According to this article in the London Review of Books the banking crisis is still at work undermining the UK economy and the full effects are still to be felt.

Once it all comes out in the wash, the UK economy is going to be in the doldrums, or worse, for a long, long time. It doesn’t look like we will be finding lots of prospective customers from our, up to now, #1 provider of tourists to buy condos and park their yachts at the new Harrison’s Point development.

It’s Finished
John Lanchester

SNIP

The 30 per cent collapse in the value of sterling over the last months is something which is only just beginning to be noticed by the public at large; but it is unlikely to go away as quickly as it arrived. The reason sterling has crashed is simple: the markets are pricing in the fact that we the taxpayer are on the hook for the losses made by our banks. The markets assume that we can’t or won’t default on our government debts – that would mean we simply can’t afford to pay back the amount we’re currently borrowing. They’re probably right about that. But Alistair Darling’s desperately grim Budget made it clear just how deep in the mire we are. As for how bad it is, and how quickly it’s gone bad, well: in March last year, at the time of the Budget, the projected deficit for 2009-10 was £38 billion. By 24 November, the projected deficit was £118 billion. In the Budget on 22 April, Darling admitted that the real figure is going to be £175 billion. The total projected borrowing for the next four years is £606 billion. National debt will hit 79 per cent of GDP – the highest peacetime figure ever. The economy is going to have its worst year since 1945. The debt is going to cost in the range of £35 to £47 billion a year to service. That’s just the debt alone; we’re going to be spending more on debt than we are on the entire transport budget. Perhaps New Labour might consider changing its motto from ‘Education, education, education’ to ‘Debt, debt, debt’.

That means tax rises, a near total freeze on government spending, swingeing public-sector job cuts, companies laying off every worker they can to save costs, and a dramatic upward spike in unemployment. The one easy thing the government will be able to do to help itself is to make inflation go up – that helps, because it decreases the real cost of the debt. An inflation rate of 5 per cent means that the debt goes down in cost by 5 per cent every year, magically and just by itself. From the point of view of a heavily indebted government, that’s good news; for other parts of the economy, for borrowers and for anyone holding sterling, it’s less good. To compound this already desperate picture, we also have huge levels of personal debt, directly arising from our credit bubble. The average British household owes 160 per cent of its annual income. That makes us, individually and collectively, a lot like the cartoon character who’s run off the end of a cliff and hasn’t realised it yet. None of this is secret, and investors looking at the prospects for sterling are making up their minds and bailing out. The investor-pundit Jim Rogers, colleague of George Soros, is advising anyone who will listen to ‘sell any sterling you might have. It’s finished. I hate to say it, but I would not put any money in the UK.’ This isn’t nice or polite, but it puts into the public domain what a lot of international money men are saying in private. More to the point, it’s a policy on which they have already acted. This is the reason an auction of government debt held in March failed. The debt was for 40-year bonds paying out at a rate of 4.25 per cent, and the reason it failed to sell everything on offer – the last time that happened was in 2002 – is that the markets thought inflation likely to rise, making the bonds a bad bet.

And the reason for that is that we in Britain are, to use a technical economic term, screwed. Economies across the whole world are struggling. Because nobody is spending money, even relatively blameless countries such as Germany, with low levels of debt and workforces who actually make things, are having a difficult time. Germany’s economy is predicted to contract by 5.4 per cent this year. A banker explained it like this: ‘When your country’s economy depends on people buying a car every three years, and they decide that they’ll only buy a car every five years, you’re f****d. Off a cliff.’ So the German economy is f****d off a cliff. But it will recover, when people start buying cars again, and when it does, at least their underlying levels of debt are manageable. Something similar goes for Spain, where the ending of the property boom has caused a spike in unemployment to 17.4 per cent, almost doubling in a year, or Ireland, which has contracted by a truly horrendous 8 per cent and where people have gone from owning private helicopters to losing their homes in six months flat. All of these countries are in deep trouble. But there are four things you don’t want to have, going into the current crisis. 1. You don’t want to have had a boom based on a property bubble. 2. You don’t want to have a consumer credit bubble. 3. You don’t want to have an economy based on financial services. 4. You don’t want your government to have just gone on a massive spending spree. We have all four of those things that you don’t want.

SNIP

I get the strong impression, talking to people, that the penny hasn’t fully dropped. As the ultra-bleak condition of our finances becomes more and more apparent people are going to ask increasingly angry questions about how we got into this predicament. The drop in sterling, for instance, means that prices for all sorts of goods will go up just as oil and gas prices have spiked downwards. Combined with job losses – a million people are forecast to lose their jobs this year, taking unemployment back to Thatcherite levels – and tax rises, and inflation, and the increasing realisation that the cost of the financial crisis is going to be paid not over a few years but over a generation, we have a perfect formula for a deep and growing anger. Expectations have risen a lot, over the last three decades; that’s going to have a big impact on how furious people feel about the hard years ahead. The level of future public spending cuts implied in Darling’s recent budget – which included the laughably optimistic idea that the economy will grow by 1.25 per cent next year – is greater than the level of cuts implemented by Thatcher. Remember, that’s the optimistic version. If we’re lucky, it won’t be any worse than Thatcherism.

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v31/n10/lanc01_.html

Interesting article by Green Monkey. It only emphasises the vulnerability of small open economies like Barbados. Of more importance is the need for good planning and efficiency in managing our economy. The follow of sustaining development based on FDI and construction has been exposed.

There are many complaints about selling our land to foreigners for development, particularly tourism development. This is obviously not the ideal way to earn foreign exchange.

We have very few good alternatives. Maybe we all should start to discuss alternative development strategies that would provide the resources to pay for the”cost of high living”

Mark, why don’t you give up? Who is listening?

Are you trying to prove that the PDC is the best kept secret in the world! Or an empty vessel? A “party” with no members?

Thompson marches to this beat David,no one can tell me different.
http://www.savethemales.ca/confirmedrockefeller_plan_to_g.html

click on home and read the other articles,you will be amazed.

Very Interesting free willy!

The question still remains: “How does this country earn enough foreign exchange to pay for our life- style?

PDC or whatever people write like the typical student of politics and sociology who have no idea of how the real world works.

It does not take the wisdom of Solomon to know that our approach to development is not the best.

Please give us some alternatives that allow the people to maintain our improve their standard of living.

Here is an outside perspective:

Earth, This Realm, This Little England

by Isabel Fonseca

Nowadays, the entire west coast, including the Sandy Lane, seems like one long gated celebrity fortress, blocking not only the view of the beach but access to it, too. Beaches in Barbados are public, but some of them can be reached only by boat. In any case, apart from their sunsets, the west coast beaches are overrated—often overburdened, overbuilt, or eroded little coves with no room to walk and mostly rocky, hard-to-enter waters. There are, of course, exceptions, such as Gibbes Beach, or Mullins Beach, just below Speightstown. And it’s from the west coast that you can see the vast cruise ships—transformed each night into spangled barges, or, as I come to think of them, fallen constellations. Chay Davis calls Barbados "an aspirational destination," the equivalent, I think, of buying a Mercedes that you can’t afford. The island is expensive—the restaurants sometimes shockingly so.

Behind the high walls, there are lovely houses and some very lavish hotels. And sometimes there is nothing. Blocks and blocks of road at Clearwater Bay, the south end of the west coast, are sealed off by beachfront billboards covered with glossy and hopeful images of seemingly stalled resorts and villas under construction there. The whole notion of these overdone, out-of-scale palaces seems increasingly anachronistic.

The south coast is relaxed and easy—also best for swimming and walking, whether on the beach or along the new and still extending boardwalk. Many pavements on this side of the island are too narrow or crumbled for use, so the boardwalk is an inspired addition, particularly for the bikini-clad kittens who prowl this mile-long raised catwalk. But it’s the wind-lashed east coast that’s looking more and more like real luxury: empty, unspoiled, open to the sea, and with not one fancy hotel. Even though the old Atlantis Hotel has shut down (this retreat of the great Bajan novelist George Lamming—and much-missed supplier of the island’s best ABC, or all-Bajan cuisine—is currently undergoing a thorough renovation), it’s not hard to see why the locals have always chosen to spend their days off on the island’s breezy side. On my own half-day off (a child has lost a sweater and I’ve returned alone to hunt for it), I can’t resist a soak in nature’s hot tub, the rock pool. Submerged up to my neck and—safe from wincing children—freely singing Joni Mitchell’s "the wind is in from Africa . . .," I could sit here forever, watching the surfers skim the mesmerizing white ribbons of foam and admiring the massive, exquisitely eroded boulders that dot the shallows at Bathsheba like a stately sequence of public sculptures. Before I head home, I freshen up at the Sea Side Bar, a nearby rum shop (there is reportedly one of these charming dives per square mile on Barbados), where I hear Australian voices, Americans, and Brits.

Brits of all shapes, tastes, and pockets feel at home in Barbados. In addition to seaside towns called Hastings and Worthing, just as on England’s own south coast, here you have an entire district called Scotland. The eleven parishes that make up Barbados are Christ Church, St. Andrew, St. George, St. James, (Continued from page 57) St. John, St. Joseph, St. Lucy, St. Michael, St. Peter, St. Philip, and St. Thomas. The port capital of Bridgetown not only has its own Nelson’s Column, opposite the parliament buildings, in what until ten years ago was called Trafalgar Square (now National Heroes Square), but the Bridgetown Nelson has been standing at attention for nearly thirty years longer than his much loftier, or higher-up, twin in London’s Trafalgar Square. Despite the renaming, you can’t get away from it: Even the "native" food here was brought by the British; the bland breadfruit, specially cultivated as a good cheap fuel for slaves, was initially imported by Captain Bligh of the Bounty.

‘Land use policy’ is just another catch phrase being tossed about by persons who wish to appear to be of superior minds; but as Student X asks none can give an alternative.

Count and tell us where all the windows to the sea have gone?

@ Camper

“Prime Minister David Thompson is on record that the Eastern Seaboard of Barbados is off-limits.”

Useless approach to the issue at hand!!

@ Mash up & Buy back

“I am very concerned that this government has not introduced legislation to allow non nationals to only lease and not buy barbadian lands.”

Leasing will not address the situation!!!

Here is what the Trindad and Tobago Newsday reported on June 4, 2009

++++++++++++++++++

“SEVERAL CARICOM countries have turned to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for assistance to weather the world financial crisis.

This was the disclosure made by Central Bank Governor Ewart Williams at the opening of a Commonwealth Caribbean Business Media Workshop at the Crowne Plaza Hotel in Port-of-Spain. Trinidad and Tobago is not on that list.

Grenada has been in an IMF poverty reduction programme over the last four years, receiving US$16 million in aid; Jamaica is talking with the IMF to extend its current arrangement with the institution; Guyana has come out of an IMF programme and Barbados is trying to raise between US$100 million and US$150 million on this country’s stock markets to avoid going to the IMF.”

++++++++++++++++++

Remeber I told you that David Thompson never said when he tabled the Resolution in Parliament – that the $150m he will increase the national debt by – is to stop him goin to the IMF -but that it is to allow him to finance projects this FY?

Well, read hartley henry’s column in today’s Barbados Advocate. He is rolling the wicket.

Then reflect on the fact that prior to the last Bugdet, Opposition Leader – the Hon. Mia Amor Mottley, Q.C., M.P., -advised Barbadians to brace for yet another assault on thier pocket.

BRACE YOURSELVES FOR THE BAD NEWS. IT WILL BE JUST LIKE 1991 – slow and painful.

Mean while, the blame game continues, whereas strong leadership is required.

You obviously were not living in Barbados in the years preceeding 1994. Talk about bad times, ask David Ellis to replay some of the Brass Tacks Tapes during that period. You should ‘hursh yer mout’ ant thank God that prudent management by the OWEN SEYMOUR ARTHUR ADMINISTRATION saved Barbados. Check the reports of the Central Bank of Barbados and check people like Professor Frank Alleyne on the management of the Barbados economy. There was no pain and suffering in 14 yr period that could be equal to what there was in period 1991-1994. Check your facts, ask those who suffered at the hand of the DLP government of the day.

Even the Arch DEMS admitted what an excellent job OWEN SEYMORE ARTHUR and his team did for Barbados. Barbados was the envy of a lot.
The facts speak.

Shortie Bend stop tell liesOwen Arthur got the government when Sir Lloyd had done the dirty ass work form Tom’s era (remember the japanese loans) and on such a good wicket Owen and crew destroyed US!

Please spare us your bull shit!

Repayment of loans contributed in no small measure to the problems of 1991-1993.

The major problem was Sandiford’s spending leading up to the 1991 election when he knew the reserves were shaky.

Retaining power was more important to him than the medium and long term health of the economy.

By the way, the way in which the problem was solved was rather straightforward.

Reduce demand and imports will decline: outflows of foreign exchange will also decline, and in all probability the foreign reserves will increase.

The IMF favoured devaluation but I am certain they very well understood that a reduction in salaries and reduction in employment of the magnitude that was visited on the public sector would achieve the objective of building up foreign reserves

To: Student X,

While we do NOT know who you are, we must nevertheless acknowledge that from reading many of your blogs on BU that it seems that you have a pretty solid grasp of many of the details of the so-called economic and financial workings of this country.

Case in point, is your comment in the above blog that raises the question of how could the economy be so properly managed over the last 15 years, when we in Barbados are feeling quite uncertain now that we have to face a year or two of economic turmoil. Well, what a most valid point!!

As such, we in PDC do look forward to those kinds of forthright, rational and exacting commentaries being continually made by you on here concerning esp. the very unsatisfactory and worsening state of the so-called economy of this country, and concerning the solutions that are needed to help solve many of our social political financial and material problems.

Finally, you asked in an earlier blog how we would change the obvious idiotic strategies that have been in place for the last 15 years. Well, we simply say to you to go to our website@www.somassfreedem.org, and view many of the proposals we have put forward on this site relative to the types of changes that are absolutely necessary in the structures and functions of the polity, the society and so-called economy of this country, and which when put in place by a future PDC Government would be of significant help in putting Barbados in a better position at the end of the day to growth and develop substantially in the future.

PS – If you agree or disagree with any of these proposals please email your positions to us at smfdpdc@yahoo.com, for our elucidation.

PDC

Excellent article Green Monkey. Note this extract ”1. You don’t want to have had a boom based on a property bubble. 2. You don’t want to have a consumer credit bubble. 3. You don’t want to have an economy based on financial services. 4. You don’t want your government to have just gone on a massive spending spree”.

Barbados has 1, 3, 4, of these.

The only way out IS a significant reduction in living standards, a return to prudence.

This also, was explained as much as three to four years ago on the BFP blog, for those who care to read, rather than just play political possums.

The way out has been explained, contrary to what one poster above, clearly with solely political agenda, seeks to assert.

The land us epolicy, is one of the issues at the crux of the matter, as this affects agriculture, affordability of land, housingas well as having social implications.

Such cannot be divorced from the economic situation as this is part and parcel of the solution.

The solution involves retuning Barbados to a simpler lifestyle, reducing foreign exchange expenditures while ensuring local production and ownership are assisted.

This has been explained as nauseam.

But, the political ferrets will continue little ignorant potshots, in the midst of a further declining situation, oblivious to the reality.

Peace

There is a new reality. We have been boasting that we have a superior lifestyle but like some commenters have alluded it comes at a price. We have been building our economic model driven by engines which make our high consumption of foreign exchange unsustainable e.g.selling land under the guise of foreign direct investment.

Barbadians will have to chart a new path going forward, a great burden is on the incumbent government to do so. Agree with Rumpelstiltskin 100%

Of course I would argue that what is a “reduction in the standard of living” is subjective. The changes required may actually result in a more healthy, peaceful, sustainable and self-actualised society. But which political party or leader is engaging its supporters and the wider population in this kind of debate?

@Camper

You said (upthread):

Please tell me where I can find that policy reversal documented or stated or effected.

And please tell me what development has been approved in the Graham (according to you) Hall Nature Sanctuary since January 2008.

Empty words, Green Monkey, and untruthful too because I work in a government department that deals with such matters.

Camper, I suggest you check with the latest amended Physical Development Plan (AKA Physical Development Plan Amended 2003) which was passed into law by the Thompson administration early in 2008.

Admittedly the changes that the amended plan put forward were being worked on and put together under the previous Owen Arthur administration (which only reinforces my point of view that you have to be a complete idiot to take anything promised by any politician at face value). However, this amended plan which involved opening up previously protected lands around Graeme Hall for development was put into effect under the Thompson administration.

I would like to be able to refer you to the Town and Country Planning web site at http://townplanning.gov.bb to download a copy of the latest PDP, but they like they frighten for too many Bajans to have easy access to the plan, so although they provide what looks like a link to the plan on their home page under “Downloads” , if you click that link you will only get the table of contents to the plan and not the plan itself.

However, the good news is, the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary has done the government’s job for them and provided a link to download the full plan from their own web site.

See here:
http://www.graemehall.com/reference.htm

If you download the plan and go to the page immediately following page 3-2 you will see a map of Barbados with different color codes designating the allowable uses for the different areas of the island.

If you check the area immediately surrounding the protected Graeme Hall swamp itself, it is now all in yellow indicating, according to the accompanying legend, that it can now be used for residential development. Under the original 1988 plan this was not the case and it was to have remain undeveloped. BTW, it helps for a more legible view if you go to the Adobe toolbar and blow up the page to 400% or even 800%.

The Graeme Hall people also have on their web site a Google Earth picture showing in greater detail the previously protected area and what has been left as protected under the present PDP passed by the Thompson administration.

The link is here:
http://www.graemehall.com/press/papers/ThenNowMap1.pdf

I hope this has answered your question. I should point out also that I never claimed there was any plan to develop anywhere “in the Graeme Hall Nature Sanctuary” as you put it in your challenge to me (quoted above).

The government has left intact the protection of the lands within the sanctuary, but it is the surrounding lands that were supposed to have also remained protected from development as per the 1988 plan that are causing the headaches for the GHNS management today.

The GHNS believes that any future development in these surrounding lands will eventually have an impact on the GHNS and cause the environmental destruction of the swamp. They are protesting that when they spent many millions of dollars to set up the sanctuary, they did it on the understanding that the government of Barbados had agreed with them that the land around the sanctuary had to remain undeveloped for the sanctuary to be a viable long term enterprise. This view was officially endorsed by the government of Barbados in the original 1988 PDP.

The government has since gone back on its word and is now putting the sanctuary in jeopardy and hanging it out to dry (literally and figuratively you might say).

As a side note, I hear that Thompy has said how the government is hoping to encourage overseas philanthropists to spend more money on charitable work in Barbados. What a joke.

Nation News – “High water a hurdle to beach walk” – http://shar.es/uuUJ – #Barbados #environment

Save Mullins Bay

The BLP or the DLP have NO RESPECT for the environment of Barbaods or the people they’re only in it for the BIG BUCKS!!!!!!! Point blank is as long as Bajans have their present mentality the Barbados environment will be in the path of destruction!!! Maybe if we had Dominicans to run our country then we wouldn’t have these issues.