Sargeant I contributed several post that were on topic and gave my understanding of LH cost benefit analysis. Not many others joined in with their on topic opinions. Soon LIB was at it with his obfuscation attempts. How do we get on topic if no one seems to have been interested in the first place?

As straws fly in the wind and are clutched at….But a person who has liberal political views (which can include card carrying Socialists) and a Liberal (which carries some clear party affiliations) are very different animals. Followed the Obama campaign? True, and the Olympic Games…Lived in the US…but has no vote….What next? Writes right handed…Good grief! Someone save us!

@AH, got it right. Video conference in Denver, and then online meeting in Tokyo. Too expensive and time wasting to be jetting around. Kofi is travelling to east Africa… real planes, for him, I’m afraid. Anyway, the ‘usual suspects’ will be here tomorrow. You can link up by webcamera/phone or Skype. We
are willing to accommodate your constraints.

@AH, jolly good. I indicated to David that I thought you would be the sort of person who would do that. Tad predictable? I think I have a pipe and deerstalker hat in a cupboard. Good story for tomorrow’s blog.

livinginbarbados // August 5, 2009 at 9:27 pm

@AH, jolly good. I indicated to David that I thought you would be the sort of person who would do that. Tad predictable? I think I have a pipe and deerstalker hat in a cupboard. Good story for tomorrow’s blog.
————————————————–

You predicted nothing. You responded after the fact. Did you predict that I also have pics of Kofi? You should remind him to delete his plaxo account. An African and a Jamaican making “uncomplimentary” remarks about other blacks. Bimbro may very well have a fit when he is made aware of this. ha ha ha

Adrian,
Note that an assumption is a statement that is accepted without proof, while a hypothesis is generally a statement that can be tested and confirmed to be true or false. As I will explain in my full response, some assumptions can be recast as hypotheses that can be tested, others can’t. Therefore, it is not accurate to state that an assumption and a hypothesis are one and the same.

@Lindsay Holder
“If you want to make a substantial contribution to the debate, then you should read the book and tell us what are the circumstances under which those substantial net benefits occurred. You clearly are not an economist…”[I will see if there is a substantial contribution to make to the debate after I read your responses during the weekend.

I will also try to read the Philippe Legrain book if I can get a copy before the weekend. It was not available locally and I have to decide if the Amazon.com or Kindle route is better; if you have a copy that you could lend me, that might help.

I look forward to making my future contributions as a non-economist, but as an unqualified lay person, hoping that they will suffice.

You use a few terms that are not in my dictionary of economics, but it is old; I will see if ‘political yardfowl’ is in the later editions.

I had hoped that by working with economists for the same time as you something would rubbed off. But, alas. Now that I am free of the delusion that I am an economist, I will see how I can proceed. First off, I need to amend my CV and check with the universities about my degree certificates. I’m also going to go back to my employers and ask why they were employing me as an economist under false pretences. I hope that sorting that out can be done quickly. But apologies if that becomes my main focus in coming days; there’s a lot of personal history to be revised.]

LIB,
If you want to engage me on economic issues, and you are trained in Economics, then act like an Economist.

It is not suffice to state that there is a book with the title of ‘Immigrants’ that indicates that there are substantial benefits to be had from immigration. That is not in dispute since we all accept that immigration can be beneficial to countries whose economic fundamentals are such that the migrants can be easily absorbed.

I dealt with the specific case of Barbados at this juncture in its history, and if you want to be credible then you need to deal with that specific case also, regardless of the assumptions that you choose to make. My refrain is this, ‘Write it and publish it in the newspapers or on the blog, and let your analysis be subject to the same scrutiny that mine has been subjected to.’

I’m actually very grateful to Lindsay for having freed me from the constraints of being an economist, and now that I am not obliged to write and have it published, I think my commentary can become easier. I think that puts me on a par with most other commentators so is really much more comfortable and comforting.

@LH
“On the immigration matter specifically, no one can dispute that the mess we are currently facing is a result of the policies of the previous Government.”[‘No one’ seems sweeping, but I will let those who feel that they would like to dispute squeeze in.]

“You need to recognise that if illegal immigration is a problem for a country, then it must be addressed.”[Does this mean that if you do not recognize this problem, then one does not need to address it? It would appear that within Barbados there are several groups for whom illegal immigration is not a problem because they derive substantial benefits from that process–some landlords, employers, retailers, for example.]

“Guyanese and Jamaicans could have emulated us and pursued similar policies, but they didn’t.” [Could the nationals of two countries as vastly different from Barbados in terms of size, population, and natural resources, have really emulated Barbados and achieved the same results?]

David, you cannot really have a meaningful discussion if you forget about semantics (and that is not a pun). Lindsay decided to redefine me, and I don’t have a problem with that.

PM Thompson’s recent pronouncements that I had in mind were those reported in the Nation (July 29), http://www.nationnews.com/news/local/hotel-help, which indicated the “…hotel sector is in line for more Government aid. Consumers will also get some relief from sharply rising food prices with a state agency to intervene in the market to import goods and cut out the middle man.”

LIB,
The former countries of the Soviet Union are not doomed to failure. West Germany absorbed the entire cost of re-unification with East Germany, a former socialist state. Yet, infrastructure, housing, and other public/social goods and services in the former East Germany are not on par with those of the former West Germany. It takes time to address those issues, but Germany is a wealthy country and over time those issues will be resolved.

All of the other former Soviet satellite states that have become or will at some point in the future become members of the European Union have a good chance of improving their standard of living. The reasoning is simple; in good times there is more than enough money in Europe that can be invested in making the weaker economies stronger, and that is exactly what will happen.

With regard to CARICOM, the havoc wreaked by the disastrous economic policies in Guyana and Jamaica have resulted in the migration of extremely large numbers of trained and experienced individuals from those countries. You cannot build up your human resource base overnight, and if economic conditions have not improved then the few trained and experienced individuals remaining will also seek to migrate. That has been well documented in Guyana and Jamaica, and without that human resource base the countries will remain mired in poverty.

Prime Minister Thompson said that the bulk of applications for renewals of short-term work permits for the construction and agriculture sectors would more than likely be approved, even though the approval process would take longer. Be absolutely clear about it, that is not the same as regularizing the status of illegal immigrants.

The 6000 outstanding applications that you have mentioned are applications for permanent residence or reside and work, not for renewal of short-term work permits. You can be sure that those applicants will have to meet the criteria laid down by the Government for its managed migration policy.

Lastly, reliance on market forces for the provision of private goods is essentially the norm in Barbados. Government intervention or forays with regard to the provision of some private goods has occurred in Barbados in the past, but those interventions did not impact significantly on the reliance on market forces for the provision of private goods. The prognosis for the future is the same.

@Lindsay

Appreciate as we have said before your willingness to engage the BU family on this vexing matter.

You felt you had to defend your credibility in previous comments by using the yardfowl reference.

Can you advise when your position on the current immigration mess would have been arrived at because to some the problems/cracks had started to manifest sometime ago.

As an adjunct how do you explain the silence emanating from many in your profession on this matter throughout the region. Perhaps you may feel that the question is outside the scope of the role you want to perform on BU but we feel it is relevant. Dispassionate debate on this issue would help to recalibrate much of the discussion which has been incendiary at best from our political leaders, academics, the media etc.

@LH
Thanks. Given the length of the replies, I will refer by opening sentences.

You did not address my first point on size etc. I presume that you will later agree or disagree on the matter of your siding largely with standard IMF economic policy doctrine.

“The former countries of the Soviet Union are not doomed to failure…”[Not to be pedantic, but they are COUNTRIES OF the FORMER…]

“All of the other former Soviet satellite states that have become or will at some point in the future become members of the European Union have a good chance of improving their standard of living.”[Agreed, and so do some or all of the others, depending on their policies and endowments. For example, Azerbaijan has and will benefit from its possession of oil and/or gas; no EU membership prospects, though being at the apex of western Europe and Asia, may toggle onto the EU’s coattails. The various -stans (Uzbekistan, etc.) have varied prospects which could hinge critically on whether they toggle successfully onto the economic fortunes of China and south east Asia.) Belarus is stubbornly socialist, but still seems able to survive on the coattails of Russia’s economic fortune.]

“With regard to CARICOM, the havoc wreaked by the disastrous economic policies in Guyana and Jamaica have resulted in the migration of extremely large numbers of trained and experienced individuals from those countries.”[Migration from these countries did not begin with the policies of the the 1970s/80s, and the large emigration beforehand in the 1950s/60s was not driven by the nature of the countries’ policies, not least because they were still under British rule for a large part of that period. So there is not one driving force–ie ‘idiotic’ socialist policies. Havoc had started to be wreaked on the countries’ human capital bases well ahead of independence and reflected an inability to produce good jobs/standard living in the Caribbean and explicit demands for labour from the UK. That demand side shifted somewhat toward the US in later years.]

“Prime Minister Thompson said that the bulk of applications for renewals of short-term work permits for the construction and agriculture sectors would more than likely be approved…”[Point taken]

“The 6000 outstanding applications that you have mentioned are applications for permanent residence or reside and work, not for renewal of short-term work permits.”[Understood, but were/are they not part of the existing stock of illegal immigrants?]

Lastly, reliance on market forces for the provision of private goods is essentially the norm in Barbados. Government intervention or forays with regard to the provision of some private goods has occurred in Barbados in the past, but those interventions did not impact significantly on the reliance on market forces for the provision of private goods. The prognosis for the future is the same.”[Can we agree to disagree on this, given that the PM has merely stated his intention? The actions touch on two very significant areas of local economic life, and what I understand to have been proposed are the type of measures that tends to get expanded not shrunk.]

I hope that I can make further commentary without having to go through a vetting committee. I see calls for you to ignore my comments, so if that is your view then I can easily desist, and let you engage with those who prefer to have you discuss the topic with them only.

I look forward to your reactions to points I’d made earlier in the thread.

What do you mean LH had to defend his credibility by using the “yardfowl” reference? This is an insult to educated people. Is that how it is to be done now on BU? Attack the person, not his or her argument?

Yes Adrian,
You are on to something, but I am up to the task and can defend myself and my writings against anyone. Like you, I am not a cynic, and I do not criticise simply for the sake of doing so. You should by now have recognised that it is always easy for someone to criticise or attack your writings, but ask them to put together meaningful stuff for public discussion and they don’t know where to start. For me, the debate is far from over; it has just begun.

As indicated earlier, over the weekend I will provide bloggers with some further comments on my cost-benefit analysis article. Those comments will indicate that regardless of how you try to twist or distort my assumptions, the conclusion will still be the same.

Adrian, also note that I have been invited to make a presentation to one of the Rotary clubs on Tuesday of next week. My presentation will be titled, ‘The CARICOM Immigration Issue Recast’, and in that presentation I will blend the economics of integration with the theory of economic development with unlimited supplies of labour to demonstrate that all the grand old talk about full freedom of movement with attendant rights is more myth than reality. As soon as I finish that document, I will e-mail it to David for posting on the blog.

As you indicated, it is time I go into the trenches. My submissions have been based on my knowledge of economics, Caribbean history, government and politics in the region, and public policy, and not on political partisanship. It is therefore inappropriate for individuals to suggest that I have an agenda. Hence I have used the term ‘political yardfowls’, and those individuals who fit that description can continue with their puerile rantings.

Themis // August 6, 2009 at 8:16 am

What do you mean LH had to defend his credibility by using the “yardfowl” reference? This is an insult to educated people. Is that how it is to be done now on BU? Attack the person, not his or her argument?
————————————————-

You too have demonstrating an inability to be non-partisan. Such is your cross to bare. But don’t make demands of us to help you.

Here are few of the comments that Georger C Brathwaite use in his responses to Lindsay’s articles

“In this lengthy polemic, Mr. Holder appears more to be attempting to resolve his personal sentiments and advance his patriotic stance in favour of Barbados, than examine the “current issues that provoke…..”

“To be sure, Mr. Holder with all due respect has told me more about his inherent prejudices than on his capacity to be empirical.”

“I still think that he should inform readers as to his agenda and the fact that his writings appear to be fueled by some personal discontent for which he briefly mentioned on a Sunday Brass Tacks some time ago.”

I think Lindsay was civil in just referring to him as a yardfowl. I would have been more scathing, had it been me that GCB said the above about.

@Sargeant
“Lest I suffer any collateral damage in this battle of the economists”[As metaphors fly like shrapnel, the ‘economists’ have fallen in number. I have been defrocked as an economist so am now a mere layman. It’s a freedom I have sought for over 30 years. But easy come, easy go.]

I am flanking LH not that he has asked me to so do. But GCB from the onset has demonstrated a willingness to get personal with Lindsay, and I think Lindsay has some very useful information for us all, therefore I have taken to learning as much as I can about GCB so that if and when he continues with his forays into Lindsay’s personal history I will be bringing his to light as well. I will be the self appointed umpire of this debate. GCB keep LH’s personal stuff out, or yours will be introduce.

@LH
If past experience is any guide, as the debate goes, you may find every remark combed over for consistency and content, bias etc. (Some may even go hunting for information in other places to try to discredit you. Some would call it ‘dirty warfare’).

You have written “It is therefore inappropriate for individuals to suggest that I have an agenda. Hence I have used the term ‘political yardfowls’, and those individuals who fit that description can continue with their puerile rantings.” To me that is a statement that is not at all neutral.

You also indicated that you do have (personal, or it may be a sense of national) grievances: “However, what irritated me intensely this year and prompted me to take on the issue was the comments made by the Prime Minister of St. Vincent and the Grenadines, the President of Guyana, the leader of the Opposition in Guyana, and the nauseating drivel written by the so-called ‘prominent’ East Indian journalist in response to the Barbados Government’s announcement of its proposed managed migration policy. Following on the rantings of those gentlemen, we then had the distorted comments made by Professor Compton Bourne, Professor Clive Thomas, and Sir Shridath Ramphal.” Again, your descriptions are not neutral.

So, perhaps unwittingly you have outlined your ‘agenda’. If that is not the case then you will be doing the Obama walk back. But good luck.

I’m however, going to leave you to do as you want and prepare your responses. If you want to send your paper to my e-mail address it’s on my blog. I also don’t have any problem posting it on my blog (but I say that to in no way detract from your choosing your preferred place to have it dissmeninated, and also to not get David annoyed with thoughts that I may be poaching).

Just for passing interest, have you sought to post on Norman Girvan’s site and if so what was the reaction?
Have a good day.

David Can I ask you to, at some point take out those comments that LIB made in the early morning exchange with LH and that he is now suggesting are queries for LH, and present them as a series of queries/questions from LIB to LH. I simply do not want LIB to run about claiming that LH has not answered him, as I think he is deliberately complex in his submissions to confuse not enlightened. Of course you should seek LIB approval that the comments you are putting together for LH to answer are indeed the correct ones.

@David
I really do not know how to respond to the following from AH: “I will be the self appointed umpire of this debate.” I really look forward to your reply. If this were Parliament (which it is not) I would wonder if the Speaker’s authority was being usurped or undermined by a member from the floor. We should all recall what happened a few weeks ago in the House.

For clarity, my main points to LH on his CBA were made much earlier/several days ago, not this morning. LH has dealt well (as far as I am concerned) with somethings additonal that he introduced today, and he has promised his substantive replies over the weekend on earlier points.

@AH
“it is with us lay people in mind that I make my request.” [Again the nosism (us). It is your sole voice and that of a self appointed umpire, to boot. That sounds a little dictatorial. I hear so far no chorus from the rest of the constituents. I’m sorry if I seem complex but I live in a world of complex issue, I am also not a simpleton, or despite remarks to the contrary, stupid.]