An execellent response to a pattern of cockeyed enunciations. It would seem that the Journalists and other pundits from Barbados who went into automatic critical mode against Barbados need to revist the lessons in their training manuals. Guyanese of a certain ethnicity are being tortured, vitimized, marginalized and summarily executed in that nation, while its President is lecturing his Bajan counterpart on how Caribbean residents should be treated.

Willy Lynch certainly did a good job on us. The effects of his instructions are clearly apparent in the self hate that impells some in the Caribbean into patterns of self flagellation while ignoring external flagellation of their kind. They just cannot grasp the reality that but for the sake of the geography of their birth, the blackman or woman tortured and brutalized before being executed could have been their sons or daughters, or even one of them. My God!

Has Peter Wickham responded to Lindsay Holder?

Has David Commisiog responded to Lindsay Holder?

Has Corbin Compton responded to Lindsay Holder?

Having asked the above questions to which we believe the answer to each is no, what is the responsibilty of the media/reporters to reconcile these matters?

http://bajan.files.wordpress.com/2007/05/response-to-peter-wickhams-feeble-response.pdf

“In addition, Barbados is a small country, and given the
will, finding and removing illegal immigrants is a walk in the park. All that is needed are the
right incentives.
Lastly, we Economists accept that the greater the number of policy tools available to address a
particular problem, the greater are your chances of success. Hence, your assertion that, “Like
me, Prime Minister Thompson knows that the effective way to end illegal migration here would
be to make it a criminal offence to employ, rent property to, or in any other way facilitate an
illegal immigrant in Barbados,” can charitably be described as simplistic.”

I am not an Economist so call me a simpleton, but I agree with Peter, include the “right incentives”and in 3 months, job done.

A must read for media practitioners in Barbados:

Investigative journalism? Look the other way

August 2, 2009 | By KNews | Filed Under Features / Columnists, My Column

By Adam Harris

Yesterday was Emancipation Day and a friend criticized me for an editorial that appeared in the newspapers. Indeed, that editorial expressed the bitterness felt by many at today’s developments among people in the country and some people were not happy at the blunt disclosures.

I realized that people like to live in a pretend world. Of course life in the make-believe world is safe because the human mind sometimes cannot accept some of the gruesome things that are becoming a part of everyday life. It is for this reason that people object most vehemently at gruesome photographs on their television and on the front pages of the newspapers.

Not so long ago there were those who hated Kaieteur News because it had gone to the limits of graphically bringing to people the facts of what happened. There were pictures of broken bodies, people shot and killed in the most horrible ways and of course, the accident victims.
Indeed, there were those who preferred to read and not see while there were those who had to see the real thing. People are like that; they have to see for themselves and these are the people who made Kaieteur News the leading newspaper and who are still faithful readers of the newspaper.

Meanwhile, everyone in the country has been calling on the news media to engage in more investigative reporting. People needed to know what was going on and of course they all believed that the government needed to be monitored. This is true in every country.

People therefore exposed that the news media would be there to see that everything the government does is above board. And of course, the leaders of government needed to know that the Ministers and others on the payroll were operating in the best interest of the government.

But the truth is that reporters these days are content to just report on what is said and on what is easily seen. This explains the preponderance of news items dealing with what politicians say and on presentations and other activities. Even President Bharrat Jagdeo was pushed to say that today’s reporters in Guyana were lazy. And he is right.
Now comes the problem. Kaieteur News, at the request of the government decided to keep an eye on projects. It started by examining contracts hoping that the government would be in a position to spot leaks of funds from its limited treasury.

There have been contracts that appear excessively high, even to the layman. Kaieteur News decided to examine some of these contracts. Over time, the newspaper has been reporting on shoddy work that emanated from large contracts.

For example, the people along the road that runs along the Essequibo River to Roden Rust, have long complained that three months after the road was constructed it deteriorated to conditions worse than the previous road before the repairs.

There were reports and the government would vow to ban the contractor. However, given the paucity of skills and the cleverness of the contractor, this was easier said than done. Sometimes contractors would merely place another family member at the head of the company and change the name of the company.
If Kaieteur News thought that it was doing the government a favour by examining the contracts, it had another thing coming. There are people in the government who are now angry; very angry. They now feel that the government is under attack. They are suddenly of the view that they are being exposed.

The Ministry of Agriculture is now asking reporters who seek a comment to send all queries by e-mail. This has never been the case. When this is done the response is about a week in coming.

A newspaper will not hold a routine story for a week and this is why many stories would have a tagline that comments could not be had. Some people are simply unavailable and when the story appears they have the gumption to be angry. They then pen their comments.

This should not be the case because in reality, if contracts are inflated then the government should act and in the end, save money to undertake even more projects. Kaieteur News found many of these contracts and began to ask questions. The people being asked became angry. One contractor actually told a reporter to go to hell. If there was nothing to worry about why get angry?
I am surprised at the fallout. There seems to be a studied campaign against Kaieteur News; some people in the government seem to be ostracizing the newspaper and I can’t say that I am happy. What began as a programme in the interest of the nation and the government is now being seen as a campaign against the government.

A man in Canada actually wrote to me to let me know that Kaieteur News is on a campaign to bring down the government.

I had the opportunity to examine a situation that I saw as being of benefit to the national treasury. Commissioner of the Guyana Revenue Authority, Khurshid Sattaur, has long been talking about expanding the revenue base and of collecting all the available taxes.
I remember a man who was close to Forbes Burnham telling the present government that he had got a gift from relatives overseas. The tax man made him pay dearly.

So there was this individual who from initial appearances could not afford a $60 million house. And if the funding was a gift then the taxes had to be paid. I am being sued for reporting on that house and the purchaser. The person filing the lawsuit is the husband of the buyer whose address is the same as the buyer but who is seeking to divorce himself from the purchase.

And people talk about investigative journalism.

David,
I think media workers will use the last paragraph to conceal any ineptitude on their part.

David // August 2, 2009 at 11:10 am

@General Lee

Wasn’t it Straight Talk who commented on this issue sometime ago by suggesting we need to follow the money in this whole affair?
Last time we checked the people who control the money in Barbados are business people whose political affiliation straddles B and D.

Then the people without money need to quickly realize that we are fighting a losing battle.

It could not have been clearer than when the last category was added to the free movement list.

How many poor people can afford to employ a domestic?

We should refuse to participate any further in these political games.

I repeat NO-ONE in the present Government is listening to Holder!

Anon @ 1:14 p.m. above is only trying to create mischief.

What lindsay holder says is in sync with this adminstration position on immigration.

Another BLP operative at work I am sure.

Prime Minister David Thompson promised us the new comprehensive immigration policy will be available for all of us including our Caribbean counterparts to peruse.This is the beginning of a new month and no word on that policy is being heard.

I am beginning to believe that our Prime Minister is playing games.I really do not think he has the will to deal with this illegal immigration issue in an effective way.

The new immigration policy is in place for 2 months now and less than 60 non-nationals were asked to leave or deported.Laughable indeed.

Right now the illegal non-nationals are laughing at us and are saying that they are not going anyway and that our Prime Minister cannot interfere with them because Bharat Jagdeo & Ralph Gonsalves put him in his place and I think those non-nationals are right.

Prime Minister David Thompson is a joke and come December nothing significant will occur.It is going to be business as usual.

Lindsay Holder’s cost-benefit analysis is based on a number of assumptions–most notaby its starting point on Caricom immigrants [‘Let us assume ..30,000 CARICOM immigrants in Barbados in 2007’, and the key assumption about employment composition that leads to a negative conclusion about benefits of immigration] and only a little actual evidence. The conclusions could go otherwise by changing those assumptions.***I was also intrigued when I read the piece originally why it referred to ‘we’ when there was a sole author. That might have been a slip or an artifice but I will let the author clarify.

@Themis, the use of assumptions is helpful in exploring many ideas and is not limited to economics, but the robustness of results needs to be tested against other assumptions. The cynic in me would say that the analysis above started from its desired result and worked backwards to the assumptions that would validate that. When the piece was first printed in The Advocate, I discussed it with a prominent Bajan economist, who pointed me to a recent good book on the economics of immigration which found substantial net benefits. It’s called “Immigrants” and was on the short-list for the FT Business Book of the year award, in 2007, I think.

@Themis, I am not inclined to get into a long discussion with people other than the author about what his views are or show [which has swirled around Sir S’s infamous words; and we also see that people don’t even stick to the actual words but put in terms they want and muddy the water further], as he can exchange on this directly. I think my points are quite substantive and will let Lindsay deal with them and then respond if needed.*** I’m also on the hunt for Caribs, if possible to find them.

No calls for validation were asked of those who label Barbadians as xenophobes, racist, engaging in gestapo like actions, engaging in ethnic cleansing or intimations thereof. But Lindsay Holder seems to be not on their side so they are on the attack, and in want of solid information. Lindsay’s piece is not about proving whether they are 30,000 or 3,000 caricom immigrants in Barbados it is about a number of things on page one that he asked us if we accept. If we don’t we should say so, state why and ignore his cost benefit exercise starting on page 2.

Do you accept “That there is no one general statement that can be made about the benefits and costs of immigration for a host country?

Do you accept “That the potential of countries to derive significant benefits from immigration depend on the economic fundamentals of those countries?

Do you accept “That the upper limit to the number of immigrants that a country can sustain depends on the geographical size of the country, its resources, and the use that is made of those resources?

Do you accept “that given the culture and expectations of its citizens, the country can realize significant longterm benefits through the use of immigration policies that are well formulated and implimented?

Do you accept “that the central issue hinges on the number of the immigrants, and the culture and expectations of Citizens?

Given your asnwers to the above the rest of Lindsay article may or may not be of worth to you.

@AH: a quick response is that those who made claims of xenophobia etc on this blog were dealt with here. Lindsay has brought his arguments (and they are not presented as mere opinion but as scholarly study) so here he should be scrutinized at least. Anyone can accept the assumptions but they can also be thrown away as being unrealistic (in both directions) or wrong (s.t. Factual verification). That’s what economists do with assumptions: subject them to factual tests. You do not substitute assumptions for facts. Mascoll’s arguments in the Nation were also scrutinized there but they were also s.t. Nation editorial policy. s/LIB

@AH, Themis: What Lindsay has done should be called ‘theorizing’ or ‘hypothesizing’, and in many disciplines is a first or early step. It’s of the ‘what if? ‘ Nature and cannot stand alone. You bring evidence to validate or refute.

livinginbarbados // August 3, 2009 at 11:44 am

@AH, Themis: What Lindsay has done should be called ‘theorizing’ or ‘hypothesizing’, and in many disciplines is a first or early step. It’s of the ‘what if? ‘ Nature and cannot stand alone. You bring evidence to validate or refute.
===========================

Did Lindsay not say “Lets Assume” if you don’t want to just don’t. I have and do await your other assumptions to further test his. Of course if either of you have that actual factual numbers of caricom immirgrants so define by Lindsay assumed number of 30k Lets have it and be done with the assumptions all together.

@caribbean commet: Who is throwing away facts for assumptions???? What are the facts about the number of caricom immigrants in Barbados?

…. and what is this foolishness about a scholarly study???? what do you intend with this title?
LINDSAY REFERRED TO HIS COST BENEFIT EXERCISE AS AN “EVALUATION”

@Themis:
The scientfic method is though early in a child’s learning experience. It’s usefullness is unquestioned.

When ever the true number of caricom immigrants in Barbados that do not have permanent residence or permission to reside and work, is known, I will be in good position to determine Barbados capacity to absorb poor immigrants, thanks to Lindsay cost benefit method and approach.

livinginbarbados // August 3, 2009 at 11:59 am

The initial assumption is crucial and from it are subtracted some other figures, leaving a residual/remainder about which important conclusions are drawn. The actuality may be close to the assumption but we need to know that or the sense of the residual is lost. Let me assume $100 in my account. I then spend $50 and $30, leaving $20 I believe. Problem: my actual bank account was $60 and I am actuality now overdrawn $10. Get the drift?
————————————————–
This is assuming for no good reason at all. We should hypothesize when the facts are not known. There is no reason for someone not to know their account total to the point that they have to assume a total. You can continue to give us crap or start the process of bringing these other assumptions you mention with which to test those of Lindsay’s.

livinginbarbados // August 3, 2009 at 11:44 am

@AH, Themis: What Lindsay has done should be called ‘theorizing’ or ‘hypothesizing’, and in many disciplines is a first or early step. It’s of the ‘what if? ‘ Nature and cannot stand alone. You bring evidence to validate or refute.
————————————————
Did I not say on August 3, 2009 at 11:02 am

I have accepted Lindsay’s assumptions. I have no problem with his hypothesis and would welcome other assumptions to further test them.

WTF;

Now after lecturing Themis, That…..[the use of assumptions is helpful in exploring many ideas and is not limited to economics, but the robustness of results needs to be tested against other assumptions.]

You join him asking for proof by now saying, [It’s of the ‘what if? ‘ Nature and cannot stand alone. You bring evidence to validate or refute.]

again WTF!!!

Did I not say: [Of course if either of you have that actual factual numbers of caricom immirgrants so define by Lindsay assumed number of 30k Lets have it and be done with the assumptions all together. ]

Really WTF!!!!

@AH, saying “Let’s assume…” is as you suggest, the opening for others to say “Let not assume that…” All that is presented is a line of thought, and as I said no proof of anything. Those who reject the assumptions can reject the conclusion. Cost benefit analysis is a rigorous are of study and analysis, and if LH is employing that methodology I would think as an economist that he undestands how it should be used; that what gives it the air of being scholarly. My position, as his, is on the basis of what professional economists are supposed to do in our discipline. You end at the point of contention: a government policy framed on no or little facts is really what? Policy by conjecture is bad policy making and if 3 months on we all agree that the government has yet to present the facts then I’m at a loss how you can sit comfortably.

@Themis (Trying to do this while travelling is far from ideal, and I think I did not address a pair of valid questions).
“What is to validate the assumptions one makes?” [Data/facts/actual observations, concreteness…]

“And when do they change from assumptions to absolute truths?” [In my mind not ‘absolute truths’ but unchallenged assumptions. If they are not challenged by other assumptions at least as valid, or if they are not confronted by data/facts. They run the risk of repetition maketh truth.] While others may not like or appreciate comparisons, this reminded me of the situation in the US when for decades NFL coaches assumed that black high school and college quarterbacks could not play the position in the NFL so drafted them and played them anywhere but at QB, validating the assumption. Lo and behold, some coaches/teams challenged the assumptions [albeit starting with QBs who had stunning stats] and over a short time it’s hard to find many teams that do not have active black quarterbacks and a good number are starters and some have taken teams to and won the Super Bowl.

Anyway, I extract myself from this general discussion and wait patiently for a response from the author, as I have waited patiently for the government to supply a set of coherent figures to make sense of the amnesty and as I do to see what the ‘comprehensive’ immigration policy looks like.

Perhaps those who read Saturday’s Advocate can explain what Minister Sinckler actually told the public about illegal immigration and strain on housing, http://www.caribdaily.com/article/187404/illegal-immigration-and-urban-development-putting-strain-on-housing/. I have my own thoughts, so would be interested in other views.

In case it’s not apparent from my earlier observations, the issue with Lindsay’s assumptions are not in one direction. What I have focused on is the lack of what economists call a ‘sensitivity analysis’, ie how good are the conclusions when you change the assumptions? That tells you whether you have a basis for going in a particular direction or if you need to be mindful of certain limitations to actions because the impacts you are looking for may work in one direction up to certain points and then work in different directions beyond certain points (and those points can be above or below what was initially assumed). I think/hope that Lindsay, as a trained economist, has no problem understanding that point.

@AH, as I have said before you like to speak for other people who are quite capable of speaking for themselves; I don’t. There is no subtle attack on LH, and like a red herring, you draw it across the path and it leaves its odour. Lindsay is an economist and like with others in disciplines that make experiments we do not usually go for ‘one scenario’ but ranges. It’s standard for the way that scientific (even pseudo scientific) analysis is done. If you look at forecasts, they usually have a range, (because no one has the temerity to say that they will be spot on), and what the technicians call ‘margins of error’ (and there are lots of maths that can be brought in for those who like that); depending on what those are the results are consider on a range of ‘good’ to ‘bad’. The essence of the author doing that him/herself is that he works within his/her dataset, and RANGE of acceptable assumption, and ‘model’ of how things work. Others can do their rework, even with the same data set, but you run the danger of having apples and pairs because the start point of acceptable assumptions or ‘model’ in mind is different, and that prevents good comparison.

For those who give advice one of the first questions usually posed by the decision maker when looking at that advice is “What are the other feasible scenarios?”

You can continue judge me by your standard behavior all you want. I am not you. I am satisfied that to the non-partisan observer it is likely to be you that would be seen as the person who likes to speak on others behalf, Intimidate your opponent, critiquing their spelling and grammar, “big-up” your credentials while questioning those of others. I know of you and your friends propensity to put down Barbadians at every turn.

We do not know for sure what the true number of caricom immigrants fitting the definition that LH used, that are in Barbados. So what did LH do? He assumes 30k which even though is it not an official statistic, did not come out of thin air. He then work that assume number against known measurements. He also assumed that the 30k were rich migrants in an attempt to deal with concerns Mascoll published. He then reduce the assume 30k to 15k and work that number again against known and approximates of known numbers. Is this approach not a consideration of other feasible scenarios? Indeed did Mascoll in his article which you did not subject to these criteria that you are now wanting to foist on LH, not forget to ask “what are the other feasible scenarios?

The more i return to LH article the more I see it as a response to several scenarios that were postulated over a period of months.

I see LH “amplification” of “culture and expectations of Barbadian owning house and land as a response to those who suggest that singapore or even HongKong with their large populations relative to geographic size as a good response to concerns about “were are going to put dem?” a feasible scenarios and response

I see LH willingness to use figures hinted at by Senator McClean with known and approximates of known figures as looking at other feasible scenarios.

I see LH willingness to look at Mascoll’s questions about rich Immigrants and Mascoll contentions about “virtual unemployment at zero” as looking at and responding to other feasible scenarios.

I can go on for LH look at statistics from the health sector, looked at the Migrant worker’s convention, look at education, look at up and downside of immigration by wealthy non-caricom immigrants. etc

LH did indeed concidered many scenarios that were presented as feasible by others.

Am I to believe that he must present all the scenarios himself in order for him to respond?

Did LH intended for his article to be “Scholarly” or is this likely to be LIB speaking on LH behalf????