Just a bit of South African context. In South Africa, in order to get a telcoms licence, you have to comply with BB-BEE (Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment) requirements. Basically, you have to sell 30% (soon to be 51%) of your company to a local black owner. This is in addition to DEI requirements for employment.
For most businesses, these requirements are not mandatory to exist or operate, but gives you a bidding advantage for government contracts. For example, Microsoft, amazon and Temu can operate here, because they dont need any special licences. But for some sectors, companies need to aquire a license.
It can be argued that such legislation was necessary to incentivise business to diversify their employment and ownership to those previously excluded.
BUT, the way it is implemented, there is a huge emphasis on black ownership for various sectors. What will basically happen is a business needs to acquire a license from a government department. These licenses would only be granted if you give ownership of your company to the “appropriate” investor. Invariably someone connected to the government. They determine the price and basically get gifted portions of companies.
So what has basically happened is that this legislation only effective portion these days, is to enrich the politically connected.
So basically Elon is not wanting to pay the bribes necessary to get the required license to operate.
In what sense is he correct? It’s not because he’s not black, you’ve just cited the workaround—and it’s not like he’s a guy who takes a principled stand against nepotism. The idea of the state taking partial ownership of a company that is operating in their country also doesn’t give me too much pause, free trade is extractive—and I’m simply not sure that Elon Musk deserves that money more than someone in the South African government, lol
Just a bit of South African context. In South Africa, in order to get a telcoms licence, you have to comply with BB-BEE (Broad Based Black Economic Empowerment) requirements. Basically, you have to sell 30% (soon to be 51%) of your company to a local black owner. This is in addition to DEI requirements for employment.
For most businesses, these requirements are not mandatory to exist or operate, but gives you a bidding advantage for government contracts. For example, Microsoft, amazon and Temu can operate here, because they dont need any special licences. But for some sectors, companies need to aquire a license.
It can be argued that such legislation was necessary to incentivise business to diversify their employment and ownership to those previously excluded.
BUT, the way it is implemented, there is a huge emphasis on black ownership for various sectors. What will basically happen is a business needs to acquire a license from a government department. These licenses would only be granted if you give ownership of your company to the “appropriate” investor. Invariably someone connected to the government. They determine the price and basically get gifted portions of companies.
So what has basically happened is that this legislation only effective portion these days, is to enrich the politically connected.
So basically Elon is not wanting to pay the bribes necessary to get the required license to operate.
I Hate the buffoon, but on this he is correct.
In what sense is he correct? It’s not because he’s not black, you’ve just cited the workaround—and it’s not like he’s a guy who takes a principled stand against nepotism. The idea of the state taking partial ownership of a company that is operating in their country also doesn’t give me too much pause, free trade is extractive—and I’m simply not sure that Elon Musk deserves that money more than someone in the South African government, lol
Of all the people who deserve money, corrupt politicians and lobbyists are the only two groups who deserve it less than people like musk
I don’t know that there are many white capitalists in South Africa who deserve their money more than any black individual living there