FM: Historically, there has been a reluctance to open the market to more competition. Why the sudden shift?
Shope-Mafole: I don't think it's a change as such. It's just that there are certain policy determinations you have to take at certain points in time. Why were we protecting Telkom? [It was] so that we could get big value for it because it was going [public on the stock market]. It had to do with bringing investors into a company that is South African.
So they allowed Telkom to gouge the public, undermine the expansion of the telephone network and extension of telephone services to those for whom it was previously unavailable, allowed Telkom to lay off thousands and generally undermine the greater social good just so the government could pull a little extra on a once-off sale. They must model themselves on the US government.
I love this "I don't think it's a change as such" - how's that for silly political double-talk?
I'd actually like to know how many of the poor people really benefitted and how many of the benefactors were just the usual BEE gravy train passengers.
Shope-Mafole: Often you have to cushion the negative impact of liberalisation.
FM: Such as what?
Shope-Mafole: Such as people who get laid off.
You mean like Telkom laying off thousands to make their bottom line look better for shareholders, while simultaneously degrading the service they apply.
There's liberalisation and there's privatisation - privatisation is pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster unless there is immediate competition, otherwise all you're doing is giving a company with a monopoly a profit motive. That can never benefit anyone, but the company, it's primarily wealthy shareholders and the members of government who received kickbacks to allow it to happen. (it's either kickbacks or gross incompetence, they can take their pick)
There are excellent reasons not to simply allow the market to control things. The typical consequence is what has happened to the media industry in the US, where a few super-wealthy corporations own essentially all radio stations, TV stations, movie studios, major music labels, magazines, book publishers and newspapers. The old rules which prevented such mass ownership ensured a free, competitive media industry.
Shope-Mafole: I don't think it's a change as such. It's just that there are certain policy determinations you have to take at certain points in time. Why were we protecting Telkom? [It was] so that we could get big value for it because it was going [public on the stock market]. It had to do with bringing investors into a company that is South African.
So they allowed Telkom to gouge the public, undermine the expansion of the telephone network and extension of telephone services to those for whom it was previously unavailable, allowed Telkom to lay off thousands and generally undermine the greater social good just so the government could pull a little extra on a once-off sale. They must model themselves on the US government.
I love this "I don't think it's a change as such" - how's that for silly political double-talk?
I'd actually like to know how many of the poor people really benefitted and how many of the benefactors were just the usual BEE gravy train passengers.
Shope-Mafole: Often you have to cushion the negative impact of liberalisation.
FM: Such as what?
Shope-Mafole: Such as people who get laid off.
You mean like Telkom laying off thousands to make their bottom line look better for shareholders, while simultaneously degrading the service they apply.
There's liberalisation and there's privatisation - privatisation is pretty much guaranteed to be a disaster unless there is immediate competition, otherwise all you're doing is giving a company with a monopoly a profit motive. That can never benefit anyone, but the company, it's primarily wealthy shareholders and the members of government who received kickbacks to allow it to happen. (it's either kickbacks or gross incompetence, they can take their pick)
There are excellent reasons not to simply allow the market to control things. The typical consequence is what has happened to the media industry in the US, where a few super-wealthy corporations own essentially all radio stations, TV stations, movie studios, major music labels, magazines, book publishers and newspapers. The old rules which prevented such mass ownership ensured a free, competitive media industry.
Last edited: