BBBEE wrong

[KristiKat]

This demonstrates exactly how BBEEE works;

Company A had a tender and presumably performed a good service as they have been in this kind of business for more than 20 years.

When the tender came up for renewal, it was awarded to BBEEE at a higher than quoted price. BBEEE then re-appointed Company A to perform the same service, but at a higher rate than they had before, plus an up front implementation fee.

This suits Company A, who is now being paid more, but the performance risk, financial risk and dealing with all the potential problems now lies with BBEEE!

This is surely a win-win situation for the parties involved, but in the end it is us, the citizens and tax payers of this country who has to pay for the bulshit and corruption!

yep and those with the most brains have to work the hardest..........

the more "unskilled" employees they hire,

the more work they have to do themselves.......

to keep up with succeeding on that level........

it is not a win-win situation,

but rather a stupid business decision,

so you wanted to make more money,

and had to register as A BEE company for that,

and what happens?

you have to work harder than you used to,

because your employees are practically useless.

[KristiKat]

The electoral system may be clear cut and dynamic, but this in itself is certainly not enough to say it must be good by default because it’s clear cut and dynamic.

Yes it will be challenging to employ (IQ-EQ) and it will cause resistance, problems etc, sure, but a positive result should be considered too. Considerations of obfuscation are relative to the result.

maybe i am reading this wrong,

according to me,

there will be conflict no matter what type of employee you hire,

be he smart or dumb as farrrrk,

it is a evil cycle that never ends.

[pmbguy]

maybe i am reading this wrong,

according to me,

there will be conflict no matter what type of employee you hire,

be he smart or dumb as farrrrk,

it is a evil cycle that never ends.

Hi Kristi

Yeah you got the wrong end of the joint a bit. My post you quoted was not about employment it was about testing peoples IQ and EQ for voting purposes, a side discussion to the main discussion about how kak bbbee is.

[Dave A]

The electoral system may be clear cut and dynamic, but this in itself is certainly not enough to say it must be good by default because it’s clear cut and dynamic.

What if I put it to you when it comes to expectations of the electorate, that while it is a laudable goal that the electorate select the best candidates, it is absolutely critical that they have the capacity to hold their representatives to account via the ballot box.

Which means:

Considerations of obfuscation are relative to the result.

Exactly.

Now bear in mind who is in charge of the obfuscation.
And just how much space you're giving them to play with when 49% is near bang in the middle of the bell curve.

The greater the complexity, the greater the space for manipulation.

[pmbguy]

I concede that it’s different and bound to be controversial. I also agree that greater complexity leads to a greater chance of manipulation. Despite this the basic premise still stands, that smarter more emotionally mature people choose better leaders. Issues arising from complexity are far outweighed by the benefits of such a system.

A system like this will automatically produce better leaders because those who are clearly bad candidates will not be voted into power. You would have smarter parties competing with each other because you have a smarter electorate.

Smart democracy is a macro solution. This all relates to bbbee, under smart democracy bbbee as it is now would not exist. Smart democracy is not really real democracy anymore, it’s an undemocratic version of democracy that will just work better.

[KristiKat]

Hi Kristi

Yeah you got the wrong end of the joint a bit. My post you quoted was not about employment it was about testing peoples IQ and EQ for voting purposes, a side discussion to the main discussion about how kak bbbee is.

i think that would be hilarious.....

the tests i mean...

if they lived in WW2 GERMANY,

half of the population with low brain activity would be wiped from the earth

[Dave A]

pmbguy, I really can't put it more plainly than this: Give a government the space and they'll rig the result, as surely as some in our own government has rigged the result of BBBEE to their advantage.

It really doesn't take much of a study of history to amply demonstrate that the powerfully elegant simplicity of one (wo)man one vote should not be underestimated. As it is, we're already seeing the unintended consequences of proportional representation - in that the electorate cannot hold individual politicians directly accountable...

[Slow Blow]

i think that would be hilarious,

half of the population with low brain activity would be wiped from the earth

Now this is something I could vote for

[Blurock]

It is clear that one man one vote does not produce the best results, so maybe a dictatorship is the answer. Now where can I find a dictator that will do what I want?

[Marq]

One Tax Unit contribution = 1 Vote

Vote with your Money. If I dont like the way you spent it last year - this year I will vote for a more likely candidate.

[adrianh]

One Tax Unit contribution = 1 Vote

Vote with your Money. If I dont like the way you spent it last year - this year I will vote for a more likely candidate.

Wealth and paying tax do not necessarily equate to intelligence....there are many wealthy a$$holes!

[pmbguy]

Dave - So you saying deviation from normal democracy produces complexity and should therefore not be attempted because this leads to corruption –enough corruption for it to fail. Perhaps you are right. Perhaps democracy only works because of its simplicity. If this is true then I would argue that democracy itself produces such poor results that dealing with issues of complexity and corruption in IQ-EQ seems a lesser challenge.

Voting is perhaps the only process I want to complicate, in all other matters, including bbbee and commerce, I support dynamic and simplistic policies.

I agree with other democratic processes and institutions, except for the big one off course being who is eligible to vote, which makes it a pseudo democratic system based on the quality of men and woman.

[Marq]

Wealth and paying tax do not necessarily equate to intelligence....there are many wealthy a$$holes!

Correct - I did not suggest this.
I was suggesting another solution as Intelligence does not often equate to a correct decisions and voting patterns either.

The problem with democracy is that everybody gets to vote with no IQ standards in place.

There are plenty of intelligent a$$holes out there as well.

All systems from voting through to government and business processes, should be kept dynamic and simple. Complicate any of them and a mechanism to corrupt will evolve.

Does a higher IQ-EQ equate to higher moral values that will solve the corruption and racketeering problems that seem to have taken over as a system for governance?

Do you think a voting and governance system designed and implemented by University Boffin's with supposedly high IQ-EQ scores, will offer an adequate solution to this question?

[Marq]

Another though:-
If it was decided that only people with an IQ over 150 were allowed to vote - How long would it be before Malema and cronies burst through the voting doors with certificates declaring them to be in possession of IQ's in excess of 200?

[pmbguy]

An IQ-EQ system does not automatically solve all the problems, or automatically equate to higher moral values, no such system exists. A new system does not have to be perfect to be much better. Its rather obvious, at least in my mind, that the top 49% in IQ-EQ scores will make better choices in an election.