Abracadabra!

noxibox said:
Governments should not get too enamoured of the notion of the free market. You have to be careful to have enough interference and regulation to prevent business from running amok, but not so much that you prevent anyone from doing any business.
Click to expand...
Please don't take my words wrong, when I said "free market" I was most definitely NOT referring to the notion of "unregulated capitalism" i.e. I did not mean a market in which "companies are free to do whatever they want". I meant a market in which, basically, "anyone can play", and that has a more or less even playing field.

I definitely do not believe in unregulated capitalism because it will never create the most efficient marketplace - there are just too many easier ways for dominant players to make money by abusing their position to keep competitors out than to actually compete, and thus markets need to be regulated to ensure they remain lively and healthy, i.e. to ensure the playing field remains fair, and as you say should favour numerous smaller businesses over a handful of dominant players.

Furthermore companies have to balance greed against the requirements of the society that provides them with the environment in which they do business. You'll find that responsible companies ...
Click to expand...

This is where I don't quite agree with your approach. As soon as you start saying something like "companies should (balance greed against / be more responsible etc.) ..." or "shareholders should ..." you're already on the wrong track --- I mean, it's nice to ponder such things if you're dreaming about utopia, but in reality it's about as useful a pastime as sitting around saying that "humans should stop waging war and all live at peace". It's never going to happen. Human nature is what it is, you cannot change it. People are dogs, they are scum, and companies will naturally almost always tend to revert to the least ethical mode of operation that they can get away with, at the expense of others, when it is to the benefit of the individuals who own and/or run the company. Systems should be designed around how human nature is, not around how we'd like it to be. Antowan says "People must get off the idea that a monopoly is doing well to look out just for shareholders." Sure, they should, but that isn't going to happen. Ever. (It's also nice to dream about, say, world peace, but when you design your society you pay for a defence force anyway, because it's not practical to expect that to ever happen.) Likewise forget about asking shareholders to "please have some ethics" - the only way to reliably make shareholders behave is to create a marketplace where behaving is also in their own best interests. This usually means a marketplace with healthy competition, combined with legislation only to prevent things like shifting production costs unfairly onto third parties (e.g. pollution regulations). Hence 'social responsibility' should not be legislated as a goal in itself for corporations - things like school sponsorship, that's what taxes are for - companies should just be running as efficiently as they can in order to maintain maximal growth of the overall economy, which will thus increase the tax base, and that's a better way to pay for schools without e.g. "branding" kids at the same time (another questionable dominance retention strategy if you ask me).

Telkom makes a profit of R16 million per day, so yeah they can easily build a decent size school with a day's profits.
Click to expand...
That was last year, nett profit is now up to about R23 million per day :/
 
Last edited:
Telkom can make a profit of R32 million per day if it halves its prices. ADSL users will triple if that happens.

Please note, it is correct grammar to refer to a beast as it and not he, she, they or them and Telkom is definitely a beast and not a person or legal entity.
 
Hear hear

antowan said:
Some examples of social responsibility in action:

http://www.vanhoutte.com/en/company/responsibility/

http://www.thetimes100.co.uk/case_study.php?cID=3&csID=48

Telkom needs to understand that the biggest favour it can do for South Africa is not paying for schools and all kinds of sporting events but LOWERING TELECOMS COSTS!!!!
Click to expand...

What they so-called give to charities / institutions, they take back from those same institutions in phone bills.... and then some... by billing the members of those institutions.... etc.etc....
 
I just fail to see

Whats so hard about being socially responsible AND making profit? But then some people cant see past the $$$ unfortunately our country is being run by many such people... Even if tk subsidised every service in this country, money would still not cure social ills... it just breeds more greed... love of money is a baaaad thing (but you knew that, right?)
 
What they so-called give to charities / institutions, they take back from those same institutions in phone bills....

By the way has anyone asked Telkom how that half price internet access for schools is going?
 
Yes Telkom, how is the 50% off arrangment doing? All the schools on it now?
 
sunsoffun said:
Looking after there share holders is what is going to bring Telkom down... a perfect example to this would be - General Motors. They are still paying the price for it, and thought they where untouchable. That is why
Click to expand...
Ummm no, GM's downfall is that it actully tried to look after its employees ( retired and retrenched as well ).

Pension and medial aid currently costs them $2000 per car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X