Wel well well, now we know..! [Archive]

BTTB

20-02-2004, 04:16 PM

One can only assume Telekom Malaysia has a similar setup.

If SBC didnt do well within the USA, it might be possible to assume that it was part of his performance bonus for screwing the SA Public with the 700% escalation in Telkom's share price.

...............Words heard uttered from within the boardroom at SBC......................
"That's it guys, dont say anything to them in SA. Just see how much more we can screw them. They too stupid to know the difference. Wow look it's over R70 a share now. Shall we hold a while longer or shall we sell them. Hmm bloody nice fat profit"

Oh and before someone posts. Take some personal f...ing responsibility. You cant blame SBC bla bla bla ......
I do understand the principles of business. But the ethics part of it I need to figure still.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

MaD

20-02-2004, 07:28 PM

Classic, nice one BTTB [8D]

Ja it's quite sobering to see the fate of entire countries' economies lie in the hands of a few individuals who need to support a lavish lifestyle... I've taken my own fu.... resposibility, time for them to do the same eh... bloody Yanks [:)] Just kidding I like Americans they just a bit loud

_________________________________________________
Just imagine where SA would be now if it weren't for Telkom

BTTB

20-02-2004, 07:43 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">fate of entire countries' economies lie in the hands of a few individuals<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

As I said before. The quickest way to tyranny is democracy. In this post. (http://www.myadsl.co.za/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1786)

I just hope South Africa will set a different example to the rest of Africa. I know we can do it.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

Strobemeister

20-02-2004, 07:47 PM

Its amazing that we're in this situation. Our only National Operater, managed by a bunch of foreigners can't seem to manage a p..s up in a brewery on their own patch. Another perfect example of Africa getting screwed by the finance providers in the "developed" world.

Telkom - South Africa's Handbrake to progress.

microfast

20-02-2004, 08:57 PM

Telecom Malaysia was set up by SBC.

SBC did not come here to rape us - they were invited !..

This govt. sold a stake to SBC.

SBC obviously required some guarantees and we the people of SA were given away
and some necessary laws were updated to ensure compliance in the marriage.

Much like selling your daughter - aka lobolo.

Gooku

21-02-2004, 08:57 PM

Hi comrads & friends

"Tyrannosaurus" is isolated,wounded & cornered .

Let's " fire all guns" for the next 30 days , if you ever going to complain about Telecoms ,do it NOW

This is our best " window of opportunity "- election time ,government can not afford to ignore our voice.

Our "brains" are busy formulating a strategy to deal with SBC's grip.We believe that SBC's maximizing price strategy is in fact a suicide strategy for Telkom,--After SBC offload their stake,Telkom will be left with disgruntled customers who will not even hesitate to switch over to Sentech or SNO.

Gooku 's some other activities

1 petition to department of communication
2 petition to competition tribunal
3 petition to president's commision on information society
4 cyber detectives work on New York Wall st.on SBC and Telkom (TKG)
5 cyber recon works on SBC headquater in Texas
6 cyber media propaganda

Jerrek

23-02-2004, 03:44 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BTTB
 Oh and before someone posts. Take some personal f...ing responsibility. You cant blame SBC bla bla bla ......
I do understand the principles of business. But the ethics part of it I need to figure still.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The ethics is realy simple. SBC provides a service. You want to buy that service. In return for that service, you provide money to SBC.

If you do not like the price, do not use the service, or pick someone else.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

BTTB

23-02-2004, 04:54 PM

Hi Jerek. Your point is?

I see you are from Canada. Do you live in Canada then? Are you aware that Telkom is our only choice for ADSL? My point about Ethics in business is one reflecting on Telkom's hold over the SA Consumer with its Monopoly.
Yes perhaps SBC can be vindicated as far as Ethics go. The state sold the 30% stake to them. I agree. But their management teams form part of Telkom's management team. And if Im mistaken, I have not heard from these guys. They are aware what SBC offers its users in the states. And perhaps the other people can post opinions here, but IMO I reckon SBC are holding on to their shares while the goings good, but are they really concerned about the SA public and concerns that people like, fellow MyADSL users might have. We are of course customers and we are been ripped off and on this point I dont need further confirmation. But when does SBC's management in Telkom take some responsibility. They can see whats going on. Perhaps one can question their silence and this is where my point about ethics come in. Their silence is deafening to say the least.
And if we all put our heads together and come up with a few opinions why SBC is silent. Im sure the consensus will be one that isnt favourable to SBC.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

Jerrek

23-02-2004, 08:57 PM

Then you should not have sold off 30% to SBC. SBC bought shares in Telkom for one purpose: to make money. That is the definition of a corporation. I see nothing unethical about what SBC is doing.

Furthermore, 30% is not even a third of the company in question. The power lies with the other 70%.

I do see a problem with regulating a telecom industry, since I'm a capitalist and not a socialist. If there was no barriers to entry, SBC will change its methodology in order to maximize profits. I see nothing unethical about that either.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

BTTB

23-02-2004, 09:30 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">SBC will change its methodology <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Ok lets focus on this point then.

You are saying that when the state eventually releases telkom to market forces then SBC will change its views. Ok sure. But as a good management team they would need to look into the future market in SA. If SA goes like the rest of the world, then these people who manage and own SBC at the moment would eventually have to tow the line in the market place. At the moment "mums the word". I as a citizen of SA, do not wish people like this to shape my future. The management of SBC know where the market is going as they have the experience within their own market. Its only time that separates where telkom is going. If SBC were truly part of Telkom in a meaningful sense they would try to talk some sense into MR White and whoever else plays decision making roles in telkom.
I would try to focus on the future of the company and devote lots of energy in trying to make my customers happy and hopefully in doing so promote longevity and good profits for the company.
At the moment I doubt whether SBC is telling anything to Telkom Management. I think they are sitting back and marking time. If this were not true then SBC would have adopted a different approach to the situation. I think SBC is going to dump telkom shares whenever the time is right to do so. So what did SA get out of the partnership then.
I quote Prof Melody on this point. "He suggests that US company SBC, Telkom's strategic equity partner, which has management control, would want to make the company as profitable as possible before selling off its shares. "None of this helps South African economic development". "
I do see your standpoint that SBC is a corporation for financial gain etc. But SA and the rest of africa need partners that can help us move forward and not partners who are in for the bucks only. The african continent is a whole 100 years plus behing the west. We might be better off if the 30% was sold off to a local investor that had SA's best interest at heart.

I think SBC's methodology wont be part of the future of Telkom. They will probably sell off at R100 a share instead of waiting to see what lies on the rocky road ahead. The best method to maximise profits. All Telekoms that have been opened to market forces around the world have seen a drop in share prices. A good example is SBC itself. Its US shares faired dismally the last year. And I reckon SBC sees this coming with Telkom. This is the rocky road ahead.
I think the state together with Telkom and SBC are deliberately stalling as they know what is going to happen. More operators+wireless=less profits for telkom=less value to shares.
And this info and methodology is probably whats keeping SBC here. They arent finished maximising their profits yet.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

MaD

23-02-2004, 10:19 PM

Jerrek, I can't believe you are so vigorously defending SBC. They are robbing SA blind, and the poor are stuck without any communications because your mates are ripping them off.

I suppose it's easy, sitting there in ice cold Canada downloading at 1 megabyte a second, to laugh at us down here. You would be screaming murder if you had to pay what we pay.

So please think before you type, you would never pay $130US for a 512K connection with a 3GB cap and no SLA. But as long as you have what YOU want then screw us eh.

And by the way it wasn't *US* who sold 30% to SBC, it's those short-sighted people in the government who can't run a bath never mind a company. Americans don't always know best - all they do is copy what everyone else does and make it bigger. Not difficult.

If there was a big red button I could press that would make SBC disappear out of Africa I would throw myself at it asap.

_________________________________________________
Just imagine where SA would be now if it weren't for Telkom

BTTB

23-02-2004, 10:34 PM

Hello Mad.
Jerek was stating his views about the ethics part of business. I quote myself as saying, "Oh and before someone posts. Take some personal f...ing responsibility. You cant blame SBC bla bla bla ......
I do understand the principles of business. But the ethics part of it I need to figure still."

I still stand by what I said. As I still need to figure out the ethics in this scenario.
We know that SBC has management in Telkom, Right? Now knowing this and the fact that SBC is big player in the US and knows how the market works over their. They can fairly predict where our market is going to go. With all this knowledge and they own 30% in telkom one would think that they would be concerned about the peeved off SA Consumer. Or perhaps be trying to rescue Telkoms image at least. It is obvious to all that they are not. If they are/were, then they should state their case.
So I question the ethics of the whole Telkom Ballsup and SBC is part of it. At least for the moment they are part of Telkom.

Anyone care to take a geuss at what price SBC is going to dump their shares. My geuss is R100.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

Gooku

24-02-2004, 12:08 AM

We (South Africans) precious Capitalism and We embrace Democracy,some ideology prospered North Americans.

YES,in real world ,coporations exist to make profits for its share holder,but there IS a social responsibility for every good coporation - it has to benefit & contribute to the society they serve (especially when they brand themselfs as Proudly South Africa company)

Society simply can not tolerate "profiteering" and "handbraking" of our economic progress.
We believe profits and social responsibility can co-exist in a good company.

Every human being makes mistakes, so does every corporation,We believe SBS's interest in Telkom is "short term" this is manifested by its strategy to maximise " prospect of profit " and not profit itself or Telkom's long term prospect and its governance.

If SBC wants to make best profit for its share holders,they should List Vodacom separatly (SBC indirectly owns 15%).Wireless operation is far more attractive to investors and enjoys much better ratings.Vodacom will soon worth more than Telkom,it does not make sense to bundle it under Telkom's listing.

SBC is a $80 billion dollar giant ,maybe the dwarf Telkom ($6 bn) is not getting their good attention

Jerrek

24-02-2004, 04:53 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">At the moment I doubt whether SBC is telling anything to Telkom Management. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
So why are you blaming SBC then? Telkom is running things, not SBC.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">But SA and the rest of africa need partners that can help us move forward and not partners who are in for the bucks only.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Then find a charity, or embrace capitalism in its purest form by eliminating socialism completely.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Jerrek, I can't believe you are so vigorously defending SBC. They are robbing SA blind, and the poor are stuck without any communications because your mates are ripping them off.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Once again, robbing implies that you are being parted with something against your wishes, and do not have say. You DO have say. Don't play these word games.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">And by the way it wasn't *US* who sold 30% to SBC, it's those short-sighted people in the government who can't run a bath never mind a company.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Point taken, but your government does consist of a democratically elected Parliament. I realize you might not agree with their decisions, but it does appear that the majority of South Africa thinks different?

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Americans don't always know best - all they do is copy what everyone else does and make it bigger. Not difficult.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Now you're ticking me off. If you don't like our technology, FINE. Don't use it. Its ironic, though, that with every chance you get, you vote for the United States, economically speaking.

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">We (South Africans) precious Capitalism and We embrace Democracy,some ideology prospered North Americans.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Gooku, that is partly true, but your ruling party DOES have a strategic alliance with the communist party, and the fact that so many markets are tighly regulated implies capitalism isn't valued as much as it should be.

My point is, SBC is a corporation, and a corporation by definition has one purpose: to make profit for the shareholders. That is the fundamentals of capitalism. If you don't agree, you don't completely agree with the concept of capitalism.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

BTTB

24-02-2004, 05:04 PM

Hi Jerek.

Actually, Im enjoying your comments. Its a good outside perspective of SA and the way we are perceived through the eyes from abroad.

Your points are taken note of. However I stand firm on my point re the ethics etc.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

antowan

24-02-2004, 06:50 PM

<qoute>Then find a charity, or embrace capitalism in its purest form by eliminating socialism completely. </quote>

Dear Jerrek, not even the USA accepts capitalism in its purist form. I am a very staunch defender of capitalism but it needs to be balanced with social responsibility a.k.a socialist principles. Capitalism does not cater for all the needs of a country’s people. Roads, emergency services, care for the needy and the law are simple examples of services, which in their basic forms need to be provided by government.

<qoute>Once again, robbing implies that you are being parted with something against your wishes, and do not have say. You DO have say. Don't play these word games. </quote>

I can try to reason as much as I like with a robber with a gun, if he wants to take something that belongs to me, he will. Here the gun comes in the shape of not having an alternative.

<qoute>Point taken, but your government does consist of a democratically elected Parliament. I realize you might not agree with their decisions, but it does appear that the majority of South Africa thinks different? </quote>

I have my own personal oppinions about democracy, but for the sake of argument and sticking to the bones of this ideology we must accept that not all citizens in a democratic country can agree with every decision the government makes. However, it is very difficult to judge with what the majority of people in a country does or doesn’t agree with. A referendum is usually the best way of settling the doubts. The death penalty in South Africa is a very contencious issue and polls have shown that the majority of people in South Africa want it reinstated, yet the government refuses. Making wild assumptions about what beople do or don’t agree with is a bit naïve.

<qoute>Now you're ticking me off. If you don't like our technology, FINE. Don't use it. Its ironic, though, that with every chance you get, you vote for the United States, economically speaking. </quote>

I cannot agree more with this statement. The level of resentment against the USA is sometimes mind boggling. I personally find that most of the grudges people (all over the world) hold against the US is mostly very meadeocre in substance when questioned.

<qoute>Gooku, that is partly true, but your ruling party DOES have a strategic alliance with the communist party, and the fact that so many markets are tighly regulated implies capitalism isn't valued as much as it should be. </quote>

Cannot agree more. It is a tightrope act which our government is leaning way too far over to the left on. They should be careful of falling!

<qoute>My point is, SBC is a corporation, and a corporation by definition has one purpose: to make profit for the shareholders. That is the fundamentals of capitalism. If you don't agree, you don't completely agree with the concept of capitalism. </quote>

If you go and do any modern business management degree or even a simple course you will find a very strong accentuation of what is called “Social Responsibility”. This idea was born from the wisdom that a company that is not socially responsible in the way it deals with the people that are the source of its business, inevitably ends up in the gutter over a period of time. Simply put, it is all about give and take. You cannot just take and take!

Again, capitalism cannot survive without a social balance…

He who does not understand the value of war at the right time, cannot comprehend the value of life at any time - Anonymous

Jerrek

24-02-2004, 10:13 PM

Well, I respectfully disagree with the last part of your post. I am a Business Administration major, and I do know about social responsibility, but I'm first and foremost a capitalist. I firmly believe in Ayn Rand's philosophies on capitalism and socialism.

Suffice to say, if you're predicting that SBC will go bankrupt, I highly doubt that.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

mbs

26-02-2004, 12:36 AM

Ayn Rand was a great novelist, but her ideology of objectivism has been discredited by many philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and social commentators, due to its emphasis on the self and individualism, which in practical terms will devolve into the sacrifice of the common good, outright greed, and ultimately the breakdown of the individual, which cannot survive isolated from its social context. As a vehement anti-socialist, her doctrine of objectivism focusses on being contrary to anything even vaguely considered socialist, and cannot be considered as true capitalism. I believe that it is for this reason that capitalism in its present form as punted by the USA (which does incorporate many of the ideals espoused by her) is ultimately destined to fail, as social pressures grow and force change. A word to the wise: consider all inputs when operationalising, make continuous review a necessity, adjust accordingly, adhere to full transparency and consciously get closure on failure, else more 11/09's will occur. There are just too many dogmatic idiots out there who believe that imposing their will on others is the acceptable thing to do, including our own Telscum...

BTTB

26-02-2004, 09:37 AM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Suffice to say, if you're predicting that SBC will go bankrupt, I highly doubt that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

True. But will telkom survive.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

Jerrek

26-02-2004, 04:58 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mbs
 Ayn Rand was a great novelist, but her ideology of objectivism has been discredited by many philosophers, sociologists, political scientists and social commentators, due to its emphasis on the self and individualism, which in practical terms will devolve into the sacrifice of the common good, outright greed, and ultimately the breakdown of the individual, which cannot survive isolated from its social context. As a vehement anti-socialist, her doctrine of objectivism focusses on being contrary to anything even vaguely considered socialist, and cannot be considered as true capitalism. I believe that it is for this reason that capitalism in its present form as punted by the USA (which does incorporate many of the ideals espoused by her) is ultimately destined to fail, as social pressures grow and force change. A word to the wise: consider all inputs when operationalising, make continuous review a necessity, adjust accordingly, adhere to full transparency and consciously get closure on failure, else more 11/09's will occur. There are just too many dogmatic idiots out there who believe that imposing their will on others is the acceptable thing to do, including our own Telscum...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
200+ years and counting...

Socialism collapsed after less than 80.

Ayn Rand is my hero. I agree with basically everything she writes.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

Tharaxis

26-02-2004, 09:16 PM

Jerrek, you're talking about "absolute" socialism (or close to it), while mbs is talking about a combination thereof.

I can assure you that "absolute" capitalism (of which there is no example, no, not even the USA is a purely capitalist society - there are basic services that are government and/or state mandated and controlled) would die just as quickly.

The reason?

Greed becomes paramount at both ends of the scale. Either it ends up with a governmental minority controlling everything and trying to hold on to that (to the detriment of society), or it ends up with a private minority controlling everything and trying to hold on to that (to the detriment of society and anyone who tries to compete with them).

In neither case does the public ever actually win, it's only if you listen to that oft-said saying "all in moderation" and understand that if you maintain a balance between socialist and capitalist ideals (our government is far more socialist than capitalist unfortunately - they like to hold on to "big business" such as Telkom) you end up with a far more competitive and open environment.

mbs

27-02-2004, 12:52 AM

Well said, Tharaxis. The point I was trying to make is that dogmatic adherence to a particular ideology merely causes the growth of opposing viewpoints and competing ideologies, given the nature of the human animal. This is the fundamental failure of Ayn Rand's approach, which espouses the idea of "the ideal man, man as he could be and ought to be.” Her idea of the "ideal man" is a "heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

In essence there's nothing wrong with this, but it is merely a sub-set of what we really are - you ignore the rest at your peril. For example, whilst we're naturally gregarious and inevitably collaborate for the 'common good', our inherent pack mentality usually causes in-fighting to achieve 'leader-of-the-pack' status, with the strongest surviving only until such time as rise of someone stronger, or until inherent weakness causes the strongest to succumb. This is a very simplistic analogy and could be viewed as somewhat naive, but evidentiary support for this exists in many contexts. Methinks the same thing occurs in the boardroom context for many companies, including the likes of SBC and Telkom. Ultimately, however, there will always be pressure from those willing to test and challenge the status quo, and blinkered dogma is eventually replaced by something else. This forum is a perfect example of such pressure, whether it is ultimately successful or not.

It is for this reason that sustained and successful management is usually characterised by an eclectic approach to both internal and external variables, whether it be the management of a country or state, a company or organisation, or even a family unit. As you noted, everything 'in moderation'. Bringing all of this back to the topic, it suffices to repeat that said by Ant - capitalism cannot survive without a social balance. Similarly, our telco environment should not be completely deregulated, as some regulation will remain necessary to preclude chaos. And concerning Whitacre, he is destined to take a fall as the current SBC 'strongman', witness all those corporate thieves being brought to book elsewhere - the same thing applies to our own local gravy train idiots...

antowan

28-02-2004, 12:32 PM

All of you have some truth in what you say. As far as survival of one or the other ideology goes, it depends on more than just whether it is good for all or just one. Democracy is the big problem with the world today. The 3rd world (as a collective for those who lag behind at present) are getting more powerful purely on the basis of numbers. That is a very foolish way of looking at and dealing with future global issues. Somebody once said, never underestimate the power of stupid people in masses...

Now that may sound very derogatory, but the truth is that a new system of governance will have to be devised. One where the common good is balanced with the good of every living creature on this planet. Part of that responsibility is to make sure that the 3rd world is educated and developed. The 3rd world must also not be given a power that is disproportional to its capabilities or understanding...

Cheers

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mbs
 Well said, Tharaxis. The point I was trying to make is that dogmatic adherence to a particular ideology merely causes the growth of opposing viewpoints and competing ideologies, given the nature of the human animal. This is the fundamental failure of Ayn Rand's approach, which espouses the idea of "the ideal man, man as he could be and ought to be.” Her idea of the "ideal man" is a "heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

In essence there's nothing wrong with this, but it is merely a sub-set of what we really are - you ignore the rest at your peril. For example, whilst we're naturally gregarious and inevitably collaborate for the 'common good', our inherent pack mentality usually causes in-fighting to achieve 'leader-of-the-pack' status, with the strongest surviving only until such time as rise of someone stronger, or until inherent weakness causes the strongest to succumb. This is a very simplistic analogy and could be viewed as somewhat naive, but evidentiary support for this exists in many contexts. Methinks the same thing occurs in the boardroom context for many companies, including the likes of SBC and Telkom. Ultimately, however, there will always be pressure from those willing to test and challenge the status quo, and blinkered dogma is eventually replaced by something else. This forum is a perfect example of such pressure, whether it is ultimately successful or not.

It is for this reason that sustained and successful management is usually characterised by an eclectic approach to both internal and external variables, whether it be the management of a country or state, a company or organisation, or even a family unit. As you noted, everything 'in moderation'. Bringing all of this back to the topic, it suffices to repeat that said by Ant - capitalism cannot survive without a social balance. Similarly, our telco environment should not be completely deregulated, as some regulation will remain necessary to preclude chaos. And concerning Whitacre, he is destined to take a fall as the current SBC 'strongman', witness all those corporate thieves being brought to book elsewhere - the same thing applies to our own local gravy train idiots...
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

He who does not understand the value of war at the right time, cannot comprehend the value of life at any time - Anonymous

BTTB

28-02-2004, 02:49 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">The 3rd world must also not be given a power that is disproportional to its capabilities or understanding...<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The west is quick to assume too much. They are leaps and bounds ahead of Africa, but sometimes view Africa using Capatilistic thinking. One can look at Mugabe to the North of us. Just about every african countries first government after democracy ends up with some sort of tyranny. Read this post. Ex Republica Forma Populare Tyrannis Oritur (http://www.myadsl.co.za/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1786) -Out of Democracy comes Tyranny.

I just hope and pray that South Africa doesnt lend itself to the same fate. The corruption is their already, but its our strong constitution that keeps us together. For the moment that is.

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

Jerrek

28-02-2004, 04:15 PM

*frown* I'd rather we not interfere. It causes much hatred. Besides, who are WE to tell someone else, in his own country, how he should govern himself? We don't have a right to do that.

And I disagree that socialism is needed. It isn't.

The clock is ticking................... 1,174 kb/s - I brake for no one
http://home.cogeco.ca/~johannj/net_stuff/cogeco.jpg

BTTB

28-02-2004, 04:42 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">*frown* I'd rather we not interfere. It causes much hatred. Besides, who are WE to tell someone else, in his own country, how he should govern himself? We don't have a right to do that.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I take it you are refering to Mugabe and we should not interfere. Yes I agree, such a view is valid in a perfect world. But they are our neighbours and need our help.
Our government has given them heaps in aid already. Fuel, electricity etc to name a few. The trouble with this is we as citizens of SA are indirectly paying for a rogue government next door. Im all for charity etc. But it begins at home first. The situation in Zims is out of hand and their economy has fallen apart. All the top cronies in power have pocketed all the money the UK gave them for land distribution. And their isnt any change in sight either. And I personally work hard for my money, but I fail to see why I should prop up some loose cannons next door.
Yes take our charity, but then come right.
Besides the whole Zim Story is a nightmare. For example the 120 000 herd of cattle that took 100 plus years to breed has been reduced to 10% of that. The people are starving, and the people in power dont care. Zims was once the bread basket of Southern Africa. Its been reduced to mere blip on the map in the last 20 years through all the reasons we are aware of. Mugabe and his cronies lavish themselves in luxury while the country withers away and we foot the bill.

How can we not interfere?

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.

microfast

28-02-2004, 06:19 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by BTTB
How can we not interfere?<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

When the Roman Empire collapsed the Romans did not know it.
Historians defined the collapse some hundreds of years later.

The era of African chiefs (kings, dictators, despots call them what you like) has actually ended.
Only pity is many chiefs don't realise it and many people will die and suffer until the chiefs themselves pass on to the worms who will inevitably consume them.

The same applies to the "chiefs" at telkom and just like the Idi's of this world they will hold no respectable position in history still to be written.

So the one thing we can do is protest and persuade, convince and criticize and hope that some degree of wisdom enters the minds of the chiefs.
Kenneth Kaunda is a good example and it seems as if Gaddafi has seen the light as well.

Personally I think the future of Africa is bright - we have the right people,
we just have to wait for the chiefs to pass on - they will.

BTTB

28-02-2004, 10:48 PM

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Personally I think the future of Africa is bright - we have the right people,
we just have to wait for the chiefs to pass on - they will.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Yes definitely. Only problem while we wait for these "chiefs" to pass on so might we. This is why I get so pissed at Corporations like telkom, while they ***** foot around life is fleeting by. Its just a pity that SA didnt take a stance like places like South Korea and used the Telekom network to push the nation forward.
To give you an example in SA. Trevor Manaul has removed all Import Taxatiion on PC components. Look how cheap PC components are now compared to a year ago. The Rand of course did help too. The theory behind this was to enable all SA Citizens in getting PC's. To make it affordable for all citizens, poor or rich alike. A very noble move from the ANC and I praise them for it. But now to really make this move work they should make their Telkom Monopoly pave the way for cheap Internet Connectivity for all. I mean like a Internet Revolution in SA. This is one way of creating opportunities for the masses. And I say the state should make this a priority. Kick some ass around in Telkom and if SBC doesnt want to toe the line, well you know what they can do, dont you.

Another 2c

<hr noshade size="1">You can take Telkom out of the Post Office but you can't take the Post Office out of Telkom.