Thread: THOUSANDS SIGN PETITION ASKING TRUMP TO LET WHITE FARMERS IN SOUTH AFRICA MIGRATE TO

Sorry, we're full.

Expropriating land without compensation is impossible—take it from Zimbabwe

March 01, 2018Quartz Africa

South Africa will now begin to reclaim land taken from black people near a century ago without payback to the current owners, dividing public sentiment along fears of a “land grab” and cries for justice. On Feb. 27, lawmakers overwhelmingly voted in favor to amend the constitution to allow land expropriation without compensation.

This is a marked shift in policy, and comes at a time when land reform (through both the State and market) has made more progress than experts and policy makers care to admit. The African National Congress’ decision to back a motion by the more radical newcomers, the Economic Freedom Fighters also disregarded the facts about the stalled progress of existing land redistribution and restitution programs in post-apartheid South Africa. The decision comes after the ANC chose to formally adopt the policy at their December conference after a heated debate.

Ironically, South Africa’s decision comes at a time when the Zimbabwean government has established a compensation committee under its land acquisition act to allow for dispossessed white, former commercial farmers to be compensated for land seized 18 years ago. It also begs the question why the ANC and the EFF are taking a position that its revolutionary counterparts from across the Limpopo River are departing from. Nonetheless, if the Zimbabwean experience were not sufficient to proffer some fundamental lessons for South Africa, then it would be prudent to point out a number of facts that should call on policy makers to reconsider this new direction.
With the benefit of hindsight, the Zimbabwean experience tells us is that the notion of expropriation without compensation is a bad idea. Zimbabweans might have seized the land without compensation 18 years ago, but they collectively paid for it through eight consecutive years of economic decline that led to job losses, deindustrialization and a loss of agricultural export revenues. In 2009, economist Eddie Cross estimated the cost of Zimbabwe’s land reform at $20 billion–which included lost export revenues, food aid imports and economic growth foregone, which could’ve sustained Zimbabwe’s once promising economy, had it not seized farms without compensation.

After unemployment rates of over 90% and tepid growth in recent years, the Zimbabwean government is going back to correct the fundamental mistake it made nearly two decades ago – which is to compensate farmers, whose estimated compensation costs are set to amount to $11 billion. The moral of the story is if the government declines to directly compensate its commercial sector for land improvements, at the very least, then someone else will have to pay for it, indirectly. The compensation effect, as we would like to call it, will see the entire economy and its citizenry paying for land seizures through lost agriculture export revenues, job opportunities and more.

In the South African scenario, there are two immediate points that are worth noting: the difficulty in implementing expropriation without compensation, and the implications of the policy. Firstly, if the constitution is amended accordingly to allow for land to be expropriated without compensation,how would the law cater for the assets on the farm and improvements made on the land?

The land on its own is roughly 10% of the total value of a typical farm operation, if fixed and moveable assets are taken into account. Would sunk investments that make up the rest of the 90%, like general farm infrastructure, machinery and and other investments, be subject to expropriation without compensation too? If compensation is due for farm assets, and not the land itself, then the technical argument that arises is: Would it be prudent for government to pay 90% in compensating farmers for improvements to the land, in order to obtain the 10% that represents the actual land value?

Second is the complication that would emerge from the existing fact that South African agricultural land is heavily indebted. Farm debt emanating from title deeds to secure loans already stands at over $13.7 billion (160 billion rand), bringing into question how the government will handle indebted land. If farmers aren’t compensated, will the state repay to banks who are de facto partial owners of that land through debt? If government exonerates itself from compensating the banks, this would translate to $13.7 billion wiped off the banks’ books.

If government commits to cover this debt, it contradicts the policy, becoming instead expropriation with compensation—except that the money goes to the bank not the farmer. Let us assume that the government is sensible enough to compensate the commercial farmer for improvements made to land as well as the bank through debt owed by the farmers.

If it happens that the government determines the value of infrastructure and investments on the farms, and then uses that same value to cover the debt that is owed to the banks, then there are situations that could arise where farmers receive “zero compensation”. There might also be situations where seized farms are insolvent, in which case, the government would have to pay the banks the balance of what is owed by the farmers whose land they are seizing. This scenario is already permissible under the current constitution and does not require an amendment of any law.

The South African government will soon discover the extremely complex technical headache of expropriating land without compensation. By then, land reform may have stalled altogether. This could lead to further public impatience, placated by the kind reforms that could allow the government to seize land with impunity.

Zimbabwe's growth has slowed since 2011 and is now going negative Chart.

We saw this in Zimbabwe when commercial farmers took the Zimbabwean government to court over land seizures. The courts were inundated with litigations that would’ve taken the government an entire generation to resolve. Then, in another moment of madness in 2003, the constitution was amended to nullify all those cases brought to the courts by commercial farmers. In that instance, the Zimbabwean government wanted to get rid of the headaches that emerged from land seizures, but wiped off $10 billion in land value.

With the benefit of the Zimbabwean experience, most of which people are quick to ignore and dismiss, we learn an important lesson that needs to be the hallmark of land reform thinking in South Africa. This lesson is that there is no such thing as expropriation without compensation in a quasi-capitalist economy. The history of land expropriation under apartheid has left a painful wound in South African society, which indeed ought to be corrected. However, the enduring principle of equitable and just (not necessarily market value) compensation in contemporary economics serves as an important reference point.

If the South African government seizes private property for free, someone somewhere within the economy will have to pay, whether directly through loss in current and future on farm job opportunities as well as export revenues, or through protracted economic decline that will erode the purchasing power of money, losses in pensions and savings, and deindustrialisation that will destroy future economic growth and off-farm job opportunities for the current generation.

Professor Johann Kirsten and Wandile Sihlobo are South African agricultural economists.
https://qz.com/1218309/south-africa-...g-white-farms/

Originally Posted by 6 Million Dollar Man

Sorry, we're full.

What bothers me about the South African refugee argument is this: Although it may be intellectually honest to be consistent in opposition to all emigration (as I am also, in principle) in the real world where life happens it becomes contradictory in practice. Our immigration system is pretty much on automatic pilot. With or without the Bores the green cards continue to flow and the illegals will sneak in, anchor babies will be born and hordes will become naturalized citizens. Refusing entry to South Africans will do nothing to affect the out of control mass migration as it is now. The numbers will not be reduced, instead it will simply make more room to bring in Hispanics, Muslims etc. who fill in the void. They will be given legal status that might have gone to some South Africans. In an immigration system that is already biased against Europeans the bias will only become worse.

I agree we need to stop all immigration for a generation, but until the time when we get strict control over immigration, the only thing keeping out South Africans will accomplish will be to further exaggerate the inherent bias against Whites that already exists in immigration policies. When we truly have control over foreigners entering our country, I will lead the charge to stop all immigration, but until then I am not going to support blocking people who are truly in danger of being murdered in mass for the benefit of those who only want to make more money.

These are criminal violence issues, same as El Salvador and other countries controlled by gangs, thugs and drug cartels. It is no different. We can't use crimes in their country as a reason to be a refugee.

Also, based on the article I posted and some others I read, the situation is still in the works, still being worked on, not final or resolved yet as to how this moves forward. I think they'll work it out.

Originally Posted by Judy

These are criminal violence issues, same as El Salvador and other countries controlled by gangs, thugs and drug cartels. It is no different. We can't use crimes in their country as a reason to be a refugee.

Also, based on the article I posted and some others I read, the situation is still in the works, still being worked on, not final or resolved yet as to how this moves forward. I think they'll work it out.

We have become too accustomed to accepting people that use drugs and gangs as an excuse. There is a difference between being afraid of gang violence and systematic political, racial genocide.

Additionally, with the South African black empowerment laws, whites that are not farmers, can't get jobs, so they cannot support themselves and wind up living in camps. Most of the people in the camps are children.

This video is from February 18,2018, last week.

Inside South Africa's White Displacement Camps



Published on Feb 20, 2018



#FARMLANDS Official Site: https://goo.gl/PKkfAh

Thank you so much for watching this series from South Africa. If you'd like to know more about this particular camp and how you can help, please contact Kobus Cremer at madbtech@gmail.comIf you'd like to support me in creating more projects like this one, please check out the links below.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jq0GReiZyKcLauren Southern


Extra material; Lauren Southern in South Africa




Palaestra Media
]Published on Jan 22, 2018

Jonas Nilsson from Boerproject interviewing Lauren Southern about her own documentary reagarding the farm attacks in South Africa. Lauren Southernhttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCla6...Boerprojectwww.boerproject.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YB4-VtcQK_A


South Africa is Killing the Farmlands


Lauren Southern
Published on Feb 27, 2018

#FARMLANDS Official Site: https://goo.gl/PKkfAhThank you so much for watching this series from South Africa. If you'd like to support trips like this and help us turn these stories into a full-length documentary, there are a few ways you can get involved:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=odFnOOfkYCs

We have homeless people living in far worse conditions than that. It's a sad commentary but there's sadness, racism, crime, etc., all over the world. They'll have to work it out. BUT, that said, exposing it worldwide is very important because this puts pressure on the South African problem to come to solutions. But South Africa doesn't have enough jobs for all the people, they never did, that's why it was so easy for them to arrange Apartheid policies and get away with it for so long.

White Farmers Slaughtered in South Africa | Lauren Southern and Stefan Molyneux



Stefan Molyneux

Published on Feb 10, 2018

MP3: https://www.fdrpodcasts.com/#/3996/wh...Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/stefan-molyneu...Lauren Southern is an independent journalist and the author of "Barbarians: How the Baby Boomers, Immigration and Islam Screwed My Generation." Order "Barbarians: How the Baby Boomers, Immigration and Islam Screwed My Generation" now:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0TfAq3LrIjg

The Truth About Nelson Mandela



Stefan Molyneux
Published on Dec 9, 2013

Nelson Mandela is portrayed in the mainstream media as a peace-loving anti-apartheid revolutionary and philanthropist. But what is the truth about Nelson Mandela?Correction: For decades, Mandela supported nationalization, but abandoned his plans after being informed of the negative effects they would likely engender.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7HyuLPWF9I


Rare Video: Nelson Mandela Speaking on Palestine [Extracts]




BDS South Africa
Published on Dec 16, 2013

1990 Town Hall Meeting with Nelson Mandela on Palestine, Cuba and other issuesThe above video is a collection of extracts from a 1990 town hall meeting, held in New York City and chaired by Ted Koppel of ABC Networks. The meeting formed part Nelson Mandela's first visit to the USA immediately following his release from prison.

A significant part of the town hall meeting focused on Nelson Mandela's advocating (on behalf of the African National Congress and the larger South African liberation struggle) for sanctions to be applied against Apartheid South Africa, his and the ANC's support for the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) as well as his close friendship with Yasser Arafat (of Palestine) and Fidel Castro (of Cuba).

The town hall meeting took place in 1990, long before the world had embraced Nelson Mandela as a "giant of justice". However, even then, when it may have been unfashionable and unpopular to support the Palestinians against, what Mandela termed, Israeli "colonialism", Mandela stood firm and resolute on his principles and the policies of the ANC - Mandela was, after all, conveying the long-standing positions held by the ANC and the larger South African liberation movement. Nelson Mandela supported the Palestinian struggle when it was unfashionable and unpopular, he was a true leader. Hamba Kahle Tata...

For more information: http://ymlp.com/zKJiYw--------------------

REFERENCES MADE BY NELSON MANDELAPLO:

The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) was created in 1964 with the purpose of advancing the struggle for Palestinian self determination. The PLO is recognised as the "sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people" by over 100 countries with which it holds diplomatic relations. Like South Africa's (now ruling ANC) the PLO was considered by the United States and Israel to be a terrorist organisation until 1991. In 1993 Israel officially recognised the PLO as the representative of the Palestinian people.YASSER ARAFAT: Late leader of the Palestinian people as well as chairman of the PLO.--------------------FULL VERSION OF THE INTERVIEW AND VIDEO: http://youtu.be/q6eE9BIUfBg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5TiUhhm7cQ

Originally Posted by Newmexican

At 4:17 she states they don't know the language...

They have been there 400 years and they don't know the language?

Disgusting!

South Africa was completely segregated. Blacks were in those awful tenement camps during Apatheid which started not the 400 years ago, but with some new idea that came around after 1913.