Pull! Push!
The Economist mentions elections in Barbados
The Economist, a publication (and website), that I try to read as often as possible,
had the following to say with regards to the recently concluded elections in Barbados: (In
bold are the bits that I found especially interesting, which as it turns out, made up the majority of their article)
"Barbados
Sweet success
Jan 17th 2008 | PORT OF SPAIN
From The Economist print edition
A change of power in one of the Caribbean's best-run and most stable democracies
IT WAS an all-night party in Barbados after the island's general election on January 15th. “Plenty change,” a Bridgetown bar-owner grinned, and he wasn't just referring to the mounds of cash he was counting. After 13 lonely years in opposition, three election defeats and a series of long-running party-leadership squabbles, David Thompson led his Democratic Labour Party (DLP) triumphantly back to power, with 20 of the 30 parliamentary seats. In the previous election, in 2003, it won just seven seats.
By American standards, the campaign was blissfully short. The election was called on December 20th, leaving just two lively weeks after the Christmas and new-year break to get the voters in. There is no great ideological gulf between Mr Thompson's party and the outgoing Barbados Labour Party (BLP). But from time to time Barbadians like to shake up the political scene. Although Owen Arthur, the BLP leader, was regarded as a good manager, people felt that he had become a little arrogant after his 13 years in power, and some of his party rather too comfortably settled.
Voters also fretted over rising food prices, cost overruns on a road project and property prices jacked up by villa-buying foreigners. Then there was a row over claims by the BLP that Taiwan had funded Mr Thompson's campaign in exchange for a promise of diplomatic recognition. This was hotly denied by the DLP, anxious to avoid a rift with China.
Barbados is one of the Caribbean's oldest and most stable democracies, consistently getting top-drawer rankings for its political and civil liberties. From 1639 an elected House of Assembly—not the British-appointed colonial governor—controlled the island's cash. The first mixed-race member, Samuel Jackman Prescod, won a seat in 1843. Universal suffrage eventually followed in 1951, and independence 15 years later. On a visit to the island in 1859 Anthony Trollope, a British novelist, found it irritatingly well run.
Barbados also tops all other Latin American and Caribbean countries in the UN Development Programme's human-development index. Transparency International, a corruption watchdog, ranks it second cleanest in the region, just behind Chile. In September unemployment hit an all-time low of 7%, down from a peak of 27% in 1993 when the DLP was last in power.
“Change” (of leadership) was the DLP's campaign watchword. The new government, which inherits an uncomfortably big public debt, equal to 88% of GDP, will have other changes to deal with, too. Important business decisions are increasingly likely to be taken in neighbouring Trinidad rather than Barbados. Many big local firms are already majority-owned by Trinidad shareholders. Now two Trinidad companies are fighting for control of Barbados Shipping & Trading, the island's biggest conglomerate.
Sugar, the economic mainstay until the 1960s, will lose its guaranteed European market by 2015, and is already suffering EU price cuts. Costs are among the world's highest, but cane keeps the landscape in good order. Shutting down sugar would dent the country's confidence, too. Mr Arthur had proposed a new $156m sugar factory, using cane for electricity and biofuel, and exporting pricey premium-brand Plantation Reserve sugar. The DLP called the plan a “mishmash”, but has yet to come up with a better one.
Meanwhile, the island's medium-sized independent hotels, the backbone of its tourist industry, are facing rising costs and increasing competition from cruise ships; some have closed. High oil prices will push up air fares this year. Further ahead, global (over)warming may cut the pulling power of Barbados's tropical beaches, now attracting over half a million tourists a year.
On the upside, there may be oil. In 2004 Barbados faced down Trinidad in a dispute over their maritime boundaries, and two years later won a big slice of seabed, which America's Geological Service believes may contain some generous deposits, though the waters are deep and the geology complex. A bid round for exploration rights, which has already sparked interest from several big oil companies, closes in April. Over to you, Mr Thompson."Labels: Barbados, business, economics, life, politics
A few words on MNCs, China and India...
A
few words on MNCs, China and India, can be found on the China India Blog.
Labels: China, economics, India, World
Four-day weekend!
Folks, in celebration of the
appointment of David Thompson as our new Prime Minister, today is a public holiday in Barbados. Also, Monday is a public holiday in celebration of Errol Barrow Day.
Labels: Barbados, life, news
Sean Paul music causes seizures for woman
This is an interesting and peculiar one. A lady who suffered from epilepsy and from a rare condition known as musicogenic epilepsy, has been operated on. She began to suspect Sean Paul's tunes while at a barbecue with his music playing, she collapsed. This was confirmed later on while visiting a doctor's office, she played Sean Paul's 'Temperature' on her iPod and soon after, suffered three seizures. Now that the
surgery has been completed, there have been no reported seizures.
Labels: health, life, music, news, women, World
BARBADOS chooses the DLP after three consecutive terms of BLP leadership
WOW.DISCLAIMER: IANAPP, I Am Not A Political PunditIANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), and I rarely follow politics. Remember this as I am writing this post just as a casual observer, analyzing and drawing conclusions based on what l know from reading, seeing and listening to what's been going on...
I think that the D's have a difficult road ahead of them. In particular, the fact that the D's haven't won a general election in 15 years and their representation in the House has been that of a very small minority.
The tables have now turned (and my goodness, how they've turned!). The DLP now rules the House after being in the extreme minority for 15 consecutive years and having not won an election during that same time period. The DLP has delivered a K.O. to the BLP by winnning the election and by now enjoying a similar level of House representation to what the BLP has had over the years.
David Thompson should be called the 'comeback kid', or something like that, for what he and the DLP party has pulled off. As I said, I do not follow politics, but DT and the DLP must've had one helluva fight. The DLP is back after years of low representation in the House, not winning an election (while people only remembering the bad times when the D's were in power) and one of the biggest blows, CM leaving the D's to go over to the B's.
I personally thought that it was going to be a very close election (I'm not disclosing who I voted for, or even if I voted), with the BLP still winning. But lo and behold! The people have spoken. Barbadians (the majority of them), have listened to the DLP and have given them the opportunity to deliver on their promises. Amazing. Whoever said that Barbadians don't rock the boat and are risk-adverse were dead wrong.
However, if DT and the D's thought that they had a long fight to the top, they need to think again (which I'm sure they realize). Now is when the battle really starts. The fight for the social and economic future of this country is on. This will be the most trying four years that the D's have ever seen.
In particular, the costs (and paying back), of the major projects the island has recently undertaken i.e., highways and the prison, cost of living, the national debt, the fact that there will be tough economic times ahead as a result of (but not limited) high oil prices, the subprime mortgage fiasco in the US and the normal day-to-day geo-political conflicts in places like Iran and elsewhere on the African continent.
(The head of the US Fed also recently said that the 2008 outlook is worse than originally
forecased/predicted Recall: When the US sneezes, the World catches a cold, or something like that.)
To make matters worse, I believe that the DLP will come under intense scrutiny (moreso than usual, I think), especially with regards to economical performance issues. The D's asked the people for a change and they have said 'yes' (and very loudly based on the voting results). Any failures to deliver will, I think, result in a 'I told you so', kind of display from the BLP, and might make some people second guess themselves about putting the DLP in power.
I myself am wondering...even if David Thompson & Co. have a tough time, maybe the Barbadian public will be a little forgving and cut them some slack. I mean, the B's have governed the island for 15 years and people know this. As such, they should also know the D's cannot swoop in overnight with sweeping reforms and changes and magically make all of the islands problems disappear.
Put another way, when a company has gone through tough times, or when the shareholders want a change, the shareholders bring in new management (happens all the time in places like the US, CEO's step down or are replaced). However, good things do not happen overnight. It takes a lot of hard work to turn around a company, and while the shareholders will be watching carefully, they also have to realize that the new management team needs time to get things organized and then, and only then, can the company move forward and make a difference (a positive one hopefully).
Despite all of the above, last night's results sent a strong message to the B's and to other political parties around the world: Change is constant. Barbadians may not be as complacent, nor as risk averse as some people would think. Obviously, Barbadians (or at least the majority of them), wanted a change. The B's had an unprecedented 3 terms (3x5, 15 yrs of Government) without any major changes in their own political party structure that I can recall (except for that big bombshell when CM split from the D's and joined the B's).
If I remember correctly, one of the CBC election panelists, the rep for the BLP had said that the loss may have been as a result of Barbadians fearing a fourth term with Arthur, or something like that. HH (Hartley Henry), replied by saying that it may not be the reason, instead, he believed citing T&T when Manning won another term, that it was because he (Manning) radically changed his Government, he saw that there was a need for new blood, and some house cleaning, and that's what he did. Hartley said that that was one of the major contributing factors of Manning's win (I can't quote HH word for word because I can't remember his exact words, only the gist of them).
I interpret this by thinking that maybe if Owen Arthur had done some radical house cleaning in his own party, maybe things would have been different. Maybe the B's might have won (by a small amount), or maybe the would have still lost, but not as badly as they have in this election. Maybe...
Howver, what's done is done and the vast majority of people have spoken, the D's have been granted their wish. The B's (I'm sure) did not see this coming, and will study the 2008 election from top to bottom like a school child studying for the 11-plus exams. The BLP will be watching every step of the DLP's movement and will no doubt be very vocal in the House, the media and in the their remaining constituents.
What still amazes (note that I did not say disappoints/excites, because I'm not getting into what political party I voted for, or did not vote for), me is the fact that the public have made such a swift and huge jump to the DLP ship. To say that it was a slaughter of the BLP may be harsh and unkind, but the B's definitely took a sound beating.
This election may even end up in some Caribbean political text books. Let future governments or current governments understand something clearly: never underestimate the power of the people, especially the majority of the people. Barbadians, under the leadership of the DLP, have some interesting and hoepfully, good times to look forward to.
Congrats should therefore go to the DLP and their supporters. It was an extremely hard fight but you proved the B's wrong, and you've won the hearts and minds of the people by winning after 15 years, and not only winning, but overcoming major questions concerning the strength of the party itself, the short time in which you had to prepare and finally, by winning the majority of the House. Be you a BLP, PEP, or PDC supporter, you've got to be fair and give Jack his jacket.
Labels: Barbados, life, politics
Election Results
Sorry, no real-time results here. I'm sitting in front of the TV watching everything. Head on over to
BFP, and
BU. They've got lots of info/comments online.
Labels: Barbados, life, politics
E-Day! E-Day! E-Day!
It matters not if you are a 'B', 'D', or a supporter of any other political party or indepedent candidate. What matters is that today is your day to make your voice heard, because today is election day in Barbados.
People from all walks of life; the rich, the poor, the in-between,
the good, the bad and the ugly, everyone, with the exception of the undecided or unconcerned and etcetera, will cast their votes today and take part in the
democratic process and elect new (or re-elect old), politicians.
It's your turn.Labels: Barbados, life, politics
The clock is ticking...
Sorry, no new posts until Saturday (the day of the exam). Until it's over, I'm on 'lockdown'.
Labels: blogging, life, MBA
Question(s) for the People's Democratic Congress (PDC)
UPDATE, Jan/5/08: Finished the post.DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist.
DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician.
DISCLAIMER: IAJAQAATPACOB, I Am Just Asking Question(s) As A Tax Payer And Citizen Of Barbados.
DISCLAIMER: IAJAQAACIWNPA, I Am Just Asking Question(s) As A Curious Individual With No Political Agenda.
The last disclaimer is important. This is a non-partisan (non political) post. I am not interested in the BLP, DLP, nor PEP. I am only interested in what the
PDC recently had to say (at the time of this post, I cannot recall the exact date of The Nation's article which carried the PDC's comments), with regards to their goal of abolishing taxes
(as well as interest rates and foreign land ownership, but I am interested in their abolition of taxes proposition and I will be focusing primarily on that).
My interests are purely academic. Not political. With respect to politics, I ask that reader's take note that, as far as I can recall (but correct me if I'm wrong), none of the other political parties (BLP, DLP and PEP), have ever discussed abolishing taxes.
It is only the PDC that has made this statement.
Now, why am I asking the
PDC this question? Because (oops, sentences are not supposed to start with 'because', are they?), I am genuinely interested and curious, in trying to understand:
1) Why the PDC would want to abolish taxes and
2) How they (the PDC), intend on paying for and providing social services to the public if their party were ever to come into power.Remember folks, I'm just a
layman, seeking a little clarification and knowledge. That's all. No harm, no foul.
Before we go any further, what are taxes?
From Wikipedia (albeit, not the most professional, nor academic site to reference, but a quick and easy one to use nonetheless):
"A tax may be defined as a "pecuniary burden laid upon individuals or property to support the government […] a payment exacted by legislative authority."[1] A tax "is not a voluntary payment or donation, but an enforced contribution, exacted pursuant to legislative authority" and is "any contribution imposed by government […] whether under the name of toll, tribute, tallage, gabel, impost, duty, custom, excise, subsidy, aid, supply, or other name."[1]"I underlined 'support the government' because the government needs support in providing certain social services (police, fire, health, education, etcetera). The economists, politicians and academics can debate this definition and my addition, further. I however, will not. I will use the above definition as a suffice explanation of what a tax is.
NOTE: I am not saying that taxes are fair, or unfair, or that they are easy to pay, or that they are equally distributed amongst all of the different classes of society (i.e., low, mid and upper class, and everything in between). I am not interested in that. I'm not even interested in debating the tax rate in Barbados (for companies and individuals), nor am I interested in comparing it with other countries. No, take that discussion elsewhere, please. Better yet, go and debate it with a Tax Attorney or an Accountant :-)
To the PDC, I say unto thee: This, as far as I understand it from a layman's point of view, is why taxes are necessary and what they pay for: (Anyone out there is free to offer a counter arguement)1.
Roads. Taxes pay for the roads that we drive, walk, cycle and drive our donkey carts on. The roads may or may not be perfect (leave the politics out of this), but if the government decided to let a private sector company (i.e., companies that exist primarily to increase shareholder value, and to generate profits), take over the development and maintenance of the island's road network, what do you think will happen, PDC? Who do you think the bulk of the burden fall upon? The low, middle or upper income classes, PDC?
2.
Water. Taxes pay for the water you use. Who will be able to afford, or have access to water supplies if there are no taxes to pay to the government (which uses tax revenue to provide these services)? Yes, I know that our water 'services' may or may not be the best (leave the politics out of this), but they are being subsidized and/or provided for, by the government. Can you imagine a privatized (or non-nationalized) water company? I recall from my CXC POB (Principles Of Business) studies
that private companies exist to make a profit. I further recall from my MBA studies that private companies, of all shapes and sizes, are primarily interested in increasing shareholder value (shareholders are the people that own the company). The have to have increase the value that the shareholders made in the company, else they will investment in another business. Do you, the PDC, think that shareholders of a private water company (unless they are very morally and ethetically minded) are interested in the good of the people, or are they more interested in the bottom line?
3.
Police. PDC, the taxes that you want to abolish help pay for the protection and security of life and property. The police also maintain law and order in society. (Leave the politics out please, remember this is purely an academic discussion). How, PDC, do you plan on maintaining law and order in society, as well as protecting life and property, when there are no taxes to pay for the police force? Do we then depend on private security firms, firms like
Blackwater?
4.
Fire. PDC, a government typically provides a fire service (leave the politics out of this please), do they not? What happens when someone's house or business burns down. Without taxes to pay for that fire service and the people that operate the fire service, who will put out the fires and protect life and property? Or are you, PDC, saying that this sort of service is best left in the hands of a private sector company? What if the less fortunate cannot afford to pay the bill after having a private fire company put out the blaze, what then? Or better yet, when someone's house or business is burning, they call the private fire company and negotiate a rate before putting out the fire. Remember, a private company is interested in their bottom line. Maybe it would be more competitive and beneficial to the public if there was more than one private fire company. That way, you'd have competition and one could always go to 'the other guy' for a cheaper price (you better hope that your house doesn't completely burn down while you haggle over price).
In conlusion, PDC, consider what I've said above, and apply it in turn to other issues like: Education, NIS, Health Care and whatever other government provided services you can think of (please leave the politics out). When you abolish taxes, let me know what you intend to substitute them with in order for Barbadians to have access to social services.
P.S., I'd like to wish everyone all the best for the new year!
Labels: Barbados, economics, humour, life, Philosophy, politics
I Am Not An Economist (IANAE)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist).
A few readers of this blog may recall how I sometimes prefix posts based on a random thought (e.g.,
the similarities between traffic lights and the different types of economic systems), with the infamous letters: IANAE.
The fact that
I am not an economist has never stopped me from trying to think like one, or from trying to think of things (like life), from an economic point of view: opportunity cost, incentives, motives, externality and so on and so forth.
There are others who do the same. A few of these folks are 'proper' economists that have expressed, in economic terms and concepts, things that we take for granted. Folks like Tim Harford, author of:
The Undercover Economist. Harford also writes the 'Dear Economist', column for the Financial Times. The Dec 28 'DE' column had this to say in response to concerns about drunks on the road during the Christmas season:
"Dear Economist,
This Christmas and new year, I expect to encounter a lot of drunks on the road. In fact, I may well be one of them. Should I feel guilty? And should I be worried?
Mr F Jones, London
Dear Mr Jones,
It has always been difficult to test the effect of alcohol on drivers let loose on the roads. The difficulty is this: if half of all crashes involve drunks, that may be because drinking impairs your driving or it may be because there are a lot of drunks on the road – and we can only guess at how many drunk drivers there are.
But the economists Steven Levitt and Jack Porter realised that it was possible to say more, by looking at how often drunk drivers crashed into each other. If 10 per cent of drivers drink, and if drunk drivers are as safe as any other kind of driver and randomly mixed among the sober drivers, then only 1 per cent of two-vehicle crashes should involve two drunks.
Drunk-on-drunk crashes are much more common than one would expect, given the number of drunk-on-sober crashes, allowing Levitt and Porter to reach firm conclusions about the risks of drink driving.
They find a very large effect. Drivers who have been drinking are seven times more likely to cause a fatal crash; those who have drunk over the legal limit (in the US) are 13 times more likely to cause a fatal crash. You might also bear in mind another finding from the paper: “The great majority of alcohol-related driving fatalities occur to the drinking drivers themselves and their passengers.” That should be sobering.
economist@ft.com"Source:
FT.com / Weekend columnists / Tim Harford - Dear Economist...Harford's writing also appears on Slate Magazine. A recent article asks (and answers) the question:
Can economics make you a better person? So, if you've got some
disposable income rolling around, I suggest you consider adding
The Undercover Economist, as well as
Freakonomics, to your bookshelf. Both books may end up revealing things about the World that you never considered and always took for granted.
Labels: blogging, economics, life, World
