01 January 0001
Views 28 810



 DOWNLOAD  Download to read later
 DONATE   If you enjoyed this publication, please consider donating

Comments on





user image

11 Nov 2015, 17:00 Rory Short Those participating in the formation and execution of policies which are hampering the growth of the South African economy suffer from the same mindset as the formulators of Apartheid so they do not want to even consider that what they are doing is causing this problem therefore they fall back on Apartheid type thinking and blame whites for a lack of progress.


user image

15 Jan 2016, 18:28 Rory Short Humans evolved within small roving bands. Over the millenia these bands have grown to very large collections of human beings living together. In order that we should be able to survive in this changed situation it became imperative that there should be rules of conduct which every member of the collective has to adhere to. In a sense a Constitutional democracy under the rule of law is a natural and healthy response to this need. Sadly there are always those who for personal reasons try to get around this reality and then the whole of society suffers as a consequence.


user image

25 May 2016, 19:45 Rory Short In my view SOEs are a business and should only exist to provide essential services which the private sector is not interested in providing. Our trouble is that our government is confused about its role in society. Its over-arching priority seems to be providing jobs for pals in SOEs the fact that the continued existence of the SOEs is fundamentally undermining the government's ability to serve the people of South Africa is ignored.


user image

23 Jun 2016, 18:14 Rory Short “The things that will destroy us are: Politics without principles; pleasure without conscience; wealth without work; knowledge without character; business without morality; science without humanity; and worship without sacrifice.” And we have all of the above in increasing abundance, particularly in politics.


user image

25 Aug 2016, 15:46 Rory Short The production of sugary drinks is not something that should be industrialised. If an individual wants to make a sugary drink for themselves it is their health that is effected. If the production of sugary drinks becomes industrialised then the issue of, the production or not, of sugary drinks drinks becomes an employment problem. The industrialised production of any good, the use of which is a personal choice but can lead to health problems in the user, should not be allowed.


user image

01 Sep 2016, 18:03 Rory Short "The SVM correctly states that we have a right to health care, not ‘health control’.". Indeed and health care does not only embrace post onset of health problems care but also preventative actions for known causes of health problems. Alcohol, tobacco and sugar in excess are medically proven causes of health problems. Individual freedom means that the individual can choose to indulge in these things if they so choose and that is fine but in my view it should not open the way to the commercialisation of these detrimental products. They should remain as home industries then there would be no question of job losses.


user image

08 Sep 2016, 15:50 Rory Short Economic freedom is what is needed. The completed voluntary exchanges of goods and/or services is what produces wealth for everybody. Thus the elimination of all impediments to the completion of voluntary exchanges is what we should focus on. One of the biggest impediments that exists in a fiat money using economy like ours, is the restriction on who can trigger the issuance of new fiat money. At present it is only the banks, and their customers because they have been given access to credit cards, nobody else. The unbanked simply cannot participate in this crucial aspect of a cash economy and that is the triggering of the issuance of new fiat money in order to enter into the purchase half of a voluntary exchange. Every time someone buys something with a credit card they are doing just that and when they settle the credit card debt, i.e. the new money debt, they are completing the exchange through having supplied something of equal value to the debt into the market. The only reason that the unbanked cannot do this is logistical. The social consequences of this logistical blockage are enormous. A massive proportion of our population is virtually totally economically inactive and thus poverty stricken. Thus we have to fix the logistical blockage, and it can be done. The ideal solution would be to switch to a wholely digital currency and to ensure that everybody has a smart phone, with a money app, in their pockets, to serve as their digital wallets. It would be worth the State’s while to subsidise smart phones for the indigident. A central, completely independent, currency authority [CCA] would have to be established to administer the money system, i.e. the money and its users. Every person would have to be registered with the CCA which would the keep a record of any new money issued to them and would ensure that the amount of unsettled new money debt in their accounts never exceeded a specfied maximum. This to prevent free-loading on the money system. This would also prevent any money system induced inflation. Monetary transactions, deposits and withdrawals, would have to start life at the CCA. Then the CCA could issue new money when needed to top up a cash withdrawal and settle any new money debt as and when money was deposited. The banking system would not need to have any dealings with new money, it would only deal with old money, i.e. money in circulation. Credit cards would likely fall into disuse. Every user would have to have a current account accessible to the CCA so that it could determine if it needed to top up a cash withdrawal request or not, and for a deposit if there was any new money debt to be settled before passing the remaining deposit through to the user’s current account. A wholly digital currency would enable a historical recrod to be kept of the holders of any unit of currency thus ending currency’s current anonymity and preventing money laundering. This would also give the currency a moral hue as people could refuse to accept payments in money that came from, or through, holders unacceptable to them. The conversion of stolen items into money would become very dificult because the thieve’s identity would necessarily become part of the units of currency invovlved’s historical record. ft of things in order to sell them would become very difficult


user image

22 Sep 2016, 11:28 Rory Short There is a more fundamental problem and that is building up industries and thus employment on products which are not essentially useful to human beings in the first place. It is only when there is an industry that employment becomes an issue whereas the industry in its present form should not have come into existence anyway. Issues of loss of employment could be raised in opposition to more stringent laws controlling illicit drugs.


user image

01 Mar 2017, 14:56 Rory Short Even if people seek election because they want to help the public they still seem to think that their task is to make laws. Thus making laws is unthinkingly regarded as a job in itself with absolutely no consideration of the impact that all these laws are having on the economic health of individuals and society.


user image

27 Apr 2017, 14:08 Rory Short Temba whilst the majority of the population see rent seeking as the only way to make money for themselves they can't fundamentally question the activities of those in power who are apparently successfully full time into rent seeking for themselves. There are only two ways for this situation to proceed, the good way and the bad way. The bad way is to continue along the path we are already on with the rent seekers having to find more and mote ways to extort rents from the productive part of economy until they have totally destroyed it and there is nothing left to extort. The good way will be to take the path that you advocate. The question is how can we turn things in that direction? Right now we are definitely heading in the bad direction.


user image

31 May 2017, 19:04 Rory Short The foundation of any economy is the voluntary exchanges of goods and/or services. The invention of money removed the restrictions inherent in exchanges done by bartering thus opening the way to increased economic activity and hence increasing the wealth of cash based societies. Money cannot create wealth however, it is only an exchange facilitator that aids in the voluntary exchanges of goods and/or services that create the wealth. Money works by representing the socially accepted value of already exchanged items. This representation is not visible to the users of money who have to rely on the system responsible for producing the money, the Money Sytem, to ensure that this is the case. Unfortunately our current Money System does not ensure this hence we have had to get used to endemic inflation but that is a topic for another day. My point is that the Money System should ensure that money is honestly representing the value in real economic events. In a healthy economy these events are free to happen spontaneously according to peoples’ individual wants and needs. What happens to money after it has been put into circulation by the Money System has long been a point of contention. This contention has led to the development of a range of different theoretical socoal systems from socialism to capitalism. In my view these systems should in all honesty only ever deal with money after it has been produced in a natural spontaneous way. They destroy wealth when they mistakenly see it as their job to try to control the spontaneous exchanges of individuals that are the only things that create wealth.


user image

23 Jun 2017, 21:17 Rory Short What most people are unaware of is that the economy is a single whole whether we, or politicians, like it or not. In the economy every apparently independent bit of it is, through the currency, connected to every other bit of it. Now an economy cannot exist if there is no economic activity. Thus the first thing that the members of any economy need to ensure is that the conditions for economic activity are as benign as they could possibly be. Sadly, as many of us know, the South African government seems to be totally unaware of this requirement. It is only when an economy exists that any meaningful decisions, about how the wealth from the economy could be distributed amongst its members, can be taken. Such distributive decisions become counter productive however if they hinder economic activity. The South African government seems to be a past master at creating hinderances to economic activity.


user image

02 Jul 2017, 18:13 Rory Short NMW is humanly insane. The imposition of a minimum wage on employers supports an unspoken belief that a) employers are all powerful, and b) that they are inherently evil and thus from their position of naturally exploit people. As a consequence Government has to step in to control them. This legislation does absolutely nothing to bolster the dignity of the unemployed the attitude it embodies actually undermines it.


user image

31 Aug 2017, 19:00 Rory Short Sadly Russell has told it like it is. Apartheid was an abomination which abomination united people in opposition to it. Opponents to Apartheid held to many different and conflicting ideologies however. I for one have always been an advocate of human freedom so have never ever been drawn into ideologies of any kind let alone Marxism which, as I see it, is in essence, inhuman. Members of the ANC, on the other hand, somehow see Marxism as serving humanity despite the abundant historical evidence to the contrary. They do recognise however that the average South African does not naturally warm to Marxism so they keep their Marxist intentions hdden and blame 'white monopoly capital’ for the economic ills that are the natural consequence of their Marxist policies.


user image

07 Sep 2017, 19:38 Rory Short ?"Ownership means we have final authority over a thing.” I like what you say Martin. How is this final authority legitimately, i.e. objectively, arrived at? As I understand it what you are saying is that ownership as a concept springs objectively from the conditions of our existence. As I see it these conditions are as follows: 1. We are conscious 2. We are not alone 3. We naturally take on responsibility for things, internal and external to us, in order to increase our chances of survival. If condition one did not exist then conditions two and three would be irrelevant. If we were alone then condition three might exist but its existence would be immaterial. As we are not alone, and condition three is highly relevant to our survival, it is necessary for, the conjunction of these three conditions in the individual, to be identified and given a socially accepted label, this label is ‘ownership’. Ownership means that society accepts that for the thing owned the owner takes full responsibility for it, or society accepts that the owner has final authority over it. For internal things, like fitness for example there can be no argument that the responsibility for them lies with the individual. Society can help the individual to bear the responsibility but the ultimate responsibility, the final authority, the ownership, remains with the individual. As you say ownership of external things can arise naturally in one of two ways, first user of the thing or by the first user voluntarily transferring ownership to another. Any other claim to ownership is objectively illegitimate. Conflict about ownership will arise for external things when condition three is removed from any discussion about ownership.