obediant | September 11, 2011 at 1:58 PM | thiefing is institutionalised in the private and public sector..pur private sector is very inefficient and because most service sector companies are interrelatedt there could be collusion in inflating cost.

Notwithstanding Dr. R’s subsequent response, the cost of the internal controls, or lack thereof, then becomes an issue for the private sector operation, not the GOB, if the proposals are properly scrutinized and assessed.

The Union is the X factor.

Westbury Cemetery comes to mind.

@alien

the contractors are their own bosses and not employees, pay tem by the day like how we pay wormen and see what output. you need to undrestand the psycological thinking of workers and managers who draw big salaries and leave thir work place to concentrate on their businesses or go socialising.

obediant | September 11, 2011 at 2:43 PM |
Are you suggesting that we continue as is?

@alien

i am competent enough to say what i mean, so dont you suggest why i mean. i write wgat i mean. and mean what i write.

@justin

yhe next time i see u i will have a good laugh

@ David and Obediant
Am I to believe that a government that fired CLERICAL OFFICERS for perceived support of the BLP appointed a Director of the Central Bank without knowing who he supported politically?

The two lecturers are BOTH politically aligned, and trying to differentiate on the basis of advisory versus a broad policy making role is to insult the public’s intelligence. Just like the DLP supporters would like us to believe that the Governor of the Central Bank and the new Chief Justice are apolitical. What we need is the experts to be transparent about their political leanings without fear of being victimised, and then we can have more robust debate. Why shouldn’t CBC have two political analysts representing the views of both parties or even three since there is also PEP?
Interestingly, here is the Nation’s reporting on the 2010 version of the Chamber of Commerce post-Budget meeting:

The other panellists were Gloria Eduardo, tax partner with PricewaterhouseCoopers and Dr Justin Robinson, an economist with the University of the West Indies. For economist Robinson, it was an interesting Budget. It seems to me that the overriding priority of the Budget was to really begin to restore fiscal sustainability in Barbados and also to begin to restore Barbados’ good name internationally in terms of its fiscal prudence, Robinson said. There had been a dramatic worsening of Barbados’ public finances in the last three years and Robinson argued that was not a sustainable path for Barbados.

Any mention of Dr. Robinson’s directorship at the Central Bank? Was he not there in his capacity as UWI lecturer just like Dr. Francis this year?

@ Obediant

You need to unplug that washing machine and save some money on your electricity bill.

On The Theory of Arugmentative reasoning” PATRICIA COHEN wrote

….For centuries thinkers have assumed that the uniquely human capacity for reasoning has existed to let people reach beyond mere perception and reflex in the search for truth. Rationality allowed a solitary thinker to blaze a path to philosophical, moral and scientific enlightenment.

Now some researchers are suggesting that reason evolved for a completely different purpose: to win arguments. Rationality, by this yardstick (and irrationality too,) is nothing more or less than a servant of the hard-wired compulsion to triumph in the debating arena. According to this view, bias, lack of logic and other supposed flaws that pollute the stream of reason are instead social adaptations that enable one group to persuade (and defeat) another. Certitude works, however sharply it may depart from the truth.

Brian Francis decided that becoming familiar with the contents of the last budget -which he did not read-was not needed to comment negatively on it; likewise, he believes that he can ignore the context and ideas behind the statement “Barbados is more than an economy, and lead us in an intellectualize “beatdown” by “reasoning” that there is no society without an economy. We all know of Adam Smith and we all know that the study of economics was once called political economy and for good reason; but to pretend that the debates between the political parties, where accusations of overt attention to business at the expense of people led to the distinction and seperation of focus on economics and society, is impossible or a non-issue is just plain silly and dishonest.

Brian Francis public service listing in the UWI document demonstrate that bias is not a flaw, but a deliberate social adaptation.

If this were the USA or the UK the media would quote Dr. Francis and tagged it ‘ and Dr. Francis is a member of the Advisory Team to the Leader of the Opposition. The people then can get reason with his comments however they see fit.

The matter is about transparency.

Because a few of us can peep at a UWI departmental document which list the information does not satisfy the argument.

@Adrian

you are on the ball.

@Enuff
Amen

I think that instead of focusing on issues, we seem to be heading towards character assassination. One individual is certainly not an entire board! ‘At the head of the Central Bank is the Board of Directors which is appointed by the Minister of Finance. It is responsible for the policy and general administration of the Bank.’ Don’t see anything here about being psychic…What evidence is there to show that due diligence was not practiced?

I see no problem with persons being ‘tagged’ as David put it. It will arm the public with the necessary information to interpret what they read and hear…

@Enuff
Where is Robinson’s negative or postive commentary/opinion on some fiscal document that he is known not to have read? Also produce some other comments of his where he ignores very real activity both economic and social, only to wax virtually on what is to be found in a book.

enuff it is everyone’s right to support the political party of their choice but what i want to know is if both mr francis and mr robinson are aligned- why curse and demonise non-national francis and warm up to non-national robinson.am i to understand that dlp supporters demonise their critics and blp suporters don’t.

@enuff

The issue here is not nationality and you know it.

Francis is a stated advisor of the Opposition and he should expect to come under fire if he is critical of the government’s policy in the tone he has delivered.

This is about transparency on every front.

Dr. Robinson has been accused as being pro-government in position so too Dr Howard pro-BLP. Why should Francis get a pass?

@ David
Truth be told it was about nationality initially, and individuals accused the man of being jealous of Barbados’ success. With regards to “coming under fire” that is not my bone of contention. I raised my opposition to the suggestion that in the type of politics practiced in Barbados being an advisor to the Opposition leader is different to a Directorship on the board of the Central Bank; and further that at last year’s Chamber of Commerce event Dr. Robinson was reported in the press as UWI Economist with no mention of his Central bank ties. It is, however, possible that he did indicate such during the meeting.
The real problem though is that we continue to treat one’s affiliation with a political party like a ‘scarlet letter’. If it were not so, the Chamber of Commerce, Dr. Francis and Dr. Robinson would all have been able to exhibit the level of transparency you are demanding.

i raised dr robinson’s purported affiliation after dr francis was attackedbecause pro-dlp’s attack and demonise anyone even their own party faithfuls if they do not toe the party line’ cast your mind back to the all of a sdden attacks on mr estwick when it seemed he was not going to accept the post of minister of agriculture and i could mention the destruction of other ardent dlp faithfuls who dared to step out of line.mr frank alleyne was under fire for sometime for what some faithfuls perceived as too cosy with the blp having been publicly praised by mr arthur in a reply to a budget presentation..now he seems to be crawling back into the fold. i am 100% sure that if dr francis” according to you david non- reasoned, non-studied approach to the budget was favourable to the dlp; then he would not have been attacked but given a pass like mr robinson.

like you david, ellis tries to appear to be non-partisan but frequent listeners to brasstacks especially leading up to the last elections wouls have perceived mr ellis’ obvious bias. i read dr francis speech verbatim and there is nothing to warrant the vicious attacks which he had to endure for his erudite comments si i see no need for disgust by ellis,i am awarethat my balanced views would as a consequence perceive me to be aligned but from the ouitset on this forum, i indicated that my intention was to set the record straight and balance the facts.

@Balance

Are you fah real?He should have given a studied approach to the budget, plain and simple.