It's not xenophobic or eugenic, it's regulation designed to encourage local growth. Or do you prefer 25% unemployment and being the murder and rape capital of the world?
This regulation hurts foreign growth. Which is why the mentality is us vs them.
The regulations we're looking at are related to flaws inherent in capitalism. They allow capitalism to remain the number one choice for ensuring a good quality of life for all and rapid scientific, economic and social progress. The alternative is communism (the most painful way of getting from capitalism to capitalism), because unregulated capitalism is exploitative and therefore unsustainable.
Nonsense. There is no inherent flaw in capitalism. Reality is reality. If I sell to person A, then I cannot sell to person B. Thus person B is left with nothing, unless they can trade something to person A for the things he wants.
When people have nothing to trade (No marketable skills) that is not a flaw of capitalism. Furthermore when they do have marketable skills and are willing to trade, capitalism or free markets, allow for price signals to work and people start producing to meet the demands of consumers.
Regulation is exploitive, me selling to a person and them selling to me is voluntary. The irony is that the best capitalists, are the ones who best serve their fellow man by making products their fellow man desires. Bill Gates didn't get rich exploiting people, he got rich creating a product millions of people the world over buy. Wallmart doesn't get rich exploiting people. It gets rich opening stores that provide a multitude of products people desire and are willing to buy.
In a free market society, you vote with your wallet. When people go to store A rather than store B, it is because store A is able to meet their needs and desires and store B isn't. In this case, they send a message to store A, continue doing what you are doing, and they send a message to store B, you are doing it wrong.
The exchanges mentioned all happen within markets regulated by supply and demand; prices fluctuate based on the trading in those markets and this has a real impact on peoples lives. It's not a zero sum game - there is a real risk of our currency "going to a ball of ****" and leaving us all worse off.
Reality is regulated by supply and demand. You CANNOT "regulate" supply and demand out of existance, people produce, people buy/consume. Of course prices have impact on peoples lives, but prices simply reflect economic reality.
When goods becomes scarce, high prices reflect that scarcity. They make the people who are producing said resource (and hence meeting peoples demand) more profitable. This in turn signals producers to produce more or find alternatives. Which is why prices and profits direct investment and economic activity.
E.G. In the early 1900's people said oil was suppossed to run out by the 1920's, in the 1920's they said it would run out in the 1940's, then 1970's, right now our known oil reserves in terms of barrels of oil is higher than it has ever been. This is because as demand has risen so has prices. All of a sudden it becomes profitable to explore for oil in places where before it was not protifable to due so. So what you find is that the high prices rise, more exploration is done to meet demand and the more incentive there is to find alternatives (We need fuel to get around, it is as simple as that).
As for our currency going to a ball of *&#@. Money is simply a means of exchange. If we increase the money supply relative to production, then money becomes less valuable relative to what it can buy. This is why I am a hard money or gold backed money supporter, as it limits the growth of money, thus limiting inflation caused by monetary supply increases. Also inflation is something that tends to hurt the poor the most, as large increases in the money supply due to new borrowings go to big business and the state, who buy goods with that money at pre-inflated prices (They get it cheap) and when the money trickles down, prices have risen and people feel the pinch. So the early receivers of capital in a fiat money system gain at the expense of others.
Mises.org for all your economic needs. I only ever search their website on economic issues.
How did "encouraging local industries to further process our iron ore" turn into "banning all exports"? Your friends gas canister exports are exactly the sort of thing that this would encourage, compared to the current situation of selling iron ore to China at 50c a kilo (just random figures) and buying back Cadac bottles at R 20 a kilo because an Indian living in London prices his South African steel at "import price parity" so that he can maximise his returns, which he then ships off to London for spending, further weakening our currency and leaving South Africa with nothing but a sore arse.
Fact, iron producers are making billions selling to China. Fact. If we ban exporting to China, most iron ore mines would shut-down the next day, as they cannot afford to remain profitable and sell locally, the demand is not there. China has over a billion people, us what, 50 mil?
Our currency doesn't become weaker when people buy our goods, in fact to buy our goods you have to first buy SA rands. When demand goes up, prices rise, so the value of SA rands will increase relative to other currencies. Remember the more demand there is for something the higher its price. Demand for SA goods means demand for SA rands. If we "weaken" the randartificially, it makes our goods more cheaper artifically. So foreign demand increase for goods, thus demand for Rands increases and the Ran starts strengthening. So the market automatically corrects the artificial intervention. In the meantime everytime we weaken the Rand, it becomes more expensive to import goods. So capital goods that increase production and make things cheaper locally, become more expensive. The prices of goods that people demand that come from overseas, become more expensive. The consumers end up losing out always.
Intervention and regulation can only ever benefit special interests. It might benefit person A, but it won't benefit person B. That is why it is ethically wrong. Who are you to decide that laws should favour group A over group B? The laws should be neutral, irrespective of race, cultural background, gender, or economic background. Intervention ALWAYS has unintended negative consequences, which require more intervention, which leads to more conequences and the cycle repeats.
