pull! push! Adventures in Internet land :-)
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Thoughts on the 2008 US Elections
(Image from CNN.com)
WOW :-)
A few months ago Barbadians spoke and the DLP secured office during our last general election. Yesterday, it was America's turn to speak, and my how they've spoken!
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), but both countries (America and Barbados), went through a huge, sweeping change during each of their last general elections with America under President Bush, a Republican, for two terms(?) and Barbados, under (former Prime Minister) Owen Arthur, a BLP member, for three terms(?).
Today, Barbadians have The Rt. Honorable David Thompson, of the DLP (Democratic Labour Party), as our Prime Minister and soon, the American people will have Barack Obama as their President.
Both of them, Thompson and Obama, each have long, dangerous roads ahead of them (Thompson's journey began a few months ago and while challenging, will pale in comparison next to Obama's), with both of them securing office in some of the most difficult and trying times the World has ever known. In both cases however, the people wanted a change, and acted accordingly.
Despite party politics in both countries (always unavoidable), Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Allow me to explain: I believe that the leader of a country owes a responsibilty to (first and foremost) its citizens (regardless of party affiliation and preference), and now, in the era of the 'global village', its neighbours, that is, the rest of the World.
Red or Blue, BLP or DLP (or none at all). Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Here's to a better and safer World for all.
(Image from CNN.com)
WOW :-)
A few months ago Barbadians spoke and the DLP secured office during our last general election. Yesterday, it was America's turn to speak, and my how they've spoken!
IANAPP (I Am Not A Political Pundit), but both countries (America and Barbados), went through a huge, sweeping change during each of their last general elections with America under President Bush, a Republican, for two terms(?) and Barbados, under (former Prime Minister) Owen Arthur, a BLP member, for three terms(?).
Today, Barbadians have The Rt. Honorable David Thompson, of the DLP (Democratic Labour Party), as our Prime Minister and soon, the American people will have Barack Obama as their President.
Both of them, Thompson and Obama, each have long, dangerous roads ahead of them (Thompson's journey began a few months ago and while challenging, will pale in comparison next to Obama's), with both of them securing office in some of the most difficult and trying times the World has ever known. In both cases however, the people wanted a change, and acted accordingly.
Despite party politics in both countries (always unavoidable), Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Allow me to explain: I believe that the leader of a country owes a responsibilty to (first and foremost) its citizens (regardless of party affiliation and preference), and now, in the era of the 'global village', its neighbours, that is, the rest of the World.
Red or Blue, BLP or DLP (or none at all). Americans are Americans and Barbadians are Barbadians. Here's to a better and safer World for all.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
Caption this
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"Talk to the hand, Sarkozy, talk to the hand!"
Euro-zone leaders to meet over financial crisis (CNN.com)
(Photo from CNN.com)
Captioned:
"Talk to the hand, Sarkozy, talk to the hand!"
Euro-zone leaders to meet over financial crisis (CNN.com)
Labels: caption, EU, France, funny, Germany, life, politics, World
Thursday, October 2, 2008
Thoughts on BillO and The Factor
Amazing. Forget rational, polite and sensible discussion (I doubt that sort of thing gets good TV ratings anyway, but I'm not a TV expert). Dismiss any notion of letting the other guy get in a word edge-wise, let alone fully explain himself (why bother?).
Furthermore, get your verbal punches, your insults and your name-calling in before the other guy does, and you'll do just fine. Especially if it's your TV show. If the other guy (tries to) fight back, quickly 'wrap up' the interview while he's still stunned and reeling from your rants and you'll have nothing to worry about.
That's how I felt after seeing what I saw tonight. I just finished watching O'Reilly's 'discussion' with Barney Frank, a U.S. politician who is/was involved in the supervision (or something like that) of Fannie and Freddie Mac.
What. The. Heck.
Why do people even bother going on The Factor? I'm not a fan, nor hater of the show. If it looks like O'Reilly has someone interesting on, then I'll watch. For a few minutes anyway. But tonight, wow. No doubt that he's a hard-hitting, no-nonsense, kinda guy and I'm sure he's just trying to do his job as a journalist by getting answers the way he does (and at the same time, possibly trying to boost his ratings), but to call his guest (Frank) a coward, and to verbally beat him down like that without giving the guy a chance to speak?
Sure, fire away with your questions, but dude, come on. IMHO, and without prejudice, all I think O'Reilly managed to do was to act like a bully and a tyrant towards Frank. Sure he may have had a valid point or two with regards to his performance, but that was all but lost (for me anyway) in the ensuing verbal fist fight. Is that what this is about? Shouting, screaming, insults and name-calling?
It must be for the ratings. It must be. I can't imagine why else anyone would watch The Factor, especially tonight's episode. If you're looking for an alternative to The Factor, or something just as hard hitting, consider HARDtalk on the BBC.
Is it safe to assume that Barney Frank will not be returning to The Factor, not anytime soon anyway?
Amazing. Forget rational, polite and sensible discussion (I doubt that sort of thing gets good TV ratings anyway, but I'm not a TV expert). Dismiss any notion of letting the other guy get in a word edge-wise, let alone fully explain himself (why bother?).
Furthermore, get your verbal punches, your insults and your name-calling in before the other guy does, and you'll do just fine. Especially if it's your TV show. If the other guy (tries to) fight back, quickly 'wrap up' the interview while he's still stunned and reeling from your rants and you'll have nothing to worry about.
That's how I felt after seeing what I saw tonight. I just finished watching O'Reilly's 'discussion' with Barney Frank, a U.S. politician who is/was involved in the supervision (or something like that) of Fannie and Freddie Mac.
What. The. Heck.
Why do people even bother going on The Factor? I'm not a fan, nor hater of the show. If it looks like O'Reilly has someone interesting on, then I'll watch. For a few minutes anyway. But tonight, wow. No doubt that he's a hard-hitting, no-nonsense, kinda guy and I'm sure he's just trying to do his job as a journalist by getting answers the way he does (and at the same time, possibly trying to boost his ratings), but to call his guest (Frank) a coward, and to verbally beat him down like that without giving the guy a chance to speak?
Sure, fire away with your questions, but dude, come on. IMHO, and without prejudice, all I think O'Reilly managed to do was to act like a bully and a tyrant towards Frank. Sure he may have had a valid point or two with regards to his performance, but that was all but lost (for me anyway) in the ensuing verbal fist fight. Is that what this is about? Shouting, screaming, insults and name-calling?
It must be for the ratings. It must be. I can't imagine why else anyone would watch The Factor, especially tonight's episode. If you're looking for an alternative to The Factor, or something just as hard hitting, consider HARDtalk on the BBC.
Is it safe to assume that Barney Frank will not be returning to The Factor, not anytime soon anyway?
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Thoughts on OPEC, Oil and Economics
DISCLAIMER: IANAE (I Am Not An Economist)
(Image from Mr. Downling's Arabian Oil Page)
"So since the price of oil has finally dipped below $100, the OPEC group has decided to slow production of oil again. Thereby driving up the demand and making themselves more filthier rich than they already are..."
A snippet of an e-mail sent by a friend. His comments were in response to news of OPEC cutting output by 520,000 bpd (Yahoo! News)
And my response (anyone with an opinion or an economics background is strongly encouraged to leave a comment):
*DISCLAIMER: This is a lengthy e-mail.*
According to various business articles/publications, the fall in in the price of oil was largely attributed to the slowdown in the global economy (which I believe is still happening for a variety of reasons, including the subprime fiasco which was a result of bad/risky lending practices by financial institutions).
The same slowdown may have caused some (many?) businesses to cut back, or shelve plans for expansion, or to do without additional staff and so on, and so forth. Part of this expansion may be partly responsible for driving the demand for oil and its by-products. Less expansion may result in less hiring, which may result in less spending and consumption (by businesses and the public alike). This may end up coming full circle to less expansion all over again as businesses suffer due to an economic slowdown.
I believe, in general, that oil may/cannot keep on climbing in terms of price. It will be expensive, yes, in relation to previous prices, but there's a limit to how high it can go. If it gets very expensive, then demand will fall (taking price with it) and substitutes and/or alternatives may become more attractive (i.e., solar, bio, electric, or by simply reducing demand by reducing consumption through driving less and car pooling more).
To summarize (and bastardize) the Law of Demand: all things being equal, the higher the price of a good or service, the lower the demand for it. Of course one also has to figure in PED (Price Elasticity of Demand) and maybe YED(?) (Income Elasticity of Demand).
If demand doesn't change much for a product when the price increases, then the product can be said to be price inelastic (this product may be an essential item, like bread, oil, or even the newspaper, so even if the prices go up, people still buy the product because they consider it to be essential, like oil). If price changes (increase/decrease) and demand changes as a result (increaes/decrease), then the demand of this product is said to be price elastic, e.g. consumers may find another product, or do without it (e.g., if butter prices go up then, all things being equal, people may switch to margarine, if I remember an example I read somewhere correctly).
Getting back to OPEC, I *personally* think that if they wanted to get more for a barrel of oil, they should've increased production. An increase in production may, I believe, temporarily result in a price drop (as a result of the increased supply of product in the market). A cheaper price may cause an increase demand, which drives up prices and removes the excess supply until an equilibrium price is reached. Put in more practical terms (I think), The World (businesses, industries, people) upon seeing that oil prices have fallen (from an increase in product on the market) *MAY* rush back to their old levels of consumption (having forgotten the lessons of high oil prices to begin with).
In doing so, the World may end up shooting themselves in the foot. Increased demand for a product, especially one as scarce as oil, may drive up its price. A related example (maybe not the best) is the stock market in the U.S. and those tech/dot-com stocks. High demand drove the stock prices up to insane/unheard of levels (then the bubble burst and prices dropped). Real-estate (in Barbados for example), may also be similar. Prices are high because the market supports high prices (and obviously because land is finite, scarce resource). Take away the demand or whatever is causing the demand (say for example the culture that Barbadians must own a piece of the rock for financial security, or to pass on to their kids) and prices may very well drop (but not by an amazing amount because remember, land is a finite resource).
But what do I know? Remember, IANAE.
:-)
(Image from Mr. Downling's Arabian Oil Page)
"So since the price of oil has finally dipped below $100, the OPEC group has decided to slow production of oil again. Thereby driving up the demand and making themselves more filthier rich than they already are..."
A snippet of an e-mail sent by a friend. His comments were in response to news of OPEC cutting output by 520,000 bpd (Yahoo! News)
And my response (anyone with an opinion or an economics background is strongly encouraged to leave a comment):
*DISCLAIMER: This is a lengthy e-mail.*
According to various business articles/publications, the fall in in the price of oil was largely attributed to the slowdown in the global economy (which I believe is still happening for a variety of reasons, including the subprime fiasco which was a result of bad/risky lending practices by financial institutions).
The same slowdown may have caused some (many?) businesses to cut back, or shelve plans for expansion, or to do without additional staff and so on, and so forth. Part of this expansion may be partly responsible for driving the demand for oil and its by-products. Less expansion may result in less hiring, which may result in less spending and consumption (by businesses and the public alike). This may end up coming full circle to less expansion all over again as businesses suffer due to an economic slowdown.
I believe, in general, that oil may/cannot keep on climbing in terms of price. It will be expensive, yes, in relation to previous prices, but there's a limit to how high it can go. If it gets very expensive, then demand will fall (taking price with it) and substitutes and/or alternatives may become more attractive (i.e., solar, bio, electric, or by simply reducing demand by reducing consumption through driving less and car pooling more).
To summarize (and bastardize) the Law of Demand: all things being equal, the higher the price of a good or service, the lower the demand for it. Of course one also has to figure in PED (Price Elasticity of Demand) and maybe YED(?) (Income Elasticity of Demand).
If demand doesn't change much for a product when the price increases, then the product can be said to be price inelastic (this product may be an essential item, like bread, oil, or even the newspaper, so even if the prices go up, people still buy the product because they consider it to be essential, like oil). If price changes (increase/decrease) and demand changes as a result (increaes/decrease), then the demand of this product is said to be price elastic, e.g. consumers may find another product, or do without it (e.g., if butter prices go up then, all things being equal, people may switch to margarine, if I remember an example I read somewhere correctly).
Getting back to OPEC, I *personally* think that if they wanted to get more for a barrel of oil, they should've increased production. An increase in production may, I believe, temporarily result in a price drop (as a result of the increased supply of product in the market). A cheaper price may cause an increase demand, which drives up prices and removes the excess supply until an equilibrium price is reached. Put in more practical terms (I think), The World (businesses, industries, people) upon seeing that oil prices have fallen (from an increase in product on the market) *MAY* rush back to their old levels of consumption (having forgotten the lessons of high oil prices to begin with).
In doing so, the World may end up shooting themselves in the foot. Increased demand for a product, especially one as scarce as oil, may drive up its price. A related example (maybe not the best) is the stock market in the U.S. and those tech/dot-com stocks. High demand drove the stock prices up to insane/unheard of levels (then the bubble burst and prices dropped). Real-estate (in Barbados for example), may also be similar. Prices are high because the market supports high prices (and obviously because land is finite, scarce resource). Take away the demand or whatever is causing the demand (say for example the culture that Barbadians must own a piece of the rock for financial security, or to pass on to their kids) and prices may very well drop (but not by an amazing amount because remember, land is a finite resource).
But what do I know? Remember, IANAE.
:-)
Labels: business, economics, life, oil, OPEC, politics, thoughts, work, World
Tuesday, July 22, 2008
A very brief look at the other side of the coin: the American Petroleum Institute
Easy to read and follow, I picked up Linda McQuaig's 'It's the Crude, Dude: War, Big Oil and the Fight for the Planet,' while vacationing in Canada last year.
The title is what grabbed me, followed by the subject matter. The actual content has been nothing short of provocative, revealing and attention grabbing (especially the bit about Chavez 'saving' OPEC, and how Rockefeller and Standard Oil came about).
In one of her chapters, McQuaig mentions, in less-than-cozy terms, the American Petroleum Institute. The API, according to their website, is:
"...the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
I'm mentioning them because some of their documents which, for whatever reasons or interests they are trying to serve, are interesting and worth reading, especially:
Understanding Today's Crude Oil and Product Markets (Oil Primer)
The Facts About Oil Industry Mergers, Market Power and Fuel Prices: An API Primer
The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer
The title is what grabbed me, followed by the subject matter. The actual content has been nothing short of provocative, revealing and attention grabbing (especially the bit about Chavez 'saving' OPEC, and how Rockefeller and Standard Oil came about).
In one of her chapters, McQuaig mentions, in less-than-cozy terms, the American Petroleum Institute. The API, according to their website, is:
"...the only national trade association that represents all aspects of America’s oil and natural gas industry. Our 400 corporate members, from the largest major oil company to the smallest of independents, come from all segments of the industry. They are producers, refiners, suppliers, pipeline operators and marine transporters, as well as service and supply companies that support all segments of the industry."
I'm mentioning them because some of their documents which, for whatever reasons or interests they are trying to serve, are interesting and worth reading, especially:
Understanding Today's Crude Oil and Product Markets (Oil Primer)
The Facts About Oil Industry Mergers, Market Power and Fuel Prices: An API Primer
The Truth About Oil and Gasoline: An API Primer
Labels: American Petroleum Institute, economics, news, oil, politics, U.S., World
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Relations between China and Africa
"FEARS of a "no fun Olympics" are growing as security restrictions increase and become more bizarre with less than 20 days to go until the opening ceremony.
Beijing police have been visiting bar owners in the popular Sanlitun area and asking them to sign pledges agreeing to not serve black people or Mongolians and ban activities including dancing."
Fears of a 'no-fun' Olympics in Beijing (theage.com.au)
"BEIJING — Chinese police officials have forced some Beijing bar owners to sign secret pledges promising to prohibit blacks from entering their bars during the Olympics next month, a Hong Kong newspaper says.
The police denied the report Friday, and most bars denied any knowledge of the pledges. But many African residents of Beijing say they are facing harassment from police and discrimination from bars as the Olympics approach."
Africans in Beijing harassed as Olympics approach (globeandmail.com)
"No one alive at the close of the 19th century could have missed the "scramble for Africa". A motley collection of robber barons, imperialist ideologues, explorers, rogues and adventurers - the likes of Cecil Rhodes and the appalling Leopold II, King of the Belgians - carved up the continent in the name of five European powers.
Today, few appear to have noticed that a second "scramble for Africa" is under way. This time, only one giant country is involved, but its ambitions are every bit as momentous as those of Rhodes and company. With every day that passes, China's economic tentacles extend deeper into Africa. While Europe sought direct political control, China is acquiring a vast and informal economic empire."
Why China is trying to colonise Africa (Telegraph)
(NOTE: Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here? Are the Chinese trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Then again, what do I know? IANAE - I Am Not An Economist, IANAP - I Am Not A Politician, IANAOE - I Am Not An Oil Exec and so on and so forth...)
"The People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Nigeria established diplomatic relations on February 10, 1971. Bilateral relations have since enjoyed smooth and steady development."
China-Nigeria Relations (EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)
"The traditional friendship and relations of good cooperation between China and African countries have stood the test of time and gone through the trial of international turbulent events. This relationship, being a good example to the developing countries, has been further consolidated and developed under the present new situation."
China-Africa Relations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China)
"China has secured four oil drilling licences from Nigeria as President Hu Jintao continues his week-long tour of Africa, his second in three years. In exchange China will invest $4bn (£2.25bn) in oil and infrastructure projects in Nigeria."
China and Nigeria agree oil deal (BBC NEWS)
"According to China's Ministry of Commerce, China and Nigeria signed an 8.3 billion US dollar railway construction contract. China will build 1315 kilometers of railroad in the west African state; this is the biggest infrastucture project abroad for a Chinese company to date."
Nigeria and China railway deal: $8.3 billion (DANWEI)
Beijing police have been visiting bar owners in the popular Sanlitun area and asking them to sign pledges agreeing to not serve black people or Mongolians and ban activities including dancing."
Fears of a 'no-fun' Olympics in Beijing (theage.com.au)
"BEIJING — Chinese police officials have forced some Beijing bar owners to sign secret pledges promising to prohibit blacks from entering their bars during the Olympics next month, a Hong Kong newspaper says.
The police denied the report Friday, and most bars denied any knowledge of the pledges. But many African residents of Beijing say they are facing harassment from police and discrimination from bars as the Olympics approach."
Africans in Beijing harassed as Olympics approach (globeandmail.com)
"No one alive at the close of the 19th century could have missed the "scramble for Africa". A motley collection of robber barons, imperialist ideologues, explorers, rogues and adventurers - the likes of Cecil Rhodes and the appalling Leopold II, King of the Belgians - carved up the continent in the name of five European powers.
Today, few appear to have noticed that a second "scramble for Africa" is under way. This time, only one giant country is involved, but its ambitions are every bit as momentous as those of Rhodes and company. With every day that passes, China's economic tentacles extend deeper into Africa. While Europe sought direct political control, China is acquiring a vast and informal economic empire."
Why China is trying to colonise Africa (Telegraph)
(NOTE: Is it just me, or is there something fishy going on here? Are the Chinese trying to have their cake and eat it, too? Then again, what do I know? IANAE - I Am Not An Economist, IANAP - I Am Not A Politician, IANAOE - I Am Not An Oil Exec and so on and so forth...)
"The People's Republic of China and the Federal Republic of Nigeria established diplomatic relations on February 10, 1971. Bilateral relations have since enjoyed smooth and steady development."
China-Nigeria Relations (EMBASSY OF THE PEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA IN THE FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF NIGERIA)
"The traditional friendship and relations of good cooperation between China and African countries have stood the test of time and gone through the trial of international turbulent events. This relationship, being a good example to the developing countries, has been further consolidated and developed under the present new situation."
China-Africa Relations (Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China)
"China has secured four oil drilling licences from Nigeria as President Hu Jintao continues his week-long tour of Africa, his second in three years. In exchange China will invest $4bn (£2.25bn) in oil and infrastructure projects in Nigeria."
China and Nigeria agree oil deal (BBC NEWS)
"According to China's Ministry of Commerce, China and Nigeria signed an 8.3 billion US dollar railway construction contract. China will build 1315 kilometers of railroad in the west African state; this is the biggest infrastucture project abroad for a Chinese company to date."
Nigeria and China railway deal: $8.3 billion (DANWEI)
Labels: Africa, China, economics, life, news, oil, Olympics, politics, World
Monday, July 7, 2008
In other news...
"Mswati was crowned king a mere six days after his 18th birthday, and the country has been a train wreck ever since. An estimated 26 percent of Swazis between ages 15 and 49 are HIV positive, one of the highest rates in the world. Mswati’s brilliant solution: a sex ban. In 2001, he instated the uncwasho rite, which put a five-year ban on sex for females under 18. The move proved unpopular, especially after Mswati—who at last count had 13 wives and at least 23 children—married a 17-year-old. The ban was lifted a year early."
The World's 10 Youngest Leaders (Foreign Policy)
"You know I care deeply about the people of Zimbabwe," Bush said. "I'm extremely disappointed in the elections, which I labeled a sham election."
Bush focuses on Zimbabwe 'punishment' (CNN.com)
"Everything made in America — from goods to entire companies — is near dirt cheap to many foreigners. Meanwhile, American consumers, both those who travel and those who stay at home, are seeing big price increases in energy, food and imported goods. The dollar has lost roughly a quarter of its purchasing power against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners from its peak in 2002."
The buck doesn't stop here; it just keeps falling (Yahoo! News)
"Whether it is an unexpected food crisis or a devastating hurricane, the world’s weakest states are the most exposed when crisis strikes. In the fourth annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and The Fund for Peace rank the countries where state collapse may be just one disaster away."
The Failed States Index 2008 (Foreign Policy)
The World's 10 Youngest Leaders (Foreign Policy)
"You know I care deeply about the people of Zimbabwe," Bush said. "I'm extremely disappointed in the elections, which I labeled a sham election."
Bush focuses on Zimbabwe 'punishment' (CNN.com)
"Everything made in America — from goods to entire companies — is near dirt cheap to many foreigners. Meanwhile, American consumers, both those who travel and those who stay at home, are seeing big price increases in energy, food and imported goods. The dollar has lost roughly a quarter of its purchasing power against the currencies of major U.S. trading partners from its peak in 2002."
The buck doesn't stop here; it just keeps falling (Yahoo! News)
"Whether it is an unexpected food crisis or a devastating hurricane, the world’s weakest states are the most exposed when crisis strikes. In the fourth annual Failed States Index, FOREIGN POLICY and The Fund for Peace rank the countries where state collapse may be just one disaster away."
The Failed States Index 2008 (Foreign Policy)
Labels: Bush, economy, life, politics, U.S., World, Zimbabwe
Thursday, May 8, 2008
The private lives of celebrities. Does the public care?
How much, or how little, do you care about what a popular celebrity thinks?
On May 6, The Bajan Reporter posted a rather lengthy 'thesis' by one Roger Marshall concerning the connection between Rihanna's famous 'Umbrella' song and the occult.
This was picked up by BFP this morning and has already resulted in a few comments (no surprise, as anything that involves religion and politics is bound to stir up the emotions). I have not read Marshall's article, nor am I planning to, as it does not interest me in the least bit.
Mind you, I'm not saying that Rihanna is knowingly (or unknowingly) involved in any of the stuff that Marshall mentions, nor am I commenting on her personal beliefs, etcetera. I'm sure that other like-minded people (i.e., people like Marshall) could find links to the occult and other artists' songs as well. It just so happened that his article mentioned Rihanna's song.
What does interest me is to what extent do the beliefs and values (etcetera) of a popular celebrity, affect how much (or how little) ordinary citizens like them.
It seems like a simple and straight-forward thing, doesn't it? If a celebrity that you've always liked for years adopts a position contrary to your own on any topic (drugs, the environment, religion, politics, etcetera), will you look at them differently? Consider also if, despite their opposing view, they continue to carry out their professional life in the exact same way (e.g. movies/music), putting aside their own personal philosophy. Now that you know what they really think, would you be able to ignore their beliefs and continue to support their films/music?
Realize that whatever you (and the majority of the public) choose may impact on how much money the celebrity earns. Knowing this, the celebrity (at the request of, or on the advice of his/her agent, etcetera) may try to appear in such a way so as toavoid a potential loss (or decrease) of income as a result of his/her personal opinions. This may end up in you rarely seeing, or getting to know, the real individual behind the celebrity.
In the end, and after considering the above, who do you like, the individual with his/her private opinions, or the celebrity who will please the audience?
On May 6, The Bajan Reporter posted a rather lengthy 'thesis' by one Roger Marshall concerning the connection between Rihanna's famous 'Umbrella' song and the occult.
This was picked up by BFP this morning and has already resulted in a few comments (no surprise, as anything that involves religion and politics is bound to stir up the emotions). I have not read Marshall's article, nor am I planning to, as it does not interest me in the least bit.
Mind you, I'm not saying that Rihanna is knowingly (or unknowingly) involved in any of the stuff that Marshall mentions, nor am I commenting on her personal beliefs, etcetera. I'm sure that other like-minded people (i.e., people like Marshall) could find links to the occult and other artists' songs as well. It just so happened that his article mentioned Rihanna's song.
What does interest me is to what extent do the beliefs and values (etcetera) of a popular celebrity, affect how much (or how little) ordinary citizens like them.
It seems like a simple and straight-forward thing, doesn't it? If a celebrity that you've always liked for years adopts a position contrary to your own on any topic (drugs, the environment, religion, politics, etcetera), will you look at them differently? Consider also if, despite their opposing view, they continue to carry out their professional life in the exact same way (e.g. movies/music), putting aside their own personal philosophy. Now that you know what they really think, would you be able to ignore their beliefs and continue to support their films/music?
Realize that whatever you (and the majority of the public) choose may impact on how much money the celebrity earns. Knowing this, the celebrity (at the request of, or on the advice of his/her agent, etcetera) may try to appear in such a way so as toavoid a potential loss (or decrease) of income as a result of his/her personal opinions. This may end up in you rarely seeing, or getting to know, the real individual behind the celebrity.
In the end, and after considering the above, who do you like, the individual with his/her private opinions, or the celebrity who will please the audience?
Labels: Barbados, Barbados Free Press, blogging, life, news, Philosophy, politics, religion, The Bajan Reporter
Monday, April 14, 2008
The Right Honourable David Thompson, Prime Minister of Barbados, Talks to the People
(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician)
(DISCLAIMER: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera)
(DISCLAIMER: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher)
I first heard of the PM's planned interview/talk via the blogs and then, I think, I read something about it in one of the daily papers (sorry, can't remember which one). It's easier and quicker (for me) to check out the local blogs for information on what's news and what's happening, than it is for me to get access to the paper sometimes.
Also, not all of the print articles make the newspapers' website editions, and why would they anyway? Why would you give away all of your content for free when you could charge for it and charge for ads in your dead-tree edition? I wonder, out of a newspapers' total revenue, what percentage of it is earned from purchasers of the newspaper and what percentage is earned from running ads in the newspaper.
A full online newspaper would certainly be cheaper to run (as they are less overheads/costs, i.e., plant and equipment, staff, utilities, etc). With the reduced costs, maybe a newspaper could shift its base of operations to the web. Let the reporters write from home, or wherever and communicate via instant messaging, e-mail and so forth. Sure you probably won't have as many ads, but that's okay, you don't have that many costs and so the 'newspaper' can still survive (and earn a profit) by running ads on the website (The Nation newspaper currently has ads on their website). Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.
But how much revenue? Will it be enough for the business to make a healthy return for its investors? What is a healthy return anyway? 10, 15, 20 or 30%? Also, not everyone has ready access to a computer and Internet access, so a dead-tree edition still is useful and there is something to be said for lazing around on the couch on a Sunday afternoon flipping through the newspaper (and comics) instead of staring at a screen for long periods of time.
Alas, I digress. Remember: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man.
The point (if there is one) to tonight's post was to comment on the PM's appearance on the television and radio. As far as I can tell (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), this is the first time that I've ever heard of, or seen for myself, a PM sitting down to be questioned by (for all intents and purposes) members of the public. This is quite simply amazing (maybe even dangerous?). It marks a radical and significant change in the island's political landscape.
STOP. Hold your horses. Hold strain. Remeber: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera. This post is not about what was promised and what has been delivered (or still to be delivered). It's not about the D's manifesto and it's not about the B's either, nor any political party for that matter. Put the party politics on pause people, please (try saying that five times fast).
Furthermore, I've not heard all of the TV/radio discussion tonight (it is ongoing as I type this). But I need not. As far as I am concerned, the mere fact that this is happening tells me that The Times They Are a-Changin' But for how long? Who knows. Will anything ever change? Who knows. Remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician. But, as I said earlier, I cannot remember a pervious occasion where something like this happened.
This may sound silly. At least, it may sound that way to people living in 'big countries.' These folks may take it for granted that they can question their politicians and public offcials and demand answers of them, or take them to task on important issues and topics. Not so here, at least, not as far as I can remember (does anyone remember?). Personified, the size of my knowledge of the island's political history is slimmer than I am, or better yet, non-existent.
Maybe some people think that questions shouldn't be asked, period. After all, politicians know more than we do, don't they? They are charged with running the country and seeing to the health and wealth of its citizens. There is also something to be said about there being a time and a place for everything and as such, a certain level of decorum and respect must be given to politicians no matter what political party they belong to (or no matter what the issues are).
But does this mean that by allowing ourselves to be governed by a minority (which we choose democratically), that in turn we must give up some of our freedom (and just what is freedom anyway?), the ability to ask questions, to form our own opinions, and most importantly, to think for ourselves?
No. It doesn't. You have a brain, use it wisely and remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher (LOL!). ;-)
(DISCLAIMER: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera)
(DISCLAIMER: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher)
I first heard of the PM's planned interview/talk via the blogs and then, I think, I read something about it in one of the daily papers (sorry, can't remember which one). It's easier and quicker (for me) to check out the local blogs for information on what's news and what's happening, than it is for me to get access to the paper sometimes.
Also, not all of the print articles make the newspapers' website editions, and why would they anyway? Why would you give away all of your content for free when you could charge for it and charge for ads in your dead-tree edition? I wonder, out of a newspapers' total revenue, what percentage of it is earned from purchasers of the newspaper and what percentage is earned from running ads in the newspaper.
A full online newspaper would certainly be cheaper to run (as they are less overheads/costs, i.e., plant and equipment, staff, utilities, etc). With the reduced costs, maybe a newspaper could shift its base of operations to the web. Let the reporters write from home, or wherever and communicate via instant messaging, e-mail and so forth. Sure you probably won't have as many ads, but that's okay, you don't have that many costs and so the 'newspaper' can still survive (and earn a profit) by running ads on the website (The Nation newspaper currently has ads on their website). Improbable? Yes. Impossible? No.
But how much revenue? Will it be enough for the business to make a healthy return for its investors? What is a healthy return anyway? 10, 15, 20 or 30%? Also, not everyone has ready access to a computer and Internet access, so a dead-tree edition still is useful and there is something to be said for lazing around on the couch on a Sunday afternoon flipping through the newspaper (and comics) instead of staring at a screen for long periods of time.
Alas, I digress. Remember: IANANM, I Am Not A Newspaper Man.
The point (if there is one) to tonight's post was to comment on the PM's appearance on the television and radio. As far as I can tell (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong), this is the first time that I've ever heard of, or seen for myself, a PM sitting down to be questioned by (for all intents and purposes) members of the public. This is quite simply amazing (maybe even dangerous?). It marks a radical and significant change in the island's political landscape.
STOP. Hold your horses. Hold strain. Remeber: IANABODE, I Am Not A 'B' Or 'D,' Etecetera. This post is not about what was promised and what has been delivered (or still to be delivered). It's not about the D's manifesto and it's not about the B's either, nor any political party for that matter. Put the party politics on pause people, please (try saying that five times fast).
Furthermore, I've not heard all of the TV/radio discussion tonight (it is ongoing as I type this). But I need not. As far as I am concerned, the mere fact that this is happening tells me that The Times They Are a-Changin' But for how long? Who knows. Will anything ever change? Who knows. Remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician. But, as I said earlier, I cannot remember a pervious occasion where something like this happened.
This may sound silly. At least, it may sound that way to people living in 'big countries.' These folks may take it for granted that they can question their politicians and public offcials and demand answers of them, or take them to task on important issues and topics. Not so here, at least, not as far as I can remember (does anyone remember?). Personified, the size of my knowledge of the island's political history is slimmer than I am, or better yet, non-existent.
Maybe some people think that questions shouldn't be asked, period. After all, politicians know more than we do, don't they? They are charged with running the country and seeing to the health and wealth of its citizens. There is also something to be said about there being a time and a place for everything and as such, a certain level of decorum and respect must be given to politicians no matter what political party they belong to (or no matter what the issues are).
But does this mean that by allowing ourselves to be governed by a minority (which we choose democratically), that in turn we must give up some of our freedom (and just what is freedom anyway?), the ability to ask questions, to form our own opinions, and most importantly, to think for ourselves?
No. It doesn't. You have a brain, use it wisely and remember: IANAP, I Am Not A Philosopher (LOL!). ;-)
Labels: Barbados, life, Philosophy, politics
Monday, March 24, 2008
The Economist hits the nail right on the head!
This is exactly what I'm talking about:
"STUCK in a traffic jam on the road home after an Easter break, the motorist has time to ponder many things."
For me, it wasn't the Easter break, it was a typical day and I was either stuck in traffic, or going to and fro. The end result was this post:
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts."
"STUCK in a traffic jam on the road home after an Easter break, the motorist has time to ponder many things."
For me, it wasn't the Easter break, it was a typical day and I was either stuck in traffic, or going to and fro. The end result was this post:
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts."
Labels: Barbados, blogging, economics, funny, life, politics, The Economist
Monday, January 21, 2008
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."
"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."
Wednesday, January 16, 2008
BARBADOS chooses the DLP after three consecutive terms of BLP leadership
WOW.
DISCLAIMER: IANAPP, I Am Not A Political Pundit
IANAPP (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.
DISCLAIMER: IANAPP, I Am Not A Political Pundit
IANAPP (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.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
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.
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.
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.
Friday, January 4, 2008
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!
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
Monday, November 19, 2007
In case you missed it...
have a look at:
"Coming soon to an airport near you: Williams Air(?)"
and
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts"
"Coming soon to an airport near you: Williams Air(?)"
and
"The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts"
Labels: Barbados, blogging, economics, funny, life, money, politics
Wednesday, October 24, 2007
And In Other News...
Putin's Russia Stakes Its Ground
“A stronger Russia now regrets such conciliatory policies because they have left the country feeling encircled,” writes Russia analyst Ivan Eland. As Dmitri K. Simes, head of the Nixon Center, puts it in the new issue of Foreign Affairs: “Washington's crucial error lay in its propensity to treat post-Soviet Russia as a defeated enemy.” [via Council on Foreign Relations]
What ever happened to free cell-phone games?
"The cell-phone game is one of the great guilty pleasures of the modern age. Why bother "thinking" or "socializing" during dead spots in your day when you can watch a four-pixel snake eat dots?" [via Slate Magazine]
“A stronger Russia now regrets such conciliatory policies because they have left the country feeling encircled,” writes Russia analyst Ivan Eland. As Dmitri K. Simes, head of the Nixon Center, puts it in the new issue of Foreign Affairs: “Washington's crucial error lay in its propensity to treat post-Soviet Russia as a defeated enemy.” [via Council on Foreign Relations]
What ever happened to free cell-phone games?
"The cell-phone game is one of the great guilty pleasures of the modern age. Why bother "thinking" or "socializing" during dead spots in your day when you can watch a four-pixel snake eat dots?" [via Slate Magazine]
Labels: cell-phone, politics, Putin, Russia
Sunday, October 21, 2007
The similarities between economic systems, traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts
UPDATE: Oct 22, 9:10 PM. The post is now finished.
(DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist)
(DISCLAIMER: IANATE, I Am Not A Transport Engineer)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician)
And no, I am not crazy. The long commute to the office does, on occasion, give me plenty of time to think about all sorts of things. In this case, identifying the similarities between economic systems (open, closed and mixed), traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts.
An Open Economy (Capitalism) = Four-Way Junction Without Working Traffic Lights
In a nutshell, an open economy is one where there is practically little, or no involvement by the State with regards to the running, or regulation, of the economy. The market is free to operate as efficiently as possible. The laws of supply and demand rule supreme. There are no price controls, regulations, state-owned or subsidised enterprises (like our very own CBC, QEH, BWA). The factors of production are all privately owned and operated with the goal of making a profit.
If a company is the sole provider of a good or service (a monopoly), it is free to charge whatever it wants. Dissatisfaction may lead to another company entering the market and providing the same goods at a better price. The consumer now has a choice, competition ensues and he/she is usually better off. The government stands by the sidelines and does not get involved.
There are several advantages and disadvantages to this type of economic system. One advantage is that the business owner is free to run his/her business, as best as they see fit. The lure of profit and a healthy return on investment, are typical reasons for persons starting a business in the first place.
However, a notable disadvantage exists as well. How do we protect those citizens who are less fortunate? Those in society who cannot afford the costs of a good or service (like education). Who will look after their basic needs if the market is only interested in running as efficiently as possible, and profit is the primary driving force behind all actions.
Now let's look at a typical four-way junction and motor traffic. Most Barbadians are familiar with the junction at Redmans, St. Michael (A Shell gas station operates at one of the corners of this junction).
What happens when the traffic lights are not working? Many people will argue that traffic flows freely. I believe that this is a good example of an open economy at work. The traffic lights represent Government regulation and control. This can potentially restrict the performance of the economy (or, the flow of traffic).
Motorists heading to either the north of the island (St. Lucy for example), or the south (that is, back to Warrens) enjoy a clear advantage over those drivers who are stuck on the east or west sides of the junction, who want to go either north or south. They have to wait for someone to let them join the main flow of north and south-bound traffic. These drivers are at a disadvantage, similar to the poor in an open economy with no Government protection, subsidies, or access to basic or affordable social services (like education or health care).
The motorists who are heading north or south, are free and are mostly unconcerned about the other motorists who have to look for a lucky break in order to join the main flow. And just like many businesses (the world over), most of them may not be concerned with the other 'motorists,' or with those less fortunate members of society, unless it has the potential to negatively affect their bottom-line.
These north and south-bound motorists are using their unique advantage, non-working traffic lights (or an open economy in the case of a business), to the utmost extreme, and are profiting by not having to sit in traffic and by therefore arriving at their respective destinations in a timely fashion.
Similarly, businesses who are not concerned about Government intervention in setting prices, controlling the types of businesses, restriction of foreign investment, will clearly enjoy these advantages. There is room for competition as other businesses spring up to offer a better, cheaper product. Increased competition and liberalisation of a market (for example, telecommunications) brings the benefit of choice to the consumer. There are no 'traffic lights', (no Government involvement) to slow them down. It's a free for all.
A brief note on increased competition, liberalisation of the local market, and the admittance of foreign companies into a country, especially a small one like Barbados. While the consumer may end up benefiting by having a wide variety of choice and access to cheaper goods and services, locally owned and operated companies may end up suffering over the longer term.
Many of these foreign-owned businesses have extremely deep pockets, and can easily enter into a country, reduce the prices of their goods and services drastically, capture the market, and effectively wipe out or greatly reduce the amount of competing businesses. As a result, it may become unprofitable and impractical for local companies to maintain their respective levels of unemployment, and as such, many may have to downsize their operations. (Downsizing is a nice word for lay-offs or having to 'let people go').
But go where? Unless the foreign-owned companies are willing to hire these employees, they may remain unemployed and will not be able to purchase most goods and services. What then? The foreign-owned companies may end up closing down and heading back home. After all, without any consumers for their goods or services, it means no revenue. The overseas parent companies will probably not accept this and may end up pulling out of the country in search of greener pastures elsewhere.
Trade restrictions, tariffs, subsidies and other related measures (think traffic lights, control and regulation), can be instituted by Government and can help protect local businesses and industries by placing limits on who can setup shop and what they can offer in a country.
A Closed Economy (Communism & Socialism) = Four-Way Junction With Working Traffic Lights
Switch on the traffic lights and you've got instant Government involvement and control. The motorists sitting on the east and west sides of the junction now enjoy the same advantage that north and south-bound motorists enjoy. They just have to wait for about thirty seconds for the light to change green. The traffic light (Government) is the great equalizer.
With this control, however, certain limitations and restrictions on how businesses can operate will come into play. Government's involvement in the economy may hamper its potential for growth or expansion. After all, one of the primary roles of a Government is to provide for, and look after its citizens (especially the poor or less fortunate).
As a result of their involvment, high costs (paid for by tax payers who are usually middle-class), inefficiencies and less-than-ideal goods or services are made available to the poor. But remember, something is better than nothing, and Government is primarily interested in providing services for the greater good, not in turning over a profit.
Some private individuals and businesses may not be willing to setup a business, expand an existing one, or invest in a new one, simply because of this high level of Government involvement in the affairs of the economy. It makes it highly unattractive for would-be capitalists and budding entrepreneurs. Furthermore, overseas investors would be reluctant to investment in the country. Similarly, some north and south-bound motorists may avoid the Redman's junction all together and look for an alternate route, one that does not involve traffic lights.
A Mixed Economy (Capitalism + Communism & Socialism) = Roundabout
A mixed economy is one where there is a good mixture of both private and public sector enterprises. There is a 'reasonable' amount of Government involvement in the affairs of the economy, but not as much as a true planned or closed economy. Barbados is a good example of a country with a mixed economy.
The mixed economy, it would seem, offers the best of both worlds. There are private sector interests that are concerned with creating wealth, profit and return on investment, as well as public sector interests that exist to serve the public by way of providing essential services (like a police force, a water authority and basic health care). For those who can afford it, private health care exists, as do private schools. Society has a choice, if you can afford the best, you can have it. If you cannot afford the best, then you'll have to make do with what the Government can provide for you.
The roundabout looks, to me, like a good example of the mixed economy. There are no traffic lights, yet there still exists a basic, controlled flow of traffic. Motorists are not disadvantaged. As long as there is no traffic approaching from the right (or slowly approaching), they are free to enter and exit the roundabout whenever they feel like. There is an element of choice, although somewhat controlled, present. As a motorist, you only have to slow down or stop to give way to traffic approaching from the right. You are not being controlled by traffic lights, nor are you stuck waiting for someone to 'let you out' so that you can join the major flow of traffic.
This post is by no means an accurate or even semi-accurate analysis of the similarities between economic systems and traffic signals, etcetera and should not be treated as such. For example, there are currently major traffic issues in the Warrens area as a result of the highway expansion project. These issues affect the performance of the roundabout(s), traffic lights and junctions.
In conclusion, remember the disclaimers at the beginning of this post: IANAE, IANATE, IANAP.
;-)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist)
(DISCLAIMER: IANATE, I Am Not A Transport Engineer)
(DISCLAIMER: IANAP, I Am Not A Politician)
And no, I am not crazy. The long commute to the office does, on occasion, give me plenty of time to think about all sorts of things. In this case, identifying the similarities between economic systems (open, closed and mixed), traffic lights, junctions and roundabouts.
An Open Economy (Capitalism) = Four-Way Junction Without Working Traffic Lights
In a nutshell, an open economy is one where there is practically little, or no involvement by the State with regards to the running, or regulation, of the economy. The market is free to operate as efficiently as possible. The laws of supply and demand rule supreme. There are no price controls, regulations, state-owned or subsidised enterprises (like our very own CBC, QEH, BWA). The factors of production are all privately owned and operated with the goal of making a profit.
If a company is the sole provider of a good or service (a monopoly), it is free to charge whatever it wants. Dissatisfaction may lead to another company entering the market and providing the same goods at a better price. The consumer now has a choice, competition ensues and he/she is usually better off. The government stands by the sidelines and does not get involved.
There are several advantages and disadvantages to this type of economic system. One advantage is that the business owner is free to run his/her business, as best as they see fit. The lure of profit and a healthy return on investment, are typical reasons for persons starting a business in the first place.
However, a notable disadvantage exists as well. How do we protect those citizens who are less fortunate? Those in society who cannot afford the costs of a good or service (like education). Who will look after their basic needs if the market is only interested in running as efficiently as possible, and profit is the primary driving force behind all actions.
Now let's look at a typical four-way junction and motor traffic. Most Barbadians are familiar with the junction at Redmans, St. Michael (A Shell gas station operates at one of the corners of this junction).
What happens when the traffic lights are not working? Many people will argue that traffic flows freely. I believe that this is a good example of an open economy at work. The traffic lights represent Government regulation and control. This can potentially restrict the performance of the economy (or, the flow of traffic).
Motorists heading to either the north of the island (St. Lucy for example), or the south (that is, back to Warrens) enjoy a clear advantage over those drivers who are stuck on the east or west sides of the junction, who want to go either north or south. They have to wait for someone to let them join the main flow of north and south-bound traffic. These drivers are at a disadvantage, similar to the poor in an open economy with no Government protection, subsidies, or access to basic or affordable social services (like education or health care).
The motorists who are heading north or south, are free and are mostly unconcerned about the other motorists who have to look for a lucky break in order to join the main flow. And just like many businesses (the world over), most of them may not be concerned with the other 'motorists,' or with those less fortunate members of society, unless it has the potential to negatively affect their bottom-line.
These north and south-bound motorists are using their unique advantage, non-working traffic lights (or an open economy in the case of a business), to the utmost extreme, and are profiting by not having to sit in traffic and by therefore arriving at their respective destinations in a timely fashion.
Similarly, businesses who are not concerned about Government intervention in setting prices, controlling the types of businesses, restriction of foreign investment, will clearly enjoy these advantages. There is room for competition as other businesses spring up to offer a better, cheaper product. Increased competition and liberalisation of a market (for example, telecommunications) brings the benefit of choice to the consumer. There are no 'traffic lights', (no Government involvement) to slow them down. It's a free for all.
A brief note on increased competition, liberalisation of the local market, and the admittance of foreign companies into a country, especially a small one like Barbados. While the consumer may end up benefiting by having a wide variety of choice and access to cheaper goods and services, locally owned and operated companies may end up suffering over the longer term.
Many of these foreign-owned businesses have extremely deep pockets, and can easily enter into a country, reduce the prices of their goods and services drastically, capture the market, and effectively wipe out or greatly reduce the amount of competing businesses. As a result, it may become unprofitable and impractical for local companies to maintain their respective levels of unemployment, and as such, many may have to downsize their operations. (Downsizing is a nice word for lay-offs or having to 'let people go').
But go where? Unless the foreign-owned companies are willing to hire these employees, they may remain unemployed and will not be able to purchase most goods and services. What then? The foreign-owned companies may end up closing down and heading back home. After all, without any consumers for their goods or services, it means no revenue. The overseas parent companies will probably not accept this and may end up pulling out of the country in search of greener pastures elsewhere.
Trade restrictions, tariffs, subsidies and other related measures (think traffic lights, control and regulation), can be instituted by Government and can help protect local businesses and industries by placing limits on who can setup shop and what they can offer in a country.
A Closed Economy (Communism & Socialism) = Four-Way Junction With Working Traffic Lights
Switch on the traffic lights and you've got instant Government involvement and control. The motorists sitting on the east and west sides of the junction now enjoy the same advantage that north and south-bound motorists enjoy. They just have to wait for about thirty seconds for the light to change green. The traffic light (Government) is the great equalizer.
With this control, however, certain limitations and restrictions on how businesses can operate will come into play. Government's involvement in the economy may hamper its potential for growth or expansion. After all, one of the primary roles of a Government is to provide for, and look after its citizens (especially the poor or less fortunate).
As a result of their involvment, high costs (paid for by tax payers who are usually middle-class), inefficiencies and less-than-ideal goods or services are made available to the poor. But remember, something is better than nothing, and Government is primarily interested in providing services for the greater good, not in turning over a profit.
Some private individuals and businesses may not be willing to setup a business, expand an existing one, or invest in a new one, simply because of this high level of Government involvement in the affairs of the economy. It makes it highly unattractive for would-be capitalists and budding entrepreneurs. Furthermore, overseas investors would be reluctant to investment in the country. Similarly, some north and south-bound motorists may avoid the Redman's junction all together and look for an alternate route, one that does not involve traffic lights.
A Mixed Economy (Capitalism + Communism & Socialism) = Roundabout
A mixed economy is one where there is a good mixture of both private and public sector enterprises. There is a 'reasonable' amount of Government involvement in the affairs of the economy, but not as much as a true planned or closed economy. Barbados is a good example of a country with a mixed economy.
The mixed economy, it would seem, offers the best of both worlds. There are private sector interests that are concerned with creating wealth, profit and return on investment, as well as public sector interests that exist to serve the public by way of providing essential services (like a police force, a water authority and basic health care). For those who can afford it, private health care exists, as do private schools. Society has a choice, if you can afford the best, you can have it. If you cannot afford the best, then you'll have to make do with what the Government can provide for you.
The roundabout looks, to me, like a good example of the mixed economy. There are no traffic lights, yet there still exists a basic, controlled flow of traffic. Motorists are not disadvantaged. As long as there is no traffic approaching from the right (or slowly approaching), they are free to enter and exit the roundabout whenever they feel like. There is an element of choice, although somewhat controlled, present. As a motorist, you only have to slow down or stop to give way to traffic approaching from the right. You are not being controlled by traffic lights, nor are you stuck waiting for someone to 'let you out' so that you can join the major flow of traffic.
This post is by no means an accurate or even semi-accurate analysis of the similarities between economic systems and traffic signals, etcetera and should not be treated as such. For example, there are currently major traffic issues in the Warrens area as a result of the highway expansion project. These issues affect the performance of the roundabout(s), traffic lights and junctions.
In conclusion, remember the disclaimers at the beginning of this post: IANAE, IANATE, IANAP.
;-)
Labels: Barbados, blogging, economics, funny, life, politics
Thursday, September 20, 2007
And In Other News...
Mammoth dung, prehistoric goo may speed warming
"For millennia, layers of animal waste and other organic matter left behind by the creatures that used to roam the Arctic tundra have been sealed inside the frozen permafrost. Now climate change is thawing the permafrost and lifting this prehistoric ooze from suspended animation."
A Floating Solar Island for the UAE
"Here in America we've got several vast deserts that are perfect for installing gigantic solar thermal power plants. But not every country has so much free space. At the end of the day, most of the sun's light hits the oceans, because most of the Earth is ocean, but the United Arab Emerates has just contracted with a Swiss firm, CSEM to purchase a floating solar island." [via EcoGeek, Digg]
Paying dearly to hear Gore's climate story
"In a passionate attack on the climate policies of Prime Minister John Howard and US President George Bush, the former US vice-president, addressing a very expensive lunch in Sydney yesterday, called Australia and the US "the Bonnie and Clyde" outlaws of the global environment for their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
"Mr Gore made his comments after reporters were asked to leave the lunch venue. Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow's event in Melbourne. VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000." [via theage.com.au, DRUDGE REPORT]
Darth Cheney
"Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said just now at a $100-a-head fundraiser at Town Hall near New York's Times Square, referring to Cheney's efforts shore up Republican congressional support for the Iraq war. [via Ben Smith's blog, DRUDGE REPORT]
"For millennia, layers of animal waste and other organic matter left behind by the creatures that used to roam the Arctic tundra have been sealed inside the frozen permafrost. Now climate change is thawing the permafrost and lifting this prehistoric ooze from suspended animation."
A Floating Solar Island for the UAE
"Here in America we've got several vast deserts that are perfect for installing gigantic solar thermal power plants. But not every country has so much free space. At the end of the day, most of the sun's light hits the oceans, because most of the Earth is ocean, but the United Arab Emerates has just contracted with a Swiss firm, CSEM to purchase a floating solar island." [via EcoGeek, Digg]
Paying dearly to hear Gore's climate story
"In a passionate attack on the climate policies of Prime Minister John Howard and US President George Bush, the former US vice-president, addressing a very expensive lunch in Sydney yesterday, called Australia and the US "the Bonnie and Clyde" outlaws of the global environment for their failure to ratify the Kyoto Protocol."
"Mr Gore made his comments after reporters were asked to leave the lunch venue. Despite the cost, lunch in the 700-seat room at the Sydney Convention Centre was a sell-out, as is tomorrow's event in Melbourne. VIP packages, which included a spot close to Mr Gore and a meet-and-greet with him, cost $25,000." [via theage.com.au, DRUDGE REPORT]
Darth Cheney
"Vice President Cheney came up to see the Republicans yesterday. You can always tell when the Republicans are getting restless, because the Vice President’s motorcade pulls into the Capitol, and Darth Vader emerges," Hillary Clinton said just now at a $100-a-head fundraiser at Town Hall near New York's Times Square, referring to Cheney's efforts shore up Republican congressional support for the Iraq war. [via Ben Smith's blog, DRUDGE REPORT]
Wednesday, September 19, 2007
And In Other News...
Drift into war with Iran out of control, says UN
"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons." [via The Guardian, Digg]
Indonesia's big one 'on its way'
"An international team of earthquake specialists says Indonesia faces another potential "giant" quake in the near future" [via CNN.com]
Virtual worlds opened up to all
"We are out to democratise virtual worlds and bring them to absolutely anybody," said Mr Koster, founder of Areae, the company behind Metaplace.
"You can come to the site, press a button and have a functioning virtual world that supports multiple users in about 30 seconds." [via BBC NEWS]
"I would not talk about any use of force," Mohamed ElBaradei told reporters at the International Atomic Energy Agency headquarters in Vienna. "There are rules on how to use force, and I would hope that everybody would have gotten the lesson after the Iraq situation, where 700,000 innocent civilians have lost their lives on the suspicion that a country has nuclear weapons." [via The Guardian, Digg]
Indonesia's big one 'on its way'
"An international team of earthquake specialists says Indonesia faces another potential "giant" quake in the near future" [via CNN.com]
Virtual worlds opened up to all
"We are out to democratise virtual worlds and bring them to absolutely anybody," said Mr Koster, founder of Areae, the company behind Metaplace.
"You can come to the site, press a button and have a functioning virtual world that supports multiple users in about 30 seconds." [via BBC NEWS]
Labels: earthquakes, Iran, Iraqi, military, news, politics, technology
Thursday, September 6, 2007
Brother, Can You Spare A Couple Of Billion Dollars?
After reading this article: "Clive Thompson Explains Why We Can Count on Geeks to Rescue the Earth," I started thinking about how difficult it is for some of us to process large numbers and quantities.
Every other day we hear a "hundred thousand this," or "a million that," or even "a billion," this and "a trillion that." But can we really appreciate the true size of these numbers? In particular, can we appreciate and process large numbers like these when it comes to something that, as Barbadians, we should all be concerned about, like our national debt?
Maybe some of us can (like economists or those of you who are numerically inclined), but for the average man (or woman) on the street, how do we help him or her, process and appreciate how much money our country owes? Simple. We must try to use terms and figures that the average man or woman on the street can easily understand and appreciate.
But before we do that, remember IANAE (I Am Not An Economist). Next, let's make sure we understand each other: If I borrow five dollars from you, I am a debtor and sooner or later, I have to pay you back (maybe with interest). From your perspective, you are a creditor. You have extended credit to me and you hope to collect your five dollars (the debt) sooner or later with interest (if you were smart). Now look at the big picture. Governments borrowing and lending, IMFs, World Banks, central banks, commercial banks, so on and so forth.
Okay, so what exactly is our current national debt? I haven't a clue. However, I did find a web-based article from The Nation newspaper, dated August 19, 2006. In it, the writer mentions that the national debt was almost $5bil ($5,000,000,000) at the end of December (2005 presumably). I also posted a comment on BFP asking if anyone knew what the current national debt was, or at least, a figure that a lay person could use, I recalled $4bil as a figure from somewhere and a "Jerome Hinds" seems to be in agreement with my guess. I also asked another source, and he/she told me, that as of March 2007, our national debt (internal + external) was OVER $5bil.
(Let's temporarily forget 'hard' and 'soft' debts and concentrate on the fact that a debt is still a debt no matter how hard or soft it is. Let's also put aside party politics for the time being.)
So, back to putting things into perspective for the benefit of the average man or woman on the street (and for whoever else is interested):
What Can You Get For Five Billion (BDS) Dollars? I'll tell you (hopefully my figures are reasonably accurate):
1) At $2.00 each for a plastic bottle of Coca-Cola (the price I pay at the canteen at my office), you could buy 2.5 billion bottles of the stuff. Divide that by the population of Barbados (280,946 July 2007 est.) and that's about 8,898 bottles of Coke PER PERSON.
2) The same canteen at work charges $1.50 BDS for a Pine Hill Dairy "box juice." So, with $5b, I could buy around 3.3 billion of these box juices. Again, using the population of Barbados, that's about 11,864 box juices PER PERSON.
3) At $2.25 each for a cheese cutter (a Barbadian classic and readily available), I could buy 2.2 billion cheese cutters! (CHEESE ON BREAD, MAN!) That works out to about 7,909 cheese cutters for every man, woman and child in Barbados.
4) At $4.00 each for a flying-fish cutter, I could buy around 1.2 billion cutters. That works out to about 4,449 flying fish cutters for every man, woman and child in Barbados (by then, T&T and BDS would've hopefully sorted out all of their fishing issues, although, there may not be enough fish to go around!)
5) At $2.00 each for a "bread-and-two" (two fish cakes in a salt fish bun), I could buy 2.5 billion bread-and-two's. That works out to about 8,898 for every man, woman and child in Barbados.
6) Tonight, I had a beer (Heineken) at Jumbie's in St. Lawrence Gap. With $5 billion, I could buy 714,285 beers, or (using the population of Bim) about 2,542 beers PER PERSON.
7) How about a new motor vehicle? No problem. Let's say a pick-up (I like pick-ups), a Mitsubish L200 costs around $90,000 BDS. (DISCLAIMER: I don't work for the local agents, this is just a rough figure). With $5 billion, I could buy 55,555 of them.
8) Better yet, how about a nice house and land deal? Nothing west coast-ish, something comfortable with at least 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and a nice yard for the kiddies to run around in. Let's say it costs around $450,000 (DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Real Estate Agent). With $5 billion, I could buy about 11,000+ of these.
9) What if the entire population of Barbados had to pay off $5 billion in national debt? It means that every man, woman and child would have to pay $17,797.
Why does any of this matter? After all, the debt collector isn't going to go knocking on your door asking you to pay up (don't forget those interest payments!) The debt has to be paid by the Government (be it BLP, DLP or XYZ). Where will Government get this money from? Simple, YOU. Your children. Possibly your children's children. How? (Remember IANAE) Probably via taxes, duties, etcetera.
What does the Government do with all this money? I don't work for the Government, so I don't have specific details. However, the Government has to provide and pay for education, police/fire, roads, infrastructure, transport, health care, water utilities, subsidies and host of the other services. These services cost money. So, can you spare a couple of billion dollars?
Every other day we hear a "hundred thousand this," or "a million that," or even "a billion," this and "a trillion that." But can we really appreciate the true size of these numbers? In particular, can we appreciate and process large numbers like these when it comes to something that, as Barbadians, we should all be concerned about, like our national debt?
Maybe some of us can (like economists or those of you who are numerically inclined), but for the average man (or woman) on the street, how do we help him or her, process and appreciate how much money our country owes? Simple. We must try to use terms and figures that the average man or woman on the street can easily understand and appreciate.
But before we do that, remember IANAE (I Am Not An Economist). Next, let's make sure we understand each other: If I borrow five dollars from you, I am a debtor and sooner or later, I have to pay you back (maybe with interest). From your perspective, you are a creditor. You have extended credit to me and you hope to collect your five dollars (the debt) sooner or later with interest (if you were smart). Now look at the big picture. Governments borrowing and lending, IMFs, World Banks, central banks, commercial banks, so on and so forth.
Okay, so what exactly is our current national debt? I haven't a clue. However, I did find a web-based article from The Nation newspaper, dated August 19, 2006. In it, the writer mentions that the national debt was almost $5bil ($5,000,000,000) at the end of December (2005 presumably). I also posted a comment on BFP asking if anyone knew what the current national debt was, or at least, a figure that a lay person could use, I recalled $4bil as a figure from somewhere and a "Jerome Hinds" seems to be in agreement with my guess. I also asked another source, and he/she told me, that as of March 2007, our national debt (internal + external) was OVER $5bil.
(Let's temporarily forget 'hard' and 'soft' debts and concentrate on the fact that a debt is still a debt no matter how hard or soft it is. Let's also put aside party politics for the time being.)
So, back to putting things into perspective for the benefit of the average man or woman on the street (and for whoever else is interested):
What Can You Get For Five Billion (BDS) Dollars? I'll tell you (hopefully my figures are reasonably accurate):
1) At $2.00 each for a plastic bottle of Coca-Cola (the price I pay at the canteen at my office), you could buy 2.5 billion bottles of the stuff. Divide that by the population of Barbados (280,946 July 2007 est.) and that's about 8,898 bottles of Coke PER PERSON.
2) The same canteen at work charges $1.50 BDS for a Pine Hill Dairy "box juice." So, with $5b, I could buy around 3.3 billion of these box juices. Again, using the population of Barbados, that's about 11,864 box juices PER PERSON.
3) At $2.25 each for a cheese cutter (a Barbadian classic and readily available), I could buy 2.2 billion cheese cutters! (CHEESE ON BREAD, MAN!) That works out to about 7,909 cheese cutters for every man, woman and child in Barbados.
4) At $4.00 each for a flying-fish cutter, I could buy around 1.2 billion cutters. That works out to about 4,449 flying fish cutters for every man, woman and child in Barbados (by then, T&T and BDS would've hopefully sorted out all of their fishing issues, although, there may not be enough fish to go around!)
5) At $2.00 each for a "bread-and-two" (two fish cakes in a salt fish bun), I could buy 2.5 billion bread-and-two's. That works out to about 8,898 for every man, woman and child in Barbados.
6) Tonight, I had a beer (Heineken) at Jumbie's in St. Lawrence Gap. With $5 billion, I could buy 714,285 beers, or (using the population of Bim) about 2,542 beers PER PERSON.
7) How about a new motor vehicle? No problem. Let's say a pick-up (I like pick-ups), a Mitsubish L200 costs around $90,000 BDS. (DISCLAIMER: I don't work for the local agents, this is just a rough figure). With $5 billion, I could buy 55,555 of them.
8) Better yet, how about a nice house and land deal? Nothing west coast-ish, something comfortable with at least 3 bedrooms and 2 bathrooms and a nice yard for the kiddies to run around in. Let's say it costs around $450,000 (DISCLAIMER: I Am Not A Real Estate Agent). With $5 billion, I could buy about 11,000+ of these.
9) What if the entire population of Barbados had to pay off $5 billion in national debt? It means that every man, woman and child would have to pay $17,797.
Why does any of this matter? After all, the debt collector isn't going to go knocking on your door asking you to pay up (don't forget those interest payments!) The debt has to be paid by the Government (be it BLP, DLP or XYZ). Where will Government get this money from? Simple, YOU. Your children. Possibly your children's children. How? (Remember IANAE) Probably via taxes, duties, etcetera.
What does the Government do with all this money? I don't work for the Government, so I don't have specific details. However, the Government has to provide and pay for education, police/fire, roads, infrastructure, transport, health care, water utilities, subsidies and host of the other services. These services cost money. So, can you spare a couple of billion dollars?
Tuesday, September 4, 2007
The World Bank Meets Wall Street
(DISCLAIMER: IANAE, I Am Not An Economist.)
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So it should come as no suprise then that Robert Zoellick, the new World Bank president, would like the bank to behave more like a Wall Street investment firm. After all, Mr. Zoellick was once vice chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Most of us, if not everyone, have heard of the World Bank and quite possibly, the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Especially those of you living in developing countries. Both entities are sometimes referred to as the Bretton Woods Institutions.
The About Us page of The World Bank has the following to say:
"The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).
Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes."
Thus, after taking Mr. Zoellick's comments into consideration, it should be interesting to see if he will still be able to accomplish what the bank has stated on their About Us page and still make itself more Wall Street-ish.
If I may risk making a connection (and an extremely poor one at that) it appears to me (remember IANAE), that we may be seeing the beginning of a subprime type problem/situation with regards to his new vision.
From what little I know, subprime lending was the type of lending geared towards borrowers who had poor credit histories and found themselves in murky financial situations (sounds a bit like developing nations to me). Despite these factors, lending still occurred. This was good for the borrowers and good for the lenders. However, it appears that this fell apart around July 2007, during the subprime mortgage financial crisis where (among other things) home owners failed to meet their financial commitments and foreclosures ran rampant.
Enter Mr. Zoellick and his vision to make the World Bank more like Wall Street. In particular, offering developing nations and/or countries with poor credit profiles, financial products that they cannot get in the private market. So, what happens if and when these countries default?
However, Mr. Zoellick appears, at least on the surface, to have something interesting to offer to some Caribbean countries. He cites an example relating to hurricane insurance whereby several Caribbean nations formed a group, pooled risk and cut their premiums by 40 percent . That's not bad, is it?
As I said earlier, I Am Not An Economist (IANAE). My post focused on only a small part of the IHT article. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions and form your own opinions.
[World Bank mimics Wall Street as it looks for a new role via International Herald Tribune]
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. So it should come as no suprise then that Robert Zoellick, the new World Bank president, would like the bank to behave more like a Wall Street investment firm. After all, Mr. Zoellick was once vice chairman of Goldman Sachs.
Most of us, if not everyone, have heard of the World Bank and quite possibly, the IMF (International Monetary Fund). Especially those of you living in developing countries. Both entities are sometimes referred to as the Bretton Woods Institutions.
The About Us page of The World Bank has the following to say:
"The World Bank is a vital source of financial and technical assistance to developing countries around the world. We are not a bank in the common sense. We are made up of two unique development institutions owned by 185 member countries—the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development (IBRD) and the International Development Association (IDA).
Each institution plays a different but supportive role in our mission of global poverty reduction and the improvement of living standards. The IBRD focuses on middle income and creditworthy poor countries, while IDA focuses on the poorest countries in the world. Together we provide low-interest loans, interest-free credit and grants to developing countries for education, health, infrastructure, communications and many other purposes."
Thus, after taking Mr. Zoellick's comments into consideration, it should be interesting to see if he will still be able to accomplish what the bank has stated on their About Us page and still make itself more Wall Street-ish.
If I may risk making a connection (and an extremely poor one at that) it appears to me (remember IANAE), that we may be seeing the beginning of a subprime type problem/situation with regards to his new vision.
From what little I know, subprime lending was the type of lending geared towards borrowers who had poor credit histories and found themselves in murky financial situations (sounds a bit like developing nations to me). Despite these factors, lending still occurred. This was good for the borrowers and good for the lenders. However, it appears that this fell apart around July 2007, during the subprime mortgage financial crisis where (among other things) home owners failed to meet their financial commitments and foreclosures ran rampant.
Enter Mr. Zoellick and his vision to make the World Bank more like Wall Street. In particular, offering developing nations and/or countries with poor credit profiles, financial products that they cannot get in the private market. So, what happens if and when these countries default?
However, Mr. Zoellick appears, at least on the surface, to have something interesting to offer to some Caribbean countries. He cites an example relating to hurricane insurance whereby several Caribbean nations formed a group, pooled risk and cut their premiums by 40 percent . That's not bad, is it?
As I said earlier, I Am Not An Economist (IANAE). My post focused on only a small part of the IHT article. Do your own research, draw your own conclusions and form your own opinions.
[World Bank mimics Wall Street as it looks for a new role via International Herald Tribune]
Labels: Barbados, Caribbean, economics, life, money, politics
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
China Bans Reincarnation, Plans To Takeover The Moon!
Described by Mathew Philips as one of history's "more absurd acts of totalitarianism," China has banned Tibetan Buddist monks from reincarnating without permission.
According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, this is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."
[via Digg]
In other news, the Beeb informs us of China's big push for the Moon. Part of which includes sending a spacecraft to Earth's satellite in three years' time and also plans for a Chinese space station.
[via BBC]
According to a statement issued by the State Administration for Religious Affairs, this is "an important move to institutionalize management of reincarnation."
[via Digg]
In other news, the Beeb informs us of China's big push for the Moon. Part of which includes sending a spacecraft to Earth's satellite in three years' time and also plans for a Chinese space station.
[via BBC]
Labels: China, life, news. religion, politics, space
