Article: Stop exporting raw minerals: Malema

The government must stop exporting raw minerals to encourage the establishment of industries to process them locally, ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema said in Pretoria on Thursday.

"With greater state control and participation and ownership of mineral resources, our national budget will have the capacity to be increased and would take care of social responsibilities of the state," Malema told the National Press Club during a talk about the league's programme of action for economic freedom.
 
Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Did he get this one right by accident, or was he misquoted. Now we need to find a way to stop "foreign investment" from turning into "foreign milking" and we're on our way to fixing our economy. (Yes, I am suggesting that foreign shareholders should have (at least part of) their dividends locked in SA.)
 
Cannot believe I actually agree on something with this twit.

Sent from my droid blender, turning fruit into juice everyday.
 
I see the one brain cell that he has grown is still struggling to crawl out of the s h i t that the rest of his brain is made of
 
When is this useless fat cretin going to actually say something about the youth instead of dreaming he's the president ?

Now he wants to send no less than 10,000 'youth' overseas to learn skills they can't learn here.

What skills would these be ?

Navy seals - got some spare time ?
 
Wow, miracles never cease!
Don't tell him that he's actually right cos we will never hear the end of it
 
rpm said:
The government must stop exporting raw minerals to encourage the establishment of industries to process them locally, ANC Youth League leader Julius Malema said in Pretoria on Thursday.

"With greater state control and participation and ownership of mineral resources, our national budget will have the capacity to be increased and would take care of social responsibilities of the state," Malema told the National Press Club during a talk about the league's programme of action for economic freedom.
Click to expand...

Shayd said:
Cannot believe I actually agree on something with this twit.

Sent from my droid blender, turning fruit into juice everyday.
Click to expand...

Rands said:
Wow, miracles never cease!
Don't tell him that he's actually right cos we will never hear the end of it
Click to expand...

Nothing against processing those mineral resources locally if it can be done competitively and converted into actual products.

What fails though is the state involvement part. Governments should stay out of business and concentrate on their core functions which they can't even get right. The government is not an efficient organisation by a long shot and they are definitely not competitive which means these operations will probably have funding pumped in via tax payers as is done for many of the entities/utilities they have run into the ground.
 
He criticised the slow pace at which land was being handed back to blacks, saying only five percent was being transferred every 20 years.

"In 100 years we will have transferred 20 percent.
Click to expand...

I think you'll find it's 25%.
 
I agree in principle that SA should manufacture more of its own, but why exactly do we import cheap chinese **** rather than making it ourselves?

Our labour laws make it impossible to compete head on with china, hence the reason for us exporting our "mineral wealth".

But yea, great idea, lets put the ANC in charge or our countries biggest resource, like Zim did with their tobacco farms. :wtf:
 
Because when we process these minerals ourselves, it would be processed by BEE-companies running at a massive loss, but being caried by the tax payer.

If there was a true demand in the private sector, we wouldn't have exported.
 
I cannot believe I actually agree with him for once :eek: Only once we get proper and innovative manufacturing industry will this country start moving forward. I disagree with the part about the ANC managing everything though, that'll be a balls up
 
Eh, I think you guys missed simple economics and common sense.

What we are doing is we are capping what we can sell. We are rationing it. What that will mean is that the international market price of the goods will increase (Supply limited internationally due to constraints from our side), so our international competitors will be more profitable and they will then seek to fill the gap created by us not allowing people to buy from us. So in effect we are giving our customers to our competitors.

This means now companies are forced to sell locally at much reduced prices as the increase in local supply floods the market. This reduces the mines etc. profitability and thus the future growth of our mines will be shorter or stunted, remember we have reduced profitability of investing in mining, which means there will be less investment in mining, which means less jobs etc.

Now we are then saying, well we can create new companies to further process raw materials, which will mean more jobs etc. The question all of you should be asking is why aren't we doing this now?

Remember the reason why the Chinese sell to us, is because they can make profits building and processing the stuff and shipping it half way round the world. The reason why we AREN'T doing it, is that we are not competitive. It is simple, if we could compete, investors would already by investing in further processing goods in order to get a piece of the pie currently had by the Chinese etc.

The fact we don't have a lot of further of further processing etc. and manufacturing etc. going on in SA is due to the difficulty local companies have in competiting with both on the domestic market and international. That is not through any fault of their own, Chinese people aren't sommer 3 times as productive by virtue of them being skew eyed, that is nonsense. There are different regulatory environments, that is the key difference.

We can't compete. Which means are not going to get superior products in terms of quality or pricing. You will get a locally manufactured TV for example, and the chinese one would STILL be better priced. In order for local manufacturers to compete they need be better on quality or price. Our market is price sensitivie for the most part (Lots of poor etc.) so we will need to be better on price for the most part and remain profitable.

If we are not profitable and run at a loss, what we are in effect saying that the consumer (I.E. THE PEOPLE) prefer that the materials are mined, sold overseas, the goods built overseas and shipped here, than to everything being done here at higher costs/prices.

Thus the only way businesses could conceivably operate is if they were state backed, I.E. nationalised so that some costs are absorbed by the state. (Either subsidised or bail-outs or nationalisation). This is what happens in China. Subsidisation and forced currency devaluation make them artificially more competitive.


So you have to assume because we do not have these things taking place already that we aren't competitive and thus will need state intervention such as subsidisation.

Now if the state is subsidising this, then it means there is less money spent on something else. Basic finance, oppertunity cost. I have a R100, if I spend it on X I cannot spend it on Y, so other sectors/jobs (Police, healthcare, roads etc.) will lose out as a result.

Or you as the consumer will be duped into believing local products are cheaper (When they are actually more costly, but since it is funded by taxes you do not notice the direct costs), this might increase demand for local products but will make us less competitive vs international products (leading to more intervention).

When the state subsidises things, it leads to lots of intervention and rules to ensure the funding goes to reducing prices and not just into the pockets of exec's for example. So we need more administrators (less producers) and business will be less effificient as a result.

Pricing our competitors out the market through subsidisation artifically reduces consumer choices, remember consumers think they are getting the same product for less etc. so they buy it, but don't realise they fund the difference through taxes. So foreign products will leave our shelves because the state basically has intervened, not because we are actually better or cheaper.

On the international scene, what if China responds similarly. I mean we rely a LOT on exporting products. The local market is insiginificant compared to the international market. Now we want to protect our local guys at the expense of foreigners. How do you they will react?

What happens when the Chinese say, well, you guys can get lost, we will enact legislationg and subsidise our stuff and price you out the international market. What then? I mean then you get international currency wars, how does that help us?

As individual, I would think I would want the lowest prices and the most choice. The more choice I have the better. Our problem is that current legislation ARTIFICIALLY makes it too difficult to compete.

I'm sorry but if you have NO skills and the majority of the labour market is filled with low skilled people, then your market selling price will be low. High supply, low demand means low prices. Artifially raising prices by enacting burdensome labour laws and minimum wage etc. does nothing to increase demand, in fact it has the opposite effect.

Prices work. Simple as that, they co-ordinate supply and demand. Stop intervening, let them work and we will have low unemployement as people get hired at less pay. But we will have more supply (reducing prices) for everyone, lowering the cost of living. Our reduced prices will make us more competitie international, which will allow us to ship and export more internationally and employ more people to meet the increased international demand. People might not have luxury lifestyles and mioght still struggle to have the basics, but having a jobs is better than a state grant or crime from an economic and sustainable growth pov. It allows people to gain experience and skills and places less burden on the public sector. More jobs will = less crime. Once our labour laws burden on business is reduced, business becomes more profitable which will lead to more investment in local business, increased local demand for products (Can get real cheap local products) which will = more business and investment, further reducing poverty, crime, burden on police etc. due to less crime means either more money to the people (Less taxes) or more money being diverted to healthcare or education.

Forget this xenophobic/eugenic local is better complexity, we aren't. Why should a guy further than some arbitrary boundary not have the oppertunity to satisfy my needs by selling to me? Why should some guy down the road be rewarded when some other oke half way round the world can do the same job, ship it here at better prices?

Does that make ANY common sense?
 
Last edited:
The national budget already has the capacity to "take care of social responsibilities of the state". His comrades just blow most it on themselves...
 
Was about to post that this is nonsense but I see Wild_Cat took the long version to spell it out
 
Unless we can manufacture cheaper and better than foreign countries no one will be buying from us. Good luck with that with our current labour laws and our unproductive unskilled out of control unionized work force.
 
WilD_CaT said:
Eh, I think you guys missed simple economics and common sense.

What we are doing is we are capping what we can sell. We are rationing it. What that will mean is that the international market price of the goods will increase (Supply limited internationally due to constraints from our side), so our international competitors will be more profitable and they will then seek to fill the gap created by us not allowing people to buy from us. So in effect we are giving our customers to our competitors.

This means now companies are forced to sell locally at much reduced prices as the increase in local supply floods the market. This reduces the mines etc. profitability and thus the future growth of our mines will be shorter or stunted, remember we have reduced profitability of investing in mining, which means there will be less investment in mining, which means less jobs etc.

Now we are then saying, well we can create new companies to further process raw materials, which will mean more jobs etc. The question all of you should be asking is why aren't we doing this now?

Remember the reason why the Chinese sell to us, is because they can make profits building and processing the stuff and shipping it half way round the world. The reason why we AREN'T doing it, is that we are not competitive. It is simple, if we could compete, investors would already by investing in further processing goods in order to get a piece of the pie currently had by the Chinese etc.

The fact we don't have a lot of further of further processing etc. and manufacturing etc. going on in SA is due to the difficulty local companies have in competiting with both on the domestic market and international. That is not through any fault of their own, Chinese people aren't sommer 3 times as productive by virtue of them being skew eyed, that is nonsense. There are different regulatory environments, that is the key difference.

We can't compete. Which means are not going to get superior products in terms of quality or pricing. You will get a locally manufactured TV for example, and the chinese one would STILL be better priced. In order for local manufacturers to compete they need be better on quality or price. Our market is price sensitivie for the most part (Lots of poor etc.) so we will need to be better on price for the most part and remain profitable.

If we are not profitable and run at a loss, what we are in effect saying that the consumer (I.E. THE PEOPLE) prefer that the materials are mined, sold overseas, the goods built overseas and shipped here, than to everything being done here at higher costs/prices.

Thus the only way businesses could conceivably operate is if they were state backed, I.E. nationalised so that some costs are absorbed by the state. (Either subsidised or bail-outs or nationalisation). This is what happens in China. Subsidisation and forced currency devaluation make them artificially more competitive.


So you have to assume because we do not have these things taking place already that we aren't competitive and thus will need state intervention such as subsidisation.

Now if the state is subsidising this, then it means there is less money spent on something else. Basic finance, oppertunity cost. I have a R100, if I spend it on X I cannot spend it on Y, so other sectors/jobs (Police, healthcare, roads etc.) will lose out as a result.

Or you as the consumer will be duped into believing local products are cheaper (When they are actually more costly, but since it is funded by taxes you do not notice the direct costs), this might increase demand for local products but will make us less competitive vs international products (leading to more intervention).

When the state subsidises things, it leads to lots of intervention and rules to ensure the funding goes to reducing prices and not just into the pockets of exec's for example. So we need more administrators (less producers) and business will be less effificient as a result.

Pricing our competitors out the market through subsidisation artifically reduces consumer choices, remember consumers think they are getting the same product for less etc. so they buy it, but don't realise they fund the difference through taxes. So foreign products will leave our shelves because the state basically has intervened, not because we are actually better or cheaper.

On the international scene, what if China responds similarly. I mean we rely a LOT on exporting products. The local market is insiginificant compared to the international market. Now we want to protect our local guys at the expense of foreigners. How do you they will react?

What happens when the Chinese say, well, you guys can get lost, we will enact legislationg and subsidise our stuff and price you out the international market. What then? I mean then you get international currency wars, how does that help us?

As individual, I would think I would want the lowest prices and the most choice. The more choice I have the better. Our problem is that current legislation ARTIFICIALLY makes it too difficult to compete.

I'm sorry but if you have NO skills and the majority of the labour market is filled with low skilled people, then your market selling price will be low. High supply, low demand means low prices. Artifially raising prices by enacting burdensome labour laws and minimum wage etc. does nothing to increase demand, in fact it has the opposite effect.

Prices work. Simple as that, they co-ordinate supply and demand. Stop intervening, let them work and we will have low unemployement as people get hired at less pay. But we will have more supply (reducing prices) for everyone, lowering the cost of living. Our reduced prices will make us more competitie international, which will allow us to ship and export more internationally and employ more people to meet the increased international demand. People might not have luxury lifestyles and mioght still struggle to have the basics, but having a jobs is better than a state grant or crime from an economic and sustainable growth pov. It allows people to gain experience and skills and places less burden on the public sector. More jobs will = less crime. Once our labour laws burden on business is reduced, business becomes more profitable which will lead to more investment in local business, increased local demand for products (Can get real cheap local products) which will = more business and investment, further reducing poverty, crime, burden on police etc. due to less crime means either more money to the people (Less taxes) or more money being diverted to healthcare or education.

Forget this xenophobic/eugenic local is better complexity, we aren't. Why should a guy further than some arbitrary boundary not have the oppertunity to satisfy my needs by selling to me? Why should some guy down the road be rewarded when some other oke half way round the world can do the same job, ship it here at better prices?

Does that make ANY common sense?
Click to expand...

+1
 
My god did you have to re-quote for a +1?

+1 from me too btw, people fail to understand basic economics. If we had higher local demand, we would export less, programs should be put in place to assist the startup of these companies with aquiring the raw materials, not throttling the cash flow that the company exports what is basically surplus.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X