Sale of the Barbados Hilton and the Parallel Universe Phenomenon

Submitted by Doc Martin

Once again, the occasion of a general election has surfaced the abysmal ignorance of the electorate about the workings of government. Indeed, if one stands back far enough, one will see that practical government and the perceptions and aspirations of the so-called “masses” operate in parallel universes, the two colliding every five years, for five minutes, in a polling booth. From this perspective, I submit, once again, that the first-level answer to the problems facing Barbados is a change in the character of the incoming government as I argued elsewhere.

DLP Failings
The DLP administration can justifiably be chastised for being slow off the bat to make so-called structural changes to the economy. Most of their first five years were spent apparently “relearning” the inner workings of the “modern” Barbados economy having been away from the seat of power for fifteen years. In their play for time, they were aided by their constant references to the truckload of debt left by the BLP and the worldwide, manmade recession which began around 2007.

In the last three years or so the Government did come up with embryonic plans (predicated on free IMF advice) to stabilize the economy but, as the IMF itself has well documented, lack of timely implementation has stymied the efforts and put the economy in further jeopardy. Perhaps, one of the greatest shortcomings of the DLP administration has been its inability to communicate with the population in terms that can be understood. There was also the ever-present temptation of nepotism, cronyism and sheer corruption which the administration could not resist. Of course, they do not have any monopoly on these sins, as the BLP would have us believe!

Parallel Universes
On page 61 of the 2015 budget, Chris Sinckler, the DLP’s Minister of Finance, made a very serious statement which, because of its importance and relevance, I reproduce here.

Mr. Speaker at present we seem to be caught in a vortex where we have a “Scandinavian” approach to the delivery of social services, where they generally are provided free at the point of delivery to all (universal access), while on the other hand, we appear to desire an Anglo-American approach to the issue of taxation where taxes are relatively low, and citizens clamour for ever lower taxes and tax exemptions.

It is in that dialectic: the aspirations of the masses vs. the penchant for unlimited freeness; the quest for benefits without bearing the fiscal costs; the clamour for rights vs. the willingness to bear the attendant responsibilities, that we find the parallel universe phenomenon which is at the root of the problems in Barbados and perhaps similar countries. And it is against this parallel universe concept that we should examine the sale of the Barbados Hilton.

Hilton on the Block
The BLP has made an election issue out of the sale and claimed that its plan to protest right outside the hotel has caused a halt to the negotiations on the sale. It claims this is a victory for the party; the naïve and the yard fowls will easily concur.

Successive Barbadian governments have failed to make the populace understand that the economic and financial principles of running a government are fundamentally the same as running a household. If a household’s earnings are less than what it spends it will have a “deficit” and have to borrow and if it over-extends itself in borrowing, it is only a short time before the debt collectors are knocking on its door! The fact that this is not understood is partly responsible for the parallel universe phenomenon.

A household can find financial ease if it has assets that can be used to generate income or sold to bring cash or, less preferably, used as collateral to obtain further credit. The sale of the Hilton should be viewed from this perspective.

Government is not, and should not be, in the business of running hotels per se. The Hilton is an asset held by government for the purpose of earning revenue; it is not a family heirloom that is inviolable. Given the dire straits in which it finds itself, the Government has chosen to sell the Hilton to bring much needed cash and possibly foreign exchange. At least this is the prima facie situation.

We can speculate or form conspiracy theories as to what else is going on. However, the objective fact is that the government needs the money. We might object to the price or even the terms of sale. If this is Ms. Mottley’s position, then we can support it. But there is always more in the mortar than the pestle! In this case, we suspect that Ms. Mottley is trying to earn political points and retaliate for the tax expose wrought upon her family by the DLP-Owen Arthur consortium; even that is understandable…to a point.

But, if the prima facie situation is what it is, then Ms. Mottley is being hypocritical because Bajan memories are not so short as not to remember the sale of the BNB (Barbados National Bank) to Trinidad by the last BLP administration of which she was a member.

Sale of government assets, when done for the right reason and in the right manner, is no more unethical or financially unsound than a household going about the sale of family assets, even heirlooms, to avoid bankruptcy or financial ruin. It is principled financial management and plain common sense!

Standby to Transport Aliens
It is time the masses started behaving like citizens rather than aliens, learn how government works and stop letting political parties exploit them because they are so naïve as to expect that government works any differently, fundamentally, from how they run (or should run!) their households. Then they will be in a position to critically evaluate the promises being made in this and any future election. But alas, this appears to be asking too much of a highly certificated but “uneducated” and alienated electorate. In that case the beam up is aborted!

Towards Proportional Representation
The foregoing should not be construed as an attempt to apologize for the DLP. On the contrary! In fact, I am not at all comfortable with a government made up solely of members of any one party be it BLP or DLP.

The moment is right in history for a government by coalition. To this end, the best thing the Barbados electorate can do at this time, is to ensure, in the absence of a system of proportional representation, that no one party makes up the incoming government of 2018. This it can do if a substantial portion of the electorate votes for members of a third party they feel have something worthwhile to contribute and at the same time, reject those of the major parties who have demonstrated incompetence, corruption or other malfeasances. I can think of at least three or four individuals across the current DLP administration and the BLP whom the electorate should sanction for these reasons.

Finally, if the electorate is so unhappy with how the older parties have been managing the people’s business in recent times, once this election is over, it needs to demand, by referendum, a change in the electoral system from the current first-past-the-post method to one based on proportional representation (with the added feature of recall!) which, all other things being equal, will always yield a coalition government.

82 comments

  • The DLP administration can justifiably be chastised for being slow off the bat to make so-called structural changes to the economy. Most of their first five years were spent apparently “relearning” the inner workings of the “modern” Barbados economy having been away from the seat of power for fifteen years. In their play for time, they were aided by their constant references to the truckload of debt left by the BLP and the worldwide, manmade recession which began around 2007.

    This paragraph could be tweaked to reflect that the first two years 2008-2010 were affected by the sickness and subsequent death of David Thompson which created the ‘deer in headlights’ situation.

    Like

  • So what? Barbados is BANKRUPT and must accept even an offer below market value. You call that emergency sale. Every international investor knows that.

    The next step is to sell Barbadians to Saudi Arabia or UAE, since all other assets are already sold out.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Government is not, and should not be, in the business of running hotels per se. The Hilton is an asset held by government for the purpose of earning revenue; it is not a family heirloom that is inviolable. Given the dire straits in which it finds itself, the Government has chosen to sell the Hilton to bring much needed cash and possibly foreign exchange. At least this is the prima facie situation.

    Many are upset about the sale of the Hilton more along the lines at the lack of transparency. The system issue of dump public assets at deflated price to plug a leak.

    Like

  • Are-we-there-yet

    Doc Martin and the remaining DLP enthusiasts;

    Read, Learn and internally digest the youtube video below.
    It is by far the best speech in this election campaign.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Are-we-there-yet

    Doc Martin

    Your obfuscation of the huge leadership sins of the DLP regime must not be allowed to gain any traction.

    Again, Proportional Representation as a solution for the current situation is a putrid red herring.

    It cannot work now. The situation is much too urgent for that. Faint whisperings of possible slight wrongdoings by Stuart and his minions are not helpful at this juncture.

    Liked by 1 person

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ David May 21, 2018 4:22 AM
    “Government is not, and should not be, in the business of running hotels per se. The Hilton is an asset held by government for the purpose of earning revenue; it is not a family heirloom that is inviolable. Given the dire straits in which it finds itself, the Government has chosen to sell the Hilton to bring much needed cash and possibly foreign exchange. At least this is the prima facie situation.”

    So why sell the Hilton to earn a mess of forex pottage to turn around and use the same forex to build a behemoth not far away called the Hyatt Erection?

    The question that both the DLP and Prof. Howard have to address is who would be financing the construction and outfitting of the Hyatt hotel in a so-called World Heritage site with all the special conditions contained therein.

    How can the building of the Hyatt hotel be a boost to the country’s foreign reserves unless it is being financed by investors with access to foreign money?

    Why not declare the source of this foreign money the same way in the interest of so-called transparency the DLP promises to declare the buyer of the Hilton hotel?

    Liked by 2 people

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Doc Martin:
    “Perhaps, one of the greatest shortcomings of the DLP administration has been its inability to communicate with the population in terms that can be understood.”

    I wish to take ‘intellectual’ umbrage with that statement.
    There is no evidence to support your claim whereas there is ample on hand to dismiss it as having little grounding in electoral realities.

    The DLP has a way of communicating ‘convincingly with the majority of the population;
    much more so than its opponents.

    How easily you forget the role played by the “Little Old Lady on the Transport Board Bus” in convincing ‘the average Bajan on the bus to Martins Bay’ that ‘easy’ travel on that bus by the old pensioners and schoolchildren would no longer be freely available under a BLP privatization programme.

    Now which party is the ‘biggest’ advocate of Privatization as manifested in their actions in the sale of the BNTCL, Hilton hotel and its deliberate attempt to cannibalize (both financially and operationally) to the same Transport Board to make it a perfect entity for ‘cheap’ disposal to the existing private sector players in the same public transport industry.

    Didn’t Sweet-talking Stuart convince the new voters graduating from the BCC that a vote for the DLP would ensure their “Free” continuing tertiary education whereas a vote for the BLP under OSA would be nothing but a retrograde step leading to cul-de-sac for their hopes and aspirations?

    Didn’t Sinckler promise Bajans in every budget and economic recovery plan presented that there is a bright light at the end of the economic tunnel which would be reached, “shortly”? Now where is that bright light unless you see it in the hands of the IMF under the BLP?

    Which party is the one promising to the ‘common’ jingoistic man and xenophobic woman living in Eagle Hall that Barbados will be leaving the CCJ just because those ‘CCJ foreigner judges’ don’t like Bajans?

    If the DLP administration has a problem with the decisions made against the ‘unlawful’ acts of the Bajan government why did the same administration use the same Bajan people’s money to settle with Ms Myrie?

    Shouldn’t Ms Myrie be holding on for settlement all like now like the thousands of taxpayers awaiting their tax refunds or the myriad of creditors owed by the government?

    What about the many landowners whose properties were compulsorily acquired many moons ago but not a Bajan mickey mouse dollar has yet passed their way?

    Liked by 2 people

  • Dont expect barbadian household to understand the micro-economics of running a country because a lot of them live lifestylyes away above their means
    The other half are convinced that saving their monies in financial institutions is an investment
    Barbadians too long have not understood the value of investing in their country but cry and belly ache when govts have to turn to foreign investors to pursue a path for financial security

    Liked by 1 person

  • Weaving lies into “intellectual” discourse does not make lying more palatable. The sale of the Hilton is not the issue, it is, as David said earlier, the lack of transparency and the PRICE. The fact remains that during both the 2008 and 2013 elections the DLP lied to the electorate about privatisation. In 2008 this anti-privatisation stance was adopted even though David Thompson was involved in the sale of several government assets during the early 1990s; the party even fooled the gullible into believing that they could stop the sale of BS&T, a private company. Soon after being elected, however, the DLP in 2010 sold government’s remaining 27% shares in BNB–yes the Dems completed the sale of BNB. Fast forward to 2013 and the bus ad, and Estwick ranting about how the selling of BNTCL would be the action of a mad man. Yet the only thing standing between the sale of BNTCL to Sol by the DLP is the FTC. Bajans love to laugh at Americans for voting Trump, but we’ve Trumped since 2008. I am convinced tge Dems are not getting a favourable response on the ground and are desperately trying to Trump us again, with the likes if Doc Martin and Mark Jones.

    Liked by 2 people

  • @Enuff May 21, 2018 8:32 AM

    “In 2008 this anti-privatisation stance was adopted even though David Thompson was involved in the sale of several government assets during the early 1990s; the party even fooled the gullible into believing that they could stop the sale of BS&T, a private company. Soon after being elected, however, the DLP in 2010 sold government’s remaining 27% shares in BNB–yes the Dems completed the sale of BNB”.

    Just goes to show you how conflicted both parties are and how much of a parallel universe we live in, no? Every government by either of the duopoly has used the sale of assets as political footballs. Unless language is leaving me, that is the point I am making! the same point you are making! Wherein lies the bias???

    @Enuff May 21, 2018 8:32 AM:

    “I am convinced tge (sic) Dems are not getting a favourable response on the ground and are desperately trying to Trump us again, with the likes if Doc Martin and Mark Jones.”

    If what you say above is true, then I think I AM achieving my true mission!!! which mission (though stated) still eludes you! Fear DOES have torment!

    Like

  • @enuff

    Unfortunately because the BLP strategists are cared of the backlash from talk about privatization they cant exploit this on the political campaign trail as they ought to under normal circumstances.

    Like

  • @Mariposa May 21, 2018, 7:41 AM

    Couldn’t agree with you more!

    Like

  • @David May 20, 2018 9:41 PM

    “This paragraph could be tweaked to reflect that the first two years 2008-2010 were affected by the sickness and subsequent death of David Thompson which created the ‘deer in headlights’ situation”

    Point well taken David. I am obliged!

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ Doc Martin May 21, 2018 9:03 AM
    “@Mariposa May 21, 2018, 7:41 AM
    Couldn’t agree with you more!”

    Do you also agree that only a Hyatt built with foreign investment would make the sale of the Hilton hotel look like a sensible decision to take at this stage?

    Where would the forex be coming from to build the Hyatt hotel with 80-90% of its construction and furnishings inputs would be imported even the Rock Hard cement?

    Like

  • “It is in that dialectic: the aspirations of the masses vs. the penchant for unlimited freeness; the quest for benefits without bearing the fiscal costs; the clamour for rights vs. the willingness to bear the attendant responsibilities, that we find the parallel universe phenomenon which is at the root of the problems in Barbados and perhaps similar countries”.

    This view reinforces the disinformation about the Barbadian economy which leads to unfounded conclusions being drawn and options which harm the working people of Barbados being presented as the only options available to the country.

    The wealth created by the workers and people of Barbados is the source of everything that comes out of the economy. The workers get their wages and salaries out of it, the corporations get their profits out of it, the moneylenders get their interest payments out of it and the government gets its revenue out of it. Therefore, there is no issue of “aspirations of the masses vs. the penchant for unlimited freeness”. The only question is whose claim on the created wealth gets priority treatment. Under the current political and economic arrangements, priority is given to the private interests, namely the corporations and moneylenders, while the workers who created the wealth and the government are pushed to the back of the line. The situation has become even more dire under the neo-liberal dogmas that are currently ruling the world. Now, even the government’s share of wealth is being funneled into the pockets of the private interests through debt repayments and outsourced contracts. Until Bajans grasp this reality, we will be unable to find a way out of our current situation.

    Liked by 1 person

  • THE MOST NEEDED SPEECH THAT WE COULD HEAR FOR THIS ELECTION

    Having listened to Grenville Philips 11, I am heartened that they are still people in Barbados that care enough for Barbados to put forward the Tried and True Policies that will stop us or our children and our children’ children from being Slaves trying to pay back the Debts of the B’s and the D’s.

    He is Not a Lawyer Politician he is an Engineer, his Solutions must be Practical with the aim of saving Barbados from the IMF whose primary aim is to protect the lender and also to protect us from the Crazy Policies of the B’s and the D’s.

    I hope everyone watches this Video and Choose who they want to lead them to get us out of this situation.

    Like

  • Pure nonsense. In the last days of the Owen Arthur administration they were considering selling the Hilton. Check the last words of Noel Lynch , the then Minister of Tourism as he left that august chamber in response to David Thompson’s comments. Both parties are guilty of selling the nations assets even though they earn forex. whilst operating. They both need to go back to school. YOU DO NOT SELL ASSETS TO PAY FOR CURRENT EXPENDITURE. What will you have in the future when we get out of this existing situation. You can always repay a loan but you will never never get back those assets that were sold.It is a crime against the state.

    Liked by 1 person

  • You can always repay a loan but you will never never get back those assets that were sold.It is a crime against the state.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Worse…..
    It is a crime against common sense – and against our grand children.
    Only wild animals take that approach….. and brass bowl idiots.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Barbadians are a phony bunch of pretenders and reactioneries.
    How hard is it to understand the principle and rationale for selling an asset to save the nation national interest from being auctioned on the doorsteps of financial markets
    The fact being govts over the years have developed in the minds of barbadians an insatiable taste for freeness forcing govt to be providers for all and sundry even if it meant having to borrow as a means to end
    Well folks the bill has become due and unless manna falls from above which will not happen the govt have to find the finances to pay the debt
    As usual one would hear the long noise about transparency however the reality being that investors do not take kindly to having their business information openly placed in the public domain
    Most often the secrecy surrounds a principle to secure the asset and shut out any possible investors to counter offer

    Like

  • There is also the symbolism of being able to defend national assets so that the psyche of a country’s people can be emboldened at successes achieved by those before. There must be a value attached to having achieved and then to defend ownership of it?

    Liked by 1 person

  • David
    They don’t need to, because the evidence such as BNTCL is there for all to see.

    Like

  • millertheanunnaki

    @ MariposaMay 21, 2018 10:36 AM
    “Barbadians are a phony bunch of pretenders and reactioneries.
    How hard is it to understand the principle and rationale for selling an asset to save the nation national interest from being auctioned on the doorsteps of financial markets
    The fact being govts over the years have developed in the minds of barbadians an insatiable taste for freeness forcing govt to be providers for all and sundry even if it meant having to borrow as a means to end”

    Well, well, so our multi- pussy ac has finally seen the light of Privatization and like Saul who became Paul is now the biggest advocate of that programme of divestment which OSA proposed as away of reducing the deficit but was soundly rejected at the ballot box.

    This business of selling off the family silver started under a DLP administration when Sandiford had to do it from way back in 1991-92.

    So Angela Skeete or Cox, what will it be? Privatization or continue to borrow to add to the “truckload” of burdensome debt left by the BLP over 10 years ago?

    Like

  • @Tee White May 21, 2018 10:08 AM

    Notwithstanding your disagreement with the notion of “dialectic”, you have raised some very interesting points which, I hope you recognize, strike to the heart of some key intellectual questions of macro-economics, political philosophy, history and sociology. For example:

    Q1. What SHOULD be the economic relationship between the (Barbadian) “working class”, “investor class” and government?

    Q2. What IS the role of government?

    Q3. So what is the role of unions?

    Q4. And, how should society be “held together”?

    I don’t want to steer this discussion into some sterile, intellectual debate about the myriad of theories which have used to address these and related questions; theories such as liberalism, communism, free enterprise, conflict theory, consensus theory etc. I suspect / hope you are quite aware of these.

    Suffice it to say that in Barbados we have opted, with varying levels of consciousness and willingness, for:

    A mixed economy
    A political philosophy of DEMOCRATIC socialism
    A sociological theory of consensus

    These, unknown to many, are what is framing, and continues to frame, our discourse. Of course, in the real Barbadian society, none of the above exists in a pure form. In fact, our history can be seen as an attempt to wrestle with these issues/philosophies/choices and balance them against the backdrop of a post-colonial society which (post-colonial society) provides its own unique problems. Indeed the history of most other Caribbean states ( and their relative success /failure) can be seen as an attempt to calibrate these choices for their individual societies.

    But the fifth question (not stated above), that is most important, is this: What is the role of the individual citizen in all this?

    That is what we are grappling with, especially at this time. And that is why, as a transition measure, I am suggesting, even praying for, a coalition and that the citizens vote towards this end.

    This idea is yet to gain traction because if we examine ourselves ( e.g. the BU community) many are experiencing pre-separation anxiety; separation from the idea that only one party should form the next government. Yet no one has been able to present a better short-to-medium term solution for “change” for which some are clamouring! We are truly schizophrenic and the true colour of the election is really …shades of grey!

    The current dialectic is therefore, ANXIETY over separation from the idea of a de facto “one party” government and PARALYSIS over the uncertainty of an alternative, “untried” arrangement!

    Really though, who are we (armchair intellectuals?) fooling? The “masses” don’t care a rat’s claw about dialectics, theories and philosophies, even history. THEIR “philosophy” is the philosophy of the simple: less taxes, more money to spend, less thinking, more talk (read: “gossip”)! And, as you imply, the politicians are just loving it! Absolutely!

    Like

  • Tee White May 21, 2018 10:08 AM

    “The only question is whose claim on the created wealth gets priority treatment. Under the current political and economic arrangements, priority is given to the private interests, namely the corporations and moneylenders, while the workers who created the wealth and the government are pushed to the back of the line. The situation has become even more dire under the neo-liberal dogmas that are currently ruling the world. Now, even the government’s share of wealth is being funneled into the pockets of the private interests through debt repayments and outsourced contracts. Until Bajans grasp this reality, we will be unable to find a way out of our current situation.”

    We have found the answer to your dictums…VENEZEULA! Where workers run things and Entrepreneurs are cast aside. The Business in Venezuela is the Oil and it is run by the workers likewise so are Agricultural Lands are being worked by the workers.

    VENEZUELA, THE WORKERS PARADICE WHERE EVERYTHING IS BEING DONE IN THE NAME OF THE WORKER AND BY THE WORKER. The People in charge of the various Industries are hand-picked by Maduro himself.

    VENEZUELA, SUCH PROSPERITY ABOUNDS, to benefit the workers the grand sum of a monthly Salary that is worth the magnificent sum of 2$ US

    VENEZUELA Where Food is in Abundance, where the workers remember times when they had toilet paper, where shopping is as easy as going to the Garbage Cans where citizens are fleeing to less prosperous lands like Columbia, Brazil and even Trinidad.

    VENEZUELA, VENEZUELA, where the Nation’s health is great and the National Diet the Maduro causes everyone in Venezuela to Lose over 20 pounds last year alone. Venezuelans never had it so good. The Country with the largest known oil Reserves export less oil than it ever did.

    VENEZUELA, where supermarkets have now been taken over by the workers government, except, that the Shelves is Empty.

    Such untold blessings on Venezuela and on the workers of Venezuela and these blessing you are wishing for us in Barbados.

    Tee White you are in the company of Idi Amin Dada, Commie Sing Song and Castro they would proud of you.

    Like

  • HERE IS THE REALITY

    With these fundamentals now on the table, we may now keenly understand what American Spectator’s author J.T. Young succinctly points out:

    “The left’s inherent challenge is justifying their claim to what others own.” Hence they launch divisive disinformation campaigns pitting one against another, calling whatever they can’t control ‘unfair and undemocratic.’

    (See: Understanding the Left’s Demands on What Others Own, T.J. Young, The American Spectator, March 2013).

    “And they do this by hypocritically indicting Free Enterprise (Capitalism) or laissez faire economics as criminal. They claim that such a system is entirely unfair, wherein Government interference is kept at a minimum and free trade is generally allowed to be unregulated between individuals. They accuse such unrestrained Liberty as being the means by which the wholesale “theft” from society takes place. This gives them reason to limit personal freedom and aggressively denigrate the Liberties of personal initiative and creativity.

    Under the rubric of “You didn’t build that!” they feverishly claim that Society creates wealth, not individuals. Persisting in their lie, they insist that entrepreneurs are just those that steal or pirate the wealth rightfully belonging to others. According to their entrenched purview, everything that individuals may create or produce only occurs because of the governing that has made the means of wealth possible. They erroneously claim that every activity yielding a prosperous outcome belongs rightfully to everybody else.

    And thus their redistribution of wealth becomes the final arbitrator of fairness. In their view, no matter the individual endeavour, means or investment applied no one has the right to ownership of anything that somebody else does not have. Thus according to this half-baked paradigm, Marxist-Utopists hate Free-Enterprise Capitalism because it violates their sense of entitlement (‘fairness’ to them), accusing Capitalists of the three infamies they find most unforgiving. Namely, (1) the inequality of personal outcome which is derived from the interaction between (2) Free-Market economics and (3) personal independence, all of which they claim invariably leads to the greed and self-centeredness of materialism.”

    Thus they invalidate the most fundamental rights of man, the rights of ownership and personal property.” Correctly countering this selective perception, that, “Just as man can’t exist without his body, so no rights can exist without the right to translate one’s rights into reality — to think, to work and to keep the results — which means: the right of property…. Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights [and the Bill of Rights particularly] is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities…and the smallest minority on earth is the individual. Those who deny individual rights, cannot claim to be defenders of minorities.”

    Like

  • No. No Miller dont see one sh.it endorsing the blp way of priivatization whereby their policy to privatize would be a fire sale action across the board that would impact on many households and most likely change the economic landscape of barbados in ways to benefit outside interest

    Like

  • Bush Tea May 21, 2018 10:25 AM

    Absolute nonsense!

    The only crime there is…will be…is to have our children / grand children inherit a much degraded society occasioned by failure to take appropriate action when required, that is, NOW! What is your solution, anyway? Do you even have one? Do you have a vision for Barbados? We know you can criticize; I am not convinced that you can think logically AND practically! Please give us a solution?

    Like

  • @ David re. Doc Martin May 21, 2018 11:39 AM

    The line ” A political philosophy of socialism” should read: “A political philosophy of DEMOCRATIC socialism” Can you make the change?

    Many thanks to the comments made by Freedom Crier May 21, 2018 11:49 AM re Venezuela because we have to recognize the not-so-subtle difference(s) between “democratic socialism” (the espoused philosophy of both BLP and DLP), and “pure socialism” / communism which is the philosophy driving Venezuela at this time.

    Like

  • All economies depends on taxes. Productivity or investment as a true and tried formula for a healthy development of a country
    Those three factors can only be activated by citizens participation and to some extent by outside investment
    Barbados over the years has not been able to produce goods and services that at a greater level would impact overseas markets.
    Barbados therfore is limited to having to depend on a one nest basket along with foreign investment
    The long and short of the story being that if a country does not have the where withal to be self dependant whereby citizen participation by way of investment is involved helping to attribute to the economic health of the country
    The nations financial struggles would continue
    Barbadians for the most party want to have their cake and eat it too
    Very few if any look towards a future of developing a barbados for a true independence but have evolved into a society of self interest and country be dam

    Like

  • Having heard the political speech of David Comissiong, of last night

    We must say, that we were amongst the first, in recent times, to refer to the ruling systems of Barbados as a ‘regime’

    And we were referring to them as such far before the DLP formed the ‘government’, long before

    We understand the government of Barbados, as not just the ruling party, but the parliamentary opposition as well, the duopoly.

    Indeed, we have also include a wide variety of elitist forces, the civil service and the corporate elites.

    A constellation of forces driving this country.

    For the DLP, in and of itself, cannot wield political power without all these other forces’ cooperating with it, in some way/s.

    We would not now here seek to deal with the internal contradictions, within Comissiong’s speech.

    Comissiong gave three (3) clear examples of dictatorial tendencies, which although not the most egregious we have seen over past decades, constitute behaviours highly inconsistent with perceptions about democracy.

    We however, fail to see any sets of scenarios where a BLP regime will be any different, or has in the past, been any different, than a DLP regime, as measured by any independent mind.

    Like

  • What is Democratic Socialism? What makes it different than regular Socialism? Has it been tried? Could it work in the United States? Comedian and political commentator Steven Crowder, host of Louder With Crowder, explains.

    Some Advocate Democratic Socialism, Is this the Future? Has it work in Barbados?

    Please Watch this Video for a Better Understanding…

    Like

  • @Freedom Crier
    You sound like you are either a Klu Klux Klan supporter or a lover of Adolf Hitler as these are usually the most rabid anti-communists.

    Why are you so obsessed with Venezuela? Are you Venezuelan or Bajan? The United Nations Development Programme’s (UNDP) Human Development Index (HDI) places Venezuela in 71st place out of the 188 countries on its list. This means that there are 117 countries ranked below Venezuela for human development and the overwhelming majority of these have the capitalist system. Explain that! Are you aware that the country with the fastest growing economy in the world is ruled by a communist party? In any event, the people in Venezuela seem to have a different opinion to you about the current government as they just voted them back into power. If you’re not a Venezuelan, my advice to you would be to leave the Venezuelan people alone let them sort themselves out and let us focus on Barbados.

    Your quotes from JT Young remind me of the arguments of the Barbadian slavemasters. The wealth produced by the labour of the slaves is ours because we were entrepreneurial enough to put them into slavery. Those calling for ending slavery are spreading division in society and attacking the must fundamental human right, namely the right to own private property, in this case our foreparents.

    To better reflect your actual views, I suggest you change your name to Slavery Crier.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Doc Martin
    In my opinion, the fundamental problem facing our country is that we have inherited the old political, economic, social and ideological system from the days of slavery and colonialism which was established to oppress the majority and we have run with it during the independence period. At a political level, this is reflected in the continuation of the system of ‘representative democracy’ which is neither representative or democratic and which functions to disempower and marginalise the masss of Bajans, whose only connection with this political power that rules over them is to collide with it “every five years, for five minutes, in a polling booth”.

    Without going into the history of the system of ‘representative democracy’ with its origins in the English civil war, we can draw a number of conclusions about it. First, the self sacrificing efforts of the masses of working people all over the world to make this system accountable to them through imposing universal suffrage on it have failed. Secondly, as a consequence, this system is in a crisis of legitimacy everywhere, even in its heartlands of the UK and USA.

    Therefore, we in Barbados, like people all over the world must give serious consideration to fnding an alternative that empowers ordinary people and actually turns into reality the slogan of government of the people, by the people and for the people. We can do so by breaking from Eurocentrism and the whole so-called Westminster model and by drawing on systems of democratic governance from all over the world. Your reference to consensus building struck me because this is a key principle of many traditional African systems of democratic governance. The current election campaign tells us that no such principle operates in our country’s political life. Instead we are following the adversarial Eurocentric concept which is everywhere in this system.

    Today, as far as I can see, the major challenge is for Bajans to begin a broad discussion about the kind of society we want an independent Barbados to be and the steps that will be needed to bring it about. This shouldn’t be an intellectual exercise but one that involves Bajans of all political persuasions and all walks of life.

    Like

  • PMS (noun) – any of a complex of symptoms (including emotional tension and fluid retention) experienced by the Barbadian electorate (male and female) immediately before the day of election.

    Come May 24, 2018 you will have your chance to save Barbados from PMS.

    Liked by 1 person

  • @Tee White

    When (if) we have that national conversation you ask- and we should- will anything different occur compared to when we held the Marshall Commission, Duffus Commission and of recent the White Paper on immigration etc. You get the drift?

    Liked by 1 person

  • Doc Martin you asked What is the Solution?

    Free Enterprise (Capitalism) leads to Prosperity and Freedom while Socialism leads to Poverty and Bondage! Capitalism doesn’t come with a warranty or “money back” guarantee. Yet, it encourages individuality, creativity, opportunity, risk taking, ambition, pride, dignity, and a sense of accomplishment, promotion, and provision. As much as Socialist professes their disdain for capitalism, they’ve yet to offer a better system. The reason is simple; it doesn’t exist.

    Capitalism is a made up word by Communist to describe “Free Enterprise and the use of Capital”. Free Enterprise, for it to be Free, must be Free of all encumbrances that will control it. Crony Capitalism, uses the word Capitalism in an effort to change the language from the word Free-remembering Capitalism = Free Enterprise. What we have pre-existing in the world is not Free Enterprise; Crony Capitalism is an attempt to label the System of Free Enterprise by regulating it until it is no longer Free. Free Enterprise (Capitalism) = Free Markets

    Cronyism is where big business and governments collude to give special favours to those entities to the exclusion of the ordinary person. Crony Capitalism is an attempt to label the System of Free Enterprise by regulating it until it is no longer Free.

    Capitalism has a new competitor, and its name is “shame.” The left is determined to make capitalism morally reprehensible. Cloaked in provocative terms like “income inequality,” wealth redistribution has become the popular economic philosophy in the world today, but it doesn’t hold a candle to capital…

    @ Tee Tree…There is Free Marker Enterprise (Capitalism) and Crony- Capitalism (Cronyism).

    Free Enterprise is not regulated by Endless Burdensome Regulations, brought about by Socialist Communism resulting in Crony- Capitalism! The law in a free society is only used for the protection of person and property—you cannot use the law as a tool for force and theft of property and labour, NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE INTENTION—this economic ideology of a “fair share” of another’s labour is the foundation for Fascism, Nazism, Socialism, and Communism. Using government to “help” individuals is NOT liberalism, it is at one level or another—only and ALWAYS Collectivism.

    Like

  • @Tee Tree…. How many times perfectly has Socialism/Communism been implicated all the things you advocate and it has failed. Do you have Any Basis in Reality to keep promoting this same Crap…Show us the Societies you want us to emulate?

    Like

  • @Slavery Crier
    “Free Enterprise (Capitalism) leads to Prosperity and Freedom while Socialism leads to Poverty and Bondage!” This statement is demonstrably false.

    We do not need to review the whole history of the world to know that what you like to call so-called ‘free enterprise’, but which is actually more scientifically described in economic terms as capitalism, actually leads to extreme wealth at one end and poverty and bondage at the other end. If we take our country’s own history, the incontrevertible truth of this statement is clear. Barbados, following the capturing and enslaving of the indigenous people by the free enterprising Portuguese and Spanish capitalists was settled by the English free enterprising slave masters. In the mid 17th century, Barbados was considered one of the richest places on earth and many an English capitalist/free enterpriser made a fortune from our country. Throughout all this time of free enterprise the African majority were living in bondage and poverty. After 300 years of this free enterprise system in Barbados, the Moyne Commission appointed by the British government reported in the 1930s that malnutrition and poverty were rampant among Bajans of African descent and instead of enjoying freedom, we were languishing under an apartheid regime.

    Do you not even know this basic history of your own country? Just by being even slightly informed about our own country’s history, it is clear that your statement is false and baseless.

    Like

  • Ironic that, contrary to what one might expect, some big names among Wall Street’s supposed dyed in the wool capitalists were apparently quite eager to finance the Bolshevik and Communist revolutionaries who were to launch the first large scale experiment in applied socialism.

    WALL STREET AND THE BOLSHEVIK REVOLUTION
    By Antony C. Sutton

    Chapter I
    THE ACTORS ON THE REVOLUTIONARY STAGE

    Dear Mr. President:
    I am in sympathy with the Soviet form of government as that best suited for the Russian people…

    Letter to President Woodrow Wilson (October 17, 1918) from William Lawrence Saunders, chairman, Ingersoll-Rand Corp.; director, American International Corp.; and deputy chairman, Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    The frontispiece in this book was drawn by cartoonist Robert Minor in 1911 for the St. Louis Post-Dispatch. Minor was a talented artist and writer who doubled as a Bolshevik revolutionary, got himself arrested in Russia in 1915 for alleged subversion, and was later bankrolled by prominent Wall Street financiers. Minor’s cartoon portrays a bearded, beaming Karl Marx standing in Wall Street with Socialism tucked under his arm and accepting the congratulations of financial luminaries J.P. Morgan, Morgan partner George W. Perkins, a smug John D. Rockefeller, John D. Ryan of National City Bank, and Teddy Roosevelt — prominently identified by his famous teeth — in the background. Wall Street is decorated by Red flags. The cheering crowd and the airborne hats suggest that Karl Marx must have been a fairly popular sort of fellow in the New York financial district.
    Was Robert Minor dreaming? On the contrary, we shall see that Minor was on firm ground in depicting an enthusiastic alliance of Wall Street and Marxist socialism. The characters in Minor’s cartoon — Karl Marx (symbolizing the future revolutionaries Lenin and Trotsky), J. P. Morgan, John D. Rockefeller — and indeed Robert Minor himself, are also prominent characters in this book.

    The contradictions suggested by Minor’s cartoon have been brushed under the rug of history because they do not fit the accepted conceptual spectrum of political left and political right. Bolsheviks are at the left end of the political spectrum and Wall Street financiers are at the right end; therefore, we implicitly reason, the two groups have nothing in common and any alliance between the two is absurd. Factors contrary to this neat conceptual arrangement are usually rejected as bizarre observations or unfortunate errors. Modern history possesses such a built-in duality and certainly if too many uncomfortable facts have been rejected and brushed under the rug, it is an inaccurate history. On the other hand, it may be observed that both the extreme right and the extreme left of the conventional political spectrum are absolutely collectivist. The national socialist (for example, the fascist) and the international socialist (for example, the Communist) both recommend totalitarian politico-economic systems based on naked, unfettered political power and individual coercion. Both systems require monopoly control of society.

    SNIP

    In brief, this is a story of the Bolshevik Revolution and its aftermath, but a story that departs from the usual conceptual straitjacket approach of capitalists versus Communists. Our story postulates a partnership between international monopoly capitalism and international revolutionary socialism for their mutual benefit. The final human cost of this alliance has fallen upon the shoulders of the individual Russian and the individual American. Entrepreneurship has been brought into disrepute and the world has been propelled toward inefficient socialist planning as a result of these monopoly maneuverings in the world of politics and revolution.

    This is also a story reflecting the betrayal of the Russian Revolution. The tsars and their corrupt political system were ejected only to be replaced by the new powerbrokers of another corrupt political system. Where the United States could have exerted its dominant influence to bring about a free Russia it truckled to the ambitions of a few Wall Street financiers who, for their own purposes, could accept a centralized tsarist Russia or a centralized Marxist Russia but not a decentralized free Russia. And the reasons for these assertions will unfold as we develop the underlying and, so far, untold history of the Russian Revolution and its aftermath.4

    https://www.voltairenet.org/IMG/pdf/Sutton_Wall_Street_and_the_bolshevik_revolution-5.pdf

    Like

  • @Tee White May 21, 2018 8:20 PM

    “@Slavery Crier
    “Free Enterprise (Capitalism) leads to Prosperity and Freedom while Socialism leads to Poverty and Bondage!” This statement is demonstrably false.”

    You are right here. This is a gross over-simplification!
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    @Tee White May 21, 2018 8:20 PM

    “After 300 years of this free enterprise system in Barbados, the Moyne Commission appointed by the British government reported in the 1930s that malnutrition and poverty were rampant among Bajans of African descent and instead of enjoying freedom, we were languishing under an apartheid regime.”

    I am not sure this is what is meant by ” free enterprise”! As you state, our forefathers at that time were not enjoying “freedom”. “Free enterprise” in your scenario meant free enterprise for a certain class of society. In other words, you can’t participate in “free enterprise” if you are NOT FREE! Slavery Crier has it confused: it should be that freedom mixed with free enterprise CAN lead to prosperity;

    Freedom is a necessary but not a sufficient for condition for prosperity under “free enterprise”. If individuals do not have access to capital, their ability to practice free enterprise will be severely limited. This is where my reference to democratic socialism in Doc Martin May 21, 2018 11:39 AM cuts across the “free enterprise” debate.

    So the questions for me are:

    Q1. What is the difference between democratic socialism and socialism / communism (if any)?

    Q2. How have successive Barbadian governments practised social democracy?

    Q3. To what extent have the policies of such governments allowed individuals to acquire the means and infrastructure to participate in free enterprise?

    But I’ll leave the answer to these for another posting.

    Like

  • “Successive Barbadian governments have failed to make the populace understand that the economic and financial principles of running a government are fundamentally the same as running a household.”

    Could the author please explain the above comment?

    “But, if the prima facie situation is what it is, then Ms. Mottley is being hypocritical because Bajan memories are not so short as not to remember the sale of the BNB (Barbados National Bank) to Trinidad by the last BLP administration of which she was a member.”

    To be fair, the author is being untruthful by stating the Owen Arthur administration sold BNB to Republic Bank.

    Firstly, BNB was not entirely owned by the Barbados government. In 2003, the Arthur administration and other shareholders sold 57% of the bank’s shareholding to Republic Bank. RB subsequently acquired 8.14% of “non government” shares, thereby increasing their shareholding to 65.14%.

    Of the remaining 34.86% shares, the Barbados government owned 28%, which was sold by the Thompson administration in 2012.

    The author writes to give the “illusion” that he is being “fair and balanced.” However, it is clear his bias is towards the DLP. And the resident DLP yard-fowl Mariposa agreeing with his comments is enough evidence to support this observation.

    Like

  • “Barbadians too long have not understood the value of investing in their country but cry and belly ache when govts have to turn to foreign investors to pursue a path for financial security.”

    Mariposa

    Political yard-fowls never cease to amaze me.

    It is interesting that you wrote the above comment, but when Owen Arthur said land should attract its highest economic value (in terms of investment), you and the DLP accused him of “selling land on the West Coast to foreigners.”

    But knowing you, you will try to tell us that there is a difference between foreign investment facilitated by the BLP and facilitated by the DLP.
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    “……….whereby their policy to privatize would be a fire sale action across the board that would impact on many households and most likely change the economic landscape of barbados in ways to benefit outside interest.”

    Were you smoking Vincy weed when you wrote that shiite?

    So…… are you essentially disagreeing with the Fair Trading Commission’s ruling that your administration should sell a percentage of BNTCL to the French owned RUBIS?

    Like

  • @Artax

    You are correct, however, we all understand what Doc Martin means i.e. the majority holding in the Barbados National Bank was sold to Republic.

    Liked by 1 person

  • You have still not learnt the difference between Crony-Capitalism and Free Enterprise Capitalism.

    Free Enterprise extols the virtue of an individual and the society is geared towards the protection of each individual including minorities. And the smallest minority is the individual. Crony Capitalism exists in Socialist states where big companies knowing the nature of their Socialist government and knowing their leaning towards always wanting more money, lobby and collude with governments to gain an unfair advantage over their Competitors for market share using Regulations to hamper smaller Businesses (not Free Market).

    How is Free Enterprise “Capitalism” Better than Socialism?

    The essential nature of Free Enterprise Capitalism is social harmony through the pursuit of self-interest. Under Capitalism, the individual’s pursuit of his own economic self-interest simultaneously benefits the economic self-interests of all others. In allowing each individual to act unhampered by government regulations, Capitalism causes wealth to be created in the most efficient manner possible which ultimately raises the standard of living, increases the economic opportunities, and makes available an ever growing supply of products for everyone. The free-market operates in such a way so that as one man creates more wealth for himself, he simultaneously creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone else, which means that as the rich become richer, the poor become richer. It must be understood that Capitalism serves the economic self-interests of all, including the Non-Capitalists. “And even if we were all magically made equal in wealth tonight, we’d be unequal in the morning because some of us would spend it and some of us would save it”. Lawrence Reed.

    A Capitalist Society is a just society because all individuals are considered equal under the law. Free Market Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what other people have earned. Since all people must live independently under Capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned. Thus, the expression of social justice under Capitalism is that what a man earns is directly proportional to what he produces, no progressive income taxes stifling his achievement for the sole fact the he did achieve. All other forms of government, such as the welfare state, institutionalize injustice by legally expropriating the property of some men and giving it to others.

    “Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which exploits a large portion of society for the sake of a small minority of wealthy capitalists. Ironically, it is actually socialism that causes the systematic exploitation of labour. Since the socialist state holds a universal monopoly on labour and production, no economic incentive exists for the socialist state to provide anything more than minimum physical subsistence for the workers except to perhaps prevent riots or revolutions. Exploitation is inherent to the nature of socialism because individuals cannot live for their own sake, rather, they exist merely as means to whatever ends the socialist rulers—the self-proclaimed spokesman of “society,” may have in mind.”

    Like

  • One of the Two Most Richest Men in the world has donated their wealth to a foundation for Philanthropic causes, so much for the evil rich people. They are rich people in Barbados who do Charitable works quietly.

    Like

  • Socialism when it has run its course in Every Nation Does Not End Well, It Cannot, It Brings As Its Fruit Misery, Poverty, Breakdown In Law And Order etc.

    Look around you, you live here do you remember a better time for Barbados if you do was Business Flourishing? Did people try to live a better life? Now we have More Socialism are We Flourishing? Remember Socialism is not Christian it Masquerades as Godlike but it is the Ideology formed in hell and its fruits are what we see in the countries like Venezuela & Cuba of Repression & Tyranny.

    Learn to Recognise Socialism for what it Truly Represents… It is the Death Spiral; Socialism is the Big Lie of the twentieth and twenty-first Centuries. While it Promised Prosperity, Equality, and Security, it delivered Poverty, Misery, and Tyranny.

    Is Socialism /Communism the Ideology You Advocate?

    Like

  • David BU

    If you and the “liker” interpreted Doc Martin’s comment re the last BLP administration SOLD the BNB to Republic Bank………

    ……….to mean “……..the MAJORITY HOLDING in the Barbados National Bank was sold to Republic…….

    ………then……………..what can I say?

    Like

  • @Doc Martin
    The concept of free enterprise is unscientific and has been invented for the sole purpose of attempting to create confusion about the workings of the capitalist system. However, this system has been studied and analysed in great detail and there is absolute clarity about how it works.

    At its heart is the exploitation of the many by the few. In other words, the capitalist system always entails a minority living off the labour of the majority. This is why it invariably leads to concentration of wealth at one pole and poverty at the other. You may have seen the recent report that the 8 richest people in the world now own as much wealth as the world’s poorest 3.5 billion people. It is impossible for this system to work without coercion, which in fact cuts across human freedom, becauuse given a genuine choice, people will never agree to having the fruit of their labour stolen from them to be enjoyed by someone else.

    This coercion can come in the form of the open slavery that was practised in Barbados for over 200 years or in the form of the veiled slavery that that has followed it. The coercion comes via the fact that the majority have no access to capital and can only survive by selling their labour power. Wherever capitalism is established, the capitalist state has to use coercion to create a large enough group of people who have no alternative to selling their labour power if they want to survive. An example from the introduction of capitalist agriculture into East Africa by the British colonialists should make my point clear. At that time, in this regon most traditional societies considered the idea that land could be privately owned as being as ludicrous as the atmosphere that we breathe being privately owned. Land was considered a gift from nature that everyone had a right to access in order to secure their own existence and that of their families. Therefore people tilled land with the help of their families in order to provide for themselves. At harvest time if the volume of work was too much for the family to manage, the social expectation was that neighbours would help them with the clear understanding that they would receive help in turn when they needed it.Therefore, people lived by the sweat of their brow without exploiting anyone. This is the only context in which you could speak of freedom and free enterprise since these people were working for themselves and so were masters of their own destiny.

    After violently imposing themselves on the people of this area, the British decided to inrtroduce capitalist plantation agriculture there. First they passed laws which established private ownership of the land. However, they were stil left with the problem of how to find labour for the plantations, since the Africans had no interest in being exploited by the colonialists when they could till their own land. To solve this problem, the British colonial administration introduced a head tax on the Africans which could only be paid in the currency issued by the British. Failure to pay the tax resulted in arrest and imprisonment. In other words, coercion was used to force people to become agricultural labourers. There are endless examples of the use of coercion to force people to become exploited workers within the capitalist system, from the coercion of open slavery to the veiled coercion of hunger and destitution.

    The so-called free enterprise system is fundamentally based on the dialectical relationship between freedom and wealth for the owners of capital and coercion/bondage and poverty for the majority.

    Like

  • @ Doc Martin…If one Desires Freedom one has to look to the God of Providence Not to the State as the Shepherd!

    A new type of superstition has got hold of people’s minds, the worship of the state. People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, of violence and threat. Woe to anybody who does not bend his knee to the fashionable idols!

    Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop.

    This is the difference between Slavery and Freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen-and this is what freedom means-is in a position to choose his own way of life.

    Exerts from The Ten Commandments Versus The Ideology Of Socialism …

    • I am the LORD your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

    Socialist Version: The Government is your sovereign, almighty and supreme, which raised some of you from the ranks of citizens, lavished you with riches, privileges, and power, granted you immunity from prosecution, and rendered you secure in your lives for the rest of your days. You shall worship no other sovereigns before the government.

    • You shall not steal.

    Socialist Version: You may take as much property from others as you can, through taxation, confiscation, or administrative extortion, while sympathizing with rampaging mobs, looters, and destroyers of property and neighborhoods, all the time justifying your actions as striving for social justice.

    • You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.

    Socialist Version: You may covet anything that is your neighbor’s, by dividing your country into groups based on race, religion, creed, ethnicity, class, gender, and other useful categories, and creating invidious comparisons among them, pitting all citizens against each other, the better to exalt the power of government to covet the goods and honor of everyone in the country.

    A summary of these commandments according to Socialist/ Communist like Commie Sing Song, Tee Tree and ILK is that you must worship the state with all your heart, mind, and soul, and love yourselves as well, in order better to proclaim your moral superiority over the vast majority of the country’s inhabitants, endeavoring always to reduce them to the status of your subjects, servile, obedient, and helpless.

    Where Do You Stand Doc Martin?

    Like

  • @Atax

    He was interpreted to mean that under Arthur the government’s controlling interest was relinquished. In a loose way Bajans generally internalized this as the national bank being controlled by the Trinis. As earlier stated tour position is technically correct.

    Like

  • David BU

    Did you hear Jamaica’s justice minister’s response to Stuart’s comment re if the DLP is re-elected Barbados would “de-link” from the CCJ?

    Like

  • @Atax

    Yes, posted a link to George Brathwaite submission.

    Like

  • By the way we do not pay taxes the Government Takes our Taxes. Taxation is not voluntary it is forced. I have been writing for a few years now, that the solution to pilfering by way of Taxation by Governments is the System of Governance meaning Socialist practices of robbing Peter to pay Paul and until we come to understand that Socialism is a Godless Conspiracy Masquerading as Political Philosophy, we will continue to be deprived, the only intent of such, is to rule over others for Control and Profit.

    More than a failed state, it’s a failed SYSTEM. It’s called Socialism and it sooner or later fails everywhere. Its motto is, “When at first you don’t succeed, fail, fail again.” In the free, competitive private sector, failure is something you learn from, so you can succeed in the future. But in the public sector under socialism especially, failure is merely an excuse to fail even more spectacularly later because all that matters is intentions, not results. Let’s hope that in Venezuela, the hour of liberation is near and that lessons will be learned from this horrific flop spelled S-O-C-I-A-L-I-S-M.

    “It would appear to me that when a mind has been trained to hold such bitterness against capitalism, to believe in the illusions of Communism, it is no wonder that some of this same mentality have used their influence in scientific circles, in embassies and in governmental positions to betray the interests of their own countries and collaborate with what has turned out to be the most formidable enemy free men have ever faced.”

    Like

  • Arthur sold a controlling interest in the BNB, one of the worst acts of undermining the financial independence. It is the controlling interest that is important, with a right to appoint the chairman of the board, and s/he the CEO.

    Like

  • de pedantic Dribbler

    Mr Blogmaster there was no “loose way Bajans generally internalized this as the national bank being controlled by the Trinis. ”

    As noted above a majority stock ownership is CONTROL.

    There is nothing to quibble or play semantics with on that score….nothing ‘loose’ as long as the investor hits 51% of stock.

    Like

  • Hal Austin’s comment re: “Arthur SOLD a CONTROLLING interest in the BNB, is correct. And therein lies the difference.

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    53 Comments!

    53 Comments replete with words and concepts and tings bout socialism and capitalism and democratic socialism

    And of course the usual chant and cry against comrade David Commisiong (whose speech on the BLP platform was obsequious poppycock but he is not running so de ole man going lef he alone)

    Doc Martin says and I quote “A household can find financial ease if it has assets that can be used to generate income or sold to bring cash or, less preferably, used as collateral to obtain further credit…”

    De ole man going date meself as I seek to deconstruct this wasted gem of a statement for your August selves.

    How many of wunna had parent who came up in households, bereft of all the University Graduates in every home, remember the boss economists dat your mudder (sometimes complimented by your fadder) was?

    How many uh wunna did had to water de gardens (import substitution) feed de stock a few pics if wunna was in de cuntry, sheep or rabbits effing wunna was in town (cause pig swill like whu de DLP does generate in Parliament) does smell and de health inspectors would ban it in the close confines of town.

    How many of wunna understand how ingrunt uneducated people in what we consider backward years UNDERSTOOD WHAT DIVERSIFICATION OF THEIR HOME ECONOMY WAS?

    Every single one of wunna here is divvying up the single serving of food that successively incompetent governments have proudly exhibited as their crown jewels YET NOT A MAN JACK HAS SPOKEN ABOUT OR BROUGHT ANYTHING NEW TO THE ANECDOTAL TABLE

    All this reproducing of debt and right sizing and all the other balarney is pure bad word.

    But de ole man realises that it is where our collective psyche is AND HAS BEEN for so long that it becomes the defining issue IS ALL CONVERSATIONS HERE ON BY AND WIDER AFIELD

    Let me share a little secret that will put thus in context

    The revenues that TOEFL (let Google be your friend) generate worldwide are phenomenal

    A specific department at the UWI has proposed such an initiative for years, YET, because de idea ent come from certain people, um is not supported

    In fact, we ole man can give a lot of stories bout UWI initiatives that were serious generators of $$ and FOREX that have be killed by the Dr Robinson’s of this world.

    Diversify or Die.

    The base populations of ALL countries is increasing so it follows that if one does not do something to expand the assets in the household THE OCCUPANTS OF THE HOUSE GINE GET MALNUTRITION AND THEN STARVE

    But den again I ent no brainaic like wunna fellers so I best go back to youtube videos, Stoopid Cartoons and Tee Shirts

    Oooops dat is why de BLP is using as part of its campaign ent it?

    I wonder effing dem would give de ole man a piece?

    Uh better rephrase that…heheheheh

    Like

  • pieceuhderockyeahright

    @The Honourable Blogmaster your assistance please

    Like

  • Tee White May 21, 2018 3:07 PM @Freedom Crier
    You sound like you are either a Klu Klux Klan supporter or a lover of Adolf Hitler as these are usually the most rabid anti-communists.

    @Tee White Take Note…But of Course you Already Know that!

    @ Tee White…It is the nature of the left to accuse others of what they themselves Depict… Careful the Master You Serve. No wonder it is written, “Judge Not Least Ye Be Judged”.

    The Name of Hitler’s Party was National Socialist Party. It is high time we realized the dangerous threat to America and the rest of the world including Barbados of Creeping Socialism as the Ruthless Comrade to Atheistic Communism. It is high time we recognize creeping Socialism for what it really is—a Red Carpet Providing a Royal Road to Communism.

    Like

  • Wealth is the Product of Man’s Capacity to Think

    Russian born novelist’s, Ayn Rand’s, intellectual assault against the Marxists of her day who diminish the worth of Individual Freedom, she argues in character: “But you say that [wealth] is made by the strong at the expense of the weak? What strength do you mean? It is not the strength of guns or muscles. Wealth is the product of man’s capacity to think. Then is [wealth] made by the man who invents a motor at the expense of those who did not invent it? Is [wealth] made by the intelligent at the expense of the fools? By the able at the expense of the incompetent? By the ambitious at the expense of the lazy? [Wealth] is made — before it can be looted or mooched — by the effort of every honest man, each to the extent of his ability. An honest man is one who knows that he can’t consume more than he has produced” (See: Atlas Shrugged, Ayn Rand, 1957.)

    “In other words, wealth comes at nobody’s expense but the inventor, the free thinker, the one actually taking the risk and making the sacrifice. It never costs anything to anybody else. There is no expense incurred to those who sit by the sidelines. Therefore, it cannot ever be considered ‘theft” from others who were never involved nor invested in the very process. It costs others nothing!”

    What is the Opposite of Capitalism?
    Statism, in any form!

    Statism is the concentration of power in the state at the expense of individual freedom. Capitalism is the only system which protects individual rights and freedom, but the variety of political systems which violate individual freedom are numerous: Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Nazism, absolute Monarchies, Military Dictatorships, Theocracies, or the Welfare State are all systems which infringe upon individual rights, which means they institutionalize the initiation of force against their citizens.

    It must be realized that there are only two fundamental political philosophies: those who are for freedom and individual rights and those who are against them. The types of political systems who are against freedom and individual rights are numerous, for there are many ways to violate the rights of man, but there is only one political-economic philosophy which upholds that the rights of man are absolute and immutable—Capitalism.

    Like

  • @Slavery Crier
    It is clear to me that you have a fanatical and blind belief in what what you call ‘free market capitalism’ but it is also clear to me that you don’t have the slightest idea how the capitalist system works.

    There are so many points in your statement that are patently inaccurate that it is diffcult to know where to start. I will address a few of them below.

    “…the smallest minority is the individual…”

    Individual members of society are not minorities and it is illogical to argue that they are. Human beings are social beings with individual existence. This means that although we have individual bodies and life experiences which lead us to having individual psychologies, tastes etc, none of this is developed outside of society and our connections to other human beings. We need another human being to be born and when we are born, we wil very quickly die unless there are other human beings to look after us and care for us. At every point in our existence until our death we are in connection with other human beings. So our social connections are actually the basis of our individuality. If we look at any society from the angle of its individual members, obviously there can be no majority or minority because we will see a collection of unique individuals. The question of majority and minority only arises when we look at the needs and interests that groups of individuals share in common. For example, pregnant women, despite each one’s unique individuality, will have in common the interests and needs arising from their pregnancies. The same can be said for the numerous groups that individuals belong to in society, for example, workers, women, young people, children and so on. What this demonstrates is that individuals are bound up with each other and do not exist as an island, contrary to the notion pushed by European capitalism. Margaret Thatcher once infamously declared that there is no such thing as society. In direct opposition to this barbaric Eurocentric model of ‘every turkey for he own craw’, most traditional African societies in common with other traditional societies did not accept that the interests of the individual exists in conflict with the general interest of society. Instead they approached the issue from the angle that the society must care for the well being of its individual members and its individual members must care for the well being of the society.

    “…the individual’s pursuit of his own economic self-interest simultaneously benefits the economic self-interests of all others…”

    This is patently false. Please explain how the English slave masters through individually pursuing their own economic self interest by enslaving our African foreparents simultaneously benefited our enslaved ancestors. I look forward to hearing your explanation.

    3.”The free-market operates in such a way so that as one man creates more wealth for himself, he simultaneously creates more wealth and opportunities for everyone else, which means that as the rich become richer, the poor become richer…”

    First, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that the only way a person can create wealth for themselves is if they do not work for anyone and no one works for them. If a farmer has a plot of land which she tills herself and brings the produce to market for sale, she creates wealth for herself and no-one else. If a farmer employs labourers to work on her farm, these labourers create wealth for her and she no longer creates wealth for herself.

    Secondly, a simple review of Barbados’ history demonstrates that your ideas are completely incorrect. After 200 years of slavery and 100 years of colonial bondage which enriched many English capitalist families, the vast majority of Bajans, according to the British government’s own 1945 Moyne report, were suffering malnutrition and extreme poverty. This clearly shows that as the slavemasters became richer, the slaves most certainly did not. Your theory collapses on the floor, bruggadax!.

    “Free Market Capitalism recognizes that it is just for a man to keep what he has earned and that it is unjust for a man, or group of men, to have the right to what other people have earned” and “Since all people must live independently under Capitalism, all of the material values that a person acquires must be earned” and “Contrary to widely held beliefs, capitalism is not a system which exploits a large portion of society for the sake of a small minority of wealthy capitalists”

    It is difficult to understand why you would make such nonsensical statements which are easily demonstrated to be totally false. Let us take a simple example of COW Williams and his workers. If all of COW’s workers were to go on strike tomorrow and all of his equipment was standing idle, would his companies be producing any wealth? The simple answer, which the whole world knows and which you must also know is that they wouldn’t. Now if COW was to drop dead tomorrow and all his workers turned up for work and did their jobs, would his companies be producing any wealth? The simple answer is that they would. So with this simple example from our own country, we can see that it is workers who create wealth and not capitalists. Given this reality, what Free Market capitalism does recognise is the unjust right of the capitalists to pocket the wealth created by the labour of the workers. The Englishman Luke Johnson, who is the the major shareholder in Elegant Hotel Group that operates 7 hotels in Barbados, was last year paid BD$1.5 million in dividends while a waiter working for this hotel chain in any of their outlets in this country earns BD$400 a week. Please explain to me how Mr Johnson earned his material values of BD$1.5 million?

    I could go on and on but I think you get my point. Can I suggest that in order to make your contributions to the discussion on our country’s future serious that you explain your ideas with logical arguments and support them with concrete examples drawn from the experience of Barbados, rather than simply reposting the nonsensical blabberings of various North American nut jobs?

    Like

  • Free market capitalism fails because the distribution of money is from a centralized source. It always becomes corrupt with cronyism, manipulation, Monopoly.

    Socialism fails because because it is fundamentally unstable, as we are not all equal and those most capable of circumventing the control of the state will inevitably rise to control the state and allocation of resources.

    A solution is a decentralized monetary paradigm and advance political consensus mechanisms like the governance models of 3rd generation cryptocurrencies. The old system however, will not go quietly into the night.

    Like

  • @Tee White May 22, 2018 10:02 AM

    ++ Marxist Model++
    You do your readers a disservice by not telling the less erudite of them that you are using a Marxist model to interpret Caribbean history and society. As you know (I hope), this model interprets society as being in a conflict that will only to be resolved when the proletariat (“the masses”) overcome the bourgeoisie (“wealth owning capitalist class”)…more or less! Those who have had to read Sociology and Politics for any of their Social Science degrees know that there are other approaches to the interpretation of the society e.g. consensus theory as postulated by Emile Durkheim et.al.

    Strong exception has to be taken to your statement:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    First, it has been demonstrated beyond any doubt that the only way a person can create wealth for themselves is if they do not work for anyone and no one works for them.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Yours is clearly an idealistic view. What is freedom? What do you mean by “scientific” especially with reference to so-called “social science”? These are relative terms and age and experience teach us that translating ideas into practical action is not as easy as it seems, even in one’s personal life!

    But I want to steer away from pure theorizing/academics here because, in my view, to be truly educated is to be able to fashion an eclectic way of thinking that does not make one a slave of any particular ideology.

    ++The Caribbean Post-Colonial Problem ++
    This discussion has made me even more conscious, and appreciative, of the ideological difficulties people like Barrow, Manley and Forbes Burnham might have had in the forties and fifties when they received their education in the “Mother Country” and later when they entered political life in their respective countries. For sure they were clear that they wanted independence for their countries and we know the results of their efforts to achieve that.

    But the big problem that must have confronted them, and which cuts across this discussion, is how were they going to transform their countries – economically, politically – especially since they had not been given one red cent by the Mother Country as “seed” money to jump start their post-independence economies. So I do understand your attack on the slave traders and plantation owners etc.

    ++The Ideological Battle++
    While Barrow et.al. must have been contemplating their approach, the world was busy dividing itself into two ideological camps: the socialism/ communism camp led by the Russians and democracy championed by the major western countries…more or less!

    Into this political milieu entered the Barrows, Manleys and Burnhams. How were they going to transform their newly independent countries? Those who have done some West Indian history know that Jamaica and Guyana gravitated towards a socialist/communist model while countries like Barbados and Trinidad gravitated towards a democratic socialism model.

    There is ample evidence of the ideological battle fought by Barrow. For example, this from his first budget speech:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    I think that we in the West Indies should not be looking around for somebody to lead and work out our own political and economic philosophy and I do not think that it pays any West Indian politician to either look too rapidly in the direction of Europe or Asiatic countries for our basic philosophies of life.”
    REMEMBERING BARROW: Quotes by Errol Barrow, BARBADOS NATION, 21 January 2016
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    To avoid confusing the issues we need to make a distinction between pure socialism/communism and democratic socialism. It is not true that they are exactly the same! Some would even argue that there are shades of difference between socialism and communism. Even providing definitions of these will not help us very much to understand what is going on in a real society unless we understand that subscribing to an ideology is not the same as implementing it! That is a discussion all by itself. So, in a real world how one attempts to transfer wealth from the haves to the “have-nots” can be done in different ways.

    ++Socialism/Communism Approach ++
    The approach of pure socialism/communism is to forcibly take the wealth of the “haves” and transfer it to the “have-nots”. Two of the techniques used are expropriation of assets and nationalization. We know how these have failed in different degrees in Jamaica, Guyana, Cuba and Venezuela. Chavez and now Maduro are still trying to impose pure socialism on Venezuela. A deadly attempt was made in Grenada. Others elsewhere in this blog have documented the failings of Chavez and now his acolyte, Maduro. As usual, the communists will find someone on the communist “shit list” (pardon my French!) usually the Americans, to blame for their failures.

    Incidentally, I read somewhere that Karl Marx, one of the major architects of the communist ideology, was inspired by the communal arrangements made by Christians in the Acts of the Apostles; this is where some sold their possessions and shared them with those who had nothing (same place where Ananias and Sapphira were issued with exit visas!). Apart from taking that out of context, the salient difference between communism and what the Christians did (which might better be described as COMMUNALISM) is that they did it VOLUNTARILY, a point seemingly lost on “well-meaning” communists, if such ever existed! But I digress!

    Jamaica and Guyana pursued a “less forceful” approach by opting for nationalization of major economic assets viz. bauxite. We all know how that has failed. Now, to one degree or another, and after years of economic failure, they have found themselves more to the right of the communist – democracy continuum.

    +++Home Grown Socialism+++
    Barbados, unlike Jamaica and Guyana, has pursued a more democratic form of socialism (if that is not a contradiction). At some point, Errol Barrow distanced himself from the communism – democracy polarization by making the now famous “friends of all, satellites of none” declaration below. His exact words are worth noting:
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    “We shall not involve ourselves in sterile ideological wranglings because we are exponents not of the diplomacy of power, but of the diplomacy of peace and prosperity. We will not regard any great power as necessarily right in a given dispute unless we are convinced of this, yet at the same time we will not view the great powers with perennial suspicion merely on account of their size, their wealth, or their nuclear potential. We will be friends of all, satellites of none.”
    REMEMBERING BARROW: Quotes by Errol Barrow, BARBADOS NATION, 21 January 2016
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Cuba and now Venezuela, as you know, have done otherwise!

    Rather than expropriating assets (our worse “socialist sin” if you want, has been the Compulsory Acquisition of Land act, although that was originally proclaimed in 1949!), successive Barbadian governments have invested in assets e.g. banks, hotels, plantation land (on the behalf of and for the people, it should be understood) as well as invested heavily in education, institution building ( e.g. trade unions), legal reform etc as means of helping a poor post-colonial society rise to a place of relative prosperity, in an atmosphere of respect for private property and relative peace. Unless we want to veer to the left, free enterprise and wage earning will continue to exist side-by-side. Thankfully, unions have been the major buffer in this relationship between the capitalists and the wage earning class.

    This, I submit, has been the outworking of our own home grown version of democratic socialism in Barbados and the understanding of both major political parties, as well as third parties that have come and gone over the years. It is the reason why we often complain (accurately so) that we can see no (philosophical) difference between the major political parties!

    So this imminent May 24 election is not going to be fought on ideological grounds, never mind the DLP may want to take sole ownership of the democratic socialist model that has been fashioned over the years. Rather it will be fought on the practical grounds of what combination of people and policies can best continue to implement and manage our version of democratic socialism WITHOUT making us poorer (by reversing the economic gains made over the years) while at the same time, stamping out corruption and waste as well as refraining from embarrassing us!

    Like

  • THE EXACT OPPOSITE TO ‘SOCIAL JUSTICE’
    ECONOMIC JUSTICE…
    YOU WORK,
    YOU GET PAID
    THAT IS ECONOMIC JUSTICE!

    Jesus was Not a Socialist he did not take from the Productive and give it to those who did Not Produce, quite the opposite. He encourages us to be Fruit and Multiply in all areas of our lives.

    We all have been given talents and the more we use these gifts, the more we are given, for what does it profit a man if he is given a gift and he does not appreciate the gift or the giver, it certainly would not profit him and in nothing is God offend except those that are unappreciative.

    We are indebted to God for all that has been given and we are to use our talents and abilities to reach our highest potential. He knows our potential we do not, by exercising faith, weak things become strong!

    Those that bury these gifts because of slothfulness will not reap blessings but the opposite.

    They are those that practice not working but expecting the fruit of others that labor. In our day, this is called Social Justice. This is corruption of the Law of the Harvest, you reap what you Sow, and by the sweat of man’s brow he should eat bread

    Social Justice is a Prevision of the Parable of the Talents

    Parables of Jesus: The Parable of the Talents

    Jesus declares the parable of the talents. Matthew 25:14-30

    Matthew 25:14-30 (KJV)

    14 For the kingdom of heaven is as a man travelling into a far country, who called his own servants, and delivered unto them his goods.
    15 And unto one he gave five talents, to another two, and to another one; to every man according to his several ability; and straightway took his journey.
    16 Then he that had received the five talents went and traded with the same, and made them other five talents.
    17 And likewise he that had received two, he also gained other two.
    18 But he that had received one went and digged in the earth, and hid his lord’s money.
    19 After a long time the lord of those servants cometh, and reckoneth with them.
    20 And so he that had received five talents came and brought other five talents, saying, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me five talents: behold, I have gained beside them five talents more.
    21 His lord said unto him, Well done, thou good and faithful servant: thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
    22 He also that had received two talents came and said, Lord, thou deliveredst unto me two talents: behold, I have gained two other talents beside them.
    23 His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
    24 Then he which had received the one talent came and said, Lord, I knew thee that thou art an hard man, reaping where thou hast not sown, and gathering where thou hast not strawed:
    25 And I was afraid, and went and hid thy talent in the earth: lo, there thou hast that is thine.
    26 His lord answered and said unto him, Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou knewest that I reap where I sowed not, and gather where I have not strawed:
    27 Thou oughtest therefore to have put my money to the exchangers, and then at my coming I should have received mine own with usury.
    28 Take therefore the talent from him, and give it unto him which hath ten talents.
    29 For unto every one that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.
    30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

    Like

  • Socialist pretend to be caring under the Guise of Social Justice. While it is Benevolent to help another from one’s own pocket it is Deplorable to take from another person by force through Forced Taxation which knows no bounds that is Stealing even if it is legal theft. Everything comes at the taxpayers’ expense.

    We are given the Commandments to guide us. It is written that we should love others as ourselves…The Good Samaritan did not call on the Government to help the man by the wayside, he did so of his own means. The other Commandments that support this is, ‘Thou shalt not Steal or Covert’ what belongs to another man.

    You see Jesus taught us to render unto Cesar that which is Caesar which was 10%.He understood that Taxation put on people was mandatory and a heavy price would be meted out if the people did not pay the Government. That had nothing to do with the Law of Tithing which was Voluntary then and still is today. Nowadays Taxation is Soooo cumbersome on people’s backs that surviving on the bare essentials is what is left after the heavy burden of taxes is taken. So to be Charitable becomes difficult and hence the people look to the State as their provider and not to the God of Providence.

    Socialism is Atheism Masquerading as Political Ideology while Pretending to be Charitable… If the State was not so Greedy there would be more Philanthropy.

    Barbados and all her Heroes were Socialist, so were many of the other Caribbean. One can look at Guyana, Jamaica, How long did it take Guyana to Recover from Forbes Burnham and Cheddi Jagan. How long has it taken Jamaica and it is still reeling from Norman Manley? See what has happened under full Blown Socialism as in Venezuela. The “Object of Socialism is Communism”, Vladimir Lenin. Socialism is Communism with Patience and it has been a Steady and Slow Culprit over the entire world.

    Socialism has varying degrees but it is all Socialism when said and done. It is Atheism Masquerading as Political Philosophy. Do not by it even under the Guise of Democratic Socialism. The thing is that Socialist eventually run out of other people’s money as Margaret Thatcher rightly said and now Barbados has hit Rock Bottom. The Wrong Choice this time may lead us into Despair for Generations.

    Like

  • @ Mr. Doc Martin I am acquainted which that which is written. ‘The Straight and Narrow’. You have attempted to paint a picture of walking a very fine line between all the different Variance of Socialism. You are like a young tree in the wind and saying this level of bending in the wind is perfect and we shouldn’t bend any more or we shouldn’t bend any less.

    May I remind you that your Masterful Master (Barrow) who found the perfect Solution that is Democratic Socialism of bending in the wind just so much and no more is Dead. And the Current Crop of Benders in the wind have not found that supposed sweet spot if it ever existed.

    The Straight and Narrow is Freedom for the Individual…The whole war in heaven was fought so we can choose for ourselves. I Choose Freedom Rather than the Serfdom that you Advocate.

    Here is one of my Favorite Quotes to support that by Harriette Tubman… “I Freed A Thousand Slaves and Could Have Freed A Thousand More, if Only They Knew They Were Slaves!”

    Voluntary Servitude is one Without Physical Chains.

    You Know Absurd Freedom must Sound to those who are Comfortable in Slavery?…

    They are the Ones who Fight the Hardest to Preserve the Very Fetters and Chains of Hell!!

    Like

  • @Freedom Crier May 23, 2018 6:15 AM
    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Jesus was Not a Socialist he did not take from the Productive and give it to those who did Not Produce, quite the opposite. He encourages us to be Fruit [FUL] and Multiply in all areas of our lives.

    We all have been given talents and the more we use these gifts, the more we are given, for what does it profit a man if he is given a gift and he does not appreciate the gift or the giver, it certainly would not profit him and in nothing is God offend except those that are unappreciative.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Indeed! Couldn’t agree with you more here!

    Like

  • @Artaxerxes May 22, 2018,12:02 AM
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    “Successive Barbadian governments have failed to make the populace understand that the economic and financial principles of running a government are fundamentally the same as running a household.”

    Could the author please explain the above comment?
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Happy to oblige:

    [1] You WORK and earn revenue.
    [2] You SPEND LESS than you earn.
    [3] You SAVE some of what you earn (after paying Uncle Sam)
    [4] You INVEST some of your earnings / savings in ASSETS that can earn more “revenue” now or later when sold.
    [5] If you BORROW you make sure the PAYMENTS do not exceed your ability to pay (after providing for living expenses etc). Bankers (should) help to keep you in line here!
    [6] And you keep all of the above in BALANCE!

    It is called good stewardship and is Biblically endorsed!

    (I have deliberately left out the issue of GIVING & TITHING here because of the audience I think I am speaking to. We say we are Christians but I am not sure what we mean by that!)

    But, think of the government as being there to help the country to do all of the above on a macro level. Well the government does not work per se; it collects taxes. But when it violates [2] it gets a deficit! (Nice euphemism, that word!). National Insurance is part of our collective savings handled by the government [3] Buying and selling assets such as hotels, plantations etc is an example of [4] . Violating [5] is where we are at right now! Need I say what [6] is?

    The purpose of government is (should be) to help us do the above things we can’t (sometimes WON’T) do for ourselves and for the COLLECTIVE good of all e.g. save money.

    When we expect the government to do more than the above or when political parties promise to do more than is feasible, then we get ourselves into trouble!

    Was this helpful?

    Like

  • @ Doc Martin Which part of the COLLECTIVE National Insurance money can you get…If it is National Insurance and I Breck a foot, are they going to fix it.

    Which Part of the COLLECTIVE part of the Lands of the Government is yours and can you work it?
    Which Part of Anything that is part of the COLLECTIVE is yours even a Square inch? Do you have a title Deed? These thoughts of COLLECTIVISM are Communist/Socialist Inspired.

    It is like saying I have a Million Dollars here that is yours but I am going to keep it for you, don’t mind you will never get to touch it. Using your analogy of the Home, that the car that I pay for is not mine but it belongs to the COLLECTIVE and I can’t drive it unless I get permission from people that never paid for it. As in in the Civil Masters who are paid by us telling us what we can do and not do with our own money and anything that belongs to us…

    Congratulations Mt. Doc Martin Thanks but No Thanks, I want no part of your Vision of COLLECTIVISM. Can I Opt Out? Can You Opt Out? If you can’t and I can’t Opt Out then are you and I are not Free?

    “The welfare state reduces a citizen to a client, subordinates them to a bureaucrat, and subjects them to rules that are anti-work, anti-family, anti-opportunity and anti-property … Humans forced to suffer under such anti-human rules naturally develop pathologies.

    The evening news is the natural result of the welfare state.”

    Like

  • A Perfect Example of these Bureaucratic Failures that have Handicapped Barbados. All of these Agencies are Losing Money. Hence my argument from the Beginning that the Bureaucratic State hinders Development and what is the Proper Role of Government. I would like to thank Mr. Peter Webster for bringing these things to light…

    Mr. Caswell Franklyn

    Dear Sir:

    I usually read your column because of your fair and balanced commentary, not like some of the other contributors. Your column on Sunday May 20th dealing with the Barbados Civil Service was however too defensive and not as realistic as it should have been. You write off as “anecdotes” the Service’s failures implying that since they were not substantiated they could not be correct.

    Having worked in and with the Barbados Civil Service all my working life (39 years) I can give you endless first hand examples of the Service’s failures. Let me also point out that it was not just a matter of bureaucracy or that the personnel themselves were bad. In fact I know that over 90% were/are decent, honest, “salt of the earth” people. I have seen some sections really working and producing while others are not.

    For more than 15 years of my working life I was involved with the World Bank, Inter-American Development Bank and the Caribbean Development Bank in Public Sector Reform. Why? Because there was an obvious need. The mistake we made was in calling it “Reform” which focused on an action rather than the goal of “performance improvement”. The Public Sector Reform Unit’s focus on systems, procedures and processes has therefore been a failure in terms of “performance improvement”.

    Allow me to back track first to the Hon. Mr. Errol Barrow’s failure. The British Colonial power never had a standing army in any of its territories. The occupying army of the Colonial power was in fact the Civil Service hence the Hon. Mr. Barrow’s reference. The Hon. Mr. Barrow’s biggest error was not in “politicizing the Civil Service” – I do not agree that this was the outcome of his actions – but in creating the 40-plus State-owned Enterprises (SOEs) with which we are currently saddled, rather than fixing the problem! This was done to circumvent the established bureaucracy but ended up creating worse bureaucracies that are even less productive because they are unaccountable.

    In 2007 I listed the charges made by the then Opposition against the then Government and 80% of these from the cost over-runs on the ABC Highway to the issues with the Prison were all failures of the Civil Service and the situation has not changed. Six months ago a team of consultants visited Barbados to investigate the potential for a major capital project that would have resulted in a much needed massive capital investment in Barbados. After two weeks of consultations with senior Civil Servants in Barbados they reported that they (the consultants) were “none the wiser”. Barbados International rating for “ease of doing business” is the worst in our region.

    After 40 years and hundreds of millions of dollars on the St Joseph Hospital in St. Peter our Civil Service has now determined that it should not be there in a Zone 1 water protected area. This same Civil Service some years ago built a playing field, pavilion and parking lot at the mouth of a drainage gully in the process diverting the drainage from one watershed to another costing close to a million dollars in damage to roads down-stream. These are but a few of the substantiated examples not anecdotes – the tip of the ice berg – and I have not yet touched on the true facts about the South Coast Sewerage system or the poor maintenance of the transport and garbage vehicles, and Government buildings or the lack of civil justice. I have often equated the experience of working in the Civil Service as swimming upstream in a river of molasses.

    A problem analysis (cause and effect) reveals that the root cause of the problems in the Civil Service is a lack of incentive. No entrepreneur or business person in the private sector can survive if they do not perform and produce – survival is their incentive. The Civil Service has none! Unless Civil Servants are offered rewards and sanctions for their performance there will be no change. The big question is whether the Unions will also recognize the need and work with the Public Sector Reform Unit in establishing a valid, transparent performance evaluation system on which the rewards can be based.

    Regards
    Peter Webster

    Like

  • @Doc Martin
    Thank you for your constructive response to my comments. Before responding to some of the points you raised, I would like to say in answer to a question put to me by David but which I didn’t get around to responding to, that the type of discussion taking place between us is, in embryo form, the sort of thing I have in mind when calling for Bajans to get involved in discussing the issues facing our country. In my view these types of discussions need to be taken out from small circles and should be developed in a step by step way to include ever more ordinary Bajans. There is a lot more to be said about how this can be done, but the main point is that what I have in mind is not some government initiated commission but rather a people initiated and people centered movement aimed at Bajans becoming more political and more able to define and defend our interests.

    Now to address some of your points.
    “You do your readers a disservice by not telling the less erudite of them that you are using a Marxist model to interpret Caribbean history and society”

    To be honest rather than declaring this or that framework of analysis, I prefer to present my argument as logically and clearly as I can and present any evidence I think supports my argument and let others decide for themselves whether they find it convincing.

    “Yours is clearly an idealistic view. What is freedom? What do you mean by “scientific” especially with reference to so-called “social science”? These are relative terms and age and experience teach us that translating ideas into practical action is not as easy as it seems, even in one’s personal life!”

    I can assure you that due to age and experience, I am not in the least bit idealistic. My statement about exploitation being a necessary condition of the economic relationship between employer and employee is simply a statement which as far as I can see all the the evidence supports.

    I am more than happy to discuss what freedom means but from my perspective freedom is a concept which human beings have developed as part of describing their relationships with each other. At its most basic level it could be interpreted as people, whether collectively or individually, being able to act on the basis of their own will without external coercion. Obviously, there is a lot more to be said about how it operates in human society and the natural and social constraints which limit it at the level of the society, the social groups to which people belong and the level of the individual human being.

    What I mean by scientific is both a method of human beings gaining knowlegde of their natural and social world and the knowldge they gather using this method. Again at its most basic level, it means human beings making use of their capacity for rational thought to draw conclusions about the world around them based on evidence they have collected via their senses while interacting with the external world. Since human being are social beings, human knowledge is social and is stored and communicated via language. Human knowledge is never complete and is constantly changing in light of new discoveries and understandings. Any scientific approach recognises this and is always open to rejecting or modifying old accepted ideas if new information demonstrates that this is necessary. You are absolutely correct that the relationship between what we know/understand (theory) and what we do (practice) is indeed very complex.

    You are also right that there are contending viewpoints on practically any issue. These reflect both the clash of interests in society as expressed in the ideas circulating in the society as well as the unique contributions that individuals bring to the social effort of understanding reality. For example, we can take the view that it’s possible for human beings to scientifically investigate the natural world and come to understand it but they cannot achieve the same with regard to the social world. However, this perspective is strongly contested by another point of view which argues that since human society is the product of nature, and since biology, physics, chemistry etc all show that human beings are part of nature and affected by all its processes, there is no logical reason why human beings would be able to gain scientifc knowlegde of the the whole (nature) but not of the part (human society).

    Like

  • @Doc Martin
    capitalism, socialism/communism, democratic socialism and Barbados
    My views on these follow. Socialism can be said to be a reaction to capitalism. The capitalist system with its centre in Europe emerged in the world from around the 15th and 16th centuries. Its birth was marked everywhere it went by the destruction of the old world and of any human freedom which stood in the way of its development. In the Caribbean, the indigenous people were enslaved and their countries violently seized. Millions of Africans were turned into private property, transported across the Atlantic and violently integrated into the new capitalist global market as producers of wealth. Even in Europe, laws were passed to deprive the poor in the countryside of access to land on which they had relied for a living for centuries. Facing destitution and starvation, they were forced to flock to the newly emerging industrial towns and cities to survive by selling their labour power. The conditions in these new cities were so horrendous that there soon arose among the workers groups and movements aiming to free the workers from their conditions of oppression. These groups which proclaimed the liberation of the working class as their aim were labeled as socialists.

    Karl Marx was an activist in this movement but was unhappy with both the analysis they put forward of the existing situation and their proposals for a solution. In the mid 19th century, he dedicated a significant period of his life to a careful evidence based analysis of the capitalist system. He argued that his work put socialism on a scientific basis because it was evidence based unlike the previous socialist doctrines which concerned themselves only with the need for the workers to free themselves from capitalist oppression. Taking his work further, Marx turned his attention to trying to understand why the social and economic systems in human society change. Basing himself primarily on a study of European history, he drew the conclusion that in the same way the capitalist system had replaced the feudal system, it would in turn be replaced by the socialist system in which the working class would become the ruling class. He argued that it would not be possible for the working class to establish a classless society straight away but would have to develop this over a period of time before it could reach a truly free human society in which each individual would have the opportunity to fully develop their talents and personality. This free society, in which he argued there would no longer be a state power standing above society, he called a communist society, while he called the phase between capitalism and this communist society socialism. It is true that Marx’s vision of a communist society was very much like communal societies. If you are interested in finding out more about traditional African societies which practised genuine egalitarian democracy, you could check out this link https://thisisafrica.me/ways-of-life-3-indigenous-anarchism/. By the way, there is currently a lot of research being done on egalitarian and democratic traditional African political systems and I think there are many principles there that Bajans would benefit from finding out about.

    Marx’s work had a major impact on the European working class movement. Those organisations from across Europe which adopted his method of analysis called themselves Social Democrats and joined together in the Second International. However in the lead up to the First World War, the organisation split over whether each Social Democratic Party should support the government of its own country in the war or should condemn the war as a crime against all workers and oppose it. Those who decided to support the war kept the name social democrats and those who opposed the war called themselves communists.

    By the end of the second world war democratic socialism had become synonomous with rule by the social democratic parties and reform of the capitalist system to take account of the interests of the working people. It had also become the preferred form of capitalst rule in Europe as the means to prevent workers supporting the communists. The basic deal or social contract was that the capitalist could remain in power and contiue to exploit the workers, but the government would intervene, primarily through ownership of parts of the economy and taxation, to balance the scales so that all the wealth didn’t flow to the capitalists leaving the workers destitute and poor as they had been previously. In most European countries, the welfare state was born with a commitment that the state would ensure that everyone had at least their basic needs met by providing necessary services such as education, health care, old age pensions, unemployment benefits etc.

    In 1920s and 1930s the young Barbados workers movement was strongly influenced by the ideas of democratic socialism. The BLP (originally the Barbados Progressive League) was formed in 1938 with the objectives of adult suffrage, free education, and better housing and health care for Bajans who after 300 years of free enterprise were not able to have these basic human needs met. In fact, in Barbados, it has been political intervention to limit the freedom of free enterprisers and prevent them from seizing all the wealth for themselves that has resulted in the improvements of conditions of life that Bajans have experienced in our lifetime. At the same time, as it was based on the reformist approach of social democracy, it left intact the old plantocracy and their control of the Barbadian economy.

    The challenge that we are facing today is that the monopoly capitalists have abandoned democratic socialism and its social compromise under capitalism. Today the new doctrine in town is neo-liberal globalisation, according to which all the wealth must go to the rich and the super rich and none should be left for the poor. Its slogans are ‘small government’ and breaking the ‘dependency syndrome’ by which they don’t mean dismantling their huge military infrastructures which burn up government dollars nor do they mean not bailing out bankers and speculators nor refusing to provide corporate welfare. No, these slogans are aimed only at destroying those services that poor people depend on. This neo-liberal globalisation and its austerity for the poor is being met with oppostion all over the world. A point in case is the current unrest in France.

    Barbados is a small country caught up in the storm of these developments. From talking to friends and family, the impression I get is that people feel we are passing through the worst period since independence. Apart from the committed DLP supporters, the general feeling seems to be that the problems have been caused by what they call ‘the incompetence of the DLP government’. They therefore reason that the solution is to vote out the DLP and vote in the BLP. I fear that in both the analysis and the proposed solution, Bajans are wrong. This is why I think it’s so important to try to get serious analysis and discussion going among Bajans of all walks of life so that more people can have an informed view of the situation we’re in and we can collectively try to work out a way out.

    Like

  • @Tee White May 23, 2018 7:55 PM

    Thanks for your informative response and the references. You can never learn enough.

    I hope we can engage in more of this type of debate after the election is over because, whatever the outcome, we have some serious discussion… rather, activism to do. As I see it, Barbadians have reached a water shed with this election and therefore the notion that democracy is “5 minutes every 5 years in a polling booth” must now come to an end. Let’ see how the next 24 hours play out.

    Cheers

    Like

  • @Doc Martin
    Indeed. Let’s see how things develop after the election. Cheers.

    Like

  • @ Doc Martin…Democracy is not every 5 years you elect people to represent you so you are represented All the time except when Parliament is dissolved. If you think you want democracy on every issue to be voted on every day you are advocating MOB RULE and Calling it Democracy. That is Not the RULE of LAW that is the RULE of the MOB.

    That is why the Constitution of America is so Beautiful in that there is elected representatives governed by the Rule of Law with a Constitution that protects the individual. Notwithstanding the three Seats of Power the Judicial, the Representatives, and the Executives.

    Like

  • @ The White Lies Perpetuated Here!!

    Like

  • @Freedom Crier

    You do not have to repeat and regurgitate positions, it gets monotonous.

    Like

  • @ David… They are many Hues of Socialism/Communism/Collectivism and Crony Capitalism so when you hear about Free Enterprise and the Sovereignty of the Individual there is only One of Those so to Combat the many Hues you have to keep repeating about Individualism and Freedom. Hope you understand my point.

    Like

  • @Slavery Crier
    I have to say that I find your way of discussing issues to be strange and irrational. You seem to think that once you strongly believe something that makes it the truth. You do not need to explain why you think your idea is the truth nor provide any evidence that supports the truthfulness of your claim. You just need to state your belief and post it together with a meme or a quote from someone saying the same thing as your belief. Sometimes, I’m not sure if you make some of these statements because you actually don’t know that there is mountains of evidence that proves that your statements are false or if you are aware of the evidence but couldn’t care less about it and just intend to cling to your blind belief. In any event, it means that your contributions to the discussion are not very useful.

    Let us take your most recent statements on democracy. You clearly have no idea what democracy is nor what types of democratic governance the world has seen. In one of the most common definitions of democracy it is defined as a system of governance of the people, by the people and for the people. Therefore according to you, democracy is itself a form of what you call “mob rule”. You may be interested to know that concept of ‘mob rule’ is one devised by elites which has been used historically to fight against the demands from the workers and the poor for universal adult suffrage. You seem to be totally unaware of the fact that there are different types of democracy and the system of “representative democracy” which is upheld in the US constitution is only one of them.

    You seem to be unaware of the fact that the system of ‘representative democracy’ has never been democracy for the people. If you start even with its origins in the English civil war of the 16th century, you can look at the struggles between Cromwell’s forces which represented the rising English capitalist class and the organisations rpresenting the poorer sections of society like the The Levellers and Diggers over what type of democracy should be established in England after the monarchy had been overthrown and the king executed. This conflict was resolved through violence with Cromwell’s forces emerging victorious. The system of ‘representative deomcracy’ existed in Barbados alongside slavery, as it did in the USA. You must know that some of the framers of your beloved US constitution were slave masters and this document rejected the humanity of both Africans and Native Americans. Even the electoral college was devised as a mechanism precisely to nullify the influence of the ordinary people on the political process. It was the poor who through political agitation, struggle and sacrifice abolished the various property qualifications for voting and imposed universal adult suffrage on the system of “representative democracy”. In other words, according to you they imposed ‘mob rule’ on the system of ‘representative democracy’.

    People know from their practical experience that within this system of governance, their so-called political representatives do not represent them and after the election there is nothing they can do about it until 5 years time when they get their next 5 minutes in the polling booth. The electorate cannot instruct their ‘representatives’ to do anything, they cannot instantly dismiss them if they fail to carry out their election campaign promises, they cannot set the policies the governnment should follow, sovereign power lies with the parliament and not with the people and so on. So Doc Martin is absolutely right and you are absolutely wrong. You might want to compare this type of ‘representative democracy’ with this example of participatory democracy https://thisisafrica.me/ways-of-life-3-indigenous-anarchism/. I could deal with the concept of the ‘rule of law’ in similar detail but I’m not sure that there is much point at the moment.

    It would be good to have some rational contributions to the discussion from you because I’m sure it would enrich the discussion and we would all earn from them. But please stop with the posting of irrational beliefs with no logical explanation as to why you hold these beliefs and no evidence to support them. I’m sorry but memes and quotes won’t cut it.

    Like

  • Please forgive the various typos in the above message. Hope its meaning is still clear.

    Like

  • @Tee White (LIES)… Dismantling The White Lies Perpetuated by the Likes of the Marxist/Communist Voices Echoing their Divisiveness on BU…

    What you find strange and irrational is because what you are proposing is Based on Marxist/ Communism that is the Godless Ideology of Atheism as compared to the Truth revealed from the Scriptures which is the Rod by which I measure all things before me.. I Know and Understand the Counterfeit of God’s Laws proportioning itself an being Benevolent and Caring. While every kind of Perverseness and Corruption Runs Through its Very Veins. It is the Opposite of Freedom, it is Tyranny and Bondage.

    Truth is Eternal whether you believe it or not and it does bear the Fruit that has been so blatant as History records of outright Murder and Devastation that Communism/Marxism/Nazism and Full Blown Socialism has caused by Endless Misery and Suffering on people.

    Free Market Capitalism did not cause the Collapse in Venezuela….SOCIALISM that is a Slow Process of ROT and DECAY did!!

    There is a Mountain of Evidence to Substantiate that your Belief System leads to nothing but Horror. My Beliefs are not Blind however you are Possessed with a lying Spirit and you seek to Deceive because what you believe is Contrary to God and His Commandments and the Sovereignty that was bequeathed on mankind at birth by his Creator..

    As to your Claims as to the different Democracy’s and you saying that I am inferring that Democracy is Mob Rule…You Seek to Twist this to suit your Bile Hatred Mentality. Let’s look at Barbados. You Tee White (LIES) could run to be a representative of the People either in a Party or as an Independent. The Reason we choose Representatives is that we hope, pray and beg that there is a Hopeful one of our wiser ones that may spend the time to understand the Particular Issue before a Judgment or law is passed. If we used Tec to give an Opinion on everything that needs to be done you could call that Participatory Democracy, we could also call that MOB RULE BY THE MAJORITY.

    In Order to avoid MOB RULE we create a Constitution wherein are Laws that Protects the Minority from the Majority. Wither it be in Religion, Ethnicity or Economics or Education. How is Protecting the Rights of an Individual that I advocate perceived as Elitist? Your brain would have to be WARPED when you said MOB RULE is by Elitist. The Definition of Elitist is a SMALL SELECT group who seek to rule over others while everyone else are Serfs. And you are equating a Mob Rule with a Small Select Group?

    Please do not trip over yourself so many times. Another example of you tripping over yourself is that, the Maintenance of Socialism/Marxism etc. is by Force and you who Advocate that Dogma dare call Freedom Crier Slave Crier when the Enforcers of these Isms are the Slave Masters. A favourite Ploy of the Left is to accuse those who they disagree with of what they themselves are guilty of.

    “Socialism is not in the least what it pretends to be. It is not the pioneer of a better and finer world, but the spoiler of what thousands of years of civilization have created. It does not build, it destroys. For destruction is the essence of it. It produces nothing, it only consumes what the social order based on private ownership in the means of production has created” — Ludwig von Mises.

    Like

  • “The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments.” Ludwig von Mises

    In Times past we Needed a place like Hyde Park to let our voices be heard nowadays we have the Internet. We can warn and teach others almost instantaneously of the Perils that infringe on our Freedoms. This remedy is the power of the citizens; they have to prevent the establishment of such an autocratic regime that arrogates to itself a higher wisdom than that of the average citizen. This is the fundamental difference between Freedom and Serfdom…Whoever wants peace among nations must seek to limit the state and its influence most strictly…. The planner is a potential dictator who wants to deprive all other people of the power to plan and act according to their own plans. He aims at one thing only: the exclusive absolute pre-eminence of his own plan for Example, Stalin, Hitler Mao, Pol Pot, Fidel Castro and Ilk. Such are the Heroes and Mentors of Tee White (LIES).

    All rational action is in the first place individual action. Only the individual thinks. Only an individual Reasons, only the individual acts. The idea that political freedom can be preserved in the absence of economic freedom, and vice versa, is an illusion. Political freedom is the corollary of economic freedom. Economic history is a long record of government policies that failed because they were designed with a bold disregard for the laws of economics.

    Freedom is indivisible. As soon as one starts to restrict it, one enters upon a decline on which it is difficult to stop.
    This is the difference between slavery and freedom. The slave must do what his superior orders him to do, but the free citizen-and this is what freedom means-is in a position to choose his own way of life.

    State interference in economic life, which calls itself economic policy, has done nothing but destroy economic life. Prohibitions and regulations have by their general obstructive tendency fostered the growth of the spirit of wastefulness.

    A new type of superstition has got hold of people’s minds, the worship of the state. People demand the exercise of the methods of coercion and compulsion, of violence and threat. Woe to anybody who does not bend his knee to the fashionable idols!

    This is the meaning of all the struggles for liberty.

    It is vain to fight totalitarianism by adopting totalitarian methods. Freedom can only be won by men unconditionally committed to the principles of freedom. The first requisite for a better social order is the return to unrestricted freedom of thought and speech.

    Depressions and mass unemployment are not caused by the Free Market but by Government Interference in the Economy.

    BANG ON!!!

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s