Zimbabwe Issues $100 Billion Note — Worth Half a Loaf of Bread

Zimbabwe has solved the current problem of people having to cart bags of money to the store to pay for food: it issued a $100 billion note, which will not even buy a loaf of bread in the country. The complete free fall of the Zimbabwe economy has become a textbook example of how government policy can destroy an entire country. In the meantime, farmers are being beaten by thugs associated with the government to sign over their land. Yet, Russia vetoed efforts to impose sanctions on the country and specifically its strongman ruler, Robert Mugabe.


Zimbabwe was once a prosperous nation, but now is crippled under an inflation rate that even the government puts at 2.2 million percent. That estimate is viewed as a great underestimation by economists.

Reports have emerged of shocking beatings of farmers in the country by Mugabe henchmen, click here. the country now appears to be run as little more than a criminal enterprise headed by a delusional dictator.

Showing how completely divorced its policies are from any moral obligations, Russia vetoed efforts to impose sanctions on Zimbabwe, click here.

For the full story, click here.

15 thoughts on “Zimbabwe Issues $100 Billion Note — Worth Half a Loaf of Bread”

  1. Mugabe, who’s still using the land/colonialist pretext and mercenaries, has support not just from China and Russia, but more importantly from other African leaders, such as Thabo Mbeki, which is perhaps the main reason the SADC is thwarted from successful intervention. One thing that could be done is exposure of the very dubious ties of Mbeki to suspect activities (including any relations he has w/the Congo and Mugabe)–i.e., using the power to shame or to influence Mbeki behind the scenes w/threat to shame. Same thing to a lesser extent w/Lesotho and Malawi. On the positive, discussions could be held w/Botswana about what kind of support they might require and desire should they decide to take a more active role.

  2. Gyges
    1, July 21, 2008 at 11:58 am
    J,

    I could be wrong about this, but War Crimes are specific actions done during a war not the war itself.

    No, you were right the first time. You’re wrong.

    International law prohibits the illegal invasion and occupation of soveriegn nations.

  3. J,

    I could be wrong about this, but War Crimes are specific actions done during a war not the war itself. My understanding is that the legality of the Iraqi War has to do with the distribution of power in our country.
    The President has can order the troops wherever he wants (with in certain limits that have to do with treaties, and if we’re officially at war or not), but only Congress can declare war. Congress gave declared war conditionally on Iraq, the condition was that the president go to the UN and ask for their approval a second time, which he failed to do. Congress never officially declared war, so Bush’s actions were illegal. If Congress had said “sure just go invade” with no conditions the war itself would be legal. As far as some of the U.S. actions during the war, that’s where we get into War Crimes.

  4. Sure Martha….uh.. its all “theory”.

    So when I go to the gas station tomorrow, and the guy wants 65 bucks for a fill up, I should just hand him a 20 and tell him the difference is merely theoretical?

    😐

    I’m sure that well go over well.

  5. puzzling is another nitwit here. wow. i don’t think i have seen so many clueless conspiracy type blamers in one place all at once.

  6. puzzling
    1, July 20, 2008 at 10:19 pm
    If the deliberate inflation of the money supply in Zimbabwe is criminal, why aren’t we locking up the Congress, The Treasury, The President, and The Federal Reserve for orchestrating the same thing here?

    Same reason they’re not locking them up in Zimbabwe.

    😐

    Because they’re the ones with the guns.

  7. If the deliberate inflation of the money supply in Zimbabwe is criminal, why aren’t we locking up the Congress, The Treasury, The President, and The Federal Reserve for orchestrating the same thing here?

    You don’t need a 2m pc inflation rate to have evidence that government is stealing from its citizens. 10% will do just fine.

    Inflation in the United States is rampant, and can be seen in the price of energy, food, health services, tuition, gold, and so on. Among our most regressive taxes, inflation robs purchasing power from those who have saved through their lifetimes. For those on fixed incomes in retirement, it is the most pernicious tax of all, as these individuals can choose either to return to the workplace or lower their standard of living. On the other hand, inflation benefits those who get to spend these new dollars first. In the US in 2008, that is primarily the US government and the banking system.

    Our government has created inflation to fund massive spending (particularly on the war, entitlement promises, and corporate contracts or policy advantages), while borrowing or monetizing the difference between these spending levels and money collected in taxes. These actions are criminal, but widely misunderstood and accepted by our society as some unpredictable or cyclical effect in the markets. Nothing could be further from the truth.

    Inflation is theft.

  8. If the Neocons were half the big bad heroes they claim to be, or if Bush and Cheney actually gave a rats ass about “humanitarian” causes, then mugabe would be fertilizer, and his men either disbanded or dead.

    We went to Iraq for one reason.

    Because Bush wanted to show the people he was busy killing Arabs. Arabs who looked like the terrorists on 911. But he couldn’t go after the real terrorists, so he picked Iraq.

    Because he thought it would be easier.

  9. J
    1, July 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm
    Its nowadays immoral (or a war crime to some) to go into a country without getting their permission, or that of the UN. Which will never be granted

    No.

    Its a war crime to invade and occupy another country without international sanction. Something that didn’t stop Bush from doing that in Iraq.

    As for taking out a foreign dictator who is committing genocide?

    Thats ALWAYS been considered both moral and if crimes are proven, legal.

    Lets just admit the real truth here.

    The reason we sit back and watch guys like Mugabe commit his crimes and the genocide in Darfur, is because they’re black.

    Thats all there is to it.

    Clinton tried once to intervene, but he went in with too small a force and with limited authority to kill. It failed, and ever since Americans haven’t been willing to risk their soldiers being killed for a bunch of black people.

    And thats the truth, whether anyone can stomach it, or not.

  10. J
    1, July 20, 2008 at 4:31 pm
    Nothing much can really be done, sadly. The alternative, getting rid of Mugabe by force, is not an option

    Sure it is. Covert ops happen all the time, without the permission of the UN.

  11. Nothing much can really be done, sadly. The alternative, getting rid of Mugabe by force, is not an option. Its nowadays immoral (or a war crime to some) to go into a country without getting their permission, or that of the UN. Which will never be granted.

  12. And what pray tell are “sanctions” supposed to do to alleviate the burden on the people?

    We saw what they did for the starving people of Iraq.

    😐

    They just helped them starve quicker.

  13. Shame immoral thugs running governments are able to do this at will in this world.

    Of course a President Obama will change all this with speeches & teleprompters and interviews on Keith Olbermann’s COUNTDOWN where a President Obama will expouse change for the goodness of change and brought about by change with a dose of change for good measure.

Comments are closed.