Zimbabwe finance minister admits: 'We've only got $217 in the bank'

page: 2
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:29 PM
link   
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
 


Just as a heads up, Zimbabwe hasn't used ZWD since 2009. They have indefinitely abandoned the currency and now only use South African Rand, $USD or £GBP.

Source:

www.xe.com... (Bottom of the page.)
news.bbc.co.uk...




posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 09:46 PM
link   
This all started because of outside influences, particularly Great Britain.

Africa should not be poor, they have extensive resources, but the people do not have access to those resources because they have been stolen.

The first invasion was by the British East India Co., then the British South African Co., a joining of two exploration companies, 'Exploring Company Ltd' and the 'Central Search Association'. In the 1800's there was a rush to exploit undeveloped countries, and exploration companies existed in order to find those resource so capitalists could steel, and exploit them.

They also had a vested interest in keeping those 3rd world countries from becoming developed.

This is why the west is so wealthy, and Africa so poor. All the Africans need is their land, but they don't have access to it. Their own land.

Liberia, and Ethiopia, are the only two countries in Africa that were never owned by the British, because they resisted and succeeded in keeping them out. Ethiopia has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.

edit on 1/30/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 30 2013 @ 10:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 

They should be proud of it. The U.S. is trillions in debt and this guy is worried. Let the Federal Reserve take over that country and join the rest of the busted nations.

Second line.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
This all started because of outside influences, particularly Great Britain.


Zimbabwe did well under the British.

It was only after Robert Mugabe and his ZANU started siezing farms from white farmers after 1999 that Zimbabwe's economy started to go downhill.

Economic difficulties and hyperinflation (1999–2008)


Originally posted by ANOK
Liberia, and Ethiopia, are the only two countries in Africa that were never owned by the British, because they resisted and succeeded in keeping them out. Ethiopia has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.


The British did colonise much of Africa but not as much as you suggest. It was Italy that tried to colonize Ethiopia, not the British.






edit on 31-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 



Britain had many colonies in Africa: in British West Africa there was Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Southern Cameroon, and Sierra Leone; in British East Africa there was Kenya, Uganda, and Tanzania (formerly Tanganyika and Zanzibar); and in British South Africa there was South Africa, Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Nyasaland (Malawi), Lesotho, Botswana, and Swaziland. Britain had a strange and unique colonial history with Egypt. The Sudan, formerly known as the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan, was jointly ruled by Egypt and Britain, because they had jointly colonized the area. The joint colonial administration of the Sudan by Egypt and Britain was known as the condominium government. The British system of government affected the type of racial or ethnic problems that all of Britain’s African colonies had during the colonial period, the immediate postcolonial period, and from the 1980s into the twenty-first century.


Africa: British Colonies - HISTORY OF BRITISH COLONIAL RULE IN AFRICA

Gambia, Ghana, Nigeria, Southern Cameroon, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Uganda, Tanzania, South Africa, Northern Rhodesia (Zambia), Southern Rhodesia (Zimbabwe), Nyasaland (Malawi), Lesotho, Botswana, Swaziland, Egypt.

My point still stands I think. Yes many other countries colonised Africa. But my point really wasn't who started it, but the fact that the continent of Africa has been taken from the natives, and their problems are directly related to it. Much like in America the natives had free use of the land, until the Europeans came looking to make themselves wealthy.


A University of North Texas historian, however, has demonstrated that pre-colonial African society had a rich historical tradition. Constance Hilliard, assistant professor of history, includes translations of historical chronicles and other original texts reflecting the intellectual history of Africa in her book, The Intellectual Traditions of Pre-Colonial Africa. The writings, which date to 2500 B.C., are from ancient Egypt and Nubia, Ethiopia, North Africa, Timbuktu in West Africa, the Swahili Coast of East Africa and Central and Southern Africa."History has assumed that all the documents in Africa were written by Europeans, not indigenous peoples," Hilliard says. "For example, it was thought that the cultural output of Alexandria, Egypt, was Greek, since the Greeks had invaded in 322 B.C. and Alexander the Great laid the cornerstone for the city.


news.unt.edu...



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

My point still stands I think. Yes many other countries colonised Africa. But my point really wasn't who started it, but the fact that the continent of Africa has been taken from the natives, and their problems are directly related to it.

Much like in America the natives had free use of the land, until the Europeans came looking to make themselves wealthy.


Fair point that the land was taken from the natives.

Colonization is by its nature exploitative and as you pointed out, the colonizer tends to have an interest in preventing the colonized country from developing.

On the other hand, many of Africa's problems today stem from black Africans own mismanagement. For instance, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabe took over and seized the farms back off of white farmers.

From Breadbasket to Dustbowl



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:16 AM
link   
In silver, $217 could be worth billions if our economies hyperinflate. Of course if our economies hyperinflate, the whole world is "up the creek without a paddle." Well....except for Iceland.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by ollncasino
On the other hand, many of Africa's problems today stem from black Africans own mismanagement. For instance, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabe took over and seized the farms back off of white farmers.


That is also true, but they were set up to fail to begin with.

They were managing themselves just fine before the white farmers go there.

We as "white people" need to stop making excuses and except what happened, and make sure we don't do what our ancestors did.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

They were managing themselves just fine before the white farmers go there.

We as "white people" need to stop making excuses and except what happened, and make sure we don't do what our ancestors did.



Yet the "yellow people" is busy exploiting Africa in the 21st Century.

Deputy Prime Minister of Zimbabwe Attacks China’s Exploitation of Africa


“Africa was sick and tired of having its natural resources exploited by China and getting little in return; we are sick and tired of the old model, where China comes to Africa and extracts raw materials and goes back to China”

These are the powerful words of the Deputy Prime Minister of Zimbabwe, Arthur Mutambara, when he gave an interview to the Reuters news agency recently.

Mutambara Attacks China’s Exploitation of Africa



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


And yet it sounds like you are just trying to make excuses again.

The Chinese exploiting them now is not what caused them to lose all their land a hundred or so years ago, which caused their lack of development. If that had not happened maybe the Chinese would not have been able to exploit them now.

The continent has been turned into such turmoil, and their is so much extreme poverty, that they are beyond helping themselves. So they have no way to stop any outside exploitation.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 05:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

And yet it sounds like you are just trying to make excuses again.


You thinks so?

I just don't think everything can be blamed on the 'white man'.


Originally posted by ANOK
The Chinese exploiting them now is not what caused them to lose all their land a hundred or so years ago, which caused their lack of development. If that had not happened maybe the Chinese would not have been able to exploit them now.


It does sound as if you are trying to blame everything on the 'white man'. A common left wing paradigm.

Sub-Sahara Africa wasn't very advanced when the white man arrived. They had neither invented the wheel nor a written language.

What have the Romans ever done for us?



edit on 31-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 06:38 AM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


Thank you for your balanced opinion, a voice of reason for a change!

Not everything that goes wrong in Africa in the blackmans fault but not all of the faults are the whitemans either!

I live here and have done for 54 years and I can attest to that!



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:26 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


I wasn't blaming everything on the white man, you are the one that bought up white men.

"For instance, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabe took over and seized the farms back off of white farmers. "

Again you are making excuses for what happened, or just arguing for arguing sake.

Europeans, that happen to be white, just like me, are the ones who stole most of Africa, and is why they have problems now. Their problems started before the Chinese got there, so the root of the problem is not the Chinese, even though they are continuing the problem.


Between the 1870s and 1900, Africa faced European imperialist aggression, diplomatic pressures, military invasions, and eventual conquest and colonization. At the same time, African societies put up various forms of resistance against the attempt to colonize their countries and impose foreign domination. By the early twentieth century, however, much of Africa, except Ethiopia and Liberia, had been colonized by European powers.


The Colonization of Africa

The colonization wasn't just people moving there to live, it was companies, corporations, that colonised to simply take advantage of the land and resources, at the expense of the natives.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK
I wasn't blaming everything on the white man, you are the one that bought up white men.


No, actually it was you in this post here


We as "white people" need to stop making excuses and except what happened, and make sure we don't do what our ancestors did.

ANOK



Originally posted by ANOK
"For instance, Zimbabwe was the breadbasket of Africa until Robert Mugabe took over and seized the farms back off of white farmers. "

Again you are making excuses for what happened, or just arguing for arguing sake.


I was making a statement of fact to demonstrate that not all of Africa's problems stem from the 'white man' as you like to put it.



edit on 31-1-2013 by ollncasino because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Rhodesia was the breadbasket of Africa, now as Zimbabwe, it's a $^&*hole. From an almost first world county run by white Europeans to a cesspool run by black communists. I guess it's better to have most of your population die of starvation and disease and murder your white farmers than be called a racist country. They get what they deserve. Ian Stuart held that country together against almost the whole world as long as he could, but the One World freaks wanted their black communist utopia and they got it.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
www.bbc.co.uk...

$217 one day, $30 million in the bank on the next.

Governments aren't supposed to have a ton of money sitting in the bank. In fact, a properly run government would be operating around $0 where the money coming in and the money going out are being utilized to their maximum. A government sitting on a ton of money isn't a good thing, believe it or not.

Kind of like this graph of the US government's budget from 1948 to 2011: i.imgur.com... From 1948 to 1974, we were technically hovering at $0 in the difference between expenses and revenue. Technically, it was that way from the inception of this country til 1974 but that is kind of a crazy long graph, lol. I don't see what Zimbabwe had in their coffers on one day and how they had $30 million in it on the next is a bad thing. A government that grossly overspends and accumulates massive amounts of debt and a government that accumulates wealth that isn't utilized to better the lives of its residents are both bad things.
edit on 31/1/13 by WhiteAlice because: and forgot to post the graph, lol.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:41 PM
link   
edit on 31/1/13 by WhiteAlice because: odd double posting



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:45 PM
link   
reply to post by ollncasino
 


No, I wrote that after you mentioned white farmers, and that is why I did it.



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 03:47 PM
link   
reply to post by shai hulud
 


LOL they left those "black communists" with nothing.

How were they supposed to recover from decades of white control?

It's so easy to blame the "black people" isn't it?


edit on 1/31/2013 by ANOK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 31 2013 @ 04:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by ANOK

LOL they left those "black communists" with nothing.



Nothing except a working infrastructure, administration, court system, democracy and some of the most productive farms in Africa.


Originally posted by ANOK

How were they supposed to recover from decades of white control?

It's so easy to blame the "black people" isn't it?




It's just as easy to blame the whites. The truth lies somewhere in the middle.





new topics
top topics
 
13
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join