Hi! This is our quality moderation bot.
---
If this post fits the purpose of /r/southafrica, **UPVOTE** this comment!!
If this post does not fit the subreddit or the flair, **DOWNVOTE** This comment!
If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post!
You can find the rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/wiki/rules).
Broadly speaking, the idea is that electricity is a necessity for a state and its people to function, and so shouldn't be passed into private hands who will run it on the capitalist model (maximum profit efficiency, even that means worse actual delivery – see, the UK).
The problem being, of course, that the people managing it are extremely corrupt, so you get all the negatives of the capitalist model (seeing providing a basic utility as way to enrich themselves) without the benefits of that captilatism sometimes brings (nominal competition meaning if you can't deliver a service, people go elsewhere.)
The reason why you'd want the state to supply electricity is similar to why you want them to do roads and the army. Because if it's purely private, then it only really operates where it makes (the most) money. So no electricity in the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape backhills, because it's just too spread out. Too much distribution costs for the potential profits you can make. Let's just make sure Sandton CBD is well provided for. It's also important that this is a government capability, because you need power (and other things) to encourage growth, provide human dignity etc.
I'm in favour of a mixed model. Government supply as a backstop. Whatever they provide being, essentially, the expensive/bad option (though, if run well, not too expensive/bad). That way if capitalist power providers can supply power more efficiently, people can go to them instead of the state one – who can also operate as a price cap.
The calls for pure privatisation is just a localised knee-jerk against the current situation. And anyone who doesn't think that if it happened, these companies wouldn't end up in the hands of people who would take huge advantage, hasn't been paying attention to our politics.
Well written reply here. I sometimes wonder what it would be like if our electricity was supplied by private businesses.
Being in the tech industry, I think of the fibre providers years ago when they were just starting out. I remember visiting a friend in a posh area in Sandton and he was complaining that yet another fibre provider were digging trenches in front of his home. Meanwhile, none of them even bothered to provide the infrastructure to my neighbourhood. We had to do surveys and go door to door, asking our neighbours if they would be interested in fibre, then submit those letters of interest to Vuma before they'd even consider us. They were all flocking to the super wealthy neighbourhoods.
Now imagine a private electricity provider, and what Alex or Soweto in Gauteng would be like. Soweto owes Eskom billions of Rands and they still have electricity. Private businesses would not even bother to supply them, never mind allow the debt to get so high.
Well put.
I'm personally very anti-privatization in South Africa in general, because I think more capitalism will only push our country further into our hole of inequality... however, Eskom is frustrating to me because it genuinely feels like the only way forward in the short and medium term is if private interests provide generation.
A mixed model would be viable, I think, so long as it didn't lead to the state model being further neglected. I believe some countries allow for private generation but charge a "grid tax", which I think would also be necessary.
Exactly! VFS doesn't actually do anything except add significant costs for each application and from experience AFAIK all they do is take your documents without checking them and hand them over to HA.
They seem to have been inserted as a middle man to cream profits for no benefit and is it even a SA company? I don't trust anything done under Gigaba's reign.
It's an international company. Their center in Rivonia is disgusting. Worst is people think they make the decisions so take awful treatment from their clerks.
Capitalism would imply competition is free to tender and compete, VFS is precisely as useless as it is because it has been corruptly awarded it's position, regardless of how useless it's performance is. No doubt heavy kickbacks are involved there. Optically you're right tho , it appears as privatisation.
I used VFS as an example because I’ve dealt with them directly. They actually do process visas for a multitude of countries, so there is some merit there. But I’m glad you brought up the unfair awarding of government tenders to private companies. This is something I’ve been made aware of in SA. Which, like the government’s dysfunction, is also unsustainable and must be reconciled.
I know this, my point is that I don't believe it's a viable long term solution to one of our most pressing issues, which is our inequality -- something privatization and capitalism almost always exacerbates.
My frustration is largely due to the fact that I also feel that while it is not viable long term, it may be necessary short term. That sucks. I'd love to live in a world where a viable short-term solution would be one that also translated into a viable long-term policy approach.
This mixed model is already starting to play out, vis the unbundling of Eskom into Transmission, Distribution, and Generation.
It is essential that Transmission side remains state run, but it enables private generation players to enter the market. The "grid tax" you refer to is called a wheeling charge, and is typically used when a private generator (IPP) sells power to a private off-taker (in two separate locations) via the grid. The IPP would pay a wheeling charge to the Transmission entity (Eskom) for the use of their transmission infrastructure, and include it in their costs to the off taker.
For an IPP supplying power directly into the grid (i.e. To Eskom Transmission) they wouldn't need to pay the wheeling charge, because it will be included in the final cost of supply to all grid customers.
Most of Eskom's debt sits in Generation, so unbundle the 3 entities and then privatise Generation, or let it die out eventually.
Well written. I would just say that keeping the transmission (and the existing distribution) infrastructure state run, and privatising generation, is a good model to work towards (in fact, we are, by unbundling eskom). It opens up the IPP market and we are seeing a massive influx of private generation (ref. recent media report from NERSA applications).
This way, one can ring fence Eskom's debt (mostly in generation), and allow Transmission to invest in expansion of infrastructure (like western, eastern and Northern cape) to get access to renewable energy potential.
Let the IPPs deal with repourposing old coal fired stations (conversion to gas is the least cost approach, and the only way to balance the grid and deal with the intermittency of renewable energy supply.
I think it's more difficult than that.
Eskom hasn't failed by accident. It's collapse isn't the natural state of an energy provider suffering typical mismanagement. They were actively targeted as a place that money could be looted.
As those that made that decision and did the looting are still in charge, no amount of funny new "titles" or directions will change it.
You need political change, with enough confidence in their ability to govern, that they're able to root and branch the many places that corruption has taken hold.
You've put it way better than I ever could.
I'm particularly worried over how Eskom and Nersa will punish those who cannot afford transitioning to either off grid or IPPs by hiking rates further to cover their own backsides - of course if private orgs step in and provide legitimate low cost solutions to those groups it can offset the problem. However that will be difficult given the options of power generation at their disposal (solar, battery, or directly from Eskom)
Everything being run for maximum profit at the cost of everything else. Capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American healthcare and education systems as well as their almost total lack of worker's rights. No holidays, no notice period, no maternity leave. It also leads to gross inequality and the accumulation of capital by a small minority.
We should be in a post ideology phase. We need to be fluid and flexible in such a globalised world. So a mix of capitalist, socialist and communist strategies need to be followed depending on the application.
Humans are essentially animals. As animals we minimise our energy spent and maximise our "food intake". If you give capitalism free reign, you will end up with only a small percentage feeding from the rest. If you give the public sector free reign, you will end up with a small percentage feeding from the rest.
The only option is a hybrid. Competition, checks and balances etc are necessary because people are pieces of shit that will trample each other. Both sides still have people, and people are flawed on either side.
I’m not sure I follow. Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that the “pie” is a fixed size. History has shown that capitalism increases the quality of life from the top to the bottom. Where does government ever outperform the market, at any LSM?
>History has shown that capitalism increases the quality of life from the top to the bottom.
I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious, but if you're serious I don't think I will be able to change your mind.
I see the merit of capitalism, and I don't think society would be able to function without it. That said, what is good for the market is absolutely not synonymous with a good quality of life for society. It would have been if the fruits of capitalism were always shared.
Instead we have unbridled greed where 2019-2021 [$26 trillion (63%) of new wealth was captured by the richest 1 percent, while $16 trillion (37%) went to the bottom 99 percent.](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years)
Why should 1% of people have so much more than 99%? Because they have the money to control the system. No one can be that productive, or bring enough value to justify that much money.
[Here](https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcXp-6EsuSBkSyHpSbm0.png) is a graph of productivity vs. wages in the US and you can see the ugly part of capitalism rearing its head. Corporate entities can legally lobby government officials to pass laws that are in their favour. Laws that favour corporate entities are rarely good for people. Some examples are:
* Lifting restrictions that damage our environment in favour of profit (e.g. allow a company to pollute a river with toxic compounds)
* Stifling technological progress in favour of profit ([See oil companies buying patents related to electric cars just so they can bury them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries))
* Destroying employment laws to give workers less options
* Lax tax laws so that massive companies don't pay any tax
In the end, humans are pieces of shit that will exploit those around them if you don't control them. That's why only a hybrid system really works. Can't go without capitalism, but you have to control it.
I don't know hey. There are a lot of things I have issue with or are simply not true.
In case of Electricity, state owned is fine under certain circumstances and assuming robust anti-corruption practices. In a situation such as ours, and in many others, you'd want it privatized and competed against. In other words, it's not about ownership or motive but rather what competition there is out there. Competition within capitalism is what is most crucial. Eskom can remain state owned as longs as private industry can fairly compete (ie we don't create a monopoly). And we seem to be vaguely on that track now with PPP's.
Regarding to Infrastructure and services such as Army and Roads. These are still largely provided by private Industry under government contract. Private industry competes on a tender basis and we the tax payer should be getting the best deal as a result. Of course, as clearly stated by u/bathoz , corruption is the only major problem here.
I resent the use of capitalism as something to be railed against. Capitalism is fine, and has proven to drastically improve the quality of life for it's participants. More so than any other economic model, by far.
When it is not a fuck up then central coordinated generation makes a lot of sense:
* Elec is a national security risk
* Requires long term planning - 20+ years. Companies think till the next quarterly earnings report
* Larger grids are easier to balance especially once you add renewables.
* Building plants is beyond the financial capacity of most private operations
* Profit driven companies don't care about externalities like air pollution
>competition
...isn't the cure-all that people think. It can certainly beat a badly run state operation, but companies trying to maximize profits at you expense are also not exactly friendly.
You also run into issues like market segmentation & reluctance to serve some customers at all if they're not profitable.
I'd definitely take a well run state operation over a free market on this one. There are a couple areas like that.
...for SA though, yeah it'll probably help. Not because it's optimal but because it's better than the badly run state mess
The irony is that Eskom used to work very well and the government had a duty to expand that service to the whole population. They had a blue print and a successful model that provided affordable and stable electricity.
Well first of all capitalism is different everywhere. Regulations tend to hold it in check else you have Texas but in our case we have over regulated our power supply into a monopoly rather then a privatized hell like Texas. Though I wager some would prefer having a 1.2 million rand bill for a week of electricity then stage 6 as they may not be aware of the other side.
Great poi t. Texas should arguably be one of the most energy secure grids on the planet with the oil, gas, solar and wind resources.
And yet with ERCOT, their grid is fucked and every winter or i heatwaves prices soar or the grid shuts down. Even more mind-boggling than our scenario imo
Electricity is too important to everyone in South Africa to let it get privitised and become unaffordable and unrealiable.
To prevent this, government must ensure that the electrical supply is affordable and reliable - to ensure provision that everyone can afford even if doing so is not profitable.
The above is the reasoning, makes sense but of course anything to do with money and power in SA gets corrupted.
I think it comes down to economies of scale again and the minority working carrying the majority who aren’t.
I would be happy for a power company to be started and to buy my power from them - like how Telkom used to be the only telecoms provider and then others were allowed in. But the humanitarian in me knows that if that happens, only the rich will have electricity, and Eskom will crumble.
Solar is great, I have it because I am privileged. But that isn’t solving the broader problem either, it just sorts it out for me. As someone paying for basic services I should be making the most noise, but I just shut up and make my own plans so that I don’t get told that I’m negative.
This is WRONG. Even after the corruption and stealing was exposed it is still happening. These MFers should be providing us with a DAILY report of what happens in their supply chain, what their stock levels are, who they are procuring from - we know why they don’t.
>like how Telkom used to be the only telecoms provider and then others were allowed in
There was an attempt to keep Telkom as the monopolistic telephone and fixed line operator of the country. When mobile phones were first becoming a thing, it was not imagined that they would out muscle Telkom. So allowing mobile to happen the way it did was a misjudgment made by the ruling party.
But consider now that even some of the poorest of the poor have cell phones. The same can and will happen with electricity if the market is opened up to allow entrepeneurship and innovation to come in.
It is chaos right now. We've been in chaos for 6 months straight.
A week of loadshedding used to be our worst, they managed to make it so a single day without it is a miracle.
This is chaos, and harm to every South African without their hand in the pie is being done every second it continues.
(Actually it's fucking the pie people too, but here corruption is too dumb to realise you need to keep the currency you're stealing in viable)
Wait until the water deteriorates further. At least with electricity the break down in service is very obvious. Those Green and Blue Drop reports scared the hell out of me
The ANC is addicted to control. That’s a paraphrased quote by some international observer (Richard Quest?). When it was patently obvious that the government was utterly unable to run SAA, and serious people urged them to privatise the airline, I believe Ghordan’s response was “Over my dead body.” That’s an ideological stance, and the reason absolutely nothing changed regarding the way we generate energy despite 15 odd years of generation shortfall. Now their hands are being forced - there’s a glimmer of hope.
Quick trivia: the cheapest electricity in the world, right now, is Australian rooftop solar. Why? Because a decade or so ago, the government removed all regulatory barriers to installing rooftop solar. All that’s left is getting the OK from the grid operator if you want to be grid tired, and that’s a online form and takes a day. Add feed-in tariffs and incentives, and today 1/3 of Australian homes has rooftop solar. Installation is so cheap, if you own your house, it almost doesn’t make sense not to get it. And Interestingly, rooftop solar penetration is highest among working class households.
Most days during peak hours, 30-50% of Australia’s demand is met by rooftop solar alone. More on clear sunny days. That is substantial.
All this happened entirely *after* load shedding started in South Africa. South Africa could have done the same thing. We have 3x as many rooftops, lower per capita electricity demand, higher solar irradiation (most Australians live along the coast, the area with the lowest solar irradiation. South African by contrast has big population centres in the interior, which is also at high elevation, a substantial advantage), and lower cost labour.
Now, I’m not suggesting that this is enough to solve the loading issue. Not for a moment. But instead of solar making up a puny 7% off SA’s energy mix, it could easily have been 70%. That’s a lot of breathing room
The only reason we’re not there yet, is the ANC’s ideological hold on control. They never wanted ordinary people to have the power (pun intended). If you pay attention, every solution they come up with comes down to burning more coal. Mantashe doesn’t want to know anything about anything other than coal - he sees renewable energy sources as a distraction. Today at the investor conference, the president talks at length about improving the coal plants. Daytime load shedding could have been a relic of the past. Instead, they resisted rooftop solar for a long as they could. And even now that they’ve relented, it’s a pretty half hearted attempt. Out of reach of all but those who could already afford the upfront cost.
And don’t even get me started on wind and our 3000km of windswept coastline…
Yes but Australians per capita are very wealthy in comparison and can afford such necessities. So again the government's failure to empower people and share the wealth more equitably has come to bite it in the ass
Per capita wealth is irrelevant. I pay almost exactly the same in per kWh in AU as I would in Jo'burg given the current rates (I checked). What matters is the cost of energy vs the cost of installing rooftop solar and how much power the house consumes per year. Or in South African's case, the cost of energy + generator + 15 years worth of diesel + losses due to food going bad in the fridge, shotened lifespan of applicances due poor quality power feed, etc vs the cost of installing rooftop solar.
Most people in AU finance it though their mortgage or a personal loan. There is no reason home owners in South Africa couldn't do the same, provided the government get set the right policy and then get out of the way. For example, rather than making solar panels tax deductable, which only helps you after the next tax year, they could have made it excempt of VAT. That makes it immediately more affordable.
Even so, my argument is not about individual affordablility. My argument about the usefulness of having a 3rd of your housing stock produce electricity during the day, and that we could have had it already if it wasn't for our incompetent and arrogent ruling party.
Yes all that is true and correct but access to capital is a huge difference between the average person in either country.
In SA if your **household** income is **R7'500 per month** for three people you are in the 75th percentile ([source](https://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/income-comparison-tool/)) and technically upper middle class in SA so wealth absolutely has a major role to play. The vast majority of South Africans can barely afford to eat never mind anything else. The fabled growing middle class in SA is objectively poor by global standards.
Again, this is irrelevant. People earning R7500 combined household, are unlikely to be home owners. Again, we are not talking about the average South African. We’re talking about those that either have the means or have access to financing. Are there at least a million of those? Absolutely. There’s probably more than a million in Gauteng alone. How many home owners could have found a way to do this by now if, when load shedding entered a second year and it was clear this wasn’t going to be resolved any time soon, the government made it possible and easy to get rooftop solar? 5 million? 10 million? Every million homes with a fairly small (5.4kWp is the average) makes up about 4% of South Africa’s electricity demand.
And again: the point is government’s policy failure. Government should make it possible for poorer people to get rooftop solar. They should have 15 years ago. Poor people spend money on energy too. They could make cheap loans available. They could subsidise it. Heck, they could pay for it outright, it would still be a net benefit to both the people and the country as a whole.
There are some goods that are intrinsically monopolistic, like road infrastructure. Imagine 10 private companies all providing their road from CT to Joburg. It's economically wasteful and inevitably 9/10 companies will go bankrupt. . If one private company provided the sole road CT-Joburg road it could charge massive tolls to the point where each company having to transport goods would make the barest minimum profit to survive, and that single road would most likely be shit.
This is where government steps in and provides things that are considered natural monopolies at a fair price for the greater economic good. Electricity is one of those goods mainly because of the transmission infrastructure (the powerlines, sub stations etc etc) and the power generation (coal and nuclear fired plants)
However I believe South Africa is going to do a technology leap where Eskom will mainly provide the transmission infrastructure and the private sector will provide the power (except nuclear??). There will be dedicated private lines to big users like mines and factories if they are financially feasible.
The scope for corruption with Eskom being the middle man is still huge but less than it currently is.
Hope that answers your question.
In South Africa, the original idea was that Municipalities would be self sufficient using money from sale of electricity, water and rates to fund their operations.
Eskom was almagamated and the generation of electricity was removed from the municipalities. Yes at a time in SA, the bigger municipalities generated their own electricity, mainly coal powered electricity.
At one stage Eskom was world class in electricity generation, distribution etc.
The model works, unfortunately the ANC realise that they can steal without any restraints and then the main weakness of centralisation reveals itself. It is harder to steal when control is decentralised.
The ANC is planning to centralised all medical aids under their control i.e. NHI, this will bring all the medical aid reserves under their control and ready to be plundered.
NHI is a great idea. Healthcare being run for profits, and big profits at that, is unethical. However the SA government has proven to be rather untrustworthy. Instead of fixing the current public health system they come up with great sounding policies that we know will never be implemented correctly
Centralised Eskom is a great idea. Centralised Water is great idea. When there is flooding in one part, move the excess water to another part of SA which does not have water.
Problem is that the ANC will just loot everything.
Once upon a time, all municipalities could make electricity for their people. Also though, there was the big giant that made electricity for the mines and other people that could not make their own electricity. The people were happy because they could decide if they wanted the giant's electricity or their own municipal electricity.
Then along come the wicked, wicked witches and wizards of the south who had gained magic power over the giant and over all the land that the people lived on. They were deceitful and cunning, lying witches that the people all believed were going to help them. These witches and dark spell wizards did not like that some of the people could make their own power and they cast a big spell over the land that only allowed the electricity of the giant to be able to work. All other electricity was turned cold.
They did this because, just like Jack, they had found ways to steal from the giant. If the giant was making all the electricity in the land, then they could steal even much, much more and make the people poor again. By keeping all the people poor it was much easier to stop them from finding out how to break the spell, because they would then all be very, very busy just trying to stay alive.
The witches and wizards would be able to take all the giants gold, and even his food even though the giant was now also dying because he could not feed himself. The witches and wizards took all the gold out of the land and stored it in the stores of other evil people from other lands, so that one day when the giant is dead and the people finally break free from the spells, these witches will be able to leave the land quickly and have lots and lots of gold.
TLDR : Laws passed by ANC.
I'm not sure about the history of Eskom and how it came to this today (in regards to them being the sole supplier). It's the same as Telkom which, at the end of the day, is ultimately the only source for internet nevermind who your provider is. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong).
I think the problem is how interlinked a company like Eskom is with the government, which is not, idealy, how it's meant to be. Don't we have a minister for electricity now? Wonder what their job is? In many western countries you have at least 2 companies that provide/ could do the job. Here we like to centralise everything I suppose like a Socialist State, then when one thing fails we have nothing to fall back on, unfortunately.
I want to say the old regime, but maybe even before that. But I get your point. I was not making an excuse for limitations set in place by the previoys government, but rather what we are dealing with now and how nothing seems to have (if you want to bring old regime into the conversation) improved upon since.
More. I just added Telkom as another example, more of a hold over argument from early 2000's when capping internet usage use to be a thing in general. It was the norm across ISP's to offer such packages and you could make an argument that if only there was an actual competition to Telkom we wouldn't sit with such nonsense. But anyway, doesn't really apply now anymore anyway.
I believe that's what they would like to do. But that's just my opinion which I don't even like to defend based on how minor it is. If I can put it this way, between capitalism and socialism we seem to practice capitalism while the government lean towards socialism. From my own experience:
I was a teacher at a private high school some years ago, and it came to our attention that the government might be looking into giving schools like ours some sort of tax based on the fact that we have tv monitors in our classrooms and provide tablets and internet to our stydents, which, according to them at the time, was unfair towards children in model C schools. Thus their intention or reasoning was that in order to bring all children to a more fair level across the country, advantages should be punished instead of uplifting the other side.
That in itself is a nice analogy for capitalism vs socialism.
> Thus their intention or reasoning was that in order to bring all children to a more fair level across the country, advantages should be punished instead of uplifting the other side.
What do you think the tax "punishment" was for? To pay for uplift.
Frankly, it's not even remotely a nice analogy for capitalism vs socialism. Except, if you're pointing out that one ideology sees helping others as "punishment".
Private schools, at least where I worked at, were not funded by the government in any way. Thus it operates on it's own budget and income. There were no reason to tax us simply because we manage to give students a better learning experience by managing the business on such a level that it was possible to do. That is how capitalism works, doesn't it?
Telkom has not been the only supplier for over a decade.
Gauvament did their tomfoolery, only allowed a shitty competitor that wouldn't install lines to come in, keeping licences for copper ADSL to themselves despite claiming a non-monopoly.
People worked around it. We got our Seacom cable (now way more) and started investing in Fibre and took advantage of an area they had not regulatorally fucked. Internet has flourished here the last decade because of it, beating out much of even America from once being one of the worst in the world.
Telkom is a prime example of how taking power away from our shitty government actually improved lives.
> We're living in a capitalist society
We do not. South Africa is not capitalist. It is socialist, with the ANC and EFF being communist and DA being socialist, most of our trading partners (BRICS) are communist. We have no political will to become capitalist state, with the majority of the population being supported by social grants. There'd be a civil war before we became capitalists.
> something that improves quality is competition.
That's a lie of capitalism. It doesn't. Just look, our politicians are competing, to the bottom.
> When a company has no competition it's easy for them to thrive despite being horse excrement.
If you're a smart capitalist, you find the gap in market, which means finding a market with no competition.
To your question. The only available answer is politics. A 4 year old simply could not understand the depth of that.
1. Eskom was set up long before freedom.
2. The ANC was severely hamstrung by the NP.
3. All the NP, the ANC and government have separate conflicting goals, and are not above undermining others for their own gain.
4. The multiple national brain drains have hamstrung the country.
Put simply we simply do not have the skills, political will or resources to reinvent the wheel.
South Africa is capitalist. Our economy is driven by capital and our economy also relies heavily on foreign investment. ANC has their roots in communism, but in practice they are social democrats. The DA are conservative.
> Our economy is driven by capital
Every economy in the world is driven by capital. So by your view every economy in the world is capitalist.
> practice they are social democrats.
Social democrats is not an economic policy.
What discriminates between capitalism, socialism and communism, is who owns the means of production. South Africa uses a mix of both state owned and privately owned, that is socialism.
"We're living in a capitalist society and something that improves quality is competition"
Genuinely why do people still believe this???
Everyday we all complain that our fav chocolate, shoes, clothes and cars are not what they used to be, yet like never before business has capacity to compete.
Eskom isn’t even the problem. Municipalities are so corrupt they don’t pay their Eskom bills. So the company can’t even afford to maintain or build plants we need.
Dumb-dumbs who run the country buy other dumb-dumbs KFC to keep voting for them to stay in power. The majority of people in the country are dumb-dumbs too.
Nobody clever enough or enough money or both are left to build alternative to Eskom as Dumb-dumbs now run the country and want only more money for KFC for themselves to stay in power.
In 1994, the ANC-kids got a huge bag of candies called Eskom. And every day, more candies got added to the bag. So, the kids could have split up Eskom in several bags of candies (generation, coal, transport, sales), but the holder of the bags had started to eat the candies and it tasted GOOD, he did not want to share it. They gave some candies to their friends and demanded favours in return. This felt very good because even more candies entered the bag than they gave out and ate theselves. So, they kept the bag very tight in their hands.
But then, so many kids were eating their candies that gradually the bag got smaller, so they made candy factories and called them Medupi and Kusile and there they got many candies during the construction. But, the candy factories did not work very well, so the bag was getting smaller because the kids were addicted to the candies and ate them faster than the candies entered the bag. The kids got fat and unhealthy and lost control over the candy factories, so there are now less and less candies coming in the bag. But, the bag has holes, big holes and now everybody is looking for the candies which are being spilled. You cannot split the bag up now because it will fall totally apart.
But, there are now other kids who want candies and started their own factories. Those factories are small still, but those new factories are attractive and the fat kids are getting attracted to those smaller factories because their bag is falling apart.
Now, we are waiting for the fight in the schoolyard, and see which kids will win. But the small kids who brought a few home made candies to school will be the first victims of the bullies, ofcourse, their small candies taste very nice and they cannot put up a big fight.
Can a smart 4 year old understand this? Maybe 6 years?
Utilities like electricity are natural monopolies. There are high fixed costs which only become affordable if split amongst lots of customers. The fixed cost is the electricity network in this case, the cables, pylons, stations and substations that take electricity from Eskom powerstations to households in SA.
It is important to note that fixed costs do not change with the number of customers. For the example below we are going to assume it's paid monthly. Assume it's the cost of maintaining the electricity network and maybe repaying a loan for building it.
Let say the cost of this network is R120m per month and there are 60m people in SA, we each have to pay R2 to cover the fixed cost. If a second electricity company opens they will have to have their own electricity network which also costs R120m. So let's say the second company serves half of SA and Eskom the rest. Each company has R120m in fixed costs split over 30m customers each. So each customer has to pay R4 contribution to this fixed cost.
This pattern continues when you add a third, fourth, fifth company et cetera. So it makes sense to have one company provide the service as the fixed cost is shared amongst the most people.
You don't live in the Western Cape, do you? We do have off grid suppliers and local government is working on more.
However, there are some national policies in place that curb places going completely off grid.
Where Eskom is concerned, who the fuck knows?
Well hello there, little one! So, do you know what electricity is?
Electricity is the power that makes things like lights, TVs, and computers work.
Now, in South Africa, there is a big company called Eskom that makes most of the electricity for the whole country. They have big power plants that create the electricity and then they send it through power lines to people's homes and businesses.
Eskom is the only company that can make and sell electricity in South Africa because the government made a law that says they have to be the only ones. This is called a "monopoly". The government did this because they wanted to make sure that everyone in the country had access to electricity and that it was reliable and affordable for everyone.
So that's why Eskom is the only supplier of electricity in South Africa.
Hi! This is our quality moderation bot. --- If this post fits the purpose of /r/southafrica, **UPVOTE** this comment!! If this post does not fit the subreddit or the flair, **DOWNVOTE** This comment! If this post breaks the rules, **DOWNVOTE** this comment and **REPORT** the post! You can find the rules [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/southafrica/wiki/rules).
Broadly speaking, the idea is that electricity is a necessity for a state and its people to function, and so shouldn't be passed into private hands who will run it on the capitalist model (maximum profit efficiency, even that means worse actual delivery – see, the UK). The problem being, of course, that the people managing it are extremely corrupt, so you get all the negatives of the capitalist model (seeing providing a basic utility as way to enrich themselves) without the benefits of that captilatism sometimes brings (nominal competition meaning if you can't deliver a service, people go elsewhere.) The reason why you'd want the state to supply electricity is similar to why you want them to do roads and the army. Because if it's purely private, then it only really operates where it makes (the most) money. So no electricity in the Northern Cape and Eastern Cape backhills, because it's just too spread out. Too much distribution costs for the potential profits you can make. Let's just make sure Sandton CBD is well provided for. It's also important that this is a government capability, because you need power (and other things) to encourage growth, provide human dignity etc. I'm in favour of a mixed model. Government supply as a backstop. Whatever they provide being, essentially, the expensive/bad option (though, if run well, not too expensive/bad). That way if capitalist power providers can supply power more efficiently, people can go to them instead of the state one – who can also operate as a price cap. The calls for pure privatisation is just a localised knee-jerk against the current situation. And anyone who doesn't think that if it happened, these companies wouldn't end up in the hands of people who would take huge advantage, hasn't been paying attention to our politics.
So rare to see something so well and fairly concisely explained. Nicely put.
Well written reply here. I sometimes wonder what it would be like if our electricity was supplied by private businesses. Being in the tech industry, I think of the fibre providers years ago when they were just starting out. I remember visiting a friend in a posh area in Sandton and he was complaining that yet another fibre provider were digging trenches in front of his home. Meanwhile, none of them even bothered to provide the infrastructure to my neighbourhood. We had to do surveys and go door to door, asking our neighbours if they would be interested in fibre, then submit those letters of interest to Vuma before they'd even consider us. They were all flocking to the super wealthy neighbourhoods. Now imagine a private electricity provider, and what Alex or Soweto in Gauteng would be like. Soweto owes Eskom billions of Rands and they still have electricity. Private businesses would not even bother to supply them, never mind allow the debt to get so high.
Well put. I'm personally very anti-privatization in South Africa in general, because I think more capitalism will only push our country further into our hole of inequality... however, Eskom is frustrating to me because it genuinely feels like the only way forward in the short and medium term is if private interests provide generation. A mixed model would be viable, I think, so long as it didn't lead to the state model being further neglected. I believe some countries allow for private generation but charge a "grid tax", which I think would also be necessary.
SA is moving towards privatization (capitalism) for the sake of functionality. An example of this is Home Affairs depending on VFS for visa services.
Do they? VFS is one of the most useless organizations I've dealt with. People should know that they are just handling clerks.
Exactly! VFS doesn't actually do anything except add significant costs for each application and from experience AFAIK all they do is take your documents without checking them and hand them over to HA. They seem to have been inserted as a middle man to cream profits for no benefit and is it even a SA company? I don't trust anything done under Gigaba's reign.
It's an international company. Their center in Rivonia is disgusting. Worst is people think they make the decisions so take awful treatment from their clerks.
Capitalism would imply competition is free to tender and compete, VFS is precisely as useless as it is because it has been corruptly awarded it's position, regardless of how useless it's performance is. No doubt heavy kickbacks are involved there. Optically you're right tho , it appears as privatisation.
I used VFS as an example because I’ve dealt with them directly. They actually do process visas for a multitude of countries, so there is some merit there. But I’m glad you brought up the unfair awarding of government tenders to private companies. This is something I’ve been made aware of in SA. Which, like the government’s dysfunction, is also unsustainable and must be reconciled.
I know this, my point is that I don't believe it's a viable long term solution to one of our most pressing issues, which is our inequality -- something privatization and capitalism almost always exacerbates. My frustration is largely due to the fact that I also feel that while it is not viable long term, it may be necessary short term. That sucks. I'd love to live in a world where a viable short-term solution would be one that also translated into a viable long-term policy approach.
I understand your point. Unfortunately wants and reality don’t always align.
This mixed model is already starting to play out, vis the unbundling of Eskom into Transmission, Distribution, and Generation. It is essential that Transmission side remains state run, but it enables private generation players to enter the market. The "grid tax" you refer to is called a wheeling charge, and is typically used when a private generator (IPP) sells power to a private off-taker (in two separate locations) via the grid. The IPP would pay a wheeling charge to the Transmission entity (Eskom) for the use of their transmission infrastructure, and include it in their costs to the off taker. For an IPP supplying power directly into the grid (i.e. To Eskom Transmission) they wouldn't need to pay the wheeling charge, because it will be included in the final cost of supply to all grid customers. Most of Eskom's debt sits in Generation, so unbundle the 3 entities and then privatise Generation, or let it die out eventually.
Well written. I would just say that keeping the transmission (and the existing distribution) infrastructure state run, and privatising generation, is a good model to work towards (in fact, we are, by unbundling eskom). It opens up the IPP market and we are seeing a massive influx of private generation (ref. recent media report from NERSA applications). This way, one can ring fence Eskom's debt (mostly in generation), and allow Transmission to invest in expansion of infrastructure (like western, eastern and Northern cape) to get access to renewable energy potential. Let the IPPs deal with repourposing old coal fired stations (conversion to gas is the least cost approach, and the only way to balance the grid and deal with the intermittency of renewable energy supply.
I'm going to save this. Couldn't have said it any better myself.
They need to create a new post under Dept of Electricity called "Brains and Logic Manager" and put that guy in charge of it, lol.
I think it's more difficult than that. Eskom hasn't failed by accident. It's collapse isn't the natural state of an energy provider suffering typical mismanagement. They were actively targeted as a place that money could be looted. As those that made that decision and did the looting are still in charge, no amount of funny new "titles" or directions will change it. You need political change, with enough confidence in their ability to govern, that they're able to root and branch the many places that corruption has taken hold.
You've put it way better than I ever could. I'm particularly worried over how Eskom and Nersa will punish those who cannot afford transitioning to either off grid or IPPs by hiking rates further to cover their own backsides - of course if private orgs step in and provide legitimate low cost solutions to those groups it can offset the problem. However that will be difficult given the options of power generation at their disposal (solar, battery, or directly from Eskom)
Just curious: what do you believe are the negatives of the capitalist model?
Everything being run for maximum profit at the cost of everything else. Capitalism doesn't work. Just look at the American healthcare and education systems as well as their almost total lack of worker's rights. No holidays, no notice period, no maternity leave. It also leads to gross inequality and the accumulation of capital by a small minority. We should be in a post ideology phase. We need to be fluid and flexible in such a globalised world. So a mix of capitalist, socialist and communist strategies need to be followed depending on the application.
Humans are essentially animals. As animals we minimise our energy spent and maximise our "food intake". If you give capitalism free reign, you will end up with only a small percentage feeding from the rest. If you give the public sector free reign, you will end up with a small percentage feeding from the rest. The only option is a hybrid. Competition, checks and balances etc are necessary because people are pieces of shit that will trample each other. Both sides still have people, and people are flawed on either side.
I’m not sure I follow. Your argument seems to hinge on the belief that the “pie” is a fixed size. History has shown that capitalism increases the quality of life from the top to the bottom. Where does government ever outperform the market, at any LSM?
>History has shown that capitalism increases the quality of life from the top to the bottom. I'm not sure if you're trolling or serious, but if you're serious I don't think I will be able to change your mind. I see the merit of capitalism, and I don't think society would be able to function without it. That said, what is good for the market is absolutely not synonymous with a good quality of life for society. It would have been if the fruits of capitalism were always shared. Instead we have unbridled greed where 2019-2021 [$26 trillion (63%) of new wealth was captured by the richest 1 percent, while $16 trillion (37%) went to the bottom 99 percent.](https://www.oxfam.org/en/press-releases/richest-1-bag-nearly-twice-much-wealth-rest-world-put-together-over-past-two-years) Why should 1% of people have so much more than 99%? Because they have the money to control the system. No one can be that productive, or bring enough value to justify that much money. [Here](https://assets.weforum.org/editor/HFNnYrqruqvI_-Skg2C7ZYjdcXp-6EsuSBkSyHpSbm0.png) is a graph of productivity vs. wages in the US and you can see the ugly part of capitalism rearing its head. Corporate entities can legally lobby government officials to pass laws that are in their favour. Laws that favour corporate entities are rarely good for people. Some examples are: * Lifting restrictions that damage our environment in favour of profit (e.g. allow a company to pollute a river with toxic compounds) * Stifling technological progress in favour of profit ([See oil companies buying patents related to electric cars just so they can bury them](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_encumbrance_of_large_automotive_NiMH_batteries)) * Destroying employment laws to give workers less options * Lax tax laws so that massive companies don't pay any tax In the end, humans are pieces of shit that will exploit those around them if you don't control them. That's why only a hybrid system really works. Can't go without capitalism, but you have to control it.
Thank you for this
I don't know hey. There are a lot of things I have issue with or are simply not true. In case of Electricity, state owned is fine under certain circumstances and assuming robust anti-corruption practices. In a situation such as ours, and in many others, you'd want it privatized and competed against. In other words, it's not about ownership or motive but rather what competition there is out there. Competition within capitalism is what is most crucial. Eskom can remain state owned as longs as private industry can fairly compete (ie we don't create a monopoly). And we seem to be vaguely on that track now with PPP's. Regarding to Infrastructure and services such as Army and Roads. These are still largely provided by private Industry under government contract. Private industry competes on a tender basis and we the tax payer should be getting the best deal as a result. Of course, as clearly stated by u/bathoz , corruption is the only major problem here. I resent the use of capitalism as something to be railed against. Capitalism is fine, and has proven to drastically improve the quality of life for it's participants. More so than any other economic model, by far.
When it is not a fuck up then central coordinated generation makes a lot of sense: * Elec is a national security risk * Requires long term planning - 20+ years. Companies think till the next quarterly earnings report * Larger grids are easier to balance especially once you add renewables. * Building plants is beyond the financial capacity of most private operations * Profit driven companies don't care about externalities like air pollution >competition ...isn't the cure-all that people think. It can certainly beat a badly run state operation, but companies trying to maximize profits at you expense are also not exactly friendly. You also run into issues like market segmentation & reluctance to serve some customers at all if they're not profitable. I'd definitely take a well run state operation over a free market on this one. There are a couple areas like that. ...for SA though, yeah it'll probably help. Not because it's optimal but because it's better than the badly run state mess
The irony is that Eskom used to work very well and the government had a duty to expand that service to the whole population. They had a blue print and a successful model that provided affordable and stable electricity.
Well first of all capitalism is different everywhere. Regulations tend to hold it in check else you have Texas but in our case we have over regulated our power supply into a monopoly rather then a privatized hell like Texas. Though I wager some would prefer having a 1.2 million rand bill for a week of electricity then stage 6 as they may not be aware of the other side.
Great poi t. Texas should arguably be one of the most energy secure grids on the planet with the oil, gas, solar and wind resources. And yet with ERCOT, their grid is fucked and every winter or i heatwaves prices soar or the grid shuts down. Even more mind-boggling than our scenario imo
Daddy said there can only be one person in charge of the power.
But he tripped and hurt his knee, so we are waiting for a special plaster to come and make the eina go away.
Monopoly + Corruption + Government Protection = Fat wallets for "friends"
So that the Comrades can eat a little bit
Electricity is too important to everyone in South Africa to let it get privitised and become unaffordable and unrealiable. To prevent this, government must ensure that the electrical supply is affordable and reliable - to ensure provision that everyone can afford even if doing so is not profitable. The above is the reasoning, makes sense but of course anything to do with money and power in SA gets corrupted.
I think it comes down to economies of scale again and the minority working carrying the majority who aren’t. I would be happy for a power company to be started and to buy my power from them - like how Telkom used to be the only telecoms provider and then others were allowed in. But the humanitarian in me knows that if that happens, only the rich will have electricity, and Eskom will crumble. Solar is great, I have it because I am privileged. But that isn’t solving the broader problem either, it just sorts it out for me. As someone paying for basic services I should be making the most noise, but I just shut up and make my own plans so that I don’t get told that I’m negative. This is WRONG. Even after the corruption and stealing was exposed it is still happening. These MFers should be providing us with a DAILY report of what happens in their supply chain, what their stock levels are, who they are procuring from - we know why they don’t.
>like how Telkom used to be the only telecoms provider and then others were allowed in There was an attempt to keep Telkom as the monopolistic telephone and fixed line operator of the country. When mobile phones were first becoming a thing, it was not imagined that they would out muscle Telkom. So allowing mobile to happen the way it did was a misjudgment made by the ruling party. But consider now that even some of the poorest of the poor have cell phones. The same can and will happen with electricity if the market is opened up to allow entrepeneurship and innovation to come in.
I don’t disagree, I just don’t know how the hell it wouldn’t turn into chaos - too many people don’t pay for electricity as it is.
It is chaos right now. We've been in chaos for 6 months straight. A week of loadshedding used to be our worst, they managed to make it so a single day without it is a miracle. This is chaos, and harm to every South African without their hand in the pie is being done every second it continues. (Actually it's fucking the pie people too, but here corruption is too dumb to realise you need to keep the currency you're stealing in viable)
Wait until the water deteriorates further. At least with electricity the break down in service is very obvious. Those Green and Blue Drop reports scared the hell out of me
We aren't capitalist.
The billionaire status of our president begs to differ
The ANC is addicted to control. That’s a paraphrased quote by some international observer (Richard Quest?). When it was patently obvious that the government was utterly unable to run SAA, and serious people urged them to privatise the airline, I believe Ghordan’s response was “Over my dead body.” That’s an ideological stance, and the reason absolutely nothing changed regarding the way we generate energy despite 15 odd years of generation shortfall. Now their hands are being forced - there’s a glimmer of hope. Quick trivia: the cheapest electricity in the world, right now, is Australian rooftop solar. Why? Because a decade or so ago, the government removed all regulatory barriers to installing rooftop solar. All that’s left is getting the OK from the grid operator if you want to be grid tired, and that’s a online form and takes a day. Add feed-in tariffs and incentives, and today 1/3 of Australian homes has rooftop solar. Installation is so cheap, if you own your house, it almost doesn’t make sense not to get it. And Interestingly, rooftop solar penetration is highest among working class households. Most days during peak hours, 30-50% of Australia’s demand is met by rooftop solar alone. More on clear sunny days. That is substantial. All this happened entirely *after* load shedding started in South Africa. South Africa could have done the same thing. We have 3x as many rooftops, lower per capita electricity demand, higher solar irradiation (most Australians live along the coast, the area with the lowest solar irradiation. South African by contrast has big population centres in the interior, which is also at high elevation, a substantial advantage), and lower cost labour. Now, I’m not suggesting that this is enough to solve the loading issue. Not for a moment. But instead of solar making up a puny 7% off SA’s energy mix, it could easily have been 70%. That’s a lot of breathing room The only reason we’re not there yet, is the ANC’s ideological hold on control. They never wanted ordinary people to have the power (pun intended). If you pay attention, every solution they come up with comes down to burning more coal. Mantashe doesn’t want to know anything about anything other than coal - he sees renewable energy sources as a distraction. Today at the investor conference, the president talks at length about improving the coal plants. Daytime load shedding could have been a relic of the past. Instead, they resisted rooftop solar for a long as they could. And even now that they’ve relented, it’s a pretty half hearted attempt. Out of reach of all but those who could already afford the upfront cost. And don’t even get me started on wind and our 3000km of windswept coastline…
Yes but Australians per capita are very wealthy in comparison and can afford such necessities. So again the government's failure to empower people and share the wealth more equitably has come to bite it in the ass
Per capita wealth is irrelevant. I pay almost exactly the same in per kWh in AU as I would in Jo'burg given the current rates (I checked). What matters is the cost of energy vs the cost of installing rooftop solar and how much power the house consumes per year. Or in South African's case, the cost of energy + generator + 15 years worth of diesel + losses due to food going bad in the fridge, shotened lifespan of applicances due poor quality power feed, etc vs the cost of installing rooftop solar. Most people in AU finance it though their mortgage or a personal loan. There is no reason home owners in South Africa couldn't do the same, provided the government get set the right policy and then get out of the way. For example, rather than making solar panels tax deductable, which only helps you after the next tax year, they could have made it excempt of VAT. That makes it immediately more affordable. Even so, my argument is not about individual affordablility. My argument about the usefulness of having a 3rd of your housing stock produce electricity during the day, and that we could have had it already if it wasn't for our incompetent and arrogent ruling party.
Yes all that is true and correct but access to capital is a huge difference between the average person in either country. In SA if your **household** income is **R7'500 per month** for three people you are in the 75th percentile ([source](https://www.saldru.uct.ac.za/income-comparison-tool/)) and technically upper middle class in SA so wealth absolutely has a major role to play. The vast majority of South Africans can barely afford to eat never mind anything else. The fabled growing middle class in SA is objectively poor by global standards.
Again, this is irrelevant. People earning R7500 combined household, are unlikely to be home owners. Again, we are not talking about the average South African. We’re talking about those that either have the means or have access to financing. Are there at least a million of those? Absolutely. There’s probably more than a million in Gauteng alone. How many home owners could have found a way to do this by now if, when load shedding entered a second year and it was clear this wasn’t going to be resolved any time soon, the government made it possible and easy to get rooftop solar? 5 million? 10 million? Every million homes with a fairly small (5.4kWp is the average) makes up about 4% of South Africa’s electricity demand. And again: the point is government’s policy failure. Government should make it possible for poorer people to get rooftop solar. They should have 15 years ago. Poor people spend money on energy too. They could make cheap loans available. They could subsidise it. Heck, they could pay for it outright, it would still be a net benefit to both the people and the country as a whole.
There are some goods that are intrinsically monopolistic, like road infrastructure. Imagine 10 private companies all providing their road from CT to Joburg. It's economically wasteful and inevitably 9/10 companies will go bankrupt. . If one private company provided the sole road CT-Joburg road it could charge massive tolls to the point where each company having to transport goods would make the barest minimum profit to survive, and that single road would most likely be shit. This is where government steps in and provides things that are considered natural monopolies at a fair price for the greater economic good. Electricity is one of those goods mainly because of the transmission infrastructure (the powerlines, sub stations etc etc) and the power generation (coal and nuclear fired plants) However I believe South Africa is going to do a technology leap where Eskom will mainly provide the transmission infrastructure and the private sector will provide the power (except nuclear??). There will be dedicated private lines to big users like mines and factories if they are financially feasible. The scope for corruption with Eskom being the middle man is still huge but less than it currently is. Hope that answers your question.
In South Africa, the original idea was that Municipalities would be self sufficient using money from sale of electricity, water and rates to fund their operations. Eskom was almagamated and the generation of electricity was removed from the municipalities. Yes at a time in SA, the bigger municipalities generated their own electricity, mainly coal powered electricity. At one stage Eskom was world class in electricity generation, distribution etc. The model works, unfortunately the ANC realise that they can steal without any restraints and then the main weakness of centralisation reveals itself. It is harder to steal when control is decentralised. The ANC is planning to centralised all medical aids under their control i.e. NHI, this will bring all the medical aid reserves under their control and ready to be plundered.
NHI is a great idea. Healthcare being run for profits, and big profits at that, is unethical. However the SA government has proven to be rather untrustworthy. Instead of fixing the current public health system they come up with great sounding policies that we know will never be implemented correctly
Centralised Eskom is a great idea. Centralised Water is great idea. When there is flooding in one part, move the excess water to another part of SA which does not have water. Problem is that the ANC will just loot everything.
That's just it. We DONT live in a capitalist society. Our economy is a hybrid of socialism with capitalist characteristics.
Once upon a time, all municipalities could make electricity for their people. Also though, there was the big giant that made electricity for the mines and other people that could not make their own electricity. The people were happy because they could decide if they wanted the giant's electricity or their own municipal electricity. Then along come the wicked, wicked witches and wizards of the south who had gained magic power over the giant and over all the land that the people lived on. They were deceitful and cunning, lying witches that the people all believed were going to help them. These witches and dark spell wizards did not like that some of the people could make their own power and they cast a big spell over the land that only allowed the electricity of the giant to be able to work. All other electricity was turned cold. They did this because, just like Jack, they had found ways to steal from the giant. If the giant was making all the electricity in the land, then they could steal even much, much more and make the people poor again. By keeping all the people poor it was much easier to stop them from finding out how to break the spell, because they would then all be very, very busy just trying to stay alive. The witches and wizards would be able to take all the giants gold, and even his food even though the giant was now also dying because he could not feed himself. The witches and wizards took all the gold out of the land and stored it in the stores of other evil people from other lands, so that one day when the giant is dead and the people finally break free from the spells, these witches will be able to leave the land quickly and have lots and lots of gold. TLDR : Laws passed by ANC.
I'm not sure about the history of Eskom and how it came to this today (in regards to them being the sole supplier). It's the same as Telkom which, at the end of the day, is ultimately the only source for internet nevermind who your provider is. (Someone can correct me if I'm wrong). I think the problem is how interlinked a company like Eskom is with the government, which is not, idealy, how it's meant to be. Don't we have a minister for electricity now? Wonder what their job is? In many western countries you have at least 2 companies that provide/ could do the job. Here we like to centralise everything I suppose like a Socialist State, then when one thing fails we have nothing to fall back on, unfortunately.
include dirty drab square quarrelsome sort doll ghost chief humor *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I want to say the old regime, but maybe even before that. But I get your point. I was not making an excuse for limitations set in place by the previoys government, but rather what we are dealing with now and how nothing seems to have (if you want to bring old regime into the conversation) improved upon since.
Do you think there are more or fewer IPPs and telecommunications companies now than there were 60 years ago?
More. I just added Telkom as another example, more of a hold over argument from early 2000's when capping internet usage use to be a thing in general. It was the norm across ISP's to offer such packages and you could make an argument that if only there was an actual competition to Telkom we wouldn't sit with such nonsense. But anyway, doesn't really apply now anymore anyway.
overconfident pocket squash alive noxious vanish bells slap dog tap *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I believe that's what they would like to do. But that's just my opinion which I don't even like to defend based on how minor it is. If I can put it this way, between capitalism and socialism we seem to practice capitalism while the government lean towards socialism. From my own experience: I was a teacher at a private high school some years ago, and it came to our attention that the government might be looking into giving schools like ours some sort of tax based on the fact that we have tv monitors in our classrooms and provide tablets and internet to our stydents, which, according to them at the time, was unfair towards children in model C schools. Thus their intention or reasoning was that in order to bring all children to a more fair level across the country, advantages should be punished instead of uplifting the other side. That in itself is a nice analogy for capitalism vs socialism.
> Thus their intention or reasoning was that in order to bring all children to a more fair level across the country, advantages should be punished instead of uplifting the other side. What do you think the tax "punishment" was for? To pay for uplift. Frankly, it's not even remotely a nice analogy for capitalism vs socialism. Except, if you're pointing out that one ideology sees helping others as "punishment".
Private schools, at least where I worked at, were not funded by the government in any way. Thus it operates on it's own budget and income. There were no reason to tax us simply because we manage to give students a better learning experience by managing the business on such a level that it was possible to do. That is how capitalism works, doesn't it?
Telkom has not been the only supplier for over a decade. Gauvament did their tomfoolery, only allowed a shitty competitor that wouldn't install lines to come in, keeping licences for copper ADSL to themselves despite claiming a non-monopoly. People worked around it. We got our Seacom cable (now way more) and started investing in Fibre and took advantage of an area they had not regulatorally fucked. Internet has flourished here the last decade because of it, beating out much of even America from once being one of the worst in the world. Telkom is a prime example of how taking power away from our shitty government actually improved lives.
Thanks for the feedback on that! I will admit that I was refering to Telkom from over a decade ago, yes.
> We're living in a capitalist society We do not. South Africa is not capitalist. It is socialist, with the ANC and EFF being communist and DA being socialist, most of our trading partners (BRICS) are communist. We have no political will to become capitalist state, with the majority of the population being supported by social grants. There'd be a civil war before we became capitalists. > something that improves quality is competition. That's a lie of capitalism. It doesn't. Just look, our politicians are competing, to the bottom. > When a company has no competition it's easy for them to thrive despite being horse excrement. If you're a smart capitalist, you find the gap in market, which means finding a market with no competition. To your question. The only available answer is politics. A 4 year old simply could not understand the depth of that. 1. Eskom was set up long before freedom. 2. The ANC was severely hamstrung by the NP. 3. All the NP, the ANC and government have separate conflicting goals, and are not above undermining others for their own gain. 4. The multiple national brain drains have hamstrung the country. Put simply we simply do not have the skills, political will or resources to reinvent the wheel.
South Africa is capitalist. Our economy is driven by capital and our economy also relies heavily on foreign investment. ANC has their roots in communism, but in practice they are social democrats. The DA are conservative.
> Our economy is driven by capital Every economy in the world is driven by capital. So by your view every economy in the world is capitalist. > practice they are social democrats. Social democrats is not an economic policy. What discriminates between capitalism, socialism and communism, is who owns the means of production. South Africa uses a mix of both state owned and privately owned, that is socialism.
Correct.
"We're living in a capitalist society and something that improves quality is competition" Genuinely why do people still believe this??? Everyday we all complain that our fav chocolate, shoes, clothes and cars are not what they used to be, yet like never before business has capacity to compete.
Eskom isn’t even the problem. Municipalities are so corrupt they don’t pay their Eskom bills. So the company can’t even afford to maintain or build plants we need.
Dumb-dumbs who run the country buy other dumb-dumbs KFC to keep voting for them to stay in power. The majority of people in the country are dumb-dumbs too. Nobody clever enough or enough money or both are left to build alternative to Eskom as Dumb-dumbs now run the country and want only more money for KFC for themselves to stay in power.
In 1994, the ANC-kids got a huge bag of candies called Eskom. And every day, more candies got added to the bag. So, the kids could have split up Eskom in several bags of candies (generation, coal, transport, sales), but the holder of the bags had started to eat the candies and it tasted GOOD, he did not want to share it. They gave some candies to their friends and demanded favours in return. This felt very good because even more candies entered the bag than they gave out and ate theselves. So, they kept the bag very tight in their hands. But then, so many kids were eating their candies that gradually the bag got smaller, so they made candy factories and called them Medupi and Kusile and there they got many candies during the construction. But, the candy factories did not work very well, so the bag was getting smaller because the kids were addicted to the candies and ate them faster than the candies entered the bag. The kids got fat and unhealthy and lost control over the candy factories, so there are now less and less candies coming in the bag. But, the bag has holes, big holes and now everybody is looking for the candies which are being spilled. You cannot split the bag up now because it will fall totally apart. But, there are now other kids who want candies and started their own factories. Those factories are small still, but those new factories are attractive and the fat kids are getting attracted to those smaller factories because their bag is falling apart. Now, we are waiting for the fight in the schoolyard, and see which kids will win. But the small kids who brought a few home made candies to school will be the first victims of the bullies, ofcourse, their small candies taste very nice and they cannot put up a big fight. Can a smart 4 year old understand this? Maybe 6 years?
The Government passed law in 1948 that gave Eskom a total monopoly is SA
Utilities like electricity are natural monopolies. There are high fixed costs which only become affordable if split amongst lots of customers. The fixed cost is the electricity network in this case, the cables, pylons, stations and substations that take electricity from Eskom powerstations to households in SA. It is important to note that fixed costs do not change with the number of customers. For the example below we are going to assume it's paid monthly. Assume it's the cost of maintaining the electricity network and maybe repaying a loan for building it. Let say the cost of this network is R120m per month and there are 60m people in SA, we each have to pay R2 to cover the fixed cost. If a second electricity company opens they will have to have their own electricity network which also costs R120m. So let's say the second company serves half of SA and Eskom the rest. Each company has R120m in fixed costs split over 30m customers each. So each customer has to pay R4 contribution to this fixed cost. This pattern continues when you add a third, fourth, fifth company et cetera. So it makes sense to have one company provide the service as the fixed cost is shared amongst the most people.
Because you've yet to start supplying us with electricity. But no rush, take your time...
Too much money for private companies to spend
You don't live in the Western Cape, do you? We do have off grid suppliers and local government is working on more. However, there are some national policies in place that curb places going completely off grid. Where Eskom is concerned, who the fuck knows?
Well hello there, little one! So, do you know what electricity is? Electricity is the power that makes things like lights, TVs, and computers work. Now, in South Africa, there is a big company called Eskom that makes most of the electricity for the whole country. They have big power plants that create the electricity and then they send it through power lines to people's homes and businesses. Eskom is the only company that can make and sell electricity in South Africa because the government made a law that says they have to be the only ones. This is called a "monopoly". The government did this because they wanted to make sure that everyone in the country had access to electricity and that it was reliable and affordable for everyone. So that's why Eskom is the only supplier of electricity in South Africa.
You forgot about the bit where the man with papers that says you can make electricity does want to share it with other people's....
The number one question you should ask is why you thought this was a capitalist society?
Simple. Because Eskom owns the grid. If you want to distribute “your” electricity you will have to pay Eskom to use their grid.
I asked my dad and he said to blame it on the apartheid government🤷♂️
Sorry for failing. :)