Misunderstood Malema

Well, first off this is my first blog post so please excuse any mishaps.

Nationalisation? Marches? what does it all mean?

A big topic in South Africa today is the nationalisation of the mines, Malema seems to think that this will solve many economic problems as he feels it will "return the wealth to the people" and that the "capitalist white man" is the undoing of SA, but what he fails to understand is just how big a word nationalisation is and what it means. first off, if SA were to nationalise the mines they would have to buy out de Beers completely, our government cannot afford to go and just spend billions upon billions of rands on something like this especially since we are already in a financial and current account deficit. also the mining industry supplies 1 million jobs and 30% or the company tax to the government. Nationalisation is meant to take place when it is believe to be in the greater interests of the public servants i.e. the 'normal' people in the country.

Now, what would be the major repercussions? poverty, higher interest rates and huge loss in foreign investment. if SA were to nationalise the mines there would be no immediate signs of an increase in unemploment, however interests rates would increase, thus hitting the middle class hardest and fastest as they are the majority of loan holders in this country (poor cant get loans and the rich don't need them) meaning they would lose a lot of their spending power. Now, how would unemployment rise? well if you were a South African investing in Libya, and you heard of a civil revolution and riots, would you feel safe having your money there? no. Same goes for Americans and Europeans, if they feel that their invested money will just be taken by the Government then they won't invest in this country, lack of foreign invest means lack of job creation meaning unemployment stays the same, but if current investors feel that their industries will also be nationalised then they will pull their money out of the country thus leaving their workers unemployed. Nationalisation is not the answer, but why do I call him misunderstood?

He is misunderstood because he has realised something needs to change, I just feel he is unaware of how to change it. The youth in this country are being left behind and somewhat even having the future we deserve taken from us or being controlled by the current people in power. During apartheid the adult literacy level was 80% (including the oppressed) it is currently sitting at 67%, this means education is going backwards, the things we are taught are not sufficient, but why? Does Government think we are too stupid to understand that they have dropped the level? Or are they merely unable to create a sufficient education model. We have a 67% matric pass rate nationally, however, this only counts the people who WROTE matric, including everyone who was at school in grade 8 and compared to the number that pass matric that number would probably drop to about 50%. Is our schooling system even preparing us for life or University?

I also think that Malema is playing the "politics" card far more than he is playing the "looking after the needs of the youth" card, he fails to understand that he is not in parlaiment and he is not running for presidency and if he really truely believed in the distribution of the wealth he would not be living in a multi-million rand home with multiple cars taking holidays to Mauritius.

To conclude, Malema is misunderstood because he fights for the right things but in the wrong way. We need someone to stand out for the people and not stand out for themselves. Please leave comments. thoughts and opinions as i would love to discuss anything on your mind :)