Anonymous
That is the difference between capitalism and a welfare mentality. When you buy something, you put money in people's pockets, and give them dignity for their skills.
When you give someone something for nothing, you rob them of their dignity and self- worth.
Capitalism is freely giving your money in exchange for something of value.
Socialism is taking your money against your will and shoving something down your throat that you never asked for.
I've decided I can't be politically correct anymore. Actually, come to think of it, I never was!
The ANC’s 12-point plan to ‘radically’ change South Africa
By Staff Writer
February 8, 2017
The ANC has published a detailed list of points that will be addressed at a ‘people’s assembly’ ahead of the State of the Nation address on Thursday (9 February).
The plan is seen as a preview to the tone and direction president Zuma’s address will take at the main event, with a particular focus being on “radical transformation”, a term which has been pushed by Zuma and those in government over the preceding months.
The list – shared by Sports Minister Fikile Mbalula – points to the party’s plans to bring “radical economic transformation” to South Africa, which refers to the ANC’s desire to shake up the current structures, systems and institutions in the country.
“Our main objective remains the liberation of blacks in general, and Africans in particular,” The ANC said.
This includes creating jobs, accelerating inclusive growth and transforming the structure and ownership of production.
Particular emphasis is placed on transforming the country’s financial institutions, feeding into the party and government’s narrative that the country’s banks are not sufficiently transformed, and are still in the hands of “white monopoly capital”.
Other highlights include 30% of all government spending going to black businesses, and increasing black ownership in South African mines.
To achieve its plans of transformation, the ANC will call on government to:
1. Return the land to the people using Constitutional means.
2. Invest money in township and rural communities and ensure we build post-apartheid cities in our rural areas and vibrant businesses in our townships.
3. No less than 30% of ALL government spending must go to black businesses and small, medium and micro enterprises.
4. Massive roll-out of broadband infrastructure, ensuring connectivity of schools, universities, hospitals, police stations and other public areas.
5. Implement the Maputo Declaration and ensure 10% of GDP goes to agricultural development.
6. Turn South Africa into a construction site; deliver water, sanitation, roads, electricity and houses.
7. Diversify ownership in the financial services sector, licence the Post Bank, introduce new players and transform the industry in favour of the people as a whole.
8. Finalize the National Minimum Wage to give income security to all our people.
9. Increase the requirement for black ownership in mines, ensure that a significant amount is in the hands of the workers and advance local beneficiation.
10. Implement free higher education for the poor and produce
no fewer than 5000 PhDs per annum by 2030, and urgently generate more artisans.
11. Review SA’s trade policies to prioritize national interest and support and promote local business.
12. Mercilessly deal with corruption, fighting both the tigers and the flies.
Selected extract from Johann Rupert’s acceptance speech at Sunday Times Top 100 Companies, lifetime achievement award
...........’The next thing is that there’s confusion between the role of government and ‘what is the state’. This has been throughout South America – throughout Africa. Our problem is governance.
If you look at North and South Korea or East and West Germany…if you go back to the 1880’s, the standard of living was the same all over the world. It didn’t matter whether you lived in Cape Town, Rio, Buenos Aires, Mexico City, London, or Paris. It was basically, the same quality of life.
Then some societies made certain choices about how they would govern themselves.
The successful countries chose rule of law; separation of church and state of you wish, guaranteed freedom of speech, private property ownership and free transferable currencies. Certain countries chose some ways and others didn’t, and the divergence started.
We have created wealth. By the way Mr President, for all of you civil servants here – even Minister Gordhan – says, ‘we’ve got to be caring. Don’t make too much money’. I’ve got news for you. The PIC owns two-and-a-half times the number of shares in both Richemont and in Remgro that our family owns. Now remember that’s your pension fund, you may wish to reconsider the ‘caring’ bit.
Our job is to create wealth and to pay people properly, which we’ve done all our lives. Creating wealth and creating jobs, creates further jobs. We pay tax. We brought back tens of billions of Rand in foreign exchange and every year our family companies bring back more dividends than the rest of the Stock Exchange together.
You do not expect to hear these narratives, especially not when the narratives are from the Presidency and his close friends.
So the real question is, “Why?”
That you’ll all have to think about it ourselves? What is being hidden? Why attack people instead of debating the issues?
Our issues are unemployment and a terrible education system. It is a disaster. Unless we fix that, we have no hope.
Yes, Minister Gordhan, I started in 1979 a small business development corporation and we’ve created 700,000 jobs. This was done for black people living in cities who did not have the ways and means to build up capital. So I’ve been in small business.
We’ve done it since 1979. Been there done that and we’ll help again. But we really need to define the roles between business and the government and the state. This is because governments cannot create jobs. The state cannot, otherwise there’d be no unemployment anywhere in the world. It’s the private sector that has got to create the jobs and all we need is certainty, rule of law, transparency. When there are tenders, they must be public tenders. It must be transparent.
Nuclear Deal: Case to stop SA from bankrupting itself begins
Rebecca Davis
Rebecca Davis studied at Rhodes University and Oxford before working in lexicography at the Oxford English Dictionary. After deciding she’d rather make up words than define them, she returned to South Africa in 2011 to write articles for the Daily Maverick.
22 Feb 2017
“No nukes, no bankrupting SA, no enriching Zuma and Co,” read one sign. “Nuclear costs SA equivalent of 1.2-billion buses!” proclaimed another. On a day when South Africa’s economy was already in the spotlight, the small crowd assembled outside the Western Cape High Court had one particular aspect of its future in mind. “Phantsi secret nuclear deal phantsi!” the protesters chanted. 1
In the legal ring: two NGOs, Earthlife Africa and the Southern African Faith Communities’ Environment Institute (SAFCEI), squaring up against Energy Minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson’s pursuit of 9,600 megawatts of nuclear power. One media outlet referred to it as a “David vs Goliath battle”. That’s accurate in the sense that the two NGOs behind the legal battle are modestly resourced. But when David took on Goliath, he didn’t have one of the most lethal advocates in the country leading his legal team. 2
Acting for the NGOs is David Unterhalter, who has appeared in countless of South Africa’s most high-profile legal matters – including representing Deputy President Cyril Ramaphosa at the Marikana Commission. In this case, David is armed and dangerous. 8
The court challenge will not deal with the question of whether or not nuclear power is the right energy source to meet the country’s needs. Opening the arguments for the applicants on Wednesday, Unterhalter said that his team would show that the inter-governmental nuclear agreement with Russia “fails to comply with what is required constitutionally”.
While the government contends that this kind of international agreement is an instance of “executive action”, and thus beyond the purview of review, the applicants maintain that it is “a fairly straightforward case of administrative action” which should have gone before Parliament for resolution. While the Russian agreement was tabled in Parliament, it was not subject to a debate and a resolution of Parliament, despite the state law adviser’s counsel to Minister Joemat-Pettersson that this was required. 4
Lawyer Adrian Pole subsequently told journalists that they will also argue that the public should have been granted more of a voice in discussions about South Africa’s energy future. 6
This point was emphasised by the protesters outside court. Criticizing the government for making use of “flawed” processes and failing to carry out public hearings, Earthlife Africa’s Makoma Lekalakala described the nuclear process as “shrouded in secrecy”. 2
Lekalakala said: “This case was filed in the public interest to hold those in government accountable and prevent secret deals leading to corruption.” She also hit out at the possible environmental damage of a large-scale nuclear programme. South Africa is currently dependent on a fossil fuel economy, Lekalakala said. “With nuclear it becomes much worse – it’s not just a question of pollution, but also of [how to dispose of nuclear] waste.” 4
South Korean activist Kim Yong-Bock was outside court on Wednesday in solidarity with South African protesters – and bearing an urgent message focusing on nuclear safety. Kim said that the local court case was similar to the ongoing debate in Japan about the constitutionality of nuclear plants.
“The security of life in your country is supposed to be protected by your Constitution,” Kim said, warning that after the 2011 Fukushima nuclear disaster in Japan, wrangling continues as to the liability of the Tokyo Electric Power Company. To the nuclear industry, Kim suggested, “it doesn’t really matter if you die or not”. 4
Looking around at the South Africans gathered outside the court, Kim said: “You are potential victims.” 1
The issue of the prohibitive cost of the nuclear build was also prominent among the protesters’ concerns. “There are many ways of providing the electricity we need now and in the future without spending R1-trillion or more,” SACSEI’s Ven Tsondru said. Both sun and wind, she suggested, could generate electricity quicker and cheaper than nuclear energy. 5
Tsondru explained that the court case’s major function was to force government to share both the reasoning behind, and financial details of, the nuclear deal. 1
The legal proceedings have already forced the government’s hand in revealing certain aspects of the previously secretive nuclear deal. The original court application was filed in October 2015. From papers revealed to the applicants in 2016, the NGOs said that it appeared that despite denials from the governments of both Russia and South Africa, a binding commitment to buy a fleet of nuclear reactors from Russia had already been signed. 3
On Wednesday morning, protesters were keeping one eye on Parliament, where Finance Minister Pravin Gordhan was due to deliver his Budget speech that afternoon. Ears would be pricked for reference to the nuclear deal, which President Jacob Zuma did not mention in his State of the Nation Address a fortnight ago. 2
Earthlife Africa’s Lekalakala told the small crowd outside the Western Cape High Court that they expected the Finance Minister to announce in the Budget that afternoon that “we cannot go ahead with nuclear now”. If he were to give endorsement to the nuclear deal, she said, he would be “undermining you and me”. 4
As it turned out, Minister Gordhan’s Budget did not mention the nuclear deal at all – unless you count a veiled reference to protecting future generations from today’s debt. 3
To SAFCEI’S Liz McDaid, this was a positive sign. 1
“We applaud the Minister of Finance for acting in the public interest and not wasting money on the nuclear deal,” McDaid told the Daily Maverick. “We will continue to monitor government with respect to the nuclear deal. If we are successful with our court case, the decision to procure nuclear will be overturned.” 4
Wiese fed up with being an ANC whipping boy
In probably the most eloquent diatribe yet by a South African corporate leader, retail magnate Christo Wiese rips apart the ANC-fed discourse that big business creams it at the expense of the downtrodden and poor. Whether you’re a staunch socialist, a committed capitalist or sit somewhere in between, it makes for gripping reading. Here’s a teaser line to illustrate; “Criticism is only directed at people who make money by employing thousands of people and supplying society, also the poor, with goods and services competitively”. Disinformation feeds common wisdoms and beliefs and Wiese is out to burst a few of these fondly-nurtured, gleaming bubbles with a few cold facts of his own, some pretty surprising but understandable when you consider the time that’s passed and the wide-ranging empowerment measures that have taken place. There’s no doubt that this alternative discourse deserves to enter the common weil. It’ll be fascinating to follow the debate that this frustrated outburst inevitably provokes… – Chris Bateman
By Jenni Evans
Cape Town – Retail tycoon Christo Wiese is fed up with the rich getting the blame for South Africa’s problems.
“There is a perverse obsession about the rich with little or no regard for what would happen to the poor if the rich are pulled down,” said Wiese at the FW de Klerk Foundation’s conference on the Constitution and governance.
“The question government must ask is: ‘What better person is there to be managing and investing money than a person with a proven track record to earn it justly?’” said the man named in an Oxfam report as one of three people in South Africa whose wealth is equivalent to that of the bottom 50% of the country’s population.
The other two were Glencore CEO Ivan Glasenberg and Aspen Pharmacare chief executive Stephen Saad.
Wiese said that even if Oxfam was correct in its wealth distribution report released during the World Economic Forum Davos summit in January, this still does not justify radical policy changes based on assumptions.
“To reach their sensationalist conclusion they have to make many dubious assumptions,” the chairperson of Steinhoff International Holdings and controlling shareholder in Shoprite Holdings said. Steinhoff’s South African brands include Pep, Incredible Connection and Shoe City.
“The mere fact that a few who supposedly own too much keep changing, should get them to ponder the fluid and fickle nature of wealth and should prove that there is no such group as the rich.”
‘Silence on black middle class’
Wiese said a closer look at ownership patterns would reveal that the Public Investment Corporation is primarily owned by black civil servants and is the largest shareholder on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.1
Half of new title deed holders, most new business owners, vehicle buyers, insurance policy customers are black, he continued, asking why there was a “serial silence” about that.
He said around six million black people in South Africa earn middle class incomes – more than the entire white population – and they did this by themselves.
Policies to alleviate poverty should be evidence based and economically sound, not based on wild statistical claims that blame “White Monopoly Capital” for South Africa’s social ills.
“The harsh truth is that the problem is poverty, whereas the narrative implies that the problem is wealth.”
He said the Oxfam report was part of an ongoing vilification of commercially successful people and that sports stars, entertainers and bestselling novelists seem to be immune to this backlash.
Free market
“Criticism is only directed at people who make money by employing thousands of people and supplying society, also the poor, with goods and services competitively.
“Nowhere have I seen an allegation that what any of the so-called billionaires did to become wealthy was unfair or unjust to anyone.
“It can validly be argued that all they did was to make offers that people were free to accept or reject.”
His worry over the “inequality narrative” is that factually incorrect and extreme claims could lead to reckless policies in the name of promoting a more equitable and just distribution of wealth.
Claims around land ownership and wealth in SA were not properly substantiated, and implied that wealth and land should be seized and redistributed.
“Most of these numbers that are bandied about are malicious and racially charged disinformation,” he said.
These could be used by the government to justify policy changes such as “draconian” land ownership laws that will discourage long-term investment.
‘You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich’
He expressed concern over the rise of “quasi courts”, naming ombuds people, commissions of inquiry and even some courts as a move away from the rule of law towards a trend of “the rule of lawyers”
Wiese said when big business prospers, everybody prospers – like boats that rise with the tide.
The prevailing rhetoric in South Africa appears to have more to do with problems within the ANC alliance, said Wiese.
Claims that transformation has been slow or non-existent, that white people still own everything and inequality is increasing are “dangerous”.
“Our government must ensure that its policies are formulated on the basis of facts, not emotive hype,” said Wiese. – News24
