Bad Ballie
Executive Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 5,964
- Reaction score
- 4,717
Apparently, some people have to learn things the hard way, but the ANC is losing power so maybe the die-hard supporter is slowly starting to wake up.
-
Join the MyBroadband community
South Africa’s biggest forum. Discuss, discover, and connect with thousands of members.
-
Question of the Day: Will you be subscribing to the new Disney+ R49 streaming package?
Lupus
Honorary Master
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2006
- Messages
- 91,445
- Reaction score
- 62,046
Just asked Chatgpt what would've happened if this had been done fairly
That’s a really interesting counterfactual—and a useful one, because it gets at the design flaws in South Africa’s actual empowerment policies rather than just the intent behind them.
Let’s break it down into the three elements you’re proposing:
1. **“Proper” BEE (targeted, merit-linked, broad-based)**
2. **Clear transformation goals (measurable, outcome-based)**
3. **A sunset clause (time-limited, with an exit strategy)**
And then look at likely effects on jobs, companies, and race relations.
---
# 1. What would a “proper” BEE have looked like?
Instead of what emerged under African National Congress governance, a more effective version might have:
* Focused heavily on **education, skills, and entrepreneurship**, not just ownership deals
* Rewarded **productivity and job creation**, not compliance paperwork
* Prevented **elite capture** (a small politically connected class benefiting)
* Used **broad-based share ownership** (workers, communities, pension funds)
* Had **transparent metrics** (e.g., % increase in skilled black professionals, SME growth)
And crucially:
A **sunset clause** tied to achieving specific thresholds (e.g., income parity, skills distribution)
---
# 2. Likely impact on jobs
### More positive outcomes likely
A better-designed system could have:
* **Created more jobs** by incentivizing firms to expand rather than restructure ownership artificially
* Reduced “tick-box hiring” and encouraged **real skills development**
* Boosted **SMEs and black-owned startups**, especially if barriers to entry were lowered
Compare this to what actually happened:
* Some firms prioritized **ownership deals over expansion**
* Compliance costs discouraged **hiring and investment**, especially for smaller businesses
With a sunset clause:
* Businesses would have **certainty** → more long-term hiring decisions
* Less fear of **ever-tightening regulation**
---
# 3. Impact on companies and investment
### Likely improvements:
* **Higher investor confidence** (both local and foreign)
* Less incentive for:
* Fronting
* Complex ownership structures
* Capital flight
A predictable, time-limited framework would have signaled:
> “This is a transition policy, not a permanent constraint.”
That alone could have:
* Increased **FDI**
* Reduced the “SA risk premium”
---
# 4. Impact on inequality
This is where design matters most.
### What likely improves:
* Broader distribution of benefits (not just politically connected elites)
* Faster growth of a **black middle class**
* More **intergenerational mobility**
### What depends on execution:
* If skills development worked → **real structural change**
* If not → still limited impact
A sunset clause tied to **actual outcomes** (not dates) would have forced accountability:
* If inequality persists → policy adjusts
* If goals met → policy ends
---
# 5. Impact on race relations
This is arguably the biggest difference.
### Likely improvements:
* Reduced perception that BEE is:
* Endless
* Arbitrary
* Punitive
* More sense of **shared national project**, especially if:
* Benefits were visibly broad-based
* Progress was measurable and transparent
### Today’s tension partly comes from:
* Policy fatigue (“this never ends”)
* Perceived unfairness across generations
* Weak link between policy and visible upliftment
A sunset clause could have:
* Lowered **resentment**
* Increased **buy-in across racial groups**
---
# 6. Risks even in this “better” scenario
Even a well-designed system wouldn’t be perfect:
* Political pressure could still distort implementation
* Bureaucracy might still grow
* Corruption risks remain (though likely reduced)
* Structural issues (education, crime, infrastructure) still matter more long-term
---
# Bottom line
If BEE had been:
* **Skills-first instead of deal-first**
* **Broad-based instead of elite-driven**
* **Transparent and measurable**
* **Time-limited with a sunset clause**
…it likely would have:
### Jobs
* Increased employment and reduced distortions in hiring
### Companies
* Improved investment, reduced compliance burden, and encouraged growth
### Race relations
* Reduced resentment and increased legitimacy of transformation
---
The core insight is this:
Transformation policies aren’t just about *justice*—they’re about *design credibility*.
When people believe a system is:
* Fair
* Effective
* Temporary (or goal-bound)
…they’re far more willing to support it—even if it imposes real costs.
That’s a really interesting counterfactual—and a useful one, because it gets at the design flaws in South Africa’s actual empowerment policies rather than just the intent behind them.
Let’s break it down into the three elements you’re proposing:
1. **“Proper” BEE (targeted, merit-linked, broad-based)**
2. **Clear transformation goals (measurable, outcome-based)**
3. **A sunset clause (time-limited, with an exit strategy)**
And then look at likely effects on jobs, companies, and race relations.
---
# 1. What would a “proper” BEE have looked like?
Instead of what emerged under African National Congress governance, a more effective version might have:
* Focused heavily on **education, skills, and entrepreneurship**, not just ownership deals
* Rewarded **productivity and job creation**, not compliance paperwork
* Prevented **elite capture** (a small politically connected class benefiting)
* Used **broad-based share ownership** (workers, communities, pension funds)
* Had **transparent metrics** (e.g., % increase in skilled black professionals, SME growth)
And crucially:
A **sunset clause** tied to achieving specific thresholds (e.g., income parity, skills distribution)---
# 2. Likely impact on jobs
### More positive outcomes likely
A better-designed system could have:
* **Created more jobs** by incentivizing firms to expand rather than restructure ownership artificially
* Reduced “tick-box hiring” and encouraged **real skills development**
* Boosted **SMEs and black-owned startups**, especially if barriers to entry were lowered
Compare this to what actually happened:
* Some firms prioritized **ownership deals over expansion**
* Compliance costs discouraged **hiring and investment**, especially for smaller businesses
With a sunset clause:* Businesses would have **certainty** → more long-term hiring decisions
* Less fear of **ever-tightening regulation**
---
# 3. Impact on companies and investment
### Likely improvements:
* **Higher investor confidence** (both local and foreign)
* Less incentive for:
* Fronting
* Complex ownership structures
* Capital flight
A predictable, time-limited framework would have signaled:
> “This is a transition policy, not a permanent constraint.”
That alone could have:
* Increased **FDI**
* Reduced the “SA risk premium”
---
# 4. Impact on inequality
This is where design matters most.
### What likely improves:
* Broader distribution of benefits (not just politically connected elites)
* Faster growth of a **black middle class**
* More **intergenerational mobility**
### What depends on execution:
* If skills development worked → **real structural change**
* If not → still limited impact
A sunset clause tied to **actual outcomes** (not dates) would have forced accountability:
* If inequality persists → policy adjusts
* If goals met → policy ends
---
# 5. Impact on race relations
This is arguably the biggest difference.
### Likely improvements:
* Reduced perception that BEE is:
* Endless
* Arbitrary
* Punitive
* More sense of **shared national project**, especially if:
* Benefits were visibly broad-based
* Progress was measurable and transparent
### Today’s tension partly comes from:
* Policy fatigue (“this never ends”)
* Perceived unfairness across generations
* Weak link between policy and visible upliftment
A sunset clause could have:
* Lowered **resentment**
* Increased **buy-in across racial groups**
---
# 6. Risks even in this “better” scenario
Even a well-designed system wouldn’t be perfect:
* Political pressure could still distort implementation
* Bureaucracy might still grow
* Corruption risks remain (though likely reduced)
* Structural issues (education, crime, infrastructure) still matter more long-term
---
# Bottom line
If BEE had been:
* **Skills-first instead of deal-first**
* **Broad-based instead of elite-driven**
* **Transparent and measurable**
* **Time-limited with a sunset clause**
…it likely would have:
### Jobs
* Increased employment and reduced distortions in hiring
### Companies
* Improved investment, reduced compliance burden, and encouraged growth
### Race relations
* Reduced resentment and increased legitimacy of transformation
---
The core insight is this:
Transformation policies aren’t just about *justice*—they’re about *design credibility*.When people believe a system is:
* Fair
* Effective
* Temporary (or goal-bound)
…they’re far more willing to support it—even if it imposes real costs.
This..
Bad Ballie
Executive Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2015
- Messages
- 5,964
- Reaction score
- 4,717
The reality is there is no real transformation, just permanent race-based policies that benefit a small elite and those they smile upon. The average black in particular is now far poorer than they were when the ANC was allowed to take power, we saw the exact same thing happen in Zimbabwe.
gogga_
Expert Member
Yet once again, Fikile shows his total disregard for South African's intelligence.
WE'RE NOT ALL STUPID ANC SUPPORTERS YOU **** !!!!!
WE'RE NOT ALL STUPID ANC SUPPORTERS YOU **** !!!!!