Zimbabwe Dollar to be phased out and replaced with US dollar

[dismal]

One of Mugabe's mistakes--he tried to fund the government with the printing press.

It's only a mistake if you assume he was trying to do what's right for the people. He's still in power.

 

[Bomb#20]

When United States was first founded they didn´t have their own money. It wasn´t until after the Civil War that USA introduced the US dollar. Before that they often used British currency, or any really. As well as proprietary bank notes issued by US banks.

Not exactly. The federal government made the US dollar the official currency and began producing them with the Coinage Act of 1792. It just didn't achieve its dominant position until the Civil War. Previously it had merely been one currency among many in common use.

 

[4321lynx]

This is an area I have no knowledge of, and never even thought about - is it even legal for a country to appropriate the use of another country's currency?

Yes. The US Dollar is the most commonly used currency of other nations, but the Euro is catching up: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_use_of_the_U.S._dollar

Current users of the dollar are:
East Timor
Ecuador
El Salvador
Marshall Islands
Federated States of Micronesia
Palau
Panama
Zimbabwe

Another good article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Currency_substitution

Peru uses both. The bank ATMs ask you if you want US dollars or Nuevo Soles when you withdraw money. No problem with up to $ 500 US per day. You pay rent and buy and sell houses in US dollars.

 

[bilby]

I've been to several countries where dollars were preferred to the local currency, though in those cases they were not legal tender. It's somewhat surprising to see Zimbabwe government do this because they have relied so heavily on money printing in the past.

Should be better for the people.

Printing money as means of extracting wealth from the people to fund the government has certainly been popular in Zimbabwe for some time. I don't think this move is a repudiation of that idea, so much as an acceptance that they have finished - there is no longer enough wealth left in $Z to be worth the cost of extraction.

 

[bilby]

I've been to several countries where dollars were preferred to the local currency, though in those cases they were not legal tender. It's somewhat surprising to see Zimbabwe government do this because they have relied so heavily on money printing in the past.

Should be better for the people.

Yeah, in most anyplace with shitty local currency the locals will favor the greenback. It's generally illegal to give them that greenback, though.

What they are doing in Zimbabwe is simply recognizing reality--the Zim $ is worthless anyway. One of Mugabe's mistakes--he tried to fund the government with the printing press.

It wasn't a mistake.

He transferred all the value from the holders of $Z to the owner of the printing press - one R. Mugabe.

Those palaces don't grow on trees you know.

It wasn't a mistake; It was a heist.

 

[J842P]

This is an area I have no knowledge of, and never even thought about - is it even legal for a country to appropriate the use of another country's currency?

They use the US dollar in El Salvador.

 

[fast]

Printing money as means of extracting wealth from the people to fund the government has certainly been popular in Zimbabwe for some time. I don't think this move is a repudiation of that idea, so much as an acceptance that they have finished - there is no longer enough wealth left in $Z to be worth the cost of extraction.

Why do people intentionally conflate side-effects with goals? When I've seen this questioned before, there's usually a quip about it either being a function of being intentional or out of ignorance. For instance, suppose B is the goal, and suppose A is the task to accomplish meeting that goal. There so happens to be a consequence C, but when articulated by certain parties, things are twisted such that C was somehow the goal. I see this with minorities a lot. Something is done for a specific purpose that just so happens to have a consequence, but when the issues are brought to light, it's always the negative consequence that is dubbed as the purpose of doing what was done.

ETA: No!, I didn't drive my big ole 4x4 to the store to hurt the environment. I drove my big ole 4x4 to the store to buy bread. No!, I didn't print money to extract wealth from the people. I printed money to keep my country running.

 

[bilby]

Printing money as means of extracting wealth from the people to fund the government has certainly been popular in Zimbabwe for some time. I don't think this move is a repudiation of that idea, so much as an acceptance that they have finished - there is no longer enough wealth left in $Z to be worth the cost of extraction.

Why do people intentionally conflate side-effects with goals? When I've seen this questioned before, there's usually a quip about it either being a function of being intentional or out of ignorance. For instance, suppose B is the goal, and suppose A is the task to accomplish meeting that goal. There so happens to be a consequence C, but when articulated by certain parties, things are twisted such that C was somehow the goal. I see this with minorities a lot. Something is done for a specific purpose that just so happens to have a consequence, but when the issues are brought to light, it's always the negative consequence that is dubbed as the purpose of doing what was done.

ETA: No!, I didn't drive my big ole 4x4 to the store to hurt the environment. I drove my big ole 4x4 to the store to buy bread. No!, I didn't print money to extract wealth from the people. I printed money to keep my country running.

There is no evidence that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF goons have been trying to keep the country running by printing money; and there is plenty of evidence that they have been seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else in the country.

It is better to assume incompetence rather than malice, in the absence of evidence. But in this case, there is good evidence for malice. Mugabe is not stupid; but he is venal.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

One of Mugabe's mistakes--he tried to fund the government with the printing press.

It's only a mistake if you assume he was trying to do what's right for the people. He's still in power.

I don't think his currency printing helped him in the long run.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why do people intentionally conflate side-effects with goals? When I've seen this questioned before, there's usually a quip about it either being a function of being intentional or out of ignorance. For instance, suppose B is the goal, and suppose A is the task to accomplish meeting that goal. There so happens to be a consequence C, but when articulated by certain parties, things are twisted such that C was somehow the goal. I see this with minorities a lot. Something is done for a specific purpose that just so happens to have a consequence, but when the issues are brought to light, it's always the negative consequence that is dubbed as the purpose of doing what was done.

ETA: No!, I didn't drive my big ole 4x4 to the store to hurt the environment. I drove my big ole 4x4 to the store to buy bread. No!, I didn't print money to extract wealth from the people. I printed money to keep my country running.

There is no evidence that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF goons have been trying to keep the country running by printing money; and there is plenty of evidence that they have been seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else in the country.

It is better to assume incompetence rather than malice, in the absence of evidence. But in this case, there is good evidence for malice. Mugabe is not stupid; but he is venal.

I do agree there was malice in the sense that he felt he would benefit. I do believe it was also a mistake because I don't think he realized what was going to happen. He would have been better off not extracting so much so there continued to be money to extract.

 

[bilby]

There is no evidence that Mugabe and his ZANU-PF goons have been trying to keep the country running by printing money; and there is plenty of evidence that they have been seeking to enrich themselves at the expense of everyone else in the country.

It is better to assume incompetence rather than malice, in the absence of evidence. But in this case, there is good evidence for malice. Mugabe is not stupid; but he is venal.

I do agree there was malice in the sense that he felt he would benefit. I do believe it was also a mistake because I don't think he realized what was going to happen. He would have been better off not extracting so much so there continued to be money to extract.

He is still in power, and still living in luxury. I don't think he gives a shit what happens as long as those two things remain true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I do agree there was malice in the sense that he felt he would benefit. I do believe it was also a mistake because I don't think he realized what was going to happen. He would have been better off not extracting so much so there continued to be money to extract.

He is still in power, and still living in luxury. I don't think he gives a shit what happens as long as those two things remain true.

There are degrees of luxury. Other than that I agree with you.

 

[SimpleDon]

Zimbabwe got into trouble because they got involved in a foreign war in the Congo and because they had a horribly executed land reform that left the country unable to feed itself. Their trade balance was negative buying arms and food to feed themselves.

Unless they have solved these problems it doesn't matter what currency they use. If they use US dollars to pay for the high amount of imports they will soon run out of them.

According to the CIA Fact book the best estimate of their trade deficit is about two billion dollars a year, about 90% of GDP. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/zi.html

However the Fact book also says that the U.S. Dollar and the S.A. Rand have been the default national currency since 2009. This implies that they have a possible illegal trade pumping foreign currency into the country. Drugs?

 

[arkirk]

Just a little historical side note:

The U.S. started with a lot of paper like the piece shown above. I wonder why it seemed important to give Zimbabwe a hit for doing like revolutionary governments are all forced to do. It is part of a process.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Just a little historical side note:View attachment 3273

The U.S. started with a lot of paper like the piece shown above. I wonder why it seemed important to give Zimbabwe a hit for doing like revolutionary governments are all forced to do. It is part of a process.

Revolutionary or not Zimbabwe is a mismanaged economy. The US dollar has been in extensive use for some six years.

 

[arkirk]

Just a little historical side note:View attachment 3273

The U.S. started with a lot of paper like the piece shown above. I wonder why it seemed important to give Zimbabwe a hit for doing like revolutionary governments are all forced to do. It is part of a process.

Revolutionary or not Zimbabwe is a mismanaged economy. The US dollar has been in extensive use for some six years.

Obviously Zimbabwe is a work in progress. Many parts of its economy are not managed at all. Their real problem is a dearth of people with the right kind of know how to set up a working system. They will make a lot of errors and yes, that is mis-managed economy. But ours of course is perfect. We quickly identiry the mote in our neighbors' eye and ignore the beams in our own. We have much inequity in our own country and crookedness. The reality is that Zimbabwe's situation is understandable. Ours is outrageously unjustified.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Zimbabwe got into trouble because they got involved in a foreign war in the Congo and because they had a horribly executed land reform that left the country unable to feed itself. Their trade balance was negative buying arms and food to feed themselves.

Horribly executed land reform? It was executed just like they intended--take the land from the whites, give it to his cronies and distribute only as much as was needed for appearances. Since it was only for appearances it didn't matter that the land was given to people unable to actually farm it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Revolutionary or not Zimbabwe is a mismanaged economy. The US dollar has been in extensive use for some six years.

Obviously Zimbabwe is a work in progress. Many parts of its economy are not managed at all. Their real problem is a dearth of people with the right kind of know how to set up a working system. They will make a lot of errors and yes, that is mis-managed economy. But ours of course is perfect. We quickly identiry the mote in our neighbors' eye and ignore the beams in our own. We have much inequity in our own country and crookedness. The reality is that Zimbabwe's situation is understandable. Ours is outrageously unjustified.

Anyone who actually knew how to run things would have fled when they saw what a mess he was making of the system.

 

[Derec]

We quickly identiry the mote in our neighbors' eye and ignore the beams in our own.

I think you wrongly identiried(sic) which is the mote and which a whole lumber yard.

 

[SimpleDon]

Zimbabwe got into trouble because they got involved in a foreign war in the Congo and because they had a horribly executed land reform that left the country unable to feed itself. Their trade balance was negative buying arms and food to feed themselves.

Horribly executed land reform? It was executed just like they intended--take the land from the whites, give it to his cronies and distribute only as much as was needed for appearances. Since it was only for appearances it didn't matter that the land was given to people unable to actually farm it.

Exactly. I don't see a disagreement here.