Zimbabwe preparing to return to the Gold standard

Zimbabwe may sell diamonds for gold, so that it can have a gold-backed currency, according to a recent proposal from the governor of Zimbabwe’s central bank.

Commodity online

Zerohedge

A very interesting development, the most recent country to experience a currency crisis is thinking about going back to the gold standard.

As we know, the U.S. does not take lightly the threat of the dollar hegemony.

How long until al Qaeda is found in Zimbabwe?

Or Mugabee turns into "a brutal dictator that needs to be removed"?

Hopefully it will soon be back to the glory days of Rhodesia when it was one of the most successful and independent of former colony's...

Then my One Hundred Trillion dollar bill I bought on ebay for $4 will be worthless?? I thought it would be cool to own a bill of 100,000,000,000,000 so I bought one and hung it at my desk at work!! I tell everyone I don't need money because I am a hundred trillionare!!

reply to post by Skerrako

Zimbabwe shouldn't return to the gold standard, just look what happened in libya, i wonder how long till a war or a manufactured happens in Zimbabwe?

I suspect Mugabe may soon meet death for his stance against the Dollar hegemony. They who dare rise up must be brought down. But how long can this suppression last? First Libya now Zimbabwe, from this point forward either countries will take up the cause of gold or they will see what happened in Libya to which they will become turned off regarding a currency transition.

Gold had not lasted so long as the near universal form of currency for no reason. People are far too eager in forgetting the past that they are willing to tear up the roots suspecting the tree will continue to grow. It cannot, this past century has taught us that very thing. Cut off the roots and the tree will wither. Our economy, civilization, and way of life are withering away as well.

Perhaps Mugabe can light the spark that burns down the forest of international banking cartels, I would not however bet on it. But if the push is strong enough maybe more people around this world suffering from a dismal economy may take up the cause of gold.

A man can dream, can he not?

Originally posted by Skerrako

Zimbabwe may sell diamonds for gold, so that it can have a gold-backed currency, according to a recent proposal from the governor of Zimbabwe’s central bank.

Commodity online

Zerohedge

A very interesting development, the most recent country to experience a currency crisis is thinking about going back to the gold standard.

As we know, the U.S. does not take lightly the threat of the dollar hegemony.

How long until al Qaeda is found in Zimbabwe?

Or Mugabee turns into "a brutal dictator that needs to be removed"?

He is a brutal dictator that needs to be removed. No one is going to take that currency seriously even if backed by gold. Dictators are very unpredictable.

Originally posted by Agent_USA_Supporter
reply to post by Skerrako

 

Zimbabwe shouldn't return to the gold standard, just look what happened in libya, i wonder how long till a war or a manufactured happens in Zimbabwe?

edit on 31-5-2011 by Agent_USA_Supporter because: (no reason given)

Yes,that was my thought exactly. After all these years they'll suddenly feel under a moral obligation to go and stop the persecution of the Zimbabwean people. Yeah, right.

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by Skerrako

Zimbabwe may sell diamonds for gold, so that it can have a gold-backed currency, according to a recent proposal from the governor of Zimbabwe’s central bank.

Commodity online

Zerohedge

A very interesting development, the most recent country to experience a currency crisis is thinking about going back to the gold standard.

As we know, the U.S. does not take lightly the threat of the dollar hegemony.

How long until al Qaeda is found in Zimbabwe?

Or Mugabee turns into "a brutal dictator that needs to be removed"?

He is a brutal dictator that needs to be removed. No one is going to take that currency seriously even if backed by gold. Dictators are very unpredictable.

That's right. Dictator Obama too is unpredictable.

reply to post by wcitizen


The president is not a dictator. You may not like him, but you know he isnt.

The gold standard is a bad idea anyways but if the dictator wants to try it, good luck.

Originally posted by gorgi
reply to post by wcitizen

 

The president is not a dictator. You may not like him, but you know he isnt.

The gold standard is a bad idea anyways but if the dictator wants to try it, good luck.

The President IS now a dictator, IMO. You know that's true.

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by gorgi
reply to post by wcitizen

 

The president is not a dictator. You may not like him, but you know he isnt.

The gold standard is a bad idea anyways but if the dictator wants to try it, good luck.

The President IS now a dictator, IMO. You know that's true.

Care to explain how ?

I do not see any proof of him being a dictator. If he was the Republicans would not have the house and he would have had his way on every single subject.

double post deleted.

Originally posted by gorgi

Originally posted by wcitizen

Originally posted by gorgi
reply to post by wcitizen

 

The president is not a dictator. You may not like him, but you know he isnt.

The gold standard is a bad idea anyways but if the dictator wants to try it, good luck.

The President IS now a dictator, IMO. You know that's true.

Care to explain how ?

I do not see any proof of him being a dictator. If he was the Republicans would not have the house and he would have had his way on every single subject.

Here's a list of common charcteristics of a dictator.

frankwarner.typepad.com...

March 14, 2005
Common characteristics of world dictators
It was hard to tell whether Hugo Chavez rigged the Venezuela recall vote in his favor. But Coyote Blog’s "How to spot a dictator" post has a point. Click here.

For the record, a dictator guarantees none of the following:

Freedom of speech.
Freedom of the press.
Free opposition political parties.
Independent courts.
Free and regular elections.

Degrees of repression. Some dictators see themselves as a transition to democracy, but, in general, few eventually subject themselves to an election. In Chile, Augusto Pinochet did allow two yes-no votes on his rule, and he left office after the second plebiscite, in which 56 percent of the people voted "no."

Some dictators allow limited freedom of expression, as long the expression -- written or spoken -- doesn’t directly challenge the dictator’s rule.

The restrictions vary. In some dictatorships, the people can call for free elections or criticize the dictator. In the more repressive tyrannies, such speech could be punished by imprisonment or worse. Under the most severe oppression, a society may appear calm, but only because the punishment for dissent is swift, harsh and certain.

Totalitarianism. Totalitarian dictatorships, the most repressive of regimes, strictly enforce the absence of freedom, and relentlessly apply the power of the press, the courts, the bureaucracy, the army and the police against individual liberties. Totalitarian means total dictatorial control.

Most totalitarian police states have some form of neighborhood block watches, requiring residents to inform on neighbors who exhibit any democratic tendencies. Secret police also watch for anti-dictatorship activity. Religions often are not permitted to operate without a government license; dictators fear that worshipers might plot against them during private religious activities. In totalitarian theocracies, one religion is central to the dictatorship, which relentlessly tells the people that oppression is God's will.

In totalitarian societies, gross abuses of human rights are common. Totalitarian dictatorships also tend to justify their abuses by claiming the total repression serves a higher cause, like material equality or superficial stability. Totalitarian dictators regularly educate both children and adults that freedom is a scary thing, or they redefine "freedom" as equality or stability. The arguments for totalitarian control become an "ideology," a system of principles that average citizens are never permitted to question.

No named successor. One oddly common trait among dictatorships: The dictator almost never has a named successor. Most democracies have something like a vice president, to take over if the president dies. Dictators don't want their opponents to know who would succeed them. The uncertainty discourages the opposition from assassinating the dictator. To the would-be assassin, the successor could be worse, or the chaos of choosing a successor too dangerous.

In dictatorships, the ruling political party either restricts the activities of opposition political parties or outlaws opposition parties altogether. (Each "party" simply is a group of people who agree on and organize around a collection of political ideas.) Dictatorships also allow the courts little or no independence; judges are expected to issue rulings based on what the dictator wants, even if the dictator's wishes contradict the truth or the law.

Dictatorships are much more inclined to begin wars. Their secrecy and unaccountability place few restrictions on a dictators' war-making decisions. The same lack of openness and accountability makes dictatorships much more prone to mass murders of outcasts, political opponents and even people simply suspected of opposing the government. With no free elections, no strong opposition parties, no free press and no independent courts to challenge them, dictators can order mass death at their whim.

Link to famine. Some political scientists argue that the lack of openness and accountability of dictatorships also is a major cause of mass famine. Democracies occasionally experience hunger and malnutrition, but democracies seldom experience the kind of famine that lets hundreds of thousands or even millions die of starvation. A government that faces a free press and free elections is much more likely to produce quick action to avoid famine.

A dictatorship is more inclined to cover up famine and look the other way. In fact, some dictators, including Joseph Stalin and Mao Zedung, intentionally have caused famines and let them linger. They cut off food to cities and provinces to punish people who called for freedom or independence.

A dictatorship commonly is thought of as one person, the dictator himself. Usually, there is one man at the top, but occasionally the top ruler answers to some extent to a dictatorial political party. Today's Chinese Communist Party is one example of this. It enjoys dictatorial power. It is not elected by the people, but it elects all of China's rulers.*

Hopeless oppression. The most common characteristic of a dictatorship: Hopelessness in the people -- no hope of a free election to change leaders, no hope of fairness in court, no hope of a life lived with the freedom to speak your mind or challenge a bad idea.

Frank Warner

[//quote]

double post deleted

Originally posted by Skerrako
Or Mugabee turns into "a brutal dictator that needs to be removed"?

Oh, he's been that ever since he started his land-redistribution programs.

Can't have those poor people farming potatoes, now can we?

reply to post by gorgi


Here's how.

1) He's of a different party than the poster.
2) He's of a different ethnicity than the poster.

Ergo, he's certain to be a dictator.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox
reply to post by gorgi

 

Here's how.

1) He's of a different party than the poster.
2) He's of a different ethnicity than the poster.

Ergo, he's certain to be a dictator.

Your crystal ball isn't working, time to throw it into the garbage where it belongs.

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your crystal ball isn't working, time to throw it into the garbage where it belongs.

Given that you've utterly failed to prove your case - the only thing you've provided is someone else's halfassed, roundabout attempt to prove Hugo Chavez is a dictator (primarily by pointing out dictatorial things Chavez hasn't done and then claiming that since a dictator doesn't NEED to do those things, that makes Chavez a dictator) I think I'll stand by my assessment.

He's browner than you and is of a different political party, so you hate his ass. You don't actually know what a dictatorship is, and you obviously haven't got the first damn clue how the Obama administration resembles one (Dictators are mammals; Barack Obama is a mammal. Ergo...) so all you've got to go on is this vague and vapid notion that you need to show your "loyalty to the team" by hating on him.

present some well-thought-out and fact-supported evidence of how Obama is really Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein, and it might be worth considering. Until you pull that off, you're just another schmuck on the internet, regurgitating someone else's sloppy work and hoping no one notices.

Originally posted by TheWalkingFox

Originally posted by wcitizen
Your crystal ball isn't working, time to throw it into the garbage where it belongs.

Given that you've utterly failed to prove your case - the only thing you've provided is someone else's halfassed, roundabout attempt to prove Hugo Chavez is a dictator (primarily by pointing out dictatorial things Chavez hasn't done and then claiming that since a dictator doesn't NEED to do those things, that makes Chavez a dictator) I think I'll stand by my assessment.

You see, that's the problem. Many people have lost their ability to think, and are so blinded by the jingoism spewd out by the MSM that they don't see what's happening right under their nose.

Also, you've completely misinterpreted the text. Yes, the author makes reference to Chavez, but the list is of the list of common characteristics of dictators, and should be ringing alarm bells for many who are still under the delusion that we are living in 'democracies' here in the west.

In the same way there are lists of common symptoms of a disease. Dictatorships are a disease on society.
This is a list of symptoms to look out for.

He's browner than you and is of a different political party, so you hate his ass.

You don't actually know what a dictatorship is, and you obviously haven't got the first damn clue how the Obama administration resembles one (Dictators are mammals; Barack Obama is a mammal. Ergo...) so all you've got to go on is this vague and vapid notion that you need to show your "loyalty to the team" by hating on him.

present some well-thought-out and fact-supported evidence of how Obama is really Idi Amin or Saddam Hussein,

Did I say 'Obama is really Idi Amin'? No, I didn't think so.

and it might be worth considering. Until you pull that off, you're just another schmuck on the internet, regurgitating someone else's sloppy work and hoping no one notices.

Like I said, your crystal ball isn't working. These comments are a reflection of who you are, nothing more.

I predict they will soon fing terrorists in Zimbabwe....