Tucson Shooting-- What if the shooter was Muslim?

On January 8th there was a shooting in Tucson, Arizona at a supermarket where Representative Giffords was holding a meet and greet with constituents. A gunman who was identified as Jared Loughner shot at Giffords causing her to be hospitalized. Giffords remains in the hospital in critical condition. Loughner wounded several people and killed six people. The most tragic of those deaths was a nine year old girl who was born on September 11th, 2001. She was born on a tragic day and died on a tragic day. It is horrible to hear things like this happen especially when innocent victims are caught in the cross-fires. Clearly Loughner is unhappy with the political process in this country-- maybe particularly unhappy with Giffords herself. However, this was not the way to deal with that frustration towards the government.

What I find particularly interesting is the response that has followed the attack. I cant help but notice that this is a white guy so naturally given the state of our country's chosen group to discriminate this guy doesn't fit the bill. Loughner is simply going to be described as disturbed. Government officials have described him as being an extremist. Now let me say this along with everyone else who has already asked the same question: What if he were Arab? What if he were Muslim? What if??

If this guy were Muslim he would automatically be labeled a terrorist. So why isn't this guy who killed a 9 yr old girl, a judge as well as several others and wounded a congresswoman?? I am sorry but the last time I checked the definition of terrorist is someone or a group of people who frightens and instills fear in others through the use of violence for political purposes. UMM HELLO??? Is anybody awake? is that not EXACTLY what Jared Loughner did? He stood outside a supermarket and shot up the place because he was unhappy with our government. That screams terrorism to me. However, since Jared Loughner is white he is politically acceptable. He is not part of the Arab minority or Muslim minority that is so greatly discriminated against in this country. If Jared Loughner were Muslim he would be far more ostracized than he is right now. But why is that when an Arab or Muslim commits a crime, the first word that comes to mind is terrorist?

Terrorists just like extremists are generally labeled as loners, outcasts, disturbed, frustrated with political dealings etc etc etc. How come those labeled as extremists do not have a racial profile but terrorists do? Here is a terrorists racial profile: Arab. Man. Muslim. Long beard. Religious fanatic. What is an extremists racial profile? Answer: Non existant. So Jared Loughner, Timothy McVeigh, the unibomber, and every white guy that has ever caused fear is not categorized?

The political discourse that occurs in this country is quite fascinating to say the least. All I know is like Bin Laden, the Taliban, Al Qaeda, Jared Loughner is no different in my book.... A crazed person/group looking to release their frustration against America in a violent way aka terrorism. Loughner is no different than any other terrorist. There are just very few people who have the guts to call him for what he is.

May the victims families take solace in the fact that America is behind them and may we listen to Obama's words he delivered at the meeting to usher in a time of civility and to strive to be the America Christina Taylor Green, the young girl who died that day imagined.

uprising in Egypt

A little less than two weeks ago there was a bombing at a Church in the northern part of Egypt in the city of Alexandria as churchgoers attended mass on New Years Eve. Approximately 21 people were killed and over 70 people were injured. This terrorist attacks symbolic of rising problems in Egypt, an Arab nation with a Muslim majority. Coptic Christians make up the minority population in Egypt. After the attack, Coptic Christians rose up and protested the attack. This attack was an attack on religion; an attack on civilians; an attack on ideology;

Today a shooter boarded a train in southern Egypt and shot a Christian man,71 years old too no less and wounded 5 others; one was the wife of the man who was shot. The shooter was identified as a 23 year old off-duty policeman. This is really startling and unsettling. I do not understand how Hosni Mubarak can stand there and say he is doing everything to protect the Christians in Egypt when a policeman can board a train and do something like this. Mubarak is not doing enough to protect his people.

This is not first or the last time things like this wil happen. However, it is becoming more frequent. I think Muslims and Christians in Egypt need to stand together to stop the violence. The religious tensions in Egypt are bound to rise and create much strain on the government to control the violence. However, whoever is responsible for the attack on the church may very well want exactly that---for the tensions to rise.

Its just really scary to see all of this violence occurring due to religious and political ideology differences that exist in Egypt. There are stark similarities to the violence occurring in Egypt and the violence that is occurring all over the world. It is clear the people of Egypt are fed up. The Christians are fed up with the religious persecution they face. The Muslims are fed up with the Christians complaining about the inequality/discrimination they face. The Muslims AND Christians are fed up with the overall lack of concern for the citizens of Egypt from the government. The rich, the poor, the Muslims, the Christians-- Every class of people, every religious group in Egypt has something to complain about. So its no wonder that in a matter of two weeks two violent acts occurred.

It is time for Egypt to wake up and realize that the current state of the country is NOT ok. Egypt, a nation that used to be so successful in ancient times has skipped a beat in recent decades and fallen off the charts to be one of the most corrupt and religiously as well as economically divided countries in the world. The gap between the rich and poor is getting worse everyday! As appalled as I am by the attacks, I am not all that surprised. It was only a matter of time before an attack like this caught the attention of the world. If reform doesn't occur soon in Egypt the country will see alot more than just a terrorist attack on a church or a shooting on a train.

My Grandma =)

Ok so to everyone in cyber world who does not know my G-ma, you are probably not interested in reading this. Well, then again maybe you should! why?? because my G-ma is one of the most fascinating people I know; if not THE most fascinating.

My grandmother is a survivor...A true survivor! Nana or G-Ma as I like to call her had breast cancer, lung cancer, knee replacements, a hysterectomy, 10 children (yes i said TEN!!). She dealt with abusive husbands. She juggled 2 0r 3 jobs at a time all while raising her children. She recently just survived a heart attack over the summer. She suffers from dementia. However, even after dealing with all that she still fights back.

As a kid, my grandmother was one of fourteen. Her father passed away when she was just a teenager. I think she was thirteen at the time. She grew up during the Great Depression when times were really tough. Her mother struggled to make ends meet during one of the worst times America has ever seen.

My grandmother lived through the Great Depression, World War II, Pearl Harbor, the civil rights movement, the Cold War, Vietnam, the Watergate Scandal, the energy crisis in the 80's, the Gulf War, September 11th, the War on Terror among many other things. She has seen America at its best of times and at its worst of times.

My grandmother has some of the best stories in the world that I love hearing over and over again. One of my all time favorite stories is when she saw herself in the mirror at a hotel and looked in the mirror and said "mmm Lois you are so hot there should be two of you". That story is absolutely priceless for me. I tell it to so many people and they all get a kick out of it. I have a friend that attends uni with me and he asks me to tell the story every time he asks how my grandma is.

Some of my favorite quotes from my grandmother include:
"if you cant handle the heat get the hell outta the kitchen."
"you know you catch more bees with sugar then you do with vinegar"
"who licked the color off her lollipop?"
" I like strong coffee and weak men." (this one drives everyone crazy. literally a riot of laughter breaks out when she says this one.)

Someone literally could write a book on everything my grandma has experienced. However, unfortunately for me I actually do not know all the details of my grandma's life. I know bits and pieces of stories told over holiday dinners. I would really love to have everything documented somehow and compile her memoirs. I really believe my grandma has an amazing story to tell.

God bless you g-ma!! <3 you so much. You are a hero. A survivor. An inspiration.

A Mark on U.S. Birth Certificates

A recent proposal by state legislatures would allow birth certificates to be marked indicating if a child's parents were born in or outside of the United States. If this proposal is passed states would basically be given a free pass to practice discriminatory policies against kids with non-US born parents.

i think it is utterly preposterous that our state legislators think there should be a stamp on birth certificates signifying if a child has US born parents or not. It will divide our country from the native born and the ones born abroad. This country is supposed to be the melting pot. However, lately the violence, acts of terrorism, radical changes and preposterous statements show another side of America. This proposal is just another turning point in our nations history. It is nothing more than a form of discrimination against kids born to non-U.S. citizens. If this proposal makes claims to not discriminate based on the markings on a birth certificate, I have to question why even have the markings? What is the point? It surely will lead to racial profiling, discrimination and unequal treatment towards children with non-U.S. born parents.

Yes, I realize this proposal is not attempting to redefine the birthright status that America grants to people born on U.S. soil. However, under the 14th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States it allows children citizenship regardless of their parents origins as long as that child was born in the United States. The U.S. and Canada are among the VERY few westernized countries that have such a birthright status. Most countries do not care if you were born on their soil; they will not grant citizenship unless you were born there and have lineage and ancestry from that country as well. However, regardless of the fact that the U.S. does not want to change the birthright status it is enough that they want to put a ridiculous mark on birth certificates.

The U.S. would be in violation of not only their own laws but international law as well if this proposal is approved. I have to ask: what has this country come to? I am disgusted by this proposal. This would be another check mark on America's list of hypocrisies! How on earth can America criticize other countries for their laws on treating those born in their country and those simply residing there?

We can't allow our legislators do this to our country. We are all supposed to have equal treatment under the U.S. Constitution and under International Law. Allowing such a proposal to go through would be the very breach of those rights.

The WTO protest in 1999

Alittle over 10 years ago, the Seattle Protest against the WTO Ministerial Conference happened. Over 100,000 protesters from all over the world in Seattle to protest unfair free trade and too much corporate control. These protesters ranged from students to religious leaders to human rights groups and environmental groups. Most of the protesters were non-violent, however, there was a small group that caused a state of emergency to be declared because of the violence and looting they caused.

The media's coverage showed extremists who were anti-trade or in some cases just angry people who are clueless to life basically. The media portrayed some protesters as an "interference" to trade. Haven't there been numerous protests that actually led to productive and long-lasting changes? The mainstream media was actually lacking on this protest. What was shown was biased against the protesters portraying them as nothing more than crazy fanatics.

Most protesters agreed that international trade and interdependence could be beneficial to the entire world. What they did not agree with was what they viewed as unfair trading and policies. They were not against international trade agreements rather they were upset by the rules and procedures for carrying out those agreements. Furthermore, these protesters were angered by the corporate control in international trade as well as the fact that developed countries tended to reap more of the benefits through those agreements. They wanted to see policy changes so that more underdeveloped nations could benefit as well. The protesters were suggesting the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development oversee any international trade issues.

Companies such as Banana Republic, Gap, Old Navy, Bank of America, McDonald's and otehr major corporations were the target of these protesters outrage. They viewed these companies as having "corporate control" over the WTO and they were involved in unfair and even dehumanizing practices. They were also angry at the U.S. and this protest was a part of what was known as anti-globalization protest.

In my opinion, yes the WTO, IMF, World Bank and other institutions that were established to govern the international community should be held responsible. What is the point of having these institutions if they allow corporations to get away with unfair trade policies, corporate domination and dehumanizing practices such as sweatshops?

Even though this protest happened over 10 years ago a lot of the issues still ring true today. A lot of corporations are more powerful and have more money than some countries. Companies like Microsoft, Ford, CNN and others have larger GDP's than countries. It is alarming to read and hear about sweatshops and child labor in the news. It is also alarming to hear how much money the top executives of these companies made as an annual salary and they still find ways to cut corners by outsourcing the work to countries who have no safety standards, environmental standards, no notion of corporate responsibility or child labor laws.

What is the WTO really doing? Just like the IMF I believe they are serving as a scapegoat for the more powerful countries in the world to exert their control.

is the IMF nothing more than a scapegoat?

The IMF was conceived in July 1944 after World War II as a way to create international economic cooperation and regulate currency. It was formally established in the latter part of 1945 when 29 members signed the articles of agreement. In 1947, France became the first country to borrow from the IMF. By the 1950’s the IMF was growing due to African countries applying for membership. Until 1971, the world followed the Bretton Woods System which allowed countries to keep their currencies pegged against the U.S. currency in terms of gold. According to the IMF website, this system was known as the par value system and it worked until 1971 when the U.S.” suspended the convertibility of the dollar (and dollar reserves held by other governments) into gold.” (IMF.org) Since then, the IMF has loaned thousands upon thousands of dollars to countries in need. So why is the IMF under so much heat? Why are many viewing the role of the IMF as one that is unnecessary? Is the IMF really just a “scapegoat”?

Well, in the article I read titled The IMF Strikes Back by Kenneth Rogoff, Rogoff outlines the four most common arguments against the IMF. For countries in dire need of cash, the IMF tends to lay down “harsh fiscal austerity” (Rogoff) The fund also encourages reckless investments made by financiers. The advice that the IMF lends to countries tends to only intensify the already severe economic conditions. Lastly the fund, according to the article, pushes “countries to open themselves up to volatile and destabilizing flows of foreign capital” (Rogoff). However, up until 1971 the IMF helped out the first world, countries who don’t particularly need help.

There is something that really struck an interest in the article. The article states that all 184 member countries could decide to offer grants to countries in need rather than a loan. This means that those countries receiving the grant would never have to repay it. Furthermore this means member countries that are more economically developed (i.e. the United States) would need to constantly give money to the IMF so the IMF could in turn give to those countries in need. So at that rate, why is the IMF even needed? Countries in need could just address the international community directly rather than addressing the IMF. It almost makes the IMF an invalid institution if the loans were just converted into grants. Lets say the UK was ever in need of borrowing from the IMF again, instead of going to the IMF just go to the U.S; one of the main contributors to the IMF, and ask them for a grant. It cuts out the middle man. Essentially that is all the IMF is-- a political machine that U.S. uses a their middle man.

There is a possibility that the IMF could be one of the most powerful non-state institutions in the world effecting the economies of more than 180 countries. Countries are supposed to use the IMF as the extremely last resort however it is more common for a country to just get a loan from the IMF. The IMF has become more of an institution were larger more developed countries use it as a forum to push their economical policies on the less developed world. How can the IMF state that their macroeconomic focus will help developing nations find a balance even when there is a need to find alternate methods to ensure that a country's domestic markets still thrive when enhanced aid materializes yet the IMF’s own economic policies are sometimes not the best for a country? (REFER to my blog on Zimbabwe). I read in a textbook for my Global Political Economy class, that the “newly industrializing countries of East and South-East Asia” who had been success stories inadvertently caused the Asian Financial Crisis in the late 1990’s. "The IMF praised its strategy to ensure macroeconomic adjustment but at the very moment the baht was nosediving”.

The Asian Financial Crisis may have not been directly caused by the IMF’s lack of good advice but it was certainly part of the problem. Furthermore, the IMF has policies that end up eliminating jobs, reducing employment; cut back government programs in turn driving up food prices all while increasing speculation. Is that not a little contradictory to what the IMF is supposed to do: increase international stability? It seems to me that the IMF's so called macroeconomic policies are nothing more than the western world's way (mainly the U.S.) of pushing their political and economic ideology on the underdeveloped world.

In my opinion, the IMF is nothing more than a “scapegoat” where countries like the U.S. exert power over other countries. In was done in 1976 when the British applied for a loan from the IMF. The U.S. pushed harsh conditions for the loan to be approved which the British did not like because they were far to the left and a republican was in office in the U.S. at the time. This shows that since the U.S. holds more power in the IMF they are able to exert their political, economic or social power. Right now the IMF is just cradling the needs of first world countries to exert their force. It is almost like a popularity contest. If the IMF had more reform and stability it might actually help the international community in the way it is supposed to and do more than it already is.

I honestly think that the grant idea is an excellent way to boost the underdeveloped world and help the poorest nations in the world like those on the continent of Africa become more developed and actually give them the tools they need to compete in a global economy. If the IMF offered grants rather than loans to countries there would never be debt to pay back. The countries who borrow from the IMF wouldn't be bogged down with lengthy loan terms with absurd interest rates. Furthermore, those countries would be able to use the loans to finance infrastructure development and economic growth rather than just being scrutinized and tied down to strict rules that are attached to the loan. The IMF has fallen into the guise of being this helpful institution. However, I have seen it do more harm than good.

U.S. - China Relations

The United States and China have a very unique relationship. Many question the need of such a “complicated and volatile” association. (219 O'Brien & Williams) At some points in this rocky alliance, the U.S. and China have potentially faced tremendous risks. However, in my opinion, the greater the risk is the greater the opportunity and advantages are. One of the major rules of business is to protect one’s investment. This is exactly what China and the U.S. are trying to do: protect their interests. However, it is extremely interesting how the U.S. condemns China for their human rights violations and their lack of corporate responsibility when it comes to environmental protection and sustainability; yet under the Clinton Administration, the U.S. sold arms to China even though they were on a list of countries that the U.S. would not sell arms to.

In this globalized economy, everyone benefits off of each other. Juxtaposed, every country will fail or start to slip after one country starts to slip. It is like a domino effect. So with that said, of course the superpower of the world wants to reap all the possible benefits it possibly can. Furthermore, if the United States does not attempt to reap the benefits of one of the most vast economies in the world, it might as well slip back into an isolationist policy. For example, just take a look at the U.S. –Saudi relationship. In exchange for oil we give them weapons and security. It’s a similar situation with China. We consume China’s goods thus giving them a strong export market meaning their economy is boosted through this and jobs are created. All of this equates to the United States and China sharing “common interests in sustainable economic development."

“As the world’s biggest developed country and the world’s biggest developing country”, the U.S. and China share common interests. The Chinese Government invests in the U.S. Government allowing the U.S. to have low interest rates. It also allows China to experience a rise in the value of their money. This partnership allows China and the U.S. to speak frankly on issues of security, human rights, energy and other key issues affecting not only each country respectively but the entire international community. With United States hegemony at a sharp decline and potentially China’s hegemony on the rise, they both equally need this relationship. There are reports that China is the world's next superpower so for the U.S. to have strong economic ties with China is probably not a bad idea.

The benefits outweigh the risks, in my opinion, because with some reform the relationship will level off and grow stable. China will advance into a more liberal and open economy backed by the U.S. This will in turn help the U.S. and essentially the rest of the world. Right now the world might view the relationship as unstable and too risky. However, the entire world is still in recovery from the financial crisis that rocked the U.S. and China the hardest. With a strong action plan and careful moderation, the U.S. and China will forge a bi-lateral relationship that will prove to be beneficial to both sides.

hyperinflation: Zimbabwe

Hyperinflation, as defined in economic terms occurs when the value of a country’s currency will continuously decrease as prices simultaneously increase. The movement towards equilibrium is essentially non-existent. Generally, hyperinflation occurs at a rate that is exponentially higher than the normal rate of inflation. The lasting effects that hyperinflation has on an economy are devastating. Causes of hyperinflation vary from corrupt governmental infrastructure to lack of proper and effective economic policies.

The Republic of Zimbabwe is a leading example of the effects hyperinflation has on an economy. Zimbabwe faced a disastrous period of hyperinflation for about a decade. Although, the dates vary because Zimbabwe is not exactly forthcoming, it was around 1998- 2008. As of 2008, “the Zimbabwe dollar has lost more than 99.9% of its value against the US dollar during the past year” (Hanke: Kill Central Bank to Fix Inflation in Zimbabwe). Prior to Zimbabwe, there have only been a little more than two dozen cases of hyperinflation. “Zimbabwe’s land and other poor economic policies have resulted in a 6 year economic recession, de-industrialization, loss of skilled labor through emigrating” (Hornes: IMF Contributes to Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflation). Furthermore, Zimbabwe has a great disregard for fundamental human rights and the rule of law. There is constant political instability and tumultuous violence. All of these factors make a case for Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflation.

According to the Cato Institute, Zimbabwe has been the first country to experience hyperinflation in the twenty-first century; a huge change from their position as one of the most booming nations on the African continent. In January 2007, the rate of inflation was at 1%; by February it was almost at 2%. The rate of inflation in Zimbabwe was phenomenal, nearly doubling in approximately one month. Since then the rate of inflation increased exponentially. In November 2008, Zimbabwe’s rate of inflation had reached approximately 90 sextillion percent. By the end of 2008, the numbers were off the charts nearly reaching the record made by Hungary in the early 1900’s. It also compares to the hyperinflation period of Germany as well.

The Republic of Zimbabwe has governmental policies that effect the economical growth of their country. The policies that are put into effect are not fully implemented. Furthermore, the major policies that need to be established are overlooked. Essentially, the government is not doing what it should be to protect its citizens and ensure them with basic rights and economic stability. Furthermore, the notion of central banking is not one that is working in Zimbabwe. “While central bank losses in most countries have not exceeded 10 percent of GDP, Zimbabwe’s flow of realized central bank quasi-fiscal losses are estimated to have amounted to 75 percent of GDP in 2006” ( IMF: Central Bank Quasi-fiscal Losses and High Inflation in Zimbabwe). Clearly, Zimbabwe is doing something that is extremely detrimental to their economic structure.

The International Monetary Fund estimated Zimbabwe’s budget deficit to be somewhere near a staggering sixty-percent. The IMF has a large role to play in Zimbabwe’s slip into hyperinflation. In 2001, Zimbabwe failed to pay their loan back to the IMF. When they defaulted, the IMF refused to offer Zimbabwe any further assistance. Since the U.S. is the number one contributor to the IMF, they blocked the IMF from being able to do anything further. More so, the U.S. placed heavy economic sanctions on the Zimbabwean government. There was a freeze placed on Zimbabwe that denied them access to credit. This freeze was mostly due to the United States growing angry over the politics regarding land of Harare. This is one of the main reasons that I do NOT like the IMF. They are an institution that is meant to offer loans to countries that are struggling. So why are they placing ridiculous restrictions on the loans. The IMF basically says "ok we will give you a loan but you owe us your life." Any country that borrows from the IMF is subjected to their political constraints.

If the IMF admits that its "American influenced position refusing to reschedule Zimbabwe’s IMF debt it must accept that it is partly responsible for the impoverishment of the ordinary Zimbabwean” (Hornes: IMF Contributes to Zimbabwe’s hyper-inflation). This is the very reason the IMF excepts (SORTA). Even though, the IMF was not the sole reason for effecting Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation that is essentially the role of the IMF. So when a country is in need, the IMF is supposed to offer assistance. However, the IMF, in the case of Zimbabwe turned their head the other way due to corruption by the U.S. Zimbabwe was looking for the support of the IMF to help them recover from the economic situation they were facing but due to corruption they slipped further into hyperinflation. Since Zimbabwe borrowed money from the International Monetary Fund, they are required to communicate with them. However, the IMF should have done the same as a protector and leader of the international community.

The World Bank, unlike the IMF, actually admitted to its failure in the Republic of Zimbabwe. The World Bank released a statement in 2001 noting that what worked for most of the world did not work for Zimbabwe. Zimbabwe is a special case that did not work following the following the status quo. For the World Bank to admit a mistake like that shows how intense the situation in Zimbabwe actually was. It was not enough for the World Bank to attempt to implement social programs in efforts to boost Zimbabwe’s economy; much more needed to be done. Zimbabwe needs smaller ventures to boost their economy. According to a World Bank representative “the real revival of the economy lies in agriculture. Currently most of the arable and fertile land is in the hands of only one percent of the total population. If land is equitably distributed, we will definitely see a change in the economy” (Shoko Zimbabwe: World Bank says we failed).

While that may sound like a good idea, there is still one problem with that; Zimbabwe has a government operated land reform program that distributes lands disproportionately and unfairly. Therefore, the wealth would not be distributed evenly and prosperity would not be as widespread and far reaching as it should be. Furthermore, the Republic of Zimbabwe has a practice that is not in the best interest of commercial farming; in fact, it brings disorder to it. Zimbabwean farmers experienced their farms being seized and given to others. Also, there were numerous instances of prosperous white farmers getting their land seized in order to give it to blacks who did not have any land. This is not a productive idea at all. They took away the land from farmers who could produce fruits and vegetables to give it to people just because they had no land. That is just not economically or socially responsible. This policy is actually stripping any opportunity or betterment for farmers and Zimbabweans as a whole.

Due to Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation, the lack of respect for the rule of law is astounding. There is a total disregard for human rights as well. In 2007, during one of the worst periods of Zimbabwe’s hyperinflation crisis, Zimbabwean citizens were peacefully protesting the careless policies and weakened government systems when the protesters were attacked by security forces. This is only one instance of a human rights violation linked to hyperinflation. Just as recent as June 2009 the situation in Zimbabwe was still dismal. Their disrespect for the rule of law can be seen through, as mentioned already, forcing white farmers off their land. The United States had called on Zimbabwean, in specific, Robert Mugabe to return to the rule of law. No one is above the law and the United States asserted that in order for Zimbabwe to live sanction free from America it must stop their disrespectful practices against the rule of law.

Zimbabwe also experienced a great reduction in their labor force due to emigration. The agriculture industry was hit the hardest by hyperinflation, experiencing a large decrease in the amount of hectares available. About a quarter of the hectares of land were made unusable because of vandalism and sheer neglect. The production of maize dropped 40% in over the course of a decade due to Zimbabwe’s high inflation. De-industrialization also proved to be quite an issue in the Zimbabwean government with a decline of over forty-percent in production. They experienced not only a very drastic decrease in the amount of goods being produced but also the number of people employed in an industry due to the fact that:

“the economic and political crisis engulfing the country from the mid-1990s onwards was primarily the result of the de-industrializing effects of World Bank/International Monetary Fund (IMF) structural adjustment policies, combined with the absence of a competitive electoral system” (Carmody and Taylor: Industry and the Urban Sector in Zimbabwe’s Political Economy).

The fiscal policies and the monetary policies of Zimbabwe also led to the rate of hyper-inflation that occurred. They had what is known as “quasi fiscal expenditures” which are basically “off budget expenditures supposedly to offset the impact of monetary policies on certain favored economic actors” (Robinson: Zimbabwe’s Hyperinflation). However, this is where the problem exists; these quasi fiscal expenditures were only meant to be a marginal item in the budget. Due to the lack of regulation, marginal spending or the quasi fiscal expenditures strongly competed with the Republic of Zimbabwe’s official budget for the entire country. Because of such large spending, “Zimbabwe’s total public sector deficit has been estimated by the IMF to be more like 60% of GDP” (Robinson: Zimbabwe’s inflation). Zimbabwe experienced eight years of consecutive decline in the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) while employment had nearly a fifty-percent decline as well.

There is clearly a lack of fiscal responsibility occurring in Zimbabwe. The central bank governor took actions that were outside his mandate and caused Zimbabwe’s economy to fluctuate so much it resembled that of a rollercoaster ride. In 2003, inflation was near 600% percent; nearly two years later they were able to reduce it to 124%. However, recently it has been exceeding over 1000%, leaning closer to 1200%. Another issue arose when it came to lending money to people. The rates were so high and it discouraged borrowers from wanting to borrow money. Most banks avoided even lending money due to rates that were 170% per annum. So essentially, these banks were highly ineffective institutions because their main objective is to lend out money to borrowers. If this is not possible, there is really no point in the bank even existing. The amount of economic activity that occurred in Zimbabwe was, therefore, unable to flourish in the suppressive environment.

Zimbabwe was once one of the most thriving nations in Africa but once lack of fiscal responsibility and government accountability came into play, Zimbabwe faced hyperinflation at record highs. If Zimbabwe implemented better government policies and followed the rule of law more carefully maybe their hyperinflation would have not spiraled out of control. Also, clearly listening to the IMF and World bank did not work for Zimbabwe. In fact, it was probably more detrimental to their economy than productive. The IMF kind of stabbed Zimbabwe right in their chest and left them there to bleed. Not that the World Bank was much better; they stabbed them in the back and then admitted to their mistakes. What Zimbabwe needs is better government oversight (that is not corrupt) and economic policies that are not half-backwards and ones that are actually implemented properly.