In a paper tent the circus has started
There is more to this, one former MP who in the sixth parliament had initiated
several estates, lost this time for his third coming bid. Another would be mp
almost killed her self as she lost all her saving to a bid that never
materialised.
The time has come to change the rules and regulations, otherwise the circus is
continuing. For us of humble status, the question still remains who changes the
rules after the outgoing parliament offered itself record pension, and wages
many Ugandans can only dream about?!
Even the greatest opposition we have had in many years could not withstand the
financial haemorrhage they forced onto the nation!
The opposition and what were they opposing?!!!
The poor will be poor. By the time this article was being written the chief
editor of the Confidential was languishing in Luzira over an unpaid debt of
over 15 million. The global fund has also restarted with interesting revelation
hope you read about them in the new on-line.
Date: Wed, 19 Apr 2000 14:20:33 EDT
Subject: ugnet_: NewVision:Wed
WHY FORGIVE THEFT?
THE PRESIDENT has pardoned the former Permanent Secretary in the Ministry of
Agriculture on condition that he pays back 20 million shillings that he stole.
The President pardoned Prof Gustavus Senyonga on the recommendation of the
Committee on the Prerogative of Mercy.
To: ugandanet@kym.net
Subject: Re: ugnet_: Ugandan Wins Ms AfroCanada
Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
X-UIDL: aee3034f0bedd08864ee49966499efd6
Pictures pictures please!
On Mon, 19 Jul 1999, Chris Opoka-Okumu wrote:
> Netters,
>
> Ugandans are holding their own not only academically but also in the
> fairness of their beauty. Yesterday Ms. Audrey Edna Zawedde Kavuma was
> crowned Ms AfroCanada at a Ms AfroCanada Beauty Pageant held in Toronto.
>
> Edna, as she is popularly known, is a student at the University of Toronto
> and is not only gifted with beauty but also with a lot brain power. She is
> gearing herself to study Medicine.
>
> Join me in saying Mazeltap to this Ugandan Beauty!
>
>
> Chris Opoka-Okumu
>
Out of the 302 MPs, 80 of them were discarded, including the would be DP leader
Kiwanuka Maurice Kagimu who had assured his constituency in Masaka of more
juicy fruits now that he was a converted NRM messiah. His message fell on deaf
ears.
An invisible number threw in the towel including former computer wizard, the
Hon. Dr. Johnson Nkuuhe, as rhetorician Hon. Nobert Moa who retreated
northwards for a lower status gun for over 80 percent victory in Gulu, throwing
out a meditated UPDF soldier for LC5.
One can imagine of village people to be inherently stupid - yes to some extent
but not always.
The new mayor is it Cambridge University trained Alhajji Nasser Ntege Ssebagala
will be sworn in come May 2006. He is talking of business people, not selling
the same thing always as they have been doing. He will therefore expand the
city for business people to have a variety of businesses. One point.
Second point, he refuses to discuss taxes but says, well expand income
sources. Another score. Throughout his campaign he avoided such complicated
issues the seyas dont understand.
As we celebrated at Kololo Saturday 4th March 2006, for NRM victory, the entire
Moslem fraternity were on the streets for Hajji victory.
Bye the way we lined from Masaka all the way on his excellence entry into the
city from Lwakitura last week a more better likehood of the repeat of 1986
rebel victory. Only that this time we the citizen in yellow T-shirt and sanja
and boda boda brought him into the center of the town.
Museveni the newly president elect, has assured Ugandans of 50% tax cut on
solar power facility that all us will have electricity. All garbage in Ugandans
towns and city is now going to be history, his excellence has got acquainted
himself with the technology to turn garbage in methane we can use for cooking
and indeed light our homesteads this will be revolution.
In campaign time his letter in the new vision pin pointed out among others,
Jaberi Bidandi Ssali, Kazoora, Musumba Salamu, and the environmentalist for
having stalled his bid to offer Ugandans free power, a deal he had designed.
Now John Kennedy Lukyamuzi is out of the way and the circus beginnings in a
paper tent.
I have read both the ELECTRICITY ACT 1964 CHAPTER 135 REVISED EDITION Published
by authority price shs 6 [1st July, 1961: an act to provide for the
re-establishment of the Uganda Electricity Board and for the exercise and the
performance by the board of functions relating to the generation, transmission,
distribution and supply of electricity and certain other matters, for the
inspection and testing of electricity plant and for the safe use of
electricity, and for purposes incidental to and connected with the matters
aforesaid] and ELECTRICITY ACT 1999 CHAPTER 145 I could not fail to laugh, see
the narrow mindedness of Africans, the sixth and seven parliament. But they
made their money by the way, i.e. 7 million x 12 months = 84,000,000 x 5 years
= ug shs 420,000,000
Let us say a prayer now that the old timers are out and new comers are in come
may fellow citizens the circus has only just started.
From: Bwanika <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: ugnet_: Is there any deal in hydropower production privatisation deal
at all?
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED], [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: ugandanet@kym.net
X-UIDL: 56e73bebccda9d43a5051d89a292ea32
Is there any deal in, hydropower production privatisation deal at all?
a. What is deregulation; which is used interchangeably with privatisation?
b. What is privatisation; which is used interchangeably with deregulation?
Let me try to tell you what Mr. Ojambo said. (see below) He said, let UEB be
deregulated into three sectors:
a) Generation
b) Transmission
c) Retailing (Distribution mine)
Whereby no hydropower-generating firm etc. will be allowed to engage in more
than one of the three functions above. He also never said that let the UEB be
privatised because there is nothing to privatise. How can you privatise a
single production entity?
But will the above mean that we have reduced the cost for power production and
who pay or simply where does the money, which pays for various administrative
and managerial entities managing different production and service entities come
from? Uganda is a developing country where incomes are very low to maximise
profits in such manner.
UEB is the only sole producer of electricity in Uganda on a commercial scale
though with some marginal subsidies. On the other hand this a self-incurred
problem through the inefficiency in the accounting section and service section.
More over the state is the largest debtor, which implies the government is
intentionally killing off UEB without paying off debts promptly.
Therefore, in order to optimise profit and productivity, you can only change
*management or organisation style * along private managerial line but not
privatise its production section, since there still will be no competitors but
only one producer, the UEB.
If we take what Mr. Ojambo suggests below it implies that we are set for two
scenarios if we privatise.
a. We are going to increase the cost of management since UEB which was managing
the three entities above will in this case be split into three units all with
their own management costs thus the cost of electricity going up or remaining
at the same price. It will be the consumer to suffer and exacerbating
underdeveloped into this sector.
b. If the case is such that we are going to have different entities managing
different production process of electricity, we\'ll be set to face,
organisational and managerial problems, leading to high costs and conflicting
firm interest which again leads to a or a duopoly.
The above, is based on a very basic argument. Electricity as an *essential
consumption commodity* not easily provided because of the infrastructural
needs, for example not every firm in the electricity business can set-up their
national electricity infrastructure will only make consumption of electricity
expensive for the peasant consumer.
Therefore, the argument that hydropower consumers can easily switch from one
distributor to another is null and void. For the distributor will have to pay
for delivering electricity from one given location to another since the
distributor might not own the national grid. Those are extra costs, which costs
will be levied on to the consumer plus some marginal profits to keep the
distributing firm into business!
But the technology is there, though very expensive for low earning or cash
strapped Ugandans. In such situations, we cannot have privatisation of
electricity production or generation- because of the cost involved in both
managerial, organisational and distribution of electricity.
Do we like privatisation? It is seems not. Why? Mr Vukoni writes an Italian
company and the Arua catholic diocese wanted to produce electricity in Arua
region. That means, UEB would have had another competitor in the production and
selling of electricity in Arua. That means in return, we would have two
producers and sellers, in that market. The result would have been, a clear
cut-throat competition, with UEB placing the products in Arua market at the
whims of market forces. Supplied at a specific price and the other electricity
producers also offering electricity at a given price. That is called
competition, along competitive production potential. The consumer will be the
winner since will decide from whom to buy electricity from.
Does the above work in real life, let us say, the above mentioned privatisation
takes place? Given the circumstances, I have mentioned above, according to Mr.
Ojambo\'s argument, I hope we will hit a dead end, if we follow Mr. Vukoni\'s
argument.
1. What will be the fate of public utilities, which use subsidised electricity
in that region, for example; schools, hospitals, army installations etc.
2. Can a private electricity producer meet what Mr. Ojambo called a *socially
desirable outcome* i.e. welfare for electricity distribution for the lowly of
society?
3. What does the government, and parliamentary committee on the economy have to
say about this situation?
4. Who owns the national grid for electricity distribution?
We are just illustrating this phenomenon, the verdict is yours fellow citizens.
Since the above can\'t work in real life, as prices for electricity and cost
for it will be unmanageable, that is the sole reason why there are the three
models, I am going to elaborate on here below to handle such complicated
situations. This is what is called game theory for capitalist to earn money on
unsuspecting consumers.
Now, Mr. Ojambo so well elaborated on the Betrand model /paradox, I have also
expounded on what is called the Cournot model -- there is one remaining, which
is called the Stackelberg model. I\'ll labour to throw light on how these three
models, are used in real life since they are the * only three models * in
economics, so far used in such situations of few market players and many
consumers to attain a socially desirable outcome.
The difference between these three models, is such that the Betrand model will
work as Mr. Ojambo has so well illustrated for us. Where there are few
producers, a sort of economic game is established --- that is where one
restricts entry of other producers because of;
a). Prices
b). Quantity produced, or where are few produces can compete for the same
market just as * followers of prices and quantity * set by the incumbents or
dominant firm in the market. In most cases, these models are used where there
are public utilities but does also happen in a market situation like the
computer manufactures, Telephone companies, beer, soda, cigarette, computer and
the clothing industry.
The Betrand model above will argue, since there are few producers in the market
let firms * simultaneously set the price * so that they can serve their
interest of *profit maximisation* or where they single handily can\'t produce
but can, cover their *marginal costs* in order to remain into the sector. But
remember there is no firm that will produce without making money.
The stupid argument in the logic, is such that, by setting prices
simultaneously they can let the market determine the *quantity of products
consumed*, let us say, Uganda\'s consumers will determine amount of
electricity consumed in Uganda. This will never happen, with *public utility
goods*, for it will only push customers out of the market, simple and clear.
The producers have no idea of the *aggregated future demand* and the consumer
is not aware of the * costs incurred by the producer*. More over the consumer
care less about the producers costs since the good is essential, but what if
they cannot pay for electricity what happens?
The above model in the real world, will lead firms to making sure, prices are
above market prices. Hence making sure, prices do not go down, to force those
firms involved out of the market or in that sense forcing them to under-
utilisation of their fixed capital where prices are simultaneously set.
That is why states subsidies public utilities.
Since UEB has been so long into the market, UEB will be the price setter, which
according to Stackelberg model, any other hydropower producer has to follow.
What do other market players do in this case? They will say NO, instead through
economic game theory ask UEB to be incorporated into them or the opposite thus
take place hence a duopoly. This means any hydropower producing company will
not belabour itself with price fluctuations or any other market uncertainties
for instance worrying itself with:
a. Profit- maximisation since it has a guarantee of payment from UEB
b. Making production choices i.e. all electricity produced by any other entity
has a sure buyer!
What is happening above is creation of an *indirect monopoly*, which these
World Bank proponents are said to want to break? Uganda wants to attain cheaper
electricity through privatisation that is....if we can get it. Can we get it
with Betrand paradox fellow citizens? The answer is NO.
Secondary, the Cournot model will argue that since firms like UEB, AES are
constrained by costs, like building a second national grid, production of
electricity, management and organisation costs. (see Vukoni below) Then let AES
Nile power, work together with UEB (marriage of convenience) such that they can
* simultaneously set the Quantity of electricity produced * as per their
production, managerial, organisational costs. The result will be a sort of
cartel or create a monopolistic tendency or a duopoly, which implies these
people will be selling electricity at a price, which suits their profit making
interests. (See Mr, Ojambo on the failure of British experiment) The results
will be exactly the same, as above in the Betrand model, only the form of
production in microeconomics of setting * prices and quantity * will differ in
both situations.
I wrote and I will repeat again, with such electricity deal, prices will never
GO DOWN, since each of these firms that is UEB and any other power generating
firm are fully aware of their economic interests, that is *profit maximisation*
and not risk taking. Once still they have to meet their *production costs*
which as of now are not known. Therefore, even if we deregulate UEB as we first
saw in Mr, Ojambo\'s situation we\'ll still have costs incurred. Thus
transferred to the consumer, a zero sum game.
Thirdly, there is a Stackelberg model which means, if AES Nile power were to go
it alone will become a * follower * of the prices set by UEB. The sole reason
why the WORLD BANK is adamant to privatise (?) UEB first not to force prices of
electricity remain or go down as it seems would have happened will UEB remain
in government hands. (See Monitor /Vision Tuesday, 02 March 1999. Kaijuka
report)
So when UEB raises quantity of electricity produced, prices falls or the vis
verse and that implies hydropower-producing firm has only one choice, to follow
in whatever condition. Hydropower-producing firms would not like to be placed
into this electricity market situation. Hydropower-producing firms come to make
money, it is not a Salvation Army, and the World Bank and IMF want a good fee
paid on their debts on such investments. That is why Hydropower-producing firms
would like a sure deal if they makes money or not it will be paid all together
because the agreement will be already in place.
The above situation, is very undesirable for economic game theory thus
Hydropower-producing firms avoid it at all costs, since it puts them in direct
competition and exposes them to a free market competition subsequently
threatening their profits margin. Hence their seemingly friendly collusion,
with UEB to form a sort of cartel or a co-operative game to manipulate ignorant
Uganda consumers. If one wants to understand this situation properly, take the
example of IBM, Compaq, and Seimens. It is always IBM, which is the market
giant the rest just jump on the bandwagon, however inefficient the products are.
The whole situation is very controversial indeed. Therefore, there is only one
solution as per hydropower production we only have to DEREGULATE the market
but not privatisation if we have no other alternative.
Let hydropower-producing firms put their future production calculation and
estimations of electricity production in the free media, so that we, the people
of Uganda, the prospective consumers, could analyse the cost and organisation
under which such firms will provide us with electricity. It is not quite
difficult to simulate such data if it does exist. They hydropower-producing
firms must have this calculation in place let them put all papers on the
table for us common people to see.
Let the hydropower-producing firms show how their activities will substantially
benefit Ugandans without extra costs.
Let the World Bank explain what it means by the* privatisation of UEB * and
what that will result into and how it will benefit Ugandans.
Proposal:
Let UEB under the prevailing above conditions, be deregulated as a middle way.
In that case, UEB working together with the parliamentary committee on the
economy and government, will remain a monopoly but * privately managed *in
decisions making for generating electricity, using bidding methods as to where
and which power plant will be built were for generating electricity in Uganda.
In that case, we avoid all the maladies of complicated economic theories. In
fact UEB should be the only *entity* entitled to borrow money for such ventures
based, on their calculation of needs since they have the data at hand.
Then the same above structure; parliament, UEB and government will be used on
district level to seek firms on a competitive basis for the distribution of
electricity throughout the country. Then we can attain efficient, customer
friendly methods of distribution and production/ generating of electricity.
Bwanika.
--------------------------------
Mr. Ojambo writes:
Subject: ugnet_: AES Nile power are broad-day light thieves.
Date: Tue, 2 Mar 1999 18:26:25 -0500 (EST)
From: George Ojambo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[Let it be known that privatisation or deregulation does not mean that the
electric sector will be free of Government Regulation. Even in Britain where
full-scale privatisation was implemented, the sector is still subject to a very
complicated price cap regulation. Let it also be said that electric woes in
Uganda may not all end with the onset of a competitive electric regime.
Now, you are of the view that duopolies are inherently evil. I tried to guide
you to a very interesting and famous outcome called \"the Bertrand paradox\".
When I stated my preference of deregulation over privatisation, I had this
paradox in mind. What does it say? It states that as long as you have more than
one player in the market/industry, that is a duopoly situation (contrast with a
monopoly) you can always achieve the same outcome in prices and welfare as
would be the case with perfect competition (many players). This can be shown
with simple calculus, which I will not do here at least for now. Accordingly,
what the Bertrand paradox shows us is that given the nature of the electric
sector, we do not need ten companies, but a minimum of two would give us the
socially desirable outcome. Think of Bell and Nile beer-it is a duopoly
relationship, but I doubt whether any of them has any market power.
This is the Bertrand paradox at work. ]
-------------------------------------------------------
INVESTOR CRITICS ARE SABOTEURS, SAYS MUSEVENI
By Jossy Muhangi & Nicholas Kajoba
PRESIDENT Museveni has said critics of foreign investors are shortsighted
saboteurs who do not see the massive benefits the resultant industries
bring to Uganda.
Museveni, was yesterday launching the Mukono district Movement referendum
committee at Kabowa Hall, Lugazi.
He said the host country takes 85% of their proceeds. He said
industrialisation was key in solving unemployment, the narrow tax base and
infrastructure.
Flanked by local government minister Bidandi Ssali and the area MPs,
Museveni said Mukono could turn into the industrial heart of Uganda if it
took advantage of its proximity to water bodies, railway, good roads and
hydro electricity.
He said Egyptian investors were due to come to Mukono\'s Lwanyonyi area to
establish about 40 factories. He said such industries bring in more jobs,
pay for raw materials, telephones and other utilities.
He said instead of encouraging industrialists, some politicians are
frustrating them with unnecessary delays. \"I need to push such saboteurs,\"
he said.
Museveni hailed N.M. Mehta for employing over 7,000 Ugandans and paying
billions of shillings in taxes. He compared him with a \"cow which people
milk and take proceeds to their different homes while Mehta\'s role is
entrepreneurship (kuyiiya).
Museveni promised a solution to the questions raised in a 12-page
memorandum presented by the Mukono referendum committee chairman, Mr. Blick
Sewannonda.
He said Buvuma islands would get a ferry, the Kyetume-Katosi-Buikwe road
would be upgraded to link with Lake Victoria beaches and the
Galiraya-Kawongo road in Baale. Mukono town will get water supply.
Bidandi said plans were underway for town councils to be catered for by
local government capital development funds to protect them against weak laws.
Ends.
Bwanika
________
http://www.idrconsulting.com
--> for your consultancy needs
_______________________________________________
Ugandanet mailing list
Ugandanet@kym.net
http://kym.net/mailman/listinfo/ugandanet
% UGANDANET is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/
The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
---------------------------------------
