Huge bail-outs for state firms -R243bn !!

daveza

daveza

Honorary Master
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
49,872
Reaction score
21,636
Location
Durbanville, Cape Town
http://www.fin24.com/articles/default/display_article.aspx?ArticleId=1518-25_2562931

As Minister of Public Enterprises Barbara Hogan and her inter-ministerial team get to work to find ways to improve the performance of parastatals, the national treasury has confirmed that government has bailed state-owned entities out to the tune of R243bn over the last four years.

"This (R243bn) is enough money to build at least four large coal-fired power stations, says DA MP on parliament's select finance committee, Tim Harris.


Meanwhile, according to the treasury, government's financial assistance to SOEs since 2005 includes Eskom (R188.67bn), Denel (R8.82bn), Land Bank (R6.7bn), SAA (R5.2bn), Pebble Bed Modular Reactor (R4.46bn), SABC (R2.23bn), SA Post Office (R1.54bn) and Sentech (R953m).
Click to expand...

Two hundred and forty three Billion will buy a loooooooooooooot of houses.
 
the problem is most of the people in gov never had to work for wat they hav... they don appreciate the hard work people has done before them to build up the successful parastatals...

somehow i never see them running the state owned companies efficiently as long as the ANC is in power... on the other hand if after years of struggling, the DA or COPE come into power, they would at least attempt to do a better job;)
 
Pitbull said:
But not paying that would have left Millions without a Job.

I can't see how building a house would feed the family you built it for tbh ;)
Click to expand...

Who do you think has the ability to provide jobs on large scale, make it economically viable, the private industry or government?

Think of a few "competing" power companies?

Take the telecommunications and internet industry. We have all the ISP's that have created jobs, we have Neotel, MTN, Vodacom, Cells C etc. and I'm willing to bet they have created more jobs than Telkom has lost, made it economically viable and operated for profits businesses, provided the people of SA with better services that we need and want , drove prices down etc.

If we open up the market it can allow for new players which can provide for the lost jobs, that and the fact that society will benefit from better services and lower prices makes it a win-win situation.
 
The tax payers (us) have been forced to fork out R188 Billion (thats R188,000,000,000) to Eskom since 2005. Why have electricity rates increased? Why does Eskom have such huge problems with their infrastructure development? Where is the money?
 
Basically, a parastatal allows them to tax the population, to pay for it's running.

Then the parastatal charges the population again, for the service.

Now, why do you think the parasites want to run everything? ;)
 
Pitbull said:
But not paying that would have left Millions without a Job.

I can't see how building a house would feed the family you built it for tbh ;)
Click to expand...

But with these parastatals continually paying millions upon millions in bonuses for obvious non-performance is this not merely an exercise in futility to fund an "old boys club"?
 
WilD_CaT said:
Who do you think has the ability to provide jobs on large scale, make it economically viable, the private industry or government?

Think of a few "competing" power companies?

Take the telecommunications and internet industry. We have all the ISP's that have created jobs, we have Neotel, MTN, Vodacom, Cells C etc. and I'm willing to bet they have created more jobs than Telkom has lost, made it economically viable and operated for profits businesses, provided the people of SA with better services that we need and want , drove prices down etc.

If we open up the market it can allow for new players which can provide for the lost jobs, that and the fact that society will benefit from better services and lower prices makes it a win-win situation.
Click to expand...

timgaul said:
But with these parastatals continually paying millions upon millions in bonuses for obvious non-performance is this not merely an exercise in futility to fund an "old boys club"?
Click to expand...

Guys,

I'm by no way saying that the companies in question had 100% clean records and that there was no corruption. I am saying that if they are bailed out, the cause must be found as to why and fix it (Corruption/High bonuses/etc).

I am saying that it's better to bail out said places if it means you are saving enough jobs to justify that amount. I don't agree that we need to bail out these places (Government owned) however I do believe that we need to keep those employees at all costs and fix the reasons why they are losing money.

Do I honestly believe it will be fixed and not need a bail out again? NO :D
 
Last edited:
Pitbull said:
Guys,

I'm by no way saying that the companies in question had 100% clean records and that there was no corruption. I am saying that if they are bailed out, the cause must be found as to why and fix it (Corruption/High bonuses/etc).

I am saying that it's better to bail out said places if it means you are saving enough jobs to justify that amount. I don't agree that we need to bail out these places (Government owned) however I do believe that we need to keep those employees at all costs and fix the reasons why they are losing money.

Do I honestly believe it will be fixed and not need a bail out again? NO :D
Click to expand...

I don't believe in employing people just because. If you want to be employed to need to offer something valued. Those companies that need bailouts have been operating like that for years, black holes which suck money in.

I'm saying we would be better off closing them down and freeing up the capital and labour for things people actually want.
 
WilD_CaT said:
I don't believe in employing people just because. If you want to be employed to need to offer something valued. Those companies that need bailouts have been operating like that for years, black holes which suck money in.

I'm saying we would be better off closing them down and freeing up the capital and labour for things people actually want.
Click to expand...

But you can't blame the people on the ground if the man in the top office is stealing them blind :confused:
 
Pitbull said:
Guys,

I'm by no way saying that the companies in question had 100% clean records and that there was no corruption. I am saying that if they are bailed out, the cause must be found as to why and fix it (Corruption/High bonuses/etc).

I am saying that it's better to bail out said places if it means you are saving enough jobs to justify that amount. I don't agree that we need to bail out these places (Government owned) however I do believe that we need to keep those employees at all costs and fix the reasons why they are losing money.

Do I honestly believe it will be fixed and not need a bail out again? NO :D
Click to expand...

Just out of interest: indirectly, and due to massive power failures, laws governing the building of new town house complexes, loss of revenue all thanks to Eskom, how many other non-Eskom jobs have been lost?

So yes, if the bailout fixes the problem then go for it, but it appears to be making the situation worse for those of us who aren't employed in these parastatals! So this money goes on these bonuses and "fat cat" lifestyle whilst the UIF is running dry and people are sitting penniless thanks to corruption.

Maybe a cleanout is what these companies need. Reduce the management, trim the fat, run leaner and get the fright of you life. If you do what you want and expect a bailout regardless then you're just encouraging the situation. A situation in which other people are affected, badly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X