Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 31
  1. #11
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Well, if South Africans can run their own security business, why do we have to have foreign investors? Or businesses under the control of foreigners? The Gupta's were also foreign investors...


    Foreign investment is a shortcut to building infrastructure and, in my opinion, only a good thing if it is for a short, set amount of time. Once this time has passed, said companies should be bought by locals. The investor gets his reward for taking a risk and the locals get a profitable company. As long as the local owners are not affiliated with government.

    Having companies foreign owned in perpetuity results in a drain of funds that the country cannot afford. Case in point; most of SA's gold and diamonds benefitted England much more than SA and still do.

  2. #12
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandton
    Posts
    8,770

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    So foreigners disinvesting is a good thing? The Guptas invested? Really? This is all new to me.

  3. #13
    User
    Join Date
    Apr 2019
    Location
    Cape Town
    Posts
    1,784

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Perpetually paying foreigners to protect you is a good thing?

    And yes, the Guptas invested in SA through Sahara Computers. Then used that investment to eventually worm their way into goverment. My point stands.

  4. #14
    User
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kingdom of the Zulus
    Age
    35
    Posts
    5,222

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Sounds like Lethuli house is worried...........

  5. #15
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandton
    Posts
    8,770

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    I'd be very pleasantly surprised to find that the Gupta's made any sort of direct investment into SA. It's far more likely that whatever they 'invested' was from the proceeds of their crimes here. In the unlikely event that they did, orders of magnitude more was taken out.

    I think that you'll find you are in a small minority of people outside of the ANC/EFF who are in favour of foreign disinvestment. Haven't come across an economist who advocates for it.

    What exactly is the problem with a foreign cpany owning a share of a local security provider? SAPS is locally 'owned' and managed and it's a monumental shit show which requires an enormous private industry to do what it can't.

  6. #16
    User
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kingdom of the Zulus
    Age
    35
    Posts
    5,222

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Quote Originally Posted by janfred View Post
    Well, if South Africans can run their own security business, why do we have to have foreign investors? Or businesses under the control of foreigners? The Gupta's were also foreign investors...


    Foreign investment is a shortcut to building infrastructure and, in my opinion, only a good thing if it is for a short, set amount of time. Once this time has passed, said companies should be bought by locals. The investor gets his reward for taking a risk and the locals get a profitable company. As long as the local owners are not affiliated with government.

    Having companies foreign owned in perpetuity results in a drain of funds that the country cannot afford. Case in point; most of SA's gold and diamonds benefitted England much more than SA and still do.
    You know this has more to do with government shitting themselves that the biggest private security industry in the world, WHICH THE ANC CREATED (well documented that they made crime a commodity), is going to over throw them

    Same reason they have to change their undies everytime a SA citizen is dropping terrorists in Nigeria and Mozambique

    The one gent fighting Boko was 68 or some change

    It literally has nothing to do with "the local market" and everything to do with the fact that the state has been weakened by decades of theft

  7. #17
    Moderator SSP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    11,988

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    This is about the monopoly on violence.
    Cattle die, kindred die, every man is mortal:
    But I know one thing that never dies,
    the glory of the great dead.
    Havamal

  8. #18
    User
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Gauteng
    Age
    42
    Posts
    2,428

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    They refuse to protect us, and will not allow us to protect ourselves either. Pathetic. cANCer seems to be deliberately pushing to turn South Africa into a dysfunctional dystopia, with predatory state run solely for the benefit of the cANCer elite, at the expense of our nation's citizens.

  9. #19
    User
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    Sandton
    Posts
    8,770

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Quote Originally Posted by Johann du Toit View Post
    They refuse to protect us, and will not allow us to protect ourselves either. Pathetic. cANCer seems to be deliberately pushing to turn South Africa into a dysfunctional dystopia, with predatory state run solely for the benefit of the cANCer elite, at the expense of our nation's citizens.
    Are you saying they haven't achieved that already? If so I think you judge them unfairly.

  10. #20
    User
    Join Date
    Sep 2021
    Age
    53
    Posts
    1,415

    Default Re: Article:"SA security firms have new restrictions as controversial bill becomes law"

    Quote Originally Posted by SSP View Post
    This is about the monopoly on violence.
    Winner, winner, chicken dinner!
    Government in a nutshell…
    Nicely done!
    R\Griff

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •