VODACOM shares

[Gazer]

Any other whiteys want to club together with me, claim to be black, and apply for 100 shares?

/not kidding

I don't have 2.5k lying around, but if two or three others want to join me...? We can compose our own consortium. In the spirit of naming telecoms consortiums after large animals, We'll name it the Black P.A.N.D.A. Consortium. Our crest will feature an HB pencil

//still not kidding

Is this offer still open? I'll join you in it...I'm a w/f as well.

 

[sox63]

Yup. Indeed. Indeed I feel what it is like to be disenfranchised.

I also understand why there was a need for an armed struggle. But let us first fight with passive resistance.

Two wrongs JK8.... (complete the sentence on your own).

Please do not use that word in describing your feelings towards BEE. As disenfranchised means being stripped of voting rights.

Now in any case of BBBEE, Whites of both sexes are not stripped of anything. Vodacom is a private company and can do business with whomever they choose. As for Publicly listed companies, whites are not prohibited from buying shares, they still do buy them, just not at a discount.

 

[Debbie]

Please do not use that word in describing your feelings towards BEE. As disenfranchised means being stripped of voting rights.

Disenfranchised de facto, sox.

(BTW, under your line of reasoning, blacks were not disenfranchised during apartheid. They got to vote in the tricameral system and for Native Rep Councils before that. That this vote carried no weight and absolutely NO power for change is.... what's the word... ah yes, "reminiscent".)

Now in any case of BBBEE, Whites of both sexes are not stripped of anything. Vodacom is a private company and can do business with whomever they choose. As for Publicly listed companies, whites are not prohibited from buying shares, they still do buy them, just not at a discount.

Vodacom is not a private company, they are a publicly traded company.

Who do you think is going to be the major beneficiary of discounted shares sox? The man on the street, or a few already-enriched-beyond-imagination individuals? Answer honestly now.

 

[sox63]

Disenfranchised de facto, sox.

(BTW, under your line of reasoning, blacks were not disenfranchised during apartheid. They got to vote in the tricameral system and for Native Rep Councils before that. That this vote carried no weight and absolutely NO power for change is.... what's the word... ah yes, "reminiscent".)

For you to call that system where the power remained with the NP, with what can best be described as "token" representation of Coloureds and Indians as "Blacks" having a say would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

And in that system that you so proudly present saying Black people voted, Africans were not involved.

Vodacom is not a private company, they are a publicly traded company.

Who do you think is going to be the major beneficiary of discounted shares sox? The man on the street, or a few already-enriched-beyond-imagination individuals? Answer honestly now.

For someone that has been a member of this forum for so long, you don't have a clue about Vodacom, which IS a private company, which lists it's shareholders as Telkom and Vodafone. TELKOM is the Public company. You can't buy Vodacom shares on ANY Stock exchange.

As for the people that will benefit, anyone that can afford the shares will benefit, Vodacom is not giving them away for free you know. And I for one invested in MTN, so would say I'm "already-enriched-beyond-imagination"?

Get your facts straight before posting inaccurate information.

 

[Debbie]

For you to call that system where the power remained with the NP, with what can best be described as "token" representation of Coloureds and Indians as "Blacks" having a say would be hilarious if it were not so sad.

And in that system that you so proudly present saying Black people voted, Africans were not involved.

I don't "proudly" present anything, sox. That's you getting emotional and reading in to my post what you want to read in. We're talking about disenfranchisement. You imply that enfranchisement is confined to a vote. By bringing up the tricameral system and the native rep councils, I am pointing out that enfranchisment is a hell of a lot more than a vote, and that there is such a thing a "token representation".

To further on the subject, are you aware of how our parliament works? Let me enlighten:

Step 1: The ANC makes final decisions behind closed doors.
Step 2: The ANC introduces these decisions into parliamentary committees
Step 3: The ANC parliamentary portfolio committee members pretend to allow stakeholders and opposition parties a say.
Step 4: The opposition parties, often united as one against the ruling party, reject the ANC proposals.
Step 5: The ANC uses the weight of their majority to BULLDOZE their proposals through, at the committee level, the NCOP and parliament.

Now what part of "de facto disenfranchisement" don't you understand?

Two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner does not a democracy make. The sheep's vote means nothing. A classic case of "tyranny of the majority".

For someone that has been a member of this forum for so long, you don't have a clue about Vodacom, which IS a private company, which lists it's shareholders as Telkom and Vodafone. TELKOM is the Public company. You can't buy Vodacom shares on ANY Stock exchange.

You are correct, Telkom is the public company and Vodacom is public in practice only so far as it is a subsidiary of Telkom. My apologies.

As for the people that will benefit, anyone that can afford the shares will benefit, Vodacom is not giving them away for free you know. And I for one invested in MTN, so would say I'm "already-enriched-beyond-imagination"?

I don't know you nor do I know of your financial situation. Therefore I cannot comment on your last statement here.

Before I get into who stands to benefit, have you read the Vodacom Prospectus?

 

[blunomore]

I guess if you are pressed, Debbie, you would at least admit that the current regime is the lesser of two evils when it is compared to the previous one.

It does not mean it is good enough, but at least the current system has more checks and balances in place. I am not debating whether they work or not, I am simply making reference to the STRUCTURE and the SYSTEMS of govt.

 

[Debbie]

I guess if you are pressed, Debbie, you would at least admit that the current regime is the lesser of two evils when it is compared to the previous one.

It does not mean it is good enough, but at least the current system has more checks and balances in place. I am not debating whether they work or not, I am simply making reference to the STRUCTURE and the SYSTEMS of govt.

Absolutely the current regime is the lesser of the two evils, no need for me to be pressed to say that. And yes there are more checks and balances in place (although it must be said that I do not believe that these checks and balances can currently be relied upon to consistently perform their democratic function as described/envisioned by democratic theory... or our constitution. IOW, I believe that, purely structurally speaking, SA is a rather weak democracy).