An economic nightmare

Vrotappel

Vrotappel

Bulls fan
Joined
Feb 22, 2005
Messages
30,480
Reaction score
18,824
Location
Somerset West
Link

For years South African mineral production has been dropping and with it hundreds of thousand jobs despite a global resource boon. With mines remaining under siege by the unions, restrictive regulations, misguided policies and now the ANCYL and raiders connected to powerful politicians, the decline in this industry is bound to accelerate at an ever increasing pace.
Click to expand...

Agriculture, a major employer throughout the history of South Africa, is slowly choked to death by the threat of Zimbabwe style land invasions, farm murders and populist land policies advocated by politicians, under the guise of transformation.
Click to expand...
As jobs, the essence of a growing economy, are sacrificed at the altar of decent and meaning full work and as education and skills development are sacrificed to the god of transformation, economists and political leaders agree on one thing, South Africa must show seven percent economic growth for the next 20 years – more than twice the average achieved in the past twenty years and double that forecasted for the next three years – to avert a catastrophe.

Where will this growth come from? You tell me. Certainly not from retailers, whose stakeholders are fighting tooth and nail to keep a competitive Wallmart away from our shores lest our poor exploited workers are required to perform a full day’s work.
Click to expand...

So much truth in this article.
 
Yeah good luck with convincing the powers that be, they're too busy gouging state coffers to worry about long-term solutions. TIA!
 
To see the end result of this... just look at other African Countries north of our borders who have masses of mineral wealth and resources, but are under-utilising them because of war, corruption, destruction of infrastructure, greed. etc.

Look at the Congo and Zambia.
 
You cant fight an culture,trick is not to feel sorry when history repeats itself
 
Garyvdh said:
To see the end result of this... just look at other African Countries north of our borders who have masses of mineral wealth and resources, but are under-utilising them because of war, corruption, destruction of infrastructure, greed. etc.

Look at the Congo and Zambia.
Click to expand...

Look at Zimbabwe. Before it became a "democracy" under Mad Mugs it was called the breadbasket of Africa because of how much food it produced. Two decades on and it's now a basket case that has to import food to prevent its population from starving.

Every so-called "democratic" government elected in Africa after colonialism has run their respective countries into the ground. Why anyone expects SA to turn out any different is beyond me.
 
The_Assimilator said:
Look at Zimbabwe. Before it became a "democracy" under Mad Mugs it was called the breadbasket of Africa because of how much food it produced. Two decades on and it's now a basket case that has to import food to prevent its population from starving.

Every so-called "democratic" government elected in Africa after colonialism has run their respective countries into the ground. Why anyone expects SA to turn out any different is beyond me.
Click to expand...

Far be it from me to defend Mugabe, but the decline in Zim's economy also had a lot to do with the drop in tobacco prices. By the time prices inproved, Bob had removed white farm owners and competent managers and the new incumbents could not keep up production.

Also, the fact that in the 80s, the West realised how harmful asbestos was. Zim was a leading exporter and lost a lot of revenue.

These economic influences cannot be blamed on Bob. He did however play A LARGE part in the demise of Zim.

Garyvdh said:
To see the end result of this... just look at other African Countries north of our borders who have masses of mineral wealth and resources, but are under-utilising them because of war, corruption, destruction of infrastructure, greed. etc.

Look at the Congo and Zambia.
Click to expand...

Being a country with a lot of natural resources can be a curse as well in the way that it is run in a lot of African countries. It is called a "resource curse".

A lot of people in SA receive grants from the govt that would not be available if we were not so rich in minerals. Without this mineral wealth, govt would have had to work harder and be more creative in finding solutions to unemployment. Instead, people get a grant.
 
The decline may have had something to do with a drop in prices but it certainly would not have been the end of the economy bluno.

Kicking out the white farmers pretty much guaranteed that. It is rather shocking to read that from you :eek:. He played a large part? Errrm he played the only part.
 
killadoob said:
The decline may have had something to do with a drop in prices but it certainly would not have been the end of the economy bluno.

Kicking out the white farmers pretty much guaranteed that. It is rather shocking to read that from you :eek:. He played a large part? Errrm he played the only part.
Click to expand...

No he did not play the only part killa. I dislike him as much as anyone else, but there were lots of factors at play.

We all have opinions and we are all very vocal in voicing them, but sometimes it helps to read a little wider and understand the economic backdrop to political events.
 
Is a huge difference 'taking a knock' and disintegrating ! ! ! After the first you need a recovery after the second you need a rebuild. Is like a motor vehicle accident: you can have a 'fender beneder' or a write off. Zimbabwe, Zambia, Angola, Mozambique, DRC etc etc - is the later :D
 
VJB 449 said:
With real leadership the country would have adapted. Poor leadership caused the disintegration.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, blunomore is correct. Whilst land invasion may have deterred investors and create more inefficiency, Zimbabwe's fall had more to do with the collapse of the price its exports
Matter of fact, Mugabe launched land attacks because of this. He therefore called out for old British "reparations", The Lancaster House Agreement.

Zimbabwe failed as their economy was centred on primary goods, which are more partial to changes in market forces, whether or not Ian Smith or Mugabe was in power we would have seen the same collapse.
South Africa however has a more diversified economy. We are heavily dependant on a more stable tertiary sector.

Whilst I agree with some of the aspects of the article, the collapse in 20 years is a ridiculous assertion, where does he get this from? Why will we collapse now all of a sudden in 20 years?
We need to grow at 5% to rid ourselves of unemployment yes, but where does 7% and collapse come from?
 
The Economist said:
On the contrary, blunomore is correct. Whilst land invasion may have deterred investors and create more inefficiency, Zimbabwe's fall had more to do with the collapse of the price its exports
Matter of fact, Mugabe launched land attacks because of this. He therefore called out for old British "reparations", The Lancaster House Agreement.

Zimbabwe failed as their economy was centred on primary goods, which are more partial to changes in market forces, whether or not Ian Smith or Mugabe was in power we would have seen the same collapse.
Click to expand...

I honestly dont believe a word you wrote there.

Zimbabwe failed because its farms failed. Basic economics 101. If your farms are not producing then your country will fail. Thats just how it is. The farms failed because of forced removals and lack of skills by the people who stole the farms. Black racism killed Zimbabwe.

A massive drop in farm goods (not just tobacco but everything), lead to the fall of Zimbabwe. Townies like you seem to forget that farms are the base of your civilization, if they fail your civilization will fail.

FYI, I dont think SA will go Zimbabwe`s way (as long as we keep little Malema`s from becoming president).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X