• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Nelson Mandela

DeacMan

DeacMan

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 20, 2011
Messages
9,708
Reaction score
948
Location
Go to the Elf's house. We're just a bit West of t
What he did once placed in a position to take power was nothing more than astounding. To be clear, I have traveled several times to South Africa. It is far from perfect. It suffers from massive corruption. And the desire by some who had been oppressed for vengeance still lingers. For him to take power, resist the urges of many around him and forge a peaceful path forward was amazing. RIP.
 
7 Nelson Mandela Quotes You Probably Won’t See In The U.S. Media
The former South African president, who died Thursday, was a revolutionary and a deep skeptic of American power.

7. On the U.S. war with Iraq:

“If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings.”
Via cbsnews.com
6. On Israel:

“Israel should withdraw from all the areas which it won from the Arabs in 1967, and in particular Israel should withdraw completely from the Golan Heights, from south Lebanon and from the West Bank.”
Via jweekly.com
5. On the U.S. war with Iraq:

“All that (Mr. Bush) wants is Iraqi oil.”
Via cbsnews.com
4. Mandela on Castro and the Cuban revolution:

“From its earliest days, the Cuban Revolution has also been a source of
inspiration to all freedom-loving people. We admire the sacrifices of the Cuban people in maintaining their independence and sovereignty in the face of the vicious imperialist-orquestrated campaign to destroy the impressive gain made in the Cuban Revolution. … Long live the Cuban Revolution. Long live comrade Fidel Castro.”
Via lanic.utexas.edu
3. Mandela on Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, his longtime supporter:

“It is our duty to give support to the brother leader … especially in regards to the sanctions which are not hitting just him, they are hitting the ordinary masses of the people … our African brothers and sisters.”
Via finalcall.com
2. On the U.S. preparing to invade Iraq in a 2002 interview with Newsweek:

“If you look at those matters, you will come to the conclusion that the attitude of the United States of America is a threat to world peace.”
Via newsweek.com
1. On a Palestinian state:

“The UN took a strong stand against apartheid; and over the years, an international consensus was built, which helped to bring an end to this iniquitous system. But we know too well that our freedom is incomplete without the freedom of the Palestinians.”
Via cbsnews.com
http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/7-nelson-mandela-quotes-you-probably-wont-see-in-the-us-medi
 
Oh he was a commie, no doubt, but I think it's understandable given his background. The man should be praised for ushering in a new era and doing so peacefully when there was so much reason to do just the opposite. But yeah, his politics were dogshit.
 
EatLeadCommie said:
Oh he was a commie, no doubt, but I think it's understandable given his background. The man should be praised for ushering in a new era and doing so peacefully when there was so much reason to do just the opposite. But yeah, his politics were dogshit.
Click to expand...

Agree with this. When he was coming up in the 50s and 60s, his choice was between the Western capitalist democracies who were backing the apartheid regime, or the revolutionary communist types who were bucking colonialism. Unsurprising that he chose the latter. What he did after he was released from prison and became president is remarkable, admirable, and inspirational. He could have pushed Mugabe-style confiscation policies, revenge politics, and hard socialism/nationalization of industry, but he did not - he worked with the white capitalists and landowners to keep the peace. I just hope it continues now that he is gone.
 
But his politics dramatically changed from the 50s until his death.
 
Deacon923 said:
Agree with this. When he was coming up in the 50s and 60s, his choice was between the Western capitalist democracies who were backing the apartheid regime, or the revolutionary communist types who were bucking colonialism. Unsurprising that he chose the latter. What he did after he was released from prison and became president is remarkable, admirable, and inspirational. He could have pushed Mugabe-style confiscation policies, revenge politics, and hard socialism/nationalization of industry, but he did not - he worked with the white capitalists and landowners to keep the peace. I just hope it continues now that he is gone.
Click to expand...

Very much my point overall. His views were understandable given what he endured and yet he still didn't lead SA down a very rough and vengeful path. I would note, however, that there is clearly confiscation politics in SA. Not as ridiculously direct as I think you are alluding to. But it certainly exists. It's called Black Economic Empowerment. And it is corrupt. The notion of it is to help those who were oppressed get a chance for advancement. It does things like require multinationals operating subs in SA to hand over ownership of a portion of their business to Black controlled companies, put Blacks on their boards, employ so many Blacks in management, etc. It is enriching a very, very, very small portion of the black population - most of them tied to the ANC. It has done little to lift up the masses - which is the purported aim. It just enriches a very small sliver of the black elite in the country who have established a series of businesses that all the "white" or "multi-national" businesses look to partner with so as to meet the aims of that legal system. So in terms of addressing massive economic differences between rich and literally squalor poor, it does very, very little. It effectively just takes Euro wealth and hands it to the few native Africans who are already wealthy.
 
Last edited:
DeacMan said:
Very much my point overall. His views were understandable given what he endured and yet he still didn't lead SA down a very rough and vengeful path. I would note, however, that there is clearly confiscation politics in SA. Not as ridiculously direct as I think you are alluding to. But it certainly exists. It's called Black Economic Empowerment. And it is corrupt. The notion of it is to help those who were oppressed get a chance for advancement. It does things like require multinationals operating subs in SA to hand over ownership of a portion of their business to Black controlled companies, put Blacks on their boards, employ so many Blacks in management, etc. It is enriching a very, very, very small portion of the black population - most of them tied to the ANC. It has done little to lift up the masses - which is the purported aim. It just enriches a very small sliver of the black elite in the country who have established a series of businesses that all the "white" or "multi-national" businesses look to partner with so as to meet the aims of that legal system. So in terms of addressing massive economic differences between rich and literally squalor poor, it does very, very little. It effectively just takes Euro wealth and hands it to the few native Africans who are already wealthy.
Click to expand...

Have you been to South Africa since they switched to the updated Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment?
 
I was last there in 2010. So if they have managed to update so it isn't the cesspool of corruption it once was, good. I spent years of my life dealing with our "partner". Nice guy. But he certainly understood he had all the leverage.
 
ONW said:
What did they change Avalon?
Click to expand...

Companies are assessed by a scorecard to measure the involvement of black South Africans in their business. The score used to be based primarily on ownership and management, which led to the problems DeacMan discussed. The updated BBBEE was intended to shift the focus of the scorecard - 30% is still based on ownership and management, but the other areas include employment, training, community involvement, etc.

I learned about it academically when I studied abroad there, but I haven’t done business there like DeacMan has. The BBBEE was in place before 2010. Now I’m curious, I’ll have to look in to how the business environment in South Africa has changed, and whether or not the changed regulations have had the intended impact.
 
avalon said:
Companies are assessed by a scorecard to measure the involvement of black South Africans in their business. The score used to be based primarily on ownership and management, which led to the problems DeacMan discussed. The updated BBBEE was intended to shift the focus of the scorecard - 30% is still based on ownership and management, but the other areas include employment, training, community involvement, etc.

I learned about it academically when I studied abroad there, but I haven’t done business there like DeacMan has. The BBBEE was in place before 2010. Now I’m curious, I’ll have to look in to how the business environment in South Africa has changed, and whether or not the changed regulations have had the intended impact.
Click to expand...

Thanks avalon, let me know what you find.
 
avalon said:
Companies are assessed by a scorecard to measure the involvement of black South Africans in their business. The score used to be based primarily on ownership and management, which led to the problems DeacMan discussed. The updated BBBEE was intended to shift the focus of the scorecard - 30% is still based on ownership and management, but the other areas include employment, training, community involvement, etc.

I learned about it academically when I studied abroad there, but I haven’t done business there like DeacMan has. The BBBEE was in place before 2010. Now I’m curious, I’ll have to look in to how the business environment in South Africa has changed, and whether or not the changed regulations have had the intended impact.
Click to expand...

It would not have mattered in our business and it wouldn't have mattered for lots of businesses either. We had a small sales office in South Africa. We had black management on staff and plenty of black employees for the size of our little warehouse and team. The reason it didn't matter was that big parties in South Africa with whom we'd want to do business continued to move the ball on what constitutes successful scores if you want to do business with them. So for us it was all about keeping that black owner on board and happy - although we often thought about other ways we could do business without him. In fact, the only reason we brought this guy on board at all was that we couldn't get our score high enough if we wanted to operate from within the country absent some black ownership - at least if we wanted to keep working with two of our largest customers. And let me assure - having done business deals all over the world for my employer - there is no other place I know of on earth where a multinational is forced to sell off interests in its subsidiaries to a specific group of people in order to do business effectively.

Your "partner" can make threats about leaving the company unless you up his take of the profits - which is what our guy would threaten to do. Eventually we just politely told him to go fuck himself - we'd pull out of the country altogether and find a black owned distribution company to move our goods and just ship them from another country instead of keeping inventory on hand in South Africa. Shortly after we did this we sold our entire enterprise globally - so I never got to see what became of this. But that's the route a lot of companies were headed - lowering their pressence in South Africa to avoid having to deal with the hassles of the BEE.

Anyway, at the end of the day the people who benefit from the scheme are old ANC guys. Our partner had no fewer than 10 positions in subs of multi-national companies - each paying him an annuity. And he knew a good handful of other guys who were just like him or held even more interests. And he didn't pay cash for those interests (each bought at some discount no doubt seeing as how people felt the need to bring him on board so they could have a nice BEE score). Nope, he bought them through dividends he required the companies to pay. A pay for your interest as you go scheme. We'd pay him a dividend and he'd put 85% of it towards paying for his share of the company. If the cash flow wasn't good enough he'd demand bigger dividends.

Another lawyer I know here in the TC's who also had to deal with the BEE told me his lawyers and accountants in SA referred to it as the ANCEE - a nod to the fact a handful of people were getting filthy rich on the backs of this thing (guys from the political class).

S Africa is an awesome country btw. I really liked the time I spent there. And, personally, I really liked our partner - taking advantage of us as he was.
 
DeacMan said:
It would not have mattered in our business and it wouldn't have mattered for lots of businesses either. We had a small sales office in South Africa. We had black management on staff and plenty of black employees for the size of our little warehouse and team. The reason it didn't matter was that big parties in South Africa with whom we'd want to do business continued to move the ball on what constitutes successful scores if you want to do business with them. So for us it was all about keeping that black owner on board and happy - although we often thought about other ways we could do business without him. In fact, the only reason we brought this guy on board at all was that we couldn't get our score high enough if we wanted to operate from within the country absent some black ownership - at least if we wanted to keep working with two of our largest customers. And let me assure - having done business deals all over the world for my employer - there is no other place I know of on earth where a multinational is forced to sell off interests in its subsidiaries to a specific group of people in order to do business effectively.

Your "partner" can make threats about leaving the company unless you up his take of the profits - which is what our guy would threaten to do. Eventually we just politely told him to go fuck himself - we'd pull out of the country altogether and find a black owned distribution company to move our goods and just ship them from another country instead of keeping inventory on hand in South Africa. Shortly after we did this we sold our entire enterprise globally - so I never got to see what became of this. But that's the route a lot of companies were headed - lowering their pressence in South Africa to avoid having to deal with the hassles of the BEE.

Anyway, at the end of the day the people who benefit from the scheme are old ANC guys. Our partner had no fewer than 10 positions in subs of multi-national companies - each paying him an annuity. And he knew a good handful of other guys who were just like him or held even more interests. And he didn't pay cash for those interests (each bought at some discount no doubt seeing as how people felt the need to bring him on board so they could have a nice BEE score). Nope, he bought them through dividends he required the companies to pay. A pay for your interest as you go scheme. We'd pay him a dividend and he'd put 85% of it towards paying for his share of the company. If the cash flow wasn't good enough he'd demand bigger dividends.

Another lawyer I know here in the TC's who also had to deal with the BEE told me his lawyers and accountants in SA referred to it as the ANCEE - a nod to the fact a handful of people were getting filthy rich on the backs of this thing (guys from the political class).

S Africa is an awesome country btw. I really liked the time I spent there. And, personally, I really liked our partner - taking advantage of us as he was.
Click to expand...

Any idea how much your "partner" was required to pass along to the people appointing him to all these positions?
 
He wasn't "appointed" by anyone save the companies who sold him their interests. He was (a) educated, (b) could afford to pay attorneys and accountants necessary to set up a company, negotiate an agreement with multi-national companies, etc, etc, etc. And obviously he was connected in the business world of South Africa. The "racket" in all of this lies in the fact the South African legal system requires multi-national companies to cede significant ownership in their wholly owned enterprises (read "subsidiaries") to members of the ANC if the multi-nationals want to do business in South Africa. And this is all under the idea that somehow this transfer of ownership (transfers paid for out of the profits of the multi-nationals) is somehow reversing oppression. It is akin to someone telling Siemens they need to hand over 10% of their U.S. profits to wealthy Americans if they want to do business in the U.S. How this part of BEE benefits the broader (brutally poor) population in South Africa is beyond me.
 
DeacMan said:
He wasn't "appointed" by anyone save the companies who sold him their interests. He was (a) educated, (b) could afford to pay attorneys and accountants necessary to set up a company, negotiate an agreement with multi-national companies, etc, etc, etc. And obviously he was connected in the business world of South Africa. The "racket" in all of this lies in the fact the South African legal system requires multi-national companies to cede significant ownership in their wholly owned enterprises (read "subsidiaries") to members of the ANC if the multi-nationals want to do business in South Africa. And this is all under the idea that somehow this transfer of ownership (transfers paid for out of the profits of the multi-nationals) is somehow reversing oppression. It is akin to someone telling Siemens they need to hand over 10% of their U.S. profits to wealthy Americans if they want to do business in the U.S. How this part of BEE benefits the broader (brutally poor) population in South Africa is beyond me.
Click to expand...

So he was basically a conduit for this practice and smart enough to know that was his role but couldn't do anything about it. It in no way benefits the population in general. If you've dealt with S.A., I'm sure you've dealt with M.E. countries which are doing the same thing but without the legal system part.
 
I'm not sure you really get what I'm saying. It's like you think our partner was somehow a victim in a game - nothing could be further from the truth. I have spent the last 20 years of my life doing complex JV's and M&A all over the world. Japan, China, India, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, Russia, Israel, UAE, Saudi, pretty much pick a country in Western Europe, Austrailia, New Zealand, etc, etc. There is NOTHING like this anywhere else on earth that I've encountered. There are all sorts of countries that at one point and time have restricted foreign investment or set up rigid rules for said investment. But that isn't what is happening here. Here the government is effectively telling all parties who have done business in South Africa that they need to find a black person and sell them a stake in their long standing wholly owned subsidiaries if they want to do business in South Africa. To say this guy "couldn't do anything about it" is pretty funny. This guy LOVES the fact the law is handing him 10-15% interests in the subsidiaries of multi-national companies for which he has to invest none of his own money to obtain. It's Christmas and a birthday every day for him. He takes his equity interest, pays for it with dividends he forces the multi-national to pay and demands the dividends be at a level that also enable him to pocket some cashflow as well. Pretty sweet deal if you can get it.

As for the Middle East and "without the legal system part" please elaborate.
 
I don't think he's a victim. I should have said wouldn't rather than couldn't do anything about it.

My bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top