Marla Dukharan – Economist

It is the opinion of BU the resonance of economist Marla Dukharan’s with the local population is not because she brings any fresh analysis to the fore. The reason is because she is perceived as an independent voice to be trusted. Her lucid commentary on local and regional economies which started when she was Chief Economist for the RBC with responsibility for the Caribbean has exposed a growing belief that several of the home grown economists have allowed themselves to become compromised by the lure of lucre from the political and economic class.

On the 23 August 2017 the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Barbados (ICAB) hosted a session which featured Marla Dukaran as the main speaker, the topic was Home Grown or IMF: What should Barbados’ economic recovery plan look like? From all reports it was a constructive session that served to reinforce the view among the professional class present decisions being taken by the government will not steer the country away from the economic precipice we continue to rapidly approach.

To give wings to the view that the Democratic Labour Party (DLP) appears to be focussed on the political dimension to how we manage a tiny island is to review the agenda and resolutions passed at the just concluded DLP annual convention. Two items carried in a resolution was for the political party- that forms the government by the way- to issue a communication to Attorney General Adriel Brathwaite to investigate the qualification (or lack of) of Mia Mottley to practice law in Barbados AND the use of wire tapping equipment by former Commissioner of Police Darwin Toppin supported by you guessed it, Mia Mottley.  Sensible Barbadians are left to wonder why has it taken the DLP until the end of its second term to force these two issues to earlier resolution. BU’s position is not to defend Mottley or Dottin of wrong doing, it is to find the government guilty for politicising the matter IF there is credible evidence to support the charges. Didn’t Prime Minister Freundel Stuart promise to share the contents of the FBI file that has mysteriously disappeared? What about his reference to a list of CLICO investors he also promised to release? #JAs

To the credit of ICAB they brought in Marla Dukharan to focus on an anaemic performing economy while the entity charged with managing the economy took a decision at its annual conference to focus on issues not related to the economy. What the juxtaposition shows is that in civil society the citizenry, this includes Non Governmental Organizations (NGO), must continue to find ways to inform the public so that tension is brought to bear on policymakers to make the best decisions in the interest of the wider public.

What did Caribbean Economist Marla Dukharan remind us?

  • Barbados has been recording fiscal deficits averaging 5.4% in the period 2000 to 2017. It spiked to 10.4% in the fiscal 2013/14 and as dipped to 6% in 2017/18 on last report. In stark contrast for the same period growth has averaged 1.1% with a -0.1% decline in 2013/14 easing up to 1.6% growth in the current period. The point Dukharan emphasized is why with the billions in government sending it did not significantly move the growth indicator.
  • Barbados recorded the lowest fiscal multiplier compared to five other major Caribbean economies i.e..Jamaica, Trinidad, Guyana, Suriname and Bahamas.  The fiscal multiplier is defined as the growth generated based on government spend.
  • Debt sustainability threshold is noted at 55/60% of GDP. The analysis supports that a greater number has a negative impact on growth. It is a matter of record that Barbados debt to GDP is far north of 100%.
  • The monetary base has increased to almost 5 times, close to 5 billion from 2000 to 2017. The will obviously stress foreign reserves given the island’s high conspicuous consumption fueled by imports. The proof is in the fact foreign reserves of abut 300 million in 2017 are at 2000 level.

The solution can be linked to the expression offered by Mara Dukharan, Barbados will have to pick its poison. And it does not matter if DLP or BLP wins the next government.

99 responses to “Economist Marla Dukharan’s Advice to Barbados, ‘Pick Your Poison’”


  1. ” The useless public talk during the last 10 years has revealed a common weakness of the local elite, namely the inability to act. ”

    You make some valid points. However, a challenge is not the ability to act, rather the interest to do it in Barbados. They are unloading Barbadian assets, while investing elsewhere. Internal risk diversification if you will. Certainly, currency diversification.


  2. I think it was @Peter Lawrence who first raised the issue of the Laffer Curve in this blog. Marla mentioning it is not extra-ordinary.


  3. THE MINISTRY OF EDUCATION, Science, Technology and Innovation has announced the names of three additional schools that will not be ready for the start of the new school year on Monday, September 11.

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/100394/late-start-schools

  4. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    @David. Tax compliance and widening of the base is necessary. We can’t expect the PAYE earners and the few large businesses to shoulder 75% of the income tax receipt while sole traders, independent contractors etc pay next to nothing. The compliance rate for most taxes collected in this country is relatively low in relation to our high income status. We should transform the tax department into a IRS-style entity and agrressively go after the tax dodgers and fraudsters.


  5. @fortyacresandamule

    Agree, we need tax reform -down with personal income tax and expand indirect tax system. A smple option like collecting road tax at the pump for example.

  6. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    @David. Indeed. Indirect tax seems appropriate and less regressive especially, when you consider the various accounting devices that the wealthy and big businesses use to reduce their income tax obligation.

  7. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Hal Austin September 10, 2017 at 1:11 PM #,
    I do not remember whether I ever mentioned the Laffer Curve on this blog; if I did it would have been to point out that Arthur Laffer is an ass, and the Laffer Curve a cheap confidence trick used by business elites to bamboozle the public.

    Laffer rose to prominence in the Reagan era because this was used as an argument for reducing tax rates. They had already decided to reduce tax rates of course, that’s what their campaign funders had paid for, this was just an ex post facto lamebrain excuse to justify their political decision.

    It is pretty much useless analytically because nobody knows where the peak of the Laffer Curve exists: is it at 29% taxation or 92% taxation? The varios economists have calculated answers ranging from 33% to 70%, so you see that nobody knows what the f*** the curve is really shaped like. Reagan I think used it to argue for reducing Federal tax rates from 25% to 22%, entirely outside of the zone that any economist thought would increase tax revenue (and of course tax revenue fell).

  8. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @David,
    It would be efficient to collect road tax at the pump… but you would run into a growing problem with the increase in the proportion of electric vehicles on the road…


  9. @Peter

    You should recall the discussion at the ICAB session with Mara referred to the Laffer Curve in the context of supporting a view that there is a point some believe where tax revenues fall at a certain level of tax imposition.


  10. @Peter

    A parallel taxpolicy to cover electric cars can be fashioned.

  11. Frustrated Businessman: Animal Farm sequel playing out in Bim. Avatar
    Frustrated Businessman: Animal Farm sequel playing out in Bim.

    Every business person in BIM knows that, regardless of who wins the next election, there will have to be a freeze on civil servant hiring, greater civil service efficiency and facilitation and a shed of statutory corporation money pits and teefin’ dens.

    The big difference in the outcome to the next election is that, if the DLP wins again, they will still not have the support of the foreign and local business community needed for economic recovery except for the bribe-payers, while, if the BLP wins, the return of business confidence and facilitation will immediately begin the process of recovery.

    As was the case after the last recession these idiots mismanaged.

    There will be no economic recovery under Fumble’s Fools. There was never any chance of it.

    By all accounts, the outright and blatant bribe solicitation of local and foreign business people has accelerated in the past few months.

  12. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ peterlawrencethompson September 10, 2017 at 8:02 PM
    “It would be efficient to collect road tax at the pump… but you would run into a growing problem with the increase in the proportion of electric vehicles on the road…”

    You have made a rather pertinent peep into the future with the petroleum-based ICE private car on its way out.

    But there will still be a need for third-party insurance as long as vehicles are using the roads.
    So why not let the insurance companies attach the ‘road-use’ tax onto the insurance premium payments and pay the tax over to the government like they do with other tax liabilities?

    Now that would throw the law enforcement cat among the law braking pigeons as far uninsured vehicle owners are concerned!


  13. @Peter Lawrence,
    The discussion involved someone coming out of Canada at the time. I remember saying exactly what you have said, that Laffer wrote this hypothesis on a dinner napkin and that is where it should have remained.

  14. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ Hal Austin September 11, 2017 at 11:13 AM

    So why not take a similar view on the Pareto efficiency or Pareto optimality hypothesis?

    Politicians certainly dismiss it in compiling their wish-list of pipe dreams contained in manifestoes, especially in resource-starved Barbados.


  15. Jethro,
    You suffer from an attention deficit problem. You always shift the subject of discussions. The conversation was about the Laffer curve, as was raised by Marla. I am not an economist, it is all foreign to me, as you know. But, be free, tell me what I should say and I would agree.


  16. @Miller

    There is no need to be pedantic on this matter of the Laffer Curve, it was mentioned to support a view (on a view) shared by Marla and others at the ICAB session that Barbados may have reached a level of tax fatigue.

    Your point about leveraging the insurance cover is a good one.

  17. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ David September 11, 2017 at 12:01 PM

    The ‘pointed’ reference the Pareto principle was made as an ‘academic’ riposte to that all-knowing Hal Austin with his dismissive attitude towards a hypothesis which is clearly applicable to any informed analysis of the fiscal and economic challenges currently facing Barbados.

  18. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @David,
    Dukharan did indeed refer to the Laffer Curve and implied that Barbados may have reached a point where tax revenues fall in the wake of increased tax rates. Nobody knows if this is true and we won’t know until we have the data in 2018.

    I do get dismissive about the Laffer curve because many conservatives invoke it as though they know where it peaks. Dukharan is on the side of the suits, but I am a traitor to my class, so we differ on this point.


  19. Thanks Peter, you were present.

    To repeat, BU’s reference to the Laffer Curve was in the context you referred i.e. is there a case to be made for deminishing tax revenues based on current policy. This is the salient point.


  20. MD was only being “polite”. Her primary point (in print) is we (GoB) have consistently overstated revenue, while understating expenditures. Hence the growing deficits. Laffer conceptually, is why tax increases may not yield the calculated revenue, ie. another shortfall. For she isn’t buying the projections, despite recognizing them.

    She also pointed out that Transfers and Subsidies are now >1.5 times the size of salaries and wages. Because of the parliamentary rollback, the latter has become our focus, while we tend to ignore the train which is really gathering speed…Transfers and Subsidies (also debt servicing).

    Now to agitate the corridors…the primary reason the $Bds has not devalued, is because the financial elite are “propping it up”. It is simply not in their best interest to have it happen.

  21. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ David September 11, 2017 at 12:56 PM
    “To repeat, BU’s reference to the Laffer Curve was in the context you referred i.e. is there a case to be made for deminishing tax revenues based on current policy. This is the salient point.”

    The Laffer curve hypothesis has been manifesting itself as a factor of fiscal reality since the annual increases in the raft of both old and new taxes imposed on the taxpayers in a contracting transactional/expenditure-based economy.

    Since his August 2013 budget presentation, the December 2013 Ministerial Statement and every subsequent budget and ministerial statement the MoF has been giving Bajans the assurance that every tax increase was done in the national interest of growing the economy and reducing the fiscal deficit with the massive skyrocketing increase of 400% in the NSRL being the most recent incarnation and manifestation of the Laffer Curve in action.

    With ‘disposable’ foreign reserves almost exhausted the economic “facts” on the ground speak for themselves and provide ample evidence of the Laffer Curve being at more than hypothetical play in Barbados.

    When the Bajan taxpayers who are entitled to refunds (some since 2013), are treated with justice according to the Law then we could dismiss the relevance of the hypothesis to the current state of economic performance in Barbados.

  22. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    Economics, the dismal science, is yet to develo any successful theory, wether from pure theoretical first principle or empirical data… to make reasonable prediction about the real macro-economy. They say economists suffer from physic envy. There is definately some truth about that .


  23. @fortyacresandamule

    What the global collapse of 2007/ exposed is the gap caused by the lack of understanding of behavioral economics.


  24. @fortyacres ”
    fortyacresandamule September 11, 2017 at 6:47 PM #
    Economics, the dismal science, is yet to develo any successful theory,”

    I disagree, most surely.

    Economics is fairly straightforward. The underlying theories are sound. The problem is, as David notes, behavioral economics. This encompasses governmental actions, commercial strategies, large criminal operations, as well as consumer spending.

    To get all of those ‘right’ is an insurmountable task.

    Look at the latest strategies by those who ‘would’ direct world resources i.e. the venture capitalists and hedge fund principals. They have used big data and social, engineering to place the current administration in a leader nation and have successfully achieved breaking the UK form the EU, aka Brexit.

    How can you allege that economics is dismal when the parameters being assessed are dynamic in nature.

    Surely physics and chemistry etc are fixed parameters, their ‘understanding’ being only limited and determined by man’s own understanding. But the parameter points are set.

    Economics is far more than a dismal science. Attribution of that description lends more to an understanding of the originator of such comment, than of the science itself.

    We know all science loves equations, so how about adding a factor to be included in economic equations, such as ‘Z’, for economics . ‘Z’ for all of the human behavioral unknowns in a situation.

    Unfortunately ‘Z’ would encompass so much as to lend no real value, except to understand why some may call economics dismal or of little accuracy.

  25. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    @Crusoe. Economics should be a sub-branch of psychology. Even at the micro-level the fundamental assumptions are flawed. First, human beings are not rational economic entities. Human beings are more complex than that. Second, markets move toward equillibrium, maybe so from a mathematical construct, but nonsense in reality. A super complex and dynamic system like the economy has no room for equillibrium in the real world.

    Plus you cannot theorise about macro- economic behaviour, starting with the assumptions from micro-economic therories and vice versa. It’s like trying to explain / predict the force of gravity at the macroscpic level, by extrapolating the theories of particle physics. It won’t work.

  26. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    Economists are so jealous of the guys in the hard science, that they even called their top prize in the field, the nobel prize in economics. Alfred Noble, bequeath no such prize to the dismal science. And most of the theories that have won the so-called nobel prize, neither are reproducable, nor can verified emperically on a consistent basis.


  27. 40 Acres

    Is poorly educated. He says things like, “Human beings are not rational, so economic models do not work”.

    Even when an economic model assumes rational behaviour, it is useful for predicting the tendencies or forces at work in the real world, because people are sometimes rational, even though they may not be always or consistently rational.

    PLT

    Stop being an ass. Arthur Laffer is not an important economist, but he has a BA from Yale and a PhD in Economics from Stanford. He taught in the business school at USC and at Pepperdine.

    Which is to say he knows a lot more economics than you, and he has called for attention to supply side forces in the economy, which is a useful offset to the demand- side focus of Krigman, Stiglitz and many other prominent economists who are public intellectuals. Show some respect for that.


  28. Give us all a break Chad…

    It has long been established on BU that economics is a shiite ‘science’ created by those of limited intellect who could not manage the real sciences and had no talents in the Arts.

    What the hell is an ‘economist’? …21st century snake oil sales.
    It CERTAINLY does not meet the definition of being a science, and has been assembled around a late 20th century, post WW2, paradigm of growth and optimism – which has faded into history leaving the concept of ‘economics’ stranded on the rocks….

    Even ‘Economists’ (whatever the hell THOSE are..) now admit that the whole thing is a lotta shiite…


  29. Bush Tea

    Astronomy. biology, chemistry, geology and physics, (probably what Bushie would consider as “the real sciences),” require a knowledge of mathematics.

    For example, it is essential for a physics student to be proficient in mathematics…………… algebra, geometry, trigonometry, etc. In addition to mathematics (which is a form of problem-solving), it is helpful for the prospective physics student to have a more general knowledge of how to tackle a problem and apply logical reasoning to arrive at a solution. (Sounds similar to economic concepts, Bushie?)

    Economics, especially at post graduate level, also requires the student to be proficient in mathematics………….. multivariable calculus, differential equations, linear algebra, real analysis, statistics, logarithms and indices, linear and simultaneous equations, geometric progressions: interest and growth, sigma notation and matrices, differentiation and integration, etc.

    How could you conclude an economist to be of “LIMITED INTELLECT who could not manage the real sciences,” when economics and physics both require knowledge of mathematics………..but would not describe a physicist similarly?

    I know that proving you to be incorrect creates a fundamental problem for you; rather than admit or yield, you would “shift the goal post,” while using witticisms to relieve the awkward feeling.

    Engineering, according to Wikipedia, is the application of MATHEMATICS, as well as scientific, ECONOMIC, social, and practical knowledge, to invent, innovate, design, build, maintain, research, and improve structures, machines, tools, systems, components, materials, processes, solutions, and organizations.

    However, the general consensus is that engineering is NOT a science either.

    Then your views about engineers should be similar to your views about economists.

    In the future, I’m expecting you to write “engineers” (what the hell THOSE are….)


  30. @ Artax…
    Bushie has NO ISSUE with being proved wrong…. it is WELCOMED….honestly…
    BUT, given the SOURCE of Bushie’s knowledge, ….good luck with THAT!!!

    Do you know what qualifies a field of study to be called a science?
    …or do you want some assistance..?

    Mathematics is ALSO needed to be a Minister of FineAnts too … but looka ours…!!!
    Mathematics would be useful if a minister planned to collect $10 per person from Bajans to build a stadium too …especially if he can get this to add up to $20M…..

    OBVIOUSLY the need to understand mathematics – in and of itself – does not make a field of study, or practice, into a ‘science’.


  31. Bush Tea caught out again. You can run, but you cannot hide. Wit can only hide so much.

  32. millertheanunnaki Avatar

    @ Bush Tea September 12, 2017 at 6:35 AM
    “Give us all a break Chad…
    It has long been established on BU that economics is a shiite ‘science’ created by those of limited intellect who could not manage the real sciences and had no talents in the Arts.
    What the hell is an ‘economist’? …21st century snake oil sales.
    It CERTAINLY does not meet the definition of being a science, and has been assembled around a late 20th century, post WW2, paradigm of growth and optimism – which has faded into history leaving the concept of ‘economics’ stranded on the rocks….
    Even ‘Economists’ (whatever the hell THOSE are..) now admit that the whole thing is a lotta shiite…”

    So is religion! The most unscientific “lotta shiite” humans ever expurgated from their brass-bowl minds.

    Have you ever stopped to consider that those 21st Century snake oil salesmen aka economist have simply replaced the priests and religious magicians of the past selling the same old bullshit of creating Heaven on Earth by selling an impossible dream of an easy life?

    Maybe Artax has a ‘fundamental’ point regarding your Big Boss Engineer (Brass Bowl Engineer aka BBE).

    BBE might just be another quack posing as a figment of Bushie’s imagination fertilized with an extravagant dose of human shiite from Bushie’s burning backside.


  33. Bush Tea

    I NEVER IMPLIED that “the need to understand mathematics – in and of itself – does not make a field of study, or practice, into a ‘science’……..”

    My point is………… if physics and economics require PROFICIENCY in mathematics, then to say an economist is an individual “of LIMITED INTELLECT who could not manage the real sciences” is non sequitur.


  34. @ Miller
    …and your point being…?
    You are correct about religion….
    Perhaps it is GP and Zoe that you may wish to address…. not stinking Bushie… who has been at war with such ‘snake oil pushers’ now for YEARS…

    @ Artax
    Perhaps the best qualification for a field of study to be considered a science was given by Carton and Hofer (2006) where they assert that “if the measures used in a discipline have not been demonstrated to have a high degree of validity, that discipline is not a science”
    As you know, no two ‘economists ever seem to concur – and even individuals are unable to give consistent results over different time frames.


  35. @ Artax
    My point is………… if physics and economics require PROFICIENCY in mathematics, then to say an economist is an individual “of LIMITED INTELLECT who could not manage the real sciences” is non sequitur.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    A valid point.

    However, IBHO (in Bushie’s humble opinion) any highly intelligent fellow who CHOOSES to pursue such a field of study, when he has the CAPACITY to make a useful contribution to society via a “REAL REAL” field of study…. suffers from an even WORSE ‘limitation of intellect’ than a fellow whose academic capacities constrain him from doing any better…

    ….so it is the same “limited intellect’ …only worse… 🙂

    LOL
    ha ha ha
    Murdah!!


  36. We are splitting hairs!

    Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it


  37. Bushie

    is a clever individual and a “verbal contortionist.” He must have an IQ of around 140.

    He previously stated: “It has long been established on BU that economics is a shiite ‘science’ created by those of limited intellect who could not manage the real sciences and had no talents in the Arts.”

    …………….. which, if interpreted within the context it was written, means people “who could not manage the real sciences and had no talents in the Arts” are of limited intellect and would endeavour to pursue “easy courses,” one of which is economics.

    However, when challenged about the logic of his statement, being the “verbal contortionist” he is, Bushie conveniently “shifts the goal post” to jest:

    “………..any highly intelligent fellow who CHOOSES to pursue such a field of study, when he has the CAPACITY to make a useful contribution to society via a “REAL REAL” field of study…. suffers from an even WORSE ‘limitation of intellect’ than a fellow whose academic capacities constrain him from doing any better…”

    Bushie, I admire your determination to stay afloat when the air is slowly escaping from the rubber dinghy…….. but you cannot qualify your former comment with the latter, since both comments are “mutually exclusive.”


  38. Wunnah don’t realize that getting BT to admit he is wrong on any topic is like pinning jello to a wall, it ain’t gonna work he would have made a superb politician ( perhaps he is).

    Art ax should move on, don’t waste your time.


  39. Lack of understanding of behavioural economics??? My, my. Plse explain.


  40. What is ‘Behavioral Economics?’

    According to Investopedia: “Behavioral Economics is the study of psychology as it relates to the economic decision-making processes of individuals and institutions. The two most important questions in this field are:

    Are economists’ assumptions of utility or profit maximization good approximations of real people’s behavior?
    Do individuals maximize subjective expected utility?

    Wikipedia:

    “Behavioral economics, along with the related sub-field behavioral finance, studies the effects of psychological, social, cognitive, and emotional factors on the economic decisions of individuals and institutions and the consequences for market prices, returns, and resource allocation, although not always that narrowly, but also more generally, of the impact of different kinds of behavior, in different environments of varying experimental values.”

    Or we could read the “Behavioral Economics Guide 2017,” edited by Alain Sampson, PhD

    https://www.behavioraleconomics.com/the-behavioral-economics-guide-2017/be-guide-2017-download/


  41. The maximum level of taxation was reached long ago.

    Barbados taxes like Scandinavia but offers 3rd rate social services and bullets flying around, food prices higher than Switzerland, productivity like Mozambique. In other words, an economic concentration camp.

    The categorical error of the local elite is their obsession to copy every sh… from Britain with their many ministries, civil servants, embassies and bureaucracy. Whatever the Brits crap, Barbadian decision makers take it for gold. Some kind of Stockholm syndrom, indeed.

    We need a smart and slim solution, streamlined and fitting to a MICROstate like Barbados:
    – electronic administration, not a royal bureaucracy, with decisions within a week for business and building permits
    – fast judiciary, not colonial badges and sleeping judges
    – small subsidiary civil service, not a civil service as a mass employer of last resort
    – low consumer taxes, not the highest taxes in the region
    – flexibel currency, not a religion called pegging, far away from national productivity
    – solar power for the whole island and solar powered vehicles, not silver Mercedes for the new plantation class
    – a better tourism product, not the same golf courses and drinks like the last 50 years.


  42. @Artax
    Skippa, you are on a roll these days.


  43. @ Artax
    Sargeant’s non-commissioned jealousies notwithstanding, Bushie is READY and WILLING to admit to ANY error that you are able to produce… and the Bushman hereby apologises in ADVANCE …since, being human, he MUST errr from time to time…
    HOWEVER, you will need to COME GOOD … because Bushie THINKS before he writes….

    Let us do this slowly (so that Hal can keep up…)

    1 – Bushie said.. ” It has long been established on BU that economics is a shiite ‘science’ created by those of limited intellect”
    Points to note:
    A- It was established on BU
    B- It was CREATED by persons of limited intellect.

    2 – YOU Interpreted this to mean that “”people “who could not manage the real sciences and had no talents in the Arts” are of limited intellect and would endeavour to pursue “easy courses,” one of which is economics.””

    Do you understand the DIFFERENCE between”CREATED BY” …and PURSUE /STUDY/ CHOOSE?”
    IF SO….
    Perhaps now you can follow the deduction that ‘any highly intelligent fellow who CHOOSES to pursue such a field of study, [that had been CREATED by a dimwit] when he has the CAPACITY to make a useful contribution to society via a “REAL REAL” field of study…. suffers from an even WORSE ‘limitation of intellect’ than a fellow whose academic capacities constrain him from doing any better…”

    @ Artax
    Don’t follow an NCO like Sarge into the trenches. You are much better suited for the officer’s mess… the drinks are much better.

    Apologies also the the big boss David(BU) for splitting some more hairs…. It is always fun doing so with Artax….
    LOL
    ha ha ha

  44. peterlawrencethompson Avatar
    peterlawrencethompson

    @Chad99999, said “Arthur Laffer is not an important economist,” we agree so far; and “he knows a lot more economics than you,” we are still in agreement: I was not disputing his qualifications.

    I was simply pointing out that the Laffer Curve, the work that he is notorious for (and probably embarrassed by), is useless. It is a political tool, not an economic one. It is either so obvious as to be trite: everyone knows that at a 0% tax rate revenue will be zero, that revenue will increase with an increase in rate, but that at a 100% tax rate the economy will not work and a lot of people will be disinclined to pay. So somewhere between 0% and 100% the tax revenue will be maximized. All this is trivial. Unless we formulate a theory which can predict the shape of the curve, which Laffer fails to do, we have nothing but a pointless “just so” story, not an analytical tool.

    The only time that I am aware that Laffer himself had significant policy input into using the Laffer Curve, it was an atrocious failure. Reagan slashed tax rates, revenue failed to increase as promised, and he ended up tripling the national debt.

    By the way Laffer acknowledges that he did not invent the curve, the idea goes back at least as far 14th-century Tunisian scholar Ibn Khaldun.


  45. “the Laffer Curve … is useless. It is a political tool, not an economic one”.

    PLT

    Political tools are not useless. Laffer has mobilized the political arguments for tax cuts and for avoiding tax increases.

    The Laffer Curve is actually both a political tool and an economic tool. In economics, it has spawned new research into the punitive effects of taxation.


  46. ” Bitcoin at crossroads after shedding more than $20 billion in value ”

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/bitcoin-at-crossroads-after-shedding-nearly-20-billion-in-value-2017-09-13

  47. fortyacresandamule Avatar
    fortyacresandamule

    @Bushie. You are not far off point. Political economy has transition to modern day economics by the less-than- gifted pure mathematicians and theoretical physicists. You see, when these individuals were flunking in their first choice discipline, they then migrate to the field of economics, because it was amenable to mathematical abstraction.

    Rigor and abstraction replaces common sense and concreteness . That is why economics has become so MATHEMATIZED today. The founding fathers believed, that, in order to establish respectability credibility, and prestige, the discipline should be underpined by mathematical abstraction.This is where the physic envy comes in. Even with all its ‘MATHINESS’, the pretentious discipline has no more respectability than astrology in my opinion.


  48. LOL @ Fortyacres
    Bushie was not guessing … or grabbing at straws…
    When you are working a whacker, yuh can smell shiite from far away…


  49. Economics is largely about ideology NOT science

    There are many examples:

    The unscientific assumption that markets are free and fair and not be protected by parties.

    That actors are not biased by advertising and other propaganda

    That CBs are somehow independent actors not influenced by politics, political interference, international diktat.

    That free trade is somehow unconnected from enforcement actions

    That reductions in taxation translate into increase capital investment and more jobs etc

    That corporations operate in environments of true competition with no desire to seek monopoly or oligopoly.

    That corporations are not dependent on government for expansion, military and other support to capture domestic and foreign markets

    That slave wages are helpful to all involved even when middle classes are being decimated

    That ownership and control are to be separated.

    And we could go on all day!

The blogmaster invites you to join the discussion.

Trending

Discover more from Barbados Underground

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading