10 ms·

Ghadaffi wanted to create an African currency as well [0]. I wonder if the African countries will now succeed. I feel it will definitely be in their interest as

• dragonwriter 7y ago
  > France has control over African monetary policy As your own source notes, France does not control the policy of either of the two separate CFA franc zones, but does have preferential access to resources resulting from the deal setting up the currency arrangement, which is the actual benefit it gets from the deal.
  • licnep 7y ago
    But the CFA being pegged to the euro, means that the countries adopting it can't really do monetary policy, like countries in the eurozone can't
    • JetSpiegel 7y ago
      At least Eurozone countries get a seat at the Eurogroup meetings and the European Council. African CFA users don't even get that.
      • Double_a_92 7y ago
        The pegging is not forced on them. It's their own national bank which buys and sells tons of Euros to keep the exchange rate stable.
        • vkreso 7y ago
          Exactly, its an autonomous response towards the market. Stability is always preffered in human decision making.
        • dragonwriter 7y ago
          > It's their own national bank which buys and sells tons of Euros to keep the exchange rate stable. The two CFA franc zones have zone central banks (which aren't exclusively controlled by countries in the respective zone, since France has a seat on each), it's not individual national central banks issuing currency or managing the peg.
      • seszett 7y ago
        Isn't it very common for a currency to be pegged to another, though? Dozens of currencies are pegged to the EUR or USD, and the two CFA francs are not very different, except that the French treasury is legally bound to guarantee free convertibility between CFA franc and euro, unlike say the US federal reserve with Cuban peso.
        • skgoa 7y ago
          Yes, it is common. There are even countries that officially adopting a currency they do not control, e.g. Croatia uing the euro. But this has the very real drawbacks that the previous comments mentioned.
    • pinkfoot 7y ago
      It also means their corrupt governments cannot monetise their debt and destroy their currency, savings, pensions, and ultimately economy. Like Zimbabwe did.
      • RobertoG 7y ago
        That's nonsense. Zimbabwe (like the famous Weimar republic, by the way) had a extreme fall in the real productive capacity of the economy (1). Inflation was going to happen nevertheless the monetary policy they adopted. (1) - http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773 http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=3773
        • pinkfoot 7y ago
          Nope, the fall in capacity followed the destruction of the currency and the end of the rule of contract law.
          • tim333 7y ago
            Googling briefly it seems >Food production halved in the 1990s as a result of [Mugabe's] decision to strip white farmers of their land and hand it to members of the black population who, in many cases, had no farming experience. before the inflation kicked off. https://news.sky.com/story/how-zimbabwes-economy-has-collapsed-under-mugabe-11127628 https://news.sky.com/story/how-zimbabwes-economy-has-collaps... Same brilliant policy in Venezuela pretty much.
• dmix 7y ago
  >> A French official sits on the boards of both central banks, which suggests France retains at least some influence over the decision making process. >> Participation in the currency is voluntary. >> In 2018, Guinea was the largest country of origin [for European migration], followed by Morocco - both former French colonies that don't use the CFA franc. Cote d'Ivoire and Mali are the only countries of origin using the CFA franc that have contributed significantly to migration across the Mediterranean, accounting for 14.4 percent of the total last year. The data in the article runs counter to the complaint against CFA currency, that it causes poverty and therefore migration into Europe. Two of the highest migration sources were ex-CFA members who now use their own currency and only 14.4% came from CFA members. Ending CFA is not some panacea. But that said I very much favour local control of currencies in almost every case as it's one of the great benefits of global capitalism being (voluntarily) given away by these countries. Currencies and market value should be tied closely to local market conditions rather than orchestrated and centrally balanced across a massive network of countries with stark economic differences. Trade deals (plus reducing protectionism and corporate welfare in general) are sufficient to lower barriers to entry into markets which is where it pays off to be liberal and global. Giving up control of your currency should be at most a temporary measure when local state bodies aren't stable enough to have a healthy market. Not some long term arrangement. Inefficiencies of currency conversion are problems that can be solved by healthy financial markets (futures) and technology. Plus there are better examples of bigger economies having a strong monetary influence over smaller countries governments without the whole colonial image that putting a European bureaucrats directly on central banks gives off. The best example is governments taking on massive amounts of foreign loans - which is still in de jour for some reason. For ex: China controls significant amounts of debt across Africa and Latin America which is arguably a stronger lever of influence than France has in Africa.
  • Retric 7y ago
    For nations with lower GDP’s there is significant overhead to using their own currency. It’s often more harmful than beneficial.
  • TazeTSchnitzel 7y ago
    CFA Franc countries can't leave because 1) France holds their foreign reserves so France holds the upper hand, 2) France actively works against countries trying to leave.
• Razengan 7y ago
  Whatever happened to Libya? How are they doing now? Who are the people [really] in power there? There was a lot of brouhaha in the mass media about "liberating" them, then nothing.
  • lenkite 7y ago
    It is now a nation in continual civil war between a warring bunch of factions. People are desperate to emigrate from there and a lot of area is controlled by human traffickers. This is the end result of military intervention against Gaddafi. This was a nation that had free health care for the public. A lot of people are dying daily, but you don't hear about it since international journalists are afraid to enter the area - they will be taken as hostages by one group or another immediately. Instead of waging War, international negotiation for the succession of power with guarantees of safety should have been performed painstakingly - with lots of carrots offered, but there are just too many warmongers in the US and even the UN.
    • powerapple 7y ago
      International journalists weren't afraid of reporting other things they don't have access of though.
      • Symbiote 7y ago
        There's an article on Libya every 2-4 days in the Guardian. Most are about the migrant crisis, but the rest are about the ongoing war. https://www.theguardian.com/world/libya https://www.theguardian.com/world/libya
    • notahacker 7y ago
      When one faction rules out negotiating any outcome that doesn't involve Gadaffi's removal (and doesn't have much unity beyond that) and the other faction is Gadaffi and his loyalists that don't want to move, the chances of negotiating a peaceful transition were always going to be slim. Revolutions often don't have happy endings. Libya had free healthcare, but it also was also the fiefdom of a dictator who said that those who didn't love him didn't deserve to live. Not every violent conflict has to be the fault of the US and the UN, and the argument they ought to have intervened more to stabilise the country afterwards is at least as plausible as the argument that they intervened too much. (The conspiracy theory that Western intervention had something to do with Gadaffi's gold dinar idea doesn't have much to rest on either. Round about the time Gadaffi was talking up one of the oldest ideas in Islam as part of his vision for Africa and not getting anywhere even when he was the African Union president, a Malaysian state actually introduced one and was roundly ignored, even by the Malaysian government.)
• piokoch 7y ago
  We will see. Right now when Spain buys oil from Norway (EU member and European Economic Area member) they (have to?) use US Dollars, which is insanity from the perspective of both countries. Ghadaffi wanted to trade oil for Euros and we all know how it end up.
  • alex_duf 7y ago
    I'm not sure if you're referring to Gaddafi's death, but there's strong suspicion he's dead because he talked a bit too loudly about financing the campaign of Nicolas Sarkozy https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkozy-police-custody-french-president-campaign-funding-libya https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/mar/20/nicolas-sarkoz...
    • tim333 7y ago
      He did a lot of things to piss off a lot of people. It's hard to pick out one particular one.
  • navigatesol 7y ago
    >Right now when Spain buys oil from Norway (EU member and European Economic Area member) they (have to?) use US Dollars, which is insanity from the perspective of both countries. Instead of converting from Krone to Euros and vice versa, you convert into the largest, most stable, most liquid currency on the planet. What is insane? >Ghadaffi wanted to trade oil for Euros and we all know how it end up. Ah yes, Ghadaffi, Sadam Hussein...good men overthrown because they wanted to "trade oil for Euros". Wait; why couldn't they again? What, precisely was stopping them from dealing in Euro, besides the seller or buyer of oil demanding to be use USD? Right, nothing. The idea that the US forces people to trade in USD as opposed to it working out that way because it's a stable currency of a powerful nation is a fallacy that won't die. Just like within the country, you are free to trade in whatever the hell currency you want...if you can find a willing counter-party.
    • poiuyt098 7y ago
      > Wait; why couldn't they again? Due to getting hanged, shot, or stabbed, probably.
• VvR-Ox 7y ago
  They won't and probably they never will on their own. The west still controls the most powerful entities in Africa and also the Chinese are pushing forward with their "belt and road" strategy.
• dotancohen 7y ago
  I'm glad to see this mentioned. Ghadaffi had big plans for uniting Africa, which would have been horrible for the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries. I've always felt that was the real reason the he was ousted. Other national leaders, both in and outside Africa, have done far worse than him yet have never been invaded.
  • skgoa 7y ago
    > which would have been horrible for the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries. For european corporations and shareholders, that is. It would probably be better for the majority of people, because higher stabilityand prosperity in Africa will result in fewer refugees, which results in fewer issues with rightwing nutjobs.
  • growtofill 7y ago
    Given that decolonization ended more than 40 years ago, "the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries" are either dead or retired. How is African countries reaching an agreement would be horrible to anyone, including them?
    • jonahrd 7y ago
      I believe dotancohen is referring to other forms of colonialism that have existed since decolonization: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neocolonialism
    • dangerface 7y ago
      > "the Europeans who have been plundering the continent for centuries" are either dead or retired. Thats not how political dynasties work.
    • alluro2 7y ago
      The notion of individuals being responsible for exploiting Africa and them being dead meaning the exploitation no longer exists is like saying USA ceased to exist when founding fathers passed away. Newer history of Africa is almost exclusively defined by consequences of external manipulation, driven by financial interests. In general, you can look up the definition of "neocolonialism".
• eaurouge 7y ago
  Please see notahacker’s comment below for some much needed clarity in this thread. Gaddafi had become a laughingstock on the continent well before Arab Spring. His grand vision was an Africa with him as king. There was zero chance that he would have been able to build a coalition around his currency.