READERS’ FORUM – How does one fault Mr Kabelo Khumalo’s sobering analysis of the poor state of employment (No relenting in SA’s bleeding of jobs, BR, September 27) at the moment, in our beloved country? Impossible to do so, as his common sense layout explains in virtual layman's terms the terrible state of our situation.
I, however, wish to add just this… there cannot be new jobs created until those lost have been filled, or recovered and those unemployed as a result thereof have been re-employed!
New jobs will then inevitably lift the statistics into better numbers, but that forecast is currently bleak… since as companies close down, most sell off their assets on auctions as evidenced weekly in your newspaper and the subsequent loss of that base means future recapitalisation of that specific kind to restart that capability.
And as we know this government does not invest in that kind of job creation rather expecting civil society to do so… in the face of extremely harsh red tape and debilitating regulations.
Thanks again, Khumalo, for a great read.
As for Ms Linda Qui, I suspect she’s a syndicated foreign journalist based in the predominant anti-Trump, leftist sphere of the newspaper world of America.
I’ve studied economics, at length and in depth, and follow the Trump admin’s trade and economic policies in detail, subscribing to every newsletter from virtually every one of the indices and am, therefore, interested how it impacts Nafta – now outphased – and our own Agoa agreements, with American Federal statutes, etc.
Ms Qui’s either very leftist partisan, or wilfully misquotes for the intent or sake of ridiculing US President Donald Trump's economic assertions (BR Fast fact check: What Trump said, September 27).
No country in the modern world – and she’s wrong in her analysis – is currently adding jobs. New jobs at that, rebuilding its economy as fast, and implementing new and rejuvenated trade deals, is only by the US! If I’m proven wrong, I publicly apologise, but even the so-called Eastern Tigers aren’t anywhere near 4 percent growth on average.
Her selective analysis is based in part, or wholly, on all the sources quoted beneath the article, which we all know are anti-Trump.
Had she done a thorough analysis of a planned article in response to Trump’s UN speech, she’d most probably ended up not writing anything.
As I’ve said, he’s full of bluster, no politician of note, but he was wise in appointing clever trade negotiators, diplomats and ambassadors.
Make no mistake, he’s running the US like a company on steroids, pushing the pro-America all over for the benefit of his people – and what’s wrong with that? It shows even reading her article that she accedes in most cases, but tempers it with ample “buts”, showing her bias.
Enough said.
I must say that BR is fast becoming a “must read” in the mornings, with excellent articles on virtually pertinent economic situations. Thanks for that and please continue the great coverage.