01 January 0001
Views 6 709


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.


user image

24 Oct 2017, 22:49 Rory Short The reality is human beings cover a spectrum from the utterly selfish to the utterly selfless. Positions of social power within society have particular appeal to both ends of this human spectrum. The middle ranges of the human spectrum are not particularly interested in social power positions. When the selfless attain positions of social power society benefits greatly, when the selfish attain positions of social power society suffers greatly and this is true no matter what political ideology is being followed within a society. Political ideologies have different attractions to people at the two ends of the spectrum however, the selfish prefer authoritarian ideologies whereas the selfless prefer more humanitarian ideologies.


user image

02 Nov 2017, 19:11 Rory Short Work comprises two components, time spent on the job by the worker and the effort, mental,physical and emotional, expended on the job by the worker. This latter is totally dependent on the requirements of the job so they can't be generalised. The time needed to do the job can be measured however. If there is nobody willing to pay a livable hourly rate for the job then from society's point of view the job is not worth doing. Thus there should not be a minimum wage, because wages deal with large chunks of time, but a minimum hourly rate instead at which a person's time can be purchased.


user image

04 Dec 2017, 12:32 Rory Short The reality is that an economy is an organic whole comprised of completed exchanges of goods and services and for it to be really healthy these exchanges need to be executed voluntarily. An economy forms an organic whole because of the flow of money within it which fuels and feeds the exchanges and keeps them all together in the one whole. Therefore any interference with the spontaneous development of voluntary exchanges, for whatever reason, must hinder the health of the economy. Politicians and their supporters who ignore this truth threaten the livelihoods of all of us.


user image

07 Dec 2017, 17:54 Horst Peschkes Hi Eutace, Kindly send me a copy of your 2003 booklet "Jobs for the jobless" to: horstpeschkes@hotmail.com. I read your above listed article and understand your concerns. But we must understand though that the 1956 LRA referred to the "undertaking, industry, trade or occupation" which is a set of particular member employers engaged in their industries (activities) and their particular employees employed on their trade or occupations and it is not just the set of activities (industries) of the employers who are members and under which one can identify many more persons - being members of the public. This incorrect application came about by forgeries of the statutes engineered by Labour Ministers, judges and others which forged statues were subsequently falsely interpreted in our law courts. Several hundred thousand employers were thus maliciously prosecuted since 1925 and found guilty for not complying with certain provisions of agreements which in fact did not apply to them at all. More about this later. Meanwhile, please find and study on the internet under my full name "Horst Peschkes" and the words "collective bargaining in a collective enterprise" my paper delivered at the conference of the 'International Society for Labour & Social Security Law' held here in CT in 2015. My gentle question is - who was the beneficiary who reimbursed Herman Mashaba's legal expenses in the matter of FMF v Minister of labour and Others ? Leon Louw hinted this to me but he forgot to mention a name. Could it have been SEIFSA ? Looking forward to receive your booklet and maybe some questions and answers With Kind Regards Horst Peschkes Tel 021 7843918 Cei 082 7716298


user image

20 Dec 2017, 13:31 Rory Short "Affirmative action in South Africa must be non-racial, and based on the socio-economic status of beneficiaries exclusively – not the colour of their skins............The Constitution belongs to all South Africans, and we should thus not too easily allow it to be misinterpreted and misapplied when a more appropriate, common-sense, and arguably correct, interpretation is more likely to lead to prosperity and freedom." I agree wholeheartedly with you on the above Martin. Racially applied affirmative action is inhuman. Consequentially it has a negative economic impact on the whole community because whether people like it or not the economy is one whole and hindering one part of it in order to benefit another part actually damages the whole and everybody loses out as a result.


user image

28 Dec 2017, 12:31 Rory Short Leon policies are an expression of a mindset. A change in policies requires a change in mindset, that is the challenge that faces us. How does one change a mindset that sees benefits in policies despite the fact that the policies do not yield the expected beneficial results? The policy advocates are clearly not open to perceiving the facts. They must be more committed to the view through the lens of their ideology than to the readily perceivable facts shorn of any ideological under-pinnings.


user image

22 Feb 2018, 18:16 Rory Short As an independent person if I offer employment to another independent person it has to be on terms acceptable to that person and to myself. In other words the consequent burden of responsibilities must be acceptable to both of us. As I see it in a Constitutional Democracy the citizens accept that there are collective responsibilities to be discharged and they elect governments to do this for them. One of the collective responsibilities to be discharged is ensuring the survival of individual citizens. Now one of the roles of government is, through legislation, to enforce things on the collective which ideally should be for the collective’s benefit. Unfortunately government can also enforce things which are for its benefit rather than for the collective’s benefit. The National Minimum Wage[NMW] is just such legislation. The NMW tries to shift government’s responsibility for ensuring the survival of its citizens onto anybody who ventures into employing somebody else. This legislated increase in the responsibilities of people who are prepared to offer employment to others naturally limits the number of people prepared to offer employment to others. The NMW is wrong in principle because it endeavours to shift a collective responsibility, which therefore belongs to government, onto a subset of the collective namely employers.


user image

03 Apr 2018, 21:07 Rory Short The voting cattle, who sadly make up the majority of ANC MPs, are obviously being herded along a particular path by people who have no interest in Constitutionality or the preservation of the integrity of te Constitution.


user image

11 Apr 2018, 20:55 Rory Short You've hit the nail on the head. The trouble is those who did not have any property rights under Apartheid, and due to the ANC's consistent lackadaisical approach to awarding property to those who suffered under Apartheid, there is minimal cultural knowledge of property rights and their benfits. The ANC has also done nothing about the lack of individual property rights in the old homelands. Consequently politicians of the EFF, and now the ANC, are thus able to play on this ignorance exploiting it by making it seem as though the Constitution is blocking black people from owning land because it enshrines property rights and it is mostly whites, who black people are generally aware of, that have property.


user image

01 Jun 2018, 22:17 Rory Short Luke there is a natural way to rid a fiat currency of instability. New units of a fiat currency should ONLY be issued by the Money System as new money debt [NMD] to citizens who are short of enough money to complete a purchase. NMD to be non-interest paying and capped to prevent inflation and free-loading on the community. The availability of smart phones and the Internet makes the issuing of money at any point of purchase practically quite possible. NMD, as just described, to be the only credit available in the system. Investments of any kind would be reliant on savings. This would unquestionably serve to maintain the community’s economic health and the currency’s stability.


user image

06 Jun 2018, 17:02 Rory Short A healthy economy comes into existence only through the completion of voluntary exchanges of good and/or services. This simple economic fact should be obvious to anybody who takes a moment to think about it. Consequently any government that is interested in providing a better life for all, as ours purports to be, should do everything in its power to facilitate the voluntary exchange of goods and services. The NMW Act impedes rather than facilitates voluntary exchange. Thus the NMW is economically insane.


user image

28 Jun 2018, 12:33 Rory Short I agree we should also adopt an 'open skies' policy. Our problem is the South African mindset particularly in Government. This mindset is fearful of freedom. It is actually opposed to true freedom even though it speaks of freedom it doesn't mean free from restrictions, no not at all, what it really means is freedom from restrictions if they are imposed by others, otherwise restrictions imposed by it are fine.