[mschuster91]

Europe and in particular Germany or the US shows just how bad that can end up as well. When private companies seize control of utilities - water, electricity, gas, internet, railway, streets - they inevitably end up cutting corners, deferring or ignoring maintenance, firing support staff and generally reducing service quality while keeping to raise rates to make the money back for the banks that backed the loans. Or, in the worst case, prioritize the rich and privileged in case of under-supply over the poor masses, and not doing anything to expand the supply because it works well enough for those who pay better and those who end up shafted don't have seats in the lobby.

That's not to say that nationalized or majority-government-owned companies can't fuck up either, France's EDF or Germany's Deutsche Bahn prove that, but at least the government there can be held accountable by the general public in elections.

[jcbrand]

South Africans would be overjoyed to have stable electricity and clean water to the extent that Germans have.

The problems Europeans complain about are on a much higher level and can't be compared to having 2 to 4 hours blackouts every day for the majority of the year, or to having the water cut off regularly or various other examples of state failure.

> but at least the government there can be held accountable by the general public in elections.

This is tenuous at best in advanced democracies and practically non-existent in many developing countries, like South Africa.

South Africa has had rolling blackouts since around 2007, and the same government that's caused this mess is still in power.

[mschuster91]

> South Africans would be overjoyed to have stable electricity and clean water to the extent that Germans have.

Not disputing that - but I fear that allowing private/venture capital to intervene will further solidify existing discrimination issues in the long term, even if it may show quick improvements short term.

[jcbrand]

> I fear that allowing private/venture capital to intervene will further solidify existing discrimination issues in the long term, even if it may show quick improvements short term

South Africa's discrimination issues are largely due to the state and not private capital or the private sector.

The private sector on the whole would be happy to hire and provide services to any race or ethnicity, but the state has always aggressively intervened in favor of certain ethnic groups. During Apartheid it was intervening in favor of white people, today it's in favor of black Africans.

Many of the current discrimination issues are a result of the (Apartheid) state actively impeding the economic development of black people.

The current electricity crisis is in no small part due to the current state actively discriminating against skilled white employees (forcing them into early retirement, hiring based on race and not skills, forcing Eskom to procure from black-owned companies who are often just middle-men adding huge markups due to their regulatory capture).

[ycombinete]

I’m not sure what you mean when you say “discrimination issues”, as there are a plethora of overlapping discrimination issues happening in South Africa.

But I can tell you that the current situation is only making the divide between rich and poor greater. The worse it gets the greater the divide will grow as basic things like water and electricity become more scarce.

It’s not about allowing private/venture capital to intervene. People are going off grid because it’s the only choice. Unless you’re talking about allowing private companies to provide power to the grid? I’m not sure what the solution is there.