NationStates

Heloin wrote:

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Let's meet half-way and restore Rhodesia-Zimbabwe. It had the best flag anyway.

Firstly it went by Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Secondly they were in the process of dropping Rhodesia from the name if the internal settlement had worked out. Thirdly it's honestly a great flag but the current one is better.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Heloin wrote:Firstly it went by Zimbabwe Rhodesia. Secondly they were in the process of dropping Rhodesia from the name if the internal settlement had worked out. Thirdly it's honestly a great flag but the current one is better.

Firstly I just remembder that and corrected it before you responded, by bad.

Secondly that's a lily-livered compromise.

Thirdly the current flag is ugly and gives me cancer. Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had the best flag of the three incarnations of the country.

Hellslayer wrote:Just saying, it might be a good move considering the inflation rates: Its 100-trillion-dollar note was worth just 40 U.S. cents in 2015

Hellslayer wrote:Just saying, it might be a good move considering the inflation rates: Its 100-trillion-dollar note was worth just 40 U.S. cents in 2015

Use of the Zimbabwean dollar as an official currency was effectively abandoned on 12 April 2009. It was demonetised in 2015, with outstanding accounts able to be reimbursed until 30 April 2016.

Major-Tom wrote:

Ammostan wrote:
Yes, let's make taxpayers who had nothing to do with enslavement pay people who have never been enslaved. Sounds fair.

I'm iffy about US repatriations myself, but look at the crux of your argument here. Zimbabwean black people currently aren't responsible for what Mugabe did in the past, but they're still going to be pitching in for the white population who had their land seized. Is that not similar?

Just food for thought.

SD_Film Artists wrote:

Major-Tom wrote:
I'm iffy about US repatriations myself, but look at the crux of your argument here. Zimbabwean black people currently aren't responsible for what Mugabe did in the past, but they're still going to be pitching in for the white population who had their land seized. Is that not similar?

Just food for thought.

I'd say it's different as that was land which can be directly traced to it's former owner who may still be alive today; whereas US reparations are more abstract, which at best amount to 'this company directly or indirectly profited from a bad thing 200 years ago'.

Heloin wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
That sounds reasonable, though the question still stands, who is going to subscribe to the bond?

Aside from international organisations that see this as a relatively cheap way to get a foot in the door for a country with cheap labour and a low standard of living. There's the American and British governments who have put the pressure on Zimbabwe for 20 years to do something like this, and it gives them a way back into central Africa that China has been trying to cut them off from. China would also like to increase goodwill with Zimbabwe again.

Also White Racists, which is an annoying group to get support from but hey, they're rarely clever enough to realise that we don't like them.

Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:

Solvokina wrote:Rhodesia

Heloin wrote:Zimbabwe.

Let's meet half-way and restore Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. It had the best flag anyway.

-Astoria- wrote:

Novus America wrote:Native Americans are not the topic, despite some reductionist similarities (both lost land) the situations are dramatically different.

Zimbabwe is a very different situation.

Especially that Mugabe and his criminal cronies are still alive, and forcing them to give back the land they personally stole is perfectly justified.

Mugabe seized the farms and then gave many to himself or his cronies which is much easier to reverse, because forcing them to give back what they personally stole is quite different than dealing with things that happened over a century ago.

Mugabe's been dead for a while.

Novus America wrote:

-Astoria- wrote:Mugabe's been dead for a while.

Ah yes I forgot Robert died last year, but Grace and Bona are still alive.
Point is that many of the people who stole fir their personal gain are still around.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Novus America wrote:
Ah yes I forgot Robert died last year, but Grace and Bona are still alive.
Point is that many of the people who stole fir their personal gain are still around.

Helion can better say, but it appears they are not giving the land back, they are just paying off the folks who were dispossessed.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Heloin wrote:Aside from international organisations that see this as a relatively cheap way to get a foot in the door for a country with cheap labour and a low standard of living. There's the American and British governments who have put the pressure on Zimbabwe for 20 years to do something like this, and it gives them a way back into central Africa that China has been trying to cut them off from. China would also like to increase goodwill with Zimbabwe again.

Also White Racists, which is an annoying group to get support from but hey, they're rarely clever enough to realise that we don't like them.

That is foreign aide, not bonding. Bonds imply private investment. No bank without guarantees would subscribe to it. The Chinese might, but it will come with the usual Chinese requirements for guarantee of payments. (Either pay or give us property)

Novus America wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:Helion can better say, but it appears they are not giving the land back, they are just paying off the folks who were dispossessed.

True, but that is probably a mistake, all members and cronies of the Mugabe regime who received land from the seizures should be forced to return it.

Heloin wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
That is foreign aide, not bonding. Bonds imply private investment. No bank without guarantees would subscribe to it. The Chinese might, but it will come with the usual Chinese requirements for guarantee of payments. (Either pay or give us property)

Not what I'm saying. Bonds in this case can imply it coming through foreign countries as another mean to put yourself on a country desperate for outside investment. The US and UK can't really back out of not doing anything when it comes to these bonds since compensation for the farmers has been a key point to sanctions. Everyone knows Zimbabwe doesn't have money and this both can pay what needs to be paid without also dipping into foreign aide. You can't tell the poor black farmer that his much needed foreign aide that would pay for his seeds, fertiliser, doctor, and school will go to the poor white farmer who used to live on that land.

That and the majority of the bonds will probably be paid through private investors who see Zimbabwe's agricultural potential as a investment. Like I said this provides a much cheaper foot in the door for companies looking for a inexpensive place to do business. Why bribe hundreds of government officials and have that risk when you can pay off some debt they need to pay.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Heloin wrote:Aside from international organisations that see this as a relatively cheap way to get a foot in the door for a country with cheap labour and a low standard of living. There's the American and British governments who have put the pressure on Zimbabwe for 20 years to do something like this, and it gives them a way back into central Africa that China has been trying to cut them off from. China would also like to increase goodwill with Zimbabwe again.

Also White Racists, which is an annoying group to get support from but hey, they're rarely clever enough to realise that we don't like them.

That is foreign aide, not bonding. Bonds imply private investment. No bank without guarantees would subscribe to it. The Chinese might, but it will come with the usual Chinese requirements for guarantee of payments. (Either pay or give us property)

-Astoria- wrote:

Novus America wrote:Native Americans are not the topic, despite some reductionist similarities (both lost land) the situations are dramatically different.

Zimbabwe is a very different situation.

Especially that Mugabe and his criminal cronies are still alive, and forcing them to give back the land they personally stole is perfectly justified.

Mugabe seized the farms and then gave many to himself or his cronies which is much easier to reverse, because forcing them to give back what they personally stole is quite different than dealing with things that happened over a century ago.

Mugabe's been dead for a while.

Heloin wrote:

Novus America wrote:
True, but that is probably a mistake, all members and cronies of the Mugabe regime who received land from the seizures should be forced to return it.

The problem with that is while many of Mugabe's cronies have benefited and still do from the stolen land how do you return one of those farms but not rob another farmer. Most of the farms are now in the hands of good honest people and it's not always clear cut where the line of Mugabe thug and hardworking farmer.

Sure some people have gotten their farms returned, but that mostly comes from cronies who've fallen out of favour with the new regime.

Novus America wrote:

Heloin wrote:The problem with that is while many of Mugabe's cronies have benefited and still do from the stolen land how do you return one of those farms but not rob another farmer. Most of the farms are now in the hands of good honest people and it's not always clear cut where the line of Mugabe thug and hardworking farmer.

Sure some people have gotten their farms returned, but that mostly comes from cronies who've fallen out of favour with the new regime.

Well maybe sell the land stolen by Mugabe cronies it and use the all the proceeds to help fund the compensation fund, so all victims benefit.
Of course one needs to err on the side of caution, some cases it is obvious (Grace for example should lose any land she gained) but if you are not sure them do not do it, I am against honest people who gained land from it being kicked off that land of course.

Sure it would not apply to all the land, but for any land recurved by the the obvious members of the regime they should lose it.

Of course as you point out the new government is completely corrupt and has plenty of former Mugabe cronies in its ranks, only those who fell out with the new regime instead of siding with it will actually be held accountable unfortunately.

Greed and Death wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:
That is foreign aide, not bonding. Bonds imply private investment. No bank without guarantees would subscribe to it. The Chinese might, but it will come with the usual Chinese requirements for guarantee of payments. (Either pay or give us property)

You will have individual investors, and hedge funds take the risk as the markets will price the returns highly. Also the terms and where to arbitrate the bonds will likely be very favorable to investors. Most likely in New York under New York law.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
You will have individual investors, and hedge funds take the risk as the markets will price the returns highly. Also the terms and where to arbitrate the bonds will likely be very favorable to investors. Most likely in New York under New York law.

I had an ex-gf in the public bond market, Shame I don't talk to her much anymore.

Bond will be priced in US dollars, guaranteed by the Zimbabwe government, New York law controlling. (All agreed)


Even in this market, How many points are you going to want before putting down 10,000?

Greed and Death wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:I had an ex-gf in the public bond market, Shame I don't talk to her much anymore.

Bond will be priced in US dollars, guaranteed by the Zimbabwe government, New York law controlling. (All agreed)


Even in this market, How many points are you going to want before putting down 10,000?

If they hit 1,000 basis points I would likely put $10,000 on those bonds.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
If they hit 1,000 basis points I would likely put $10,000 on those bonds.

Junk in this day and age then, ok. tbh, I can see a hedge fund taking some of that risk.

Ethel mermania wrote:

Greed and Death wrote:
If they hit 1,000 basis points I would likely put $10,000 on those bonds.

Junk in this day and age then, ok. tbh, I can see a hedge fund taking some of that risk.