Cable Forum - Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)

- Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)

- - Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33691790)

Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Zimbabwe's Finance Minister Tendai Biti has said that the country only had $217 (Â£138) left in its public account last week after paying civil servants

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21262199

:shocked:

Wondered what Brown had been up to... :D

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35530154)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-21262199

:shocked:

Wondered what Brown had been up to... :D

Have to remember that the Zimbabwe Dollar is worth so little....Â£138 is 79,000.00 of their dollars :D

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Is this more down to the corruption in government raping the countries finances. The government stealing gold/diamond reserves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...d-mugabe-party

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

How much do America and the UK have in theirs?

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35530232)

How much do America and the UK have in theirs?

Would be interested how much we plundered from the mining.

zimbabwe ripe for the thieving billionaires to blunder.

Done some digging the arab billionaires getting involved.

http://www.zimdiaspora.com/index.php...onds&Itemid=18

Suppose only clemency is poor zimbabians might get jobs but you can guarantee it be very cheap labour.

How these billionaires sleep at night.

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

But that's enough about Mugabe and his chums...

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35530267)

But that's enough about Mugabe and his chums...

Quelle surprise... :rolleyes:

Funny how those leaders who set themselves up as being for the 'ordinary people' usually wind up being extraordinarily rich at their expense...

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem (Post 35530271)

Quelle surprise... :rolleyes:

Funny how those leaders who set themselves up as being for the 'ordinary people' usually wind up being extraordinarily rich at their expense...

aye would not be shocked every country got many thiefing rats at the pump of there country. Some like zimbabwe is sick considering the starvation going on.

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jimmy-J (Post 35530232)

How much do America and the UK have in theirs?

Gold wise > UK none as Uk government sold it all off, we run off stock market rates, basically meaning think of a figure & multiply after cooking the account books in your favour making the tax payers pay your fake debts enslaving them & their children & children. Not to mention the worthless pieces of paper that counts as money.... worthless as well privatly run bank of England not run for public interests, yes we own the building that's all.

USA, have no government state run central bank, only a private bank that deals out worthless money to the public, they have gold but it's not in the government hands or owned.

I hope that woken some people up & make some stand on the edge of their chair .......

drinking a cold one>
Toonlight

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

To think if Brown had been given a little more time we could have been in the same boat :LOL:

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

One small point re the Bank of England, but a very important one - the capital stock is now held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury, and as it states in the BoE website

Quote:

“As a public organisation, wholly-owned by Government, and with a significant public policy role, the Bank is accountable to Parliament”

Not quite the same as a "privatly run bank of England not run for public interests" (sic), is it?

Regarding the Federal Reserve

Quote:

The Federal Reserve System fulfills its public mission as an independent entity within government. It is not "owned" by anyone and is not a private, profit-making institution.

As the nation's central bank, the Federal Reserve derives its authority from the Congress of the United States. It is considered an independent central bank because its monetary policy decisions do not have to be approved by the President or anyone else in the executive or legislative branches of government, it does not receive funding appropriated by the Congress, and the terms of the members of the Board of Governors span multiple presidential and congressional terms.
However, the Federal Reserve is subject to oversight by the Congress, which often reviews the Federal Reserve's activities and can alter its responsibilities by statute. Therefore, the Federal Reserve can be more accurately described as "independent within the government" rather than "independent of government."

The 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks, which were established by the Congress as the operating arms of the nation's central banking system, are organized similarly to private corporations--possibly leading to some confusion about "ownership." For example, the Reserve Banks issue shares of stock to member banks. However, owning Reserve Bank stock is quite different from owning stock in a private company. The Reserve Banks are not operated for profit, and ownership of a certain amount of stock is, by law, a condition of membership in the System. The stock may not be sold, traded, or pledged as security for a loan; dividends are, by law, 6 percent per year.

toon, World Daily News is not really a reliable source of information....

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35531317)

One small point re the Bank of England, but a very important one - the capital stock is now held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury, and as it states in the BoE website

Not quite the same as a "privatly run bank of England not run for public interests" (sic), is it?

Regarding the Federal Reserve

toon, World Daily News is not really a reliable source of information....

:rofl:

.... hey man.... :D

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35531317)

held by the Treasury Solicitor on behalf of HM Treasury, and as it states

So in another word sub contracted out to the lowest bidder by a private run company....... so not public run for public, just share holders. Oh my don't think either the house parliament work for us either as since;

The Parliament act 1911

How that's for a fact..... anything a "act" is not really public but private, all the news or information from the BOE is all frontal bluff to fool the un-awaken people out there.

Re: Zimbabwe had Â£138 in the bank

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 35531496)

Bless.....

Now you see i would have said "Pass to the left" ;)