For what it's worth I think telecommunications companies like Starlink should be given the option of making an equivalent equity investment rather than giving away an ownership stake, as is allowed in other sectors. And the overall policy is being reviewed with an eye to possibly making that an option which I see as a good thing: https://www.bee.co.za/post/ict-sector-bee-code-under-the-mic...
But all telecommunications companies should be able to operate on a level policy playing field. Musk right now is trying to use his privileged access to the White House to apply intense economic and political pressure on South Africa in order to receive special treatment for Starlink compared to its competitors. I'm certainly not a fan of that.
I think this is what Musk wants but isn't getting.
The offer for free internet to the schools is an interesting one. Given the large size of South Africa fibre is never going to reach most places outside of major urban centres anytime soon. This poses an interesting considering for the rural child who stands to benefit from Starlink. My parents use Starlink and I don't care for Musk's politics. It is the best and only solution where they are located. Perhaps these rural kids in SA should be given Starlink too. No one is ever going to solve the politics in totality. There will always be a challenge.
As I said, there's much to be debated about the South African government's implementation of racial redress policies, but that the social and economic impacts of Apartheid still linger so sharply strongly implies that some level of redress policy remains necessary.
People could complain, well you can do that because you’re the biggest market. We need to protect local businesses. But the USA can go protectionist too. We’re all going to end up paying the protectionist tax.
Look at TikTok, DJI etc. It's not that simple. Also the reason US companies are in China is because it is worth it for them, trust me.
You also seem to be forgetting the tech/software dominance the US has around the world.
But in principle I agree with you, this should of course include the US closing its bases outside of its own territory. Why? Because if you want to have bases on someone's territory so that you can protect your economic interests you have to offer something of value in return. If not, why should you have the right to stay?
As for SA, they're trying to kickstart their own industry as a relatively poor country, same as India. Guess what? The US was extremely protectionist when it was building its own industry.
The example about the cars is also outright false, the Tesla Shanghai Gigafactory for example is 100% foreign owned.
The only true statement you made was that you can't sell video games in China without a local publisher. Even so, I doubt the U.S. allowing foreign citizens to sell games without a local partner is the sole basis for your "We need to protect local businesses with protectionism!" argument.
not quite. it depends on the industry. there are certain industries -- telecom being one of them -- where a JV is required
also, your company is not a regular company, but in a special category and subject to other restrictions that a Chinese-owned or JV isn't subject to
it's easiest in manufacturing especially if you have a company that is basically manufacturing for export
it used to be very difficult, but it's gotten easier in recent years; but it's very different than having a business in the US that is foreign owned
While there is much to criticise in South Africa's implementation of racial redress laws, at least some part of the Starlink issues in SA are Musk's insistence on turning it into a crusade because of his broader white-nationalist hatred of South Africa's black government.