Observing | August 20, 2011 at 10:47 PM |
@BT
Your sprat has been seen, heard and observed for a little while now. I’m still watching as the fuller picture unfolds on either side.

@John
Are people who are not looking for freebies actually willing to come forward? Politicians by nature are made of ego and self interest.

Pray tell, what will we the independent minded electorate do when we walk into that booth and realise we don’t like or trust any of the names on the ballot? Do we choose the six or the half dozen?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

One way is to join a party en masse and take it over!!!

However, there is no way I am joining either one of those organisations time has proven to be corrupt so I would not expect anyone to do so.

Scratch one.

Another way is to make life so uncomfortable for MP’s by insistent demands for transparency and accountability that there must be a change …… that hasn’t worked so far.

Scratch two.

A third way is for more independents to present themselves to the electorate. That has not happened yet.

Scratch three.

Looks likely that the example set by Britain may be followed here.

I hope not.

But, something’s got to give.

William Duguid’s imminent departure is an indicator of things to come.

He is a cut above the rest where education is concerned but he really has not made an impact.

He has is own business and has survived in it for years.

He and his wife have built a family.

Being a member of Parliament while it may be financially rewarding for him can’t be a matter of life or death.

It appears to be a drain on him, keeping him from the far more important pursuits in life which would give him the strength to contribute as an MP. He is not happy in it.

Ok, he may not come across as a forceful character but he should be making a bigger impact than he has given his education and proven ability in a far tougher environment than politics.

O$A, Glyne Clarke, George Payne etc. are all nothings yet they seem to have a far greater effect on events than can be logically explained.

His leaving isn’t a good sign for persons of ability who want to come forward and make an impact.

Things are not looking bright for Barbados.

Something’s gotta give.

@George C Brathwaite

Perhaps the previous downgrades were not secret among the political cognoscenti, but if you asked the average Bajan whether they were aware of these downgrades the response would be negative, thus when the Leader of BLP tried to earn political capital about the issue one can be forgiven for having thought that it had not happened on his watch.

I wrote that the voices of dissent out of Cave Hill were muted under the BLP and you responded that X & Y were now Senators etc. which does not really negate the truth of what I said but tells me that you are keeping score about who is pro or anti Party A or B.

Whatever David Thompson’s shortcomings one thing his election served to do was to open up the lines of Communication between the Gov’t and the media. He was not afraid of being challenged by journalists about his Gov’t’s policies and did not look at them as potential foes. The same cannot be said about the relationship between the Gov’t and media during the BLP’s term in Office.

An unbiased commentator would not write “the reality is that unless the DLP begins to grapple with the issues that are mostly affecting the lives of Barbadians and deal with the issues that confront the country”. I would expect to see that from some one with a political axe to grind, and although you may not agree with their course of action, I thought that their last budget tried to deal with these issues.

If you have a different collection of issues, you should identify them for us.

@GCB

Why would I not be civil? That’s how I was nurtured but it’s not my nature to turn the other cheek according to the ancient Chinese proverb “He who turns the other cheek gets slapped twice”.

I am very circumspect in any relationship with politicians even though they need us and we need them I wouldn’t trust any as far as I could throw them. I guess the term one would use is “symbiotic relationship”.

@Artaxerxes

You are correct, BU rarely will quote theory and that is deliberate. So to suggest BU’s analysis was simplistic carries no merit.

Austin’s submission clearly is more long term in focus and many of the issues highlighted can be dealt with outside a budget anyway.

It does not mean that others in the BU family will not use theory, such is the freedom on BU.

In your observation on Austin’s piece you have suggested that he “presented some facts that are indeed worthy of discussion” but have not elaborated. Why don’t you?

Regarding personal attacks on Mascoll, please cite where BU has done so.

It is our right to suggest that Mascoll’s credibility can be called into question given his turncoat arguments to date, all of which are well documented.

Again Sir, BU is not an academic journal.

@ David

Stand your ground on the comments you made about Hal Austin’s article. None of the economic theories taught at universities worldwide are of any practical help in correcting the current global recession. I stumbled on the following article entitled ‘Macroeconomic Theory and Its Failings” while Browsing earlier today and thought I would share it with the family………..http://gesd.free.fr/skates10.pdf.

As the current recession unfolded, nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman said that the last 25 years of macroeconomic theory has been useless. Listening to the local economists respond to the budget methinks he is right. Apparently, the economist’s only treatment tool is expenditure cuts. Its a good thing medicine has gone further and can provide yu with options besides amputations.

I am really out of touch. reading the papers today the general view seems to be that the budget was predictable and what was expected. For me, the measures surprised me.

I did not expect a set of measure for the cultural industry to be the centre piece of a budget. I did not expect motor racing incentives to be prominent.

Forgive my lack of sophistication but something puzzles me. The major mantra seems to be a call for greater cuts in government expenditure. If a large chunk of government expenditure is taken out of the economy what replaces it?

Is private economic activity is Bim ready and waiting to step into to the breach?

If not are we not courting a deeper recession and a worsening of the public finances?

@Old School: “Forgive my lack of sophistication but something puzzles me. The major mantra seems to be a call for greater cuts in government expenditure. If a large chunk of government expenditure is taken out of the economy what replaces it?

What you have to understand Old School is government expenditure must be paid for by taxation (or borrowing from future taxation).

Having a top-heavy expenditure by government now simply means higher taxation on those who are actually producing value for many years to come.

Again… Hmmmmm….

Economists speak of the “Paradox of thrift.” This basically says that while we all applaud thrift if everyone is thrifty and saves relatively more, you have a situation where aggregate demand in the economy will fall.

The paradox of thrift (or paradox of saving) is a paradox of economics, popularized by John Maynard Keynes, though it had been stated as early as 1714 in The Fable of the Bees,[1] and similar sentiments date to antiquity.[2][3] The paradox states that if everyone tries to save more money during times of recession, then aggregate demand will fall and will in turn lower total savings in the population because of the decrease in consumption and economic growth. The paradox is, narrowly speaking, that total savings may fall even when individual savings attempt to rise, and, broadly speaking, that increases in savings may be harmful to an economy.

My question is simple. if the government cuts back will private activity take up the slack or will we have a slowing economy? A slowing economy also creates pressure on public finances.

In today’s Advocate Business Section the Brian Francis chap is quoted saying St. Lucia, Trinidad and Cuba are outperforming rest of Caribbean and doing very well. He said Barbados is doing poorly. It made me research a few key indicators on those countries leading to the conclusion Francis is a liar a fool or both. St. Lucia’s unemployment rate is 17% and climbing. Trinidad with its Billion Dollars Heritage Fund now declared a state of emergency against reality of the calypso island about to claim the dubious honour of murder capital of the world. Cuba is a communist state with a command economy no one is certain what is happening there except we hear the Castro brothers pronouncing the economy is so bad they are allowing capitalists businesses to start.
Barbados unemployment rate is 10% and falling. Barbados economy buffetted by recession is still growing by 2 and a half percent.
Will guru Michael Howard and the Cave Hill school of Economics explain what Francis is saying.

The Trinidad & Tobago Central Bank does not think that the trini economy is doing well.

@Old School (OS): “Economists speak of the “Paradox of thrift.”

Some old economists speak of this.

Some “modern” ones, such as Hayek (in 1929) et al argue there is no such paradox.

If people don’t spend, then the prices fall until the “curves cross”.

What you seem to be arguing, OS, is there is a need for there to be “punters” to keep the economy going.

Why must the consumers always be the little people?

Hmmm?

As far as my limited knowledge goes increased govt spending hurts the economy by the government borrowing from the scarce pool of capital and crowding out more efficient private activity.

Christopher underlying my question is what private sector activity is currently being crowded out by government in BIM at his time.

@Artaxerxes

B stated that Austin’s analysis was long and rambling and tended to focus on long term. The comment does not mean that there was not some sensible points which littered his analysis.

The crowding out of more efficient private investment by tapping in to the limited pool of capital is the often unstated argument behind cutting public expenditure and smaller govt.

Francis has serious a credibility problem for me though:

1. he commented at length on a budget he had not heard and appeared to have scanned at best;

2. he refers to a non-existent embassy in thailand as a waste of money;

3. He speaks of a focus on raising revenues, but I can see no revenue raising measures in the budget. maybe he was commenting on the last budget;

4. he speaks of an absence of expenditure cuts when he works at uwi which has had a 25% cut announced in june, and a number of other bodies have had similar cuts;

5. he singles out constituency councils which have cost less than $5ml in three years as breaking the treasury; maybe the explosion of lower level matriculation students at uwi (students with no sixth form or bcc)since 2003, costing $30,000 per year has had more of an impact on the public purse.