World Bank.
 

cHodAX

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
19,742
Fair enough. I, admittely, didn't know much about the (economical) history of Zimbabwe.

But surely, sanctions doesn't really help the economy and I wouldn't blame Mugabe for the sanctions. He might be the reason for them, but we are the ones issuing them.
We haven't put sanctions up for medical or food aid as far as I am aware, we are just blocking them moving money out of the country and buying weapons.
 

Uara

Part of the furniture
Joined
Jul 24, 2004
Messages
2,254
the problem came with the fact that the White farmers managed the land on a much larger scale so they could produce decent amount of crops. Whereas during the land reform not only did those get their hands on the land not kno really about the business of farming on large areas. They also split the land into smaller areas so that more people could get hold of it. But then these people didn't work together and generally only thought about themselves thus essentially shooting themselves in the foot as individually they weren't able to make enough crops.
 

tierk

Resident Freddy
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
2,884
the problem came with the fact that the White farmers managed the land on a much larger scale so they could produce decent amount of crops. Whereas during the land reform not only did those get their hands on the land not kno really about the business of farming on large areas......

The problem is nothing quite as simple as you seem to think. The reality is that the region as a whole has been suffering from intemittent drought for a long stretch of time.


State of the environment in Southern Africa said:
1974-80 This period of six years was relatively moist over much of southern Africa. In 1974, the average annual rainfall was 100%
above normal throughout the region.

1981-82 Most of southern Africa experienced drought.

1982 Most of sub-tropical Africa experienced drought.

1983 This was a particularly bad drought year for the entire African
continent.

1985 Conditions improved.

1986-87 Drought conditions returned.

1991-92 Southern Africa, excluding Namibia, experienced the worst drought
in living memory

I remember the drought in the early nineties as i was in Zambia for half on 91 and and almost all of 92 and not only was it severe in the extreme it was also across a really wide area and iirc affected almost 80% of all farming in the region as a whole - Zambia, Zimbabwe, Malawi, South Africa etc.

To quote another useful source:

Ms Mutsa Chasi of the Environmental Management Agency said:
Zimbabwe is now experiencing an unprecedented series of extreme weather events which have serious implications on food security and the economy as a whole.

She revealed that six warmest years on record for Zimbabwe have occurred since 1987 and that the increased frequency of droughts since 1990 (90/91, 91/92, 92/93, 93/94, 94/95, 97/98, 01/02, 02/03, 04/05, 06/07) is causing massive drop in crop yields in the country's agricultural sector.
Is it all the fault of Mugabe? Maybe to a certain extent yes he can be blamed but the i doubt very much that he can control either the weather or the policies of the British Government.
 

WiZe^

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
2,659
Think we really need to invade Africa (again) to sort "stuff" out!!
 

cHodAX

I am a FH squatter
Joined
Jan 7, 2004
Messages
19,742
Think we really need to invade Africa (again) to sort "stuff" out!!
If there was oil in Zimbabwe then we would have gone in years ago. Instead we sit back and allow another Rwanda, we let genocide happen there because it was only a few million blacks dying and the 'what is in it for us?' mentality of the so called civilised world.
 

old.Tohtori

FH is my second home
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
45,210
'what is in it for us?' mentality of the so called civilised world.
Actually it's the mentality of the human nature.

Noone does anything without some gain to self. Be it good feeling or even a smile.

If you do something and get ntohing, not even a thank you, you get pissed off.

Multiply by a nation and voila, it's quite normal.
 

WiZe^

Can't get enough of FH
Joined
Dec 27, 2003
Messages
2,659
If there was oil in Zimbabwe then we would have gone in years ago. Instead we sit back and allow another Rwanda, we let genocide happen there because it was only a few million blacks dying and the 'what is in it for us?' mentality of the so called civilised world.
well we can still have the diamonds and ehm *cough* slaves as well :flame:
 

Cadelin

FH is my second home
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,514
Is it all the fault of Mugabe? Maybe to a certain extent yes he can be blamed but the i doubt very much that he can control either the weather or the policies of the British Government.
The economic situation is almost entirely Mugabe's fault.

The British Government paid Zimbabwe £35 million over 8 years, thats less than 5 million a year. This money was intended to directly compensate white farmers so none of it should have gone to Mugabe anyway. Mugabe took the farm land anyway so the only losers in this situation should have been the white farmers.

The sanctions on Zimbabwe are targetted at Mugabe and his closest allies. They are also not UN sanctions so there is nothing wrong with countries other than the EU/US from trading with Zimbabwe.

Hyper-inflation to the extent seen in Zimbabwe can only be caused by one thing and thats the government printing money in order to buy things.
 

tierk

Resident Freddy
Joined
Feb 16, 2004
Messages
2,884
The economic situation is almost entirely Mugabe's fault......
Agreed.

The British Government paid Zimbabwe £35 million over 8 years, thats less than 5 million a year. This money was intended to directly compensate white farmers so none of it should have gone to Mugabe anyway......
The problem wasnt that Mugabe was taking the money but rather redistrbuting the land to his own supporters.


Mugabe took the farm land anyway so the only losers in this situation should have been the white farmers.......
Only after the British government decided in their infinite wisdom to stop making the payments. Up until that point, the transfer of land was on a purely voluntary basis.

The sanctions on Zimbabwe are targetted at Mugabe and his closest allies. They are also not UN sanctions so there is nothing wrong with countries other than the EU/US from trading with Zimbabwe........
Correct. The reason that the IMF and world bank refuse to help Zimbabwe is because the government refuses to repay on outstanding loans that have built up and also a point blank refusal to implement changes to the economic policy that have destroyed what little was left of his economy.

Hyper-inflation to the extent seen in Zimbabwe can only be caused by one thing and thats the government printing money in order to buy things.
Again Correct.

that may be true but its not THEM that suffers from it. so it makes the whole deal pretty useless.
Sanctions always work this way and it is always the people that are most affected by these type of cations. One only needs to look at Iraq under Saddam in the 90's for a good example of how effective sanctions arent.
 

Ctuchik

FH is my second home
Joined
Dec 23, 2003
Messages
10,446
Hyper-inflation to the extent seen in Zimbabwe can only be caused by one thing and thats the government printing money in order to buy things.
sure, but there isnt anything else to do but to print more money or make a completely new currency.

and right now its easier to just print more money. because i dont think making a new currency will help as long as USA + lapdogs keeps ruining it.
 

Overdriven

Not a sandwich
Joined
Jan 23, 2004
Messages
12,348
I know this is all bad, but wouldn't it be cool to demand 100bn and then just get given that note? :D

Atleast you'd be an official billionaire somewhere :(
 

Cadelin

FH is my second home
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
2,514
that may be true but its not THEM that suffers from it. so it makes the whole deal pretty useless.
I would disagree. The sanction used on Zimbabwe are not the same as the sanctions used on Iraq, Iran or Afganhistan for example.

The EU has imposed travel restriction and has frozen the bank accounts of top Zimbabwe officials. There are also some restrictions on arms but Mugabe isn't bombing his own people. People in Zimbabwe are also still able to travel to neighbouring countries to buy things.

While the sanctions don't directly hurt the Zimbabwe people you may well argue that they are still pretty useless. The restrictions don't really hurt Mugabe and it allows him to shift some of the blame for economic problems to other people.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom