Over The Counter Culture

Roll your own
Latest Posts »
Popular »
» India - a summary
» India on the road
» Rishi
» Namaste!
» Google Friend Connect - part 2: The largest Social Network ever built
» Social networking dividend of open conversations
» Conversation platforms will make blogs redundant
» Arsenal FC transfer budget to be cut ‘because of property market slowdown’
« Has Elvis Costello inadvertently stumbled on the future direction of physical media retailing?
Archive system change »

WTF-of-the-day

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec69619a-f8f9-11dc-bcf3-000077b07658.html

The Zimbabwe government under President Robert Mugabe has embarked on a borrowing and spending spree ahead of Saturday’s presidential and parliamentary elections.

In the six weeks to March 7, government debt increased 65-fold from Z$25,000bn to Z$1,600,000bn (£26bn, US$53bn, €34bn), according to official figures.

While the increase in government expenditure is exaggerated by inflation, running at a rate of at least 150 per cent a month, the surge in borrowing – more than half of it by overdraft from the central bank – can be considered a direct measure of the ruling Zanu-PF party’s desperation to secure Mr Mugabe’s re-election.

Central bank officials say that Z$166,000bn was spent to increase salaries of public servants, especially teachers and security force personnel.

Another Z$500,000bn went on buying farm equipment, according to central bank officials. There have been reports that Zanu-PF is also distributing industrial and commercial machinery.

The spending is intended to counter what opposition parties say is a big swing against Mr Mugabe in the countryside, traditionally the bedrock of his support.

Election observers from the Southern African Development Community have rejected suggestions that the electoral process is unfair.

 

What the fuck: Why are the Zimbabwean people tolerating this? Who the hell is lending Mugabe this money, and which farm equipment manufacturer is mad enough to take his money? And what zany organisation is the Southern African Development Community, to say that this is nothing to be concerned about? Or are they actually right? In which case, the Financial Times would be badly misconstruing the situation… Wtf, indeed.

Bookmark/Share:

Related:

iPlayer; licence fee subsidies
The ISP industry sez: People use the iPlayer <>. The iPlayer has massively boosted the average Internet consumption of those people as they watch more video than ever<>. This is costing ISPs money <>. If the BBC doesn't give the ISPs the money to match this marginal cost, or BT doesn't reduce the cost of renting extra copper pipes from them, their margins will go down <>. This means they have to pass the cost onto the end user, you and me. Ashley Highfield, at the BBC, slaps their outstretched hand<>, but others at the BBC suggest a BBC-sponsored hardware rollout to help the ISPs cope<>. If the cost is passed onto the end user, i.e. my ISP fee every month goes up, as a result of a project I have already paid for by my annual TV license, isn't BT costing me money once for the license, and then every month for providing the iPlayer to the UK population, whether I personally use it or not? Is this double-taxing for the iPlayer fair (irrespective of whether I use it)? What's the solution? PS: the ISP's claims are logical (if undeserving of pity, given they chose to build themselves on...
Backlash against microcredit grows
A storm is brewing. For the past few years, micro-credit [the lending of relatively small amounts of money without requiring collateral to entrepreneurs and small business owners in impoverished countries, aiming to stimulate the SMB stratum there and create jobs] has promised a great deal. Mohammed Yunus famously won the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize jointly with his micro-finance institution (MFI), the Grameen Bank. But 2008 has seen the start of a major backlash. Accusations are flying of heavy-handed mafia-like behaviour: Korshed Alom, a former debt collector, was put into early retirement for having questioned the Grameen Bank’s methods: “Their technique is to scare borrowers and insult them. We tell them to sell their clothes, that they have no other choice. I’m not proud of myself, but several times, I had even been obliged to say ‘sell your children.’” I'm not going to be as quick as others have been to jump on the anti-microfinance bandwagon though. A finance system relies on debt repayment, or there's no incentive to loan the money. The interest rates are not onerous, so repayment should be achievable if the business it was loaned to is sound and the repayment rates set by the Grameen Bank...

Related posts brought to you by Yet Another Related Posts Plugin.

This entry was posted on Monday, March 24th, 2008 at 1:35 am and is filed under Musings. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

discussion by DISQUS

Add New Comment

  • Subscribe:  This Thread
  • Go to:  My Comments ·  Community Page
  • Thanks. Your comment is awaiting approval by a moderator.

    Do you already have an account? Log in and claim this comment.

    discussion by DISQUS

    Add New Comment

    Trackbacks

    close ()

    status via twitter

    recent comments (follow comments)

      View Profile »
      Powered by Disqus · Learn more
      close Reblog this comment
      Powered by Disqus · Learn more
      blog comments powered by Disqus
      • Home
      • About
      • List all posts
      • Current Reading
      • Categories
        • Culture bucket
        • Lifestream
        • Musings
        • New science
      • Search

      Over The Counter Culture is proudly powered by WordPress
      Entries (RSS) and Comments (RSS).