Advantages and disadvantages of nationalising mines

Advantages and disadvantages of nationalising mines The Freedom Charter signed and preserved in June 1955 affirmed that the people shall share in the country’s wealth and more significantly ‘the mineral wealth below the soil, the banks, and monopoly industries shall be transferred to the ownership of the people as a whole†. There has been a lot of debate for the nationalisation of South African mines by members of the ANC who deem that it is now the ideal time to cement this item onto the ANC’s agenda for the 2012 Centenary Conference and for this to at last become government policy. According to a variety of reports, it is not the ANC’s national executive committee’s concern and as things stand today it is not government policy. Not everyone is as keen as Julius Malema to have mines nationalised (Mpho, 2011). Foreign investment has already declined due to Malema’s uncertain statements regarding the nationalisation of the South African mines. Advantages of nationalising mines A sector th at is nationalised, allows the government to have direct control over that sector. If the mining sector is nationalised, this would entice the government to sell more minerals within the South African borders rather than export these minerals to foreign countries. If mines were to be nationalised, then the revenue generated would be part of national revenue, and thus would benefit the entire country. Economic development and the total well being of the individual will be improved. South Africa has an unequal distribution of income, this extra revenue will allow government to redistribute income more equally, thus reducing poverty as well as lowering the unemployment rate. There will, however, be a substantial amount of legal and economic costs as well as costs which the government would have to face from the transferring of funds. All of these costs would occur in the short term, increasing government debt. However, in the long run, if the government flourishes, nationailasion of th e mines will benefit the entire nation. Disadvantages of nationailsation Nationalisation would create panic among foreign investors. South Africa has a history of state owned enterprises that haven’t been very successful, this would place more doubt in the mind of the foreign invertor. The mining sector, after nationalisation, could take a very long time to boast a profit. Resources are scarce, therefore during this time, resources may become depleted, resulting in huge losses for the South African economy. There are very large and vast costs that government would have to encounter if the mines of the country are nationalised. Some of these costs include the general operation and running of the mines, possible shutting down of the mines as well as developing the mines. If the government has not shown any signs of profit, these costs will still have to be incurred which could be detrimental to the economy and the well being of the individual South Afrrican. Debt of the governm ent would increase at tremendous rates and this will spill over and result in great fiscal deficits. Clive Coetzee, Kwazulu-Natal Treasury economist stated that the mining industry supports the four macroeconomic goals, economic growth, employment, a low inflation rate and a surplus in the balance of payments. He further states that in 2008 around 500 000 people were employed in the mining sector which contributes to 6, 1% of total non-agricultural formal employment. This is without the indirect effects of mining, if these effects are taken into account another 500 000 jobs are likely to exist. I believe that the private sector already has the necessary capital as well as human resource proficiency to maintain and sustain this sector. Therefore there is no reason to nationalize the mines in South Africa. Nationalisation has been tried in many countries. By looking at countries like Botswana, Zambia and Venezuela, one can clearly see that the nationalisation attempts of these countri es have failed.

Marketing of Drugs, by Pharmaceutical Companies Essay

Marketing of Drugs, by Pharmaceutical Companies - Essay Example By presenting these aspects of the marketing perspective of the pharmaceutical industry this paper attempts to come to the conclusion that in the final outcome of these marketing practices it is the care of the patients that is negatively affected. Introduction: Market conditions have never been so good for the pharmaceutical industry. The amount of money spent in the United States of America on prescription drugs was a whopping $141 billion in 2001, as per figures provided by the CMS Office of the Actuary. This expenditure on prescription drugs has made it the third largest factor in the expenditure on national health care in the United States of America. In 1990 for every dollar spent on health care, prescription drugs made up six cents. The proportional expenditure on prescription drugs has shown a significant rise by 2001 to ten percent. By 2010, this proportional expenditure on prescription drugs is expected to rise to 14.2%, more than doubling, in a period of two decades. There have been several factors that have contributed to this remarkable growth in spending on prescription drugs. These factors are the increased use of prescription drugs, an aging population, development of new therapeutic agents for the treatment of chronic ailmen ts, increasing consumer demand for prescription drugs, and the escalating cost of drugs. Unfortunately these good times have not made the pharmaceutical companies satisfied with the profits that this extra demand for prescription drugs would generate from their existing market share of the expenditure on prescription drugs. Instead the lure of raking in profits has made the pharmaceutical industries attempt to carve out a larger share of the pie, in terms of the prescription drug market.

Assignment2 Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1750 words - 1

Assignment2 - Essay Example Glossary†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦..13 Images Image 1: The Waikato River System†¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦Ã¢â‚¬ ¦4 Image 2: The Waikato River passing through Hamilton City†¦..5 Abstract The government of New Zealand has made it known that it intends to sell Mighty River Power together with some other assets; Mighty River Power is the sole proprietor of the Waikato River Hydro scheme which makes use of waters of the Waikato river water to generate hydroelectric power. A number of Maori organizations have indicated that they are against the sale because they believe they should have a say on the usage of the waters of river Waikato, and through the sale they will not be able to put this claim to the test. This issue has resulted in a nationwide debate regarding the ownership of the river’s waters, and is therefore worth discussing an d writing about. The Treaty of Waitangi, an agreement between the Maori tribes of New Zealand and the Britain’s colonial government, was signed in 1840 after much deliberation by the Queen and a growing concern for the welfare of New Zealand’s indigenous peoples (Orange 1987, pg.32). The Resource Management Act (RMA) was an act of parliament that was passed in 1991 for the primary purpose of stipulating how New Zealand’s natural resources should be managed, and the principles of the Treaty are regarded as the guiding framework of the Treaty of Waitangi. ... At the end of this report, this question should be solved and more clarity should be achieved with regards to this issue. 1. Introduction The Treaty of Waitangi is often viewed as the founding document of the country that is now known as New Zealand (Calman 2003, pg.30). Since its signing in 1840, it has played a very influential role in shaping the country, how its resources are managed and its relation to its indigenous peoples (in this case the Maori). Over years, there have been disagreements between the New Zealand government over the management of resources that the Maori people consider â€Å"theirs†. Most recently, the Crown’s intention to sell Mighty River Power has drawn criticism, outrage and uproar from various groups representing the Maori people. The purpose of this report is to discuss, examine and evaluate the Treaty, the RMA and the principles and to come up with a sensible and practical conclusion on the issue at hand. These three aspects are very impo rtant to the final outcome since they explain where all this is coming from and how it can be resolved. The significance of this report is that it will finally decide how to move forward in this whole conundrum; it will look at both parties’ claims and address them in a sound manner and finally put the matter to bed. This report will cover events and aspects dating from 1840 to the current and most recent controversy pitting the government of New Zealand and the Maori people. As a result, whatever conclusion is reached will be arrived at after a lot of factors are studied and examined exhaustively. Limitations to this study might be that so many changes have occurred since 1840, and yet everything in between must be looked into; the