Zambia Needs a reset
With all that is happening and the daily deluge of negative news I think the President and his team need to take a pause and reflect more deeply and make an honest introspection to identify what is working well and what is not and reset. Yes we all wanted the PF out but three years down the road all we see is either blame PF for all the wrong or we justify by saying PF also did the same wrong things! I do not believe that is the way to govern a country. There is real struggle out there for the majority of Zambia.
Telling a hungry man that at least there are no cadres just makes that hungry man an angry man! Mr. President @HHichilema, I know you will read this. I appeal to you Sir, take time away from the noise and reflect and come back refreshed and reset the direction of the Govt and nation. You and I over many years debated, analysed and discussed why Zambia needed a real change. Honestly, I cannot see any of the brilliant ideas you had my brother. I continue to pray for you and the nation. God guide and counsel you with wisdom. To my friends and colleagues that suddenly have become enemies because I speak truth to power and have the courage of my convictions, I beg you have a heart for the nation. Put Zambia First not your party, tribe or selfish greed. I come in genuine desire to see a better Zambia.
Article below provides a clear explanation of this Law.
The Law of Unintended Consequences
by Rob Norton
The law of unintended consequences, often cited but rarely defined, is that actions of people, and especially of governments, always have effects that are unanticipated or "unintended." Economists and other social scientists have heeded its power for centuries; for just as long, politicians and popular opinion have largely ignored it.
The concept of unintended consequences is one of the building blocks of economics. Adam Smith's "invisible hand," the most famous metaphor in social science, is an example of a positive unintended consequence. Smith maintained that each individual, seeking only his own gain, "is led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention," that end being the public interest. "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, or the baker, that we expect our dinner," Smith wrote, "but from regard to their own self interest."
Most often, however, the law of unintended consequences illuminates the perverse unanticipated effects of legislation and regulation. In 1692 John Locke, the English philosopher and a forerunner of modern economists, urged the defeat of a parliamentary bill designed to cut the maximum permissible rate of interest from 6 percent to 4 percent. Locke argued that instead of benefiting borrowers, as intended, it would hurt them. People would find ways to circumvent the law, with the costs of circumvention borne by borrowers. To the extent the law was obeyed, Locke concluded, the chief results would be less available credit and a redistribution of income away from "widows, orphans and all those who have their estates in money."
The first and most complete analysis of the concept of unintended consequences was done in 1936 by the American sociologist Robert K. Merton. In an influential article titled "The Unanticipated Consequences of Purposive Social Action," Merton identified five sources of unanticipated consequences. The first two, and the most pervasive, were ignorance and error.
Merton labeled the third source the "imperious immediacy of interest." By that he was referring to instances in which an individual wants the intended consequence of an action so much that he purposefully chooses to ignore any unintended effects. (That type of willful ignorance is very different from true ignorance.) A nation, for example, might ban abortion on moral grounds even though children born as a result of the policy may be unwanted and likely to be more dependent on the state.
Are you interested in joining the @UKinZambia team?
We are currently looking for a Community Liaison Officer to join the team.
If you're the one, apply here >>> https://t.co/AykZF4Qb0p
THE MINDSET RANT – THE MINES OR OTHER MEANS OF PRODUCTION OWNERSHIP DEBATE
Before we present a proposed detailed technical paper on mine ownership and capital raising in the near future, lets first get angry at the mindset.
‘We all know that Zambians can’t run the mines’ someone says. Then another person comments ‘Zambians overrate themselves’. Another makes reference to the failure by “Zambians” to run parastatals. Parastatals???
Ironically and disappointingly so, many people making such comments are young people. Ignorantly they don’t know that the weight of this country and its many challenges is on their shoulders. The supermen who are supposed to change the country with wild ideas including creating an environment where Zambians run mines have given up. Clearly they don’t believe in themselves.
Without careful study and deeper understanding, they have their own conclusions why certain things happen the way they happen. ‘You think Zambians can run a mine when they have failed to run Zamtel’. Ignorantly and shouting loudly, to them a private owned Zambian or consortium of Zambians company is equated to a parastatal. A debt ridden Zesco and a profit making Copperbelt Energy Corporation (CEC) are the same.
I think we need to get serious and look at enforcing a culture of reading and learning basic knowledge. Not just studying Maths and English or Chemist and Physics or Biology and Agriculture Sciences but a culture of reading information and understanding these things. I think children must discover in school the truth for example how parastatals have failed. How governments have failed to address system deformities. It doesn’t help that young people are growing up with a wrong mindset.
And young people or rather people in general must understand that their political affiliation does not stop them from being objective. When we say Zambians must own mines or means of production, for starters we are not attacking the government. Secondly we crying out to the government to put in structures that will ensure that Zambian companies are given certain advantages by putting deliberate policies so that they can sell a stake and raise capital. This is possible.
While we appreciate the government initiative on the ownership of some mines, we want Zambian individuals and Zambian consortiums to be in the driving seat. This dynamic is critical. Firstly, when Zambians make profits they will invest them here in Zambia creating more opportunities and jobs. When Zambian individuals or consortiums make profits their spending or investment priorities will be different from that of government. This will diversify the tackling of the country’s problems as opposed to entrusting everything in the government treasury. Private companies are also run efficiently than government owned parastatals.
There are many reasons to justify private ownership of the means of production but the main one should be why not? All we are saying is that let’s create deliberate government policy or an environment that helps our people thrive even in owning mines or banks. In our society our systems make it difficult for our people to thrive. In fact, for Africa the story is the same almost everywhere. Firstly, because of our archaic colonial systems (no apologies) and secondly you know why, because of the ignorant, retarded mindset (no apologies).
Your political affiliation should not make you blind to the realities to the extent of discounting your own abilities. Like be realistic Zambians can't run mines. The dumbest thing is for people to ask people like us to invest in mines because we are advocating for Zambians to own mines. So you cannot see that that we have chosen a path to contribute to the policies of this country so that we can build an equal society for all? A place of opportunities.
Zambians can run mines. Zambians can own and run the means of production in every sector from mining, banking, energy, manufacturing, agriculture etc. Zambians can run multinational companies. Zambians can create new ideas. If fact if there is any reason why few Zambians are not thriving, it’s the system that is stifling them.
People need to understand where we are coming without ignorantly dismissing certain things. Did you know that the education system a few decades ago, was deliberately designed in such a way that Africans could not study certain things? Why do you think the first priority after independence was mass education? Do you know that our system at some point was deliberately designed that Africans could not rise to certain positions? Did you know that at some point the system in America or South Africa was designed that Africans could not vote? Most of the things you see that don’t seem to work were crafted that way.
You openly and ignorantly say Zambians cannot do big things because your system was deliberately designed that way. Why do you think Zambians and other Africans have gone on to excel in environments that have given them opportunities? Dr. Dambisa Moyo, Clive Chirwa, Patson Daka, Enock Mwepu, Kalusha Bwalya and there are a lot of other Zambians doing big things quietly that we know or don’t know of. The story is true of main Africans. Why do you think we always hear ‘he or she was the first African to be this or that?’ Because Africans were cut out.
What’s the difference? Why are black people excelling in things they were once told they couldn’t? Why did Elon Musk leave South Africa and go on to excel in America and become the richest man in the world. Forget about his early childhood privilege. That’s not what made him wealth. He went into an environment that could accept his craziness.
Clearly outside sorting out the environment, the structures that were deliberately designed to make us believe we can’t do things, the structures that stifle the local people, I am afraid we still need a big HAMMER to work on the minds. So disappointing that the young people who should be advocating for wild dreams are the ones demeaning themselves.
Nine years ago at thirty-four years old before I could even qualify for Presidency, I led a team to register our movement and political party, the People’s Alliance for Change (PAC). A year later at 35 I attempted the office of the President and came out 4th out nine. At 40 I attempted again and came out 4th out of sixteen. I am the youngest person to have ever stood for the office of the President of Zambia. It has not been a bed of roses in fact, it’s a long story. We are still pushing and we are consistent with our beliefs. The point is that I am not alone, a lot of other young people are yearning to change things in their areas of passions but we need a system that supports them. We can do this and we shall do it.
“STAY HUNGRY ! STAY FOOLISH !
Andyford Mayele Banda
President
People’s Alliance for Change (PAC)
Even organiser: Let's tell them 17:30 so that we can start at 18:00hrs
Event attendees: They said 17:30, so it'll probably start at 18:30.
Event: Starts at 19hrs.
My people fight time with their whole hearts.😭😔
My next job will close on 15 December, permanent with benefits, be my salary expectation, value my work & be hybrid. The office culture will be calm and my life will be in balance. That’s it !🤍👏
A question for young married men.
Did your marriage counselor say you should tell your mother to stop asking you for help & instead ask your wife, because you're now married? If so, are you doing it? I'm here to say it's very disrepectful whatever the objective #MothersDay
Good morning Twitter Fam, I’m finally dropping my skincare line starting with these amazing serums, please help me RT, orders can be made via call or WhatsApp on 0975092545 🙏🏾. A proudly Zambian Skincare Brand 🥹🥂
I recently spent two weeks in #Zambia, mainly in Lusaka, meeting clients, conducting research, speaking to government officials. Here are some of my key takeaways 🧵🇿🇲