Development economics has evolved over the last 30 years. The "new school" has been shifting from the free market, or, market sensitive ideology of economic development and more towards the development of individuals from a structural standpoint. In this vein, the view is that markets don't make people- people make the markets and hence a focus on people, is vital.
The reason why economists are now taking the development agenda to another height, is because of the obvious fact that unfettered free markets, without social responsibility or human development components built in with them, leads to instability if safety measures aren't put in place to protect market participants from fraud, malfeasance, external shock to the system or the loss of confidence in the market and its actors, which will result in it inhibiting trade and commerce- just as we have seen the system collapse under the previous global crisis. All of which has cost taxpayers trillions of dollars world wide, reduced productivity and retarded civilization.
Under any circumstance, the market can and will be controlled, massaged or shocked by an actor or actors, which in a sense is the logical first effect out of any earthly circumstance. This, in the most direct sense, means that actors, from all sides, whether they are private developers, consumers, the government or welfare recipient, all play a part in the system and a system which is shaped by their attitude and behavior.
However, structural developmental approaches to the economy isn't without its critics. Some say that market forces rule and should not be ignored. Yet still, the argument that markets rule, emanates from proponents that, ironically, do more to make the market move- especially when money talks. Some also would argue that people are better off to themselves- if this would be the case, we would not need laws, rules, regulations in the market or in society. So, the arguments against incorporating a more people approach, are left wanting at their fundamental core- who else would make changes, keep order and ensure things go smoothly, if not people.
To be quite candid: there is not, never was and never will be a free market in the truest sense. Subsequently, there is not and never will be effects caused by trickle down in the truest sense, without intervention. The market is nothing without the actors. And, with regard to trickle down economic theory- which many authors have unconvincingly, to this author, argued their theoretical understandings on why they adhere to the trickle down effect- it never is trickle down. In fact, the trickle down, happens after an actor, or, actors, have loosened the pump to allow water to flow- to be as poetic as I can possibly be.
To go even further with regard to trickle down theory: actors not only have to first loosen the pump for trickle down to even begin to, in fact, "trickle down", but also, persons, to whom this trickle down is presumed to be trickling, must be in a position to catch the water that is supposed to be trickling. What use is it to give a man a hammer, if he knows not to use it? What good is it to give a woman an apron, if she knows not where the apron is to be used? What good is it to open a door, if the person knows only to enter in through the window? What good is it to assume or presume that the allocation of any benefit or entitlement, would go towards the best suited purpose? Under which theory, will there be a setting, or, set, of indicators and variables, where it is decided that this is and will be the best fit for one and all? There isn't any. Just ill fitting presumptions, assumptions, catch phrases, idioms and "well established facts" to bolster misplaced conventional wisdom in an evolving world.
This fundamental underpinning of market economics and as a result, development economics, is the challenge of the new century for developing nations and the under served in emerging markets and developed markets- i.e., the overall challenge of having all parties, from all sides of the spectrum, understand their role in the scheme of things from the position that they make the market and not the other way around.
To segue: Keynes and his work on demand side economics, after long hours of intensive analysis, made his position clear when his idea by blatantly speaking to, at least, government led intervention in the economy to spur growth.
The mixture of private sector innovation, government intervention, support, the level of market closure, investment incentives or socio-economic programming and policy making, is where the test of a market system and its resilience becomes a matter of ideological importance. In addition, what information and salient idea should take form, at what time, when, where and how it will be administered under it's best fitting relative purpose- after variables have been delineated for a particular outcome- should also be of critical importance. To this extent, diagnosing the nature of the problem as well as prescribing solutions that affect a desired, positive, outcome, in addition to it not doing damage to the existing structural successes, is also vitally important.
Being diagnostic rather than presumptive should be the first thought of approach when dealing with structural development matters. But, how do you ask a policy maker to diagnose a problem where he feels that it is not his position to be in the diagnostics business? How do you impress that the "well established facts" are irrelevant to what folks are dealing with today, during an economic downturn, or, worse, when things are "good"- especially under the pretense of market forces led laissez faire?
It comes down to the mode, thinking and ability of the actors in the system to always have in mind ways of removing binding constraints from the system, increasing the market share for a greater amount of persons entering the marketplace as active participants and taking all parties involved to make the right determinations on what fits best for persons to have an opportunity at a larger piece of the pie.
Technical expertise is valuable at all times. Knowing that you have to diagnose the problems, knowing what tools to use out of your diagnostic kit and then having the will and wherewithal to sustain continual diagnostics and act upon all first best information, is no easy task- probably why the presumptuous of us prefer to just assume things will happen as it "always" has. However, putting ourselves in the right frame of mind to have the confidence to attempt it, is critical even at this juncture where thought on what's right and presumptions on conventional wisdom seems to be popular again.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
Ireland gets Financial Aid...
Well, the stabilisation of the weaker EU countries has begun. See here an article from the Business Week online Magazine on how Ireland has just now won a financial aid package from the EU and IMF to the tune of 85 billion Euro's-- just over 113 billion USD. Business Week article
The fear is the contagion of the financial crisis. As you well know, contagion risk after the first financial crisis, brought on by the USA, was not seen as quickly and hence, the current global recession was deeper and more severe.
Ireland is no where near the level of the USA in terms of financial clout, or interconnectivity throughout the world, but it may seep slowly in through to other, relatively, smaller EU countries and emerging markets that dabbled in Irish markets- particularly with sovereign bonds.
Ireland was not on the same stabilisation package as Britain was during the onset of the US led financial crisis. So, help reaching Ireland was late and was not an option at the time- as the thought was that their impact and contagion would be minimal.
However, fears over spread of contagion is evident, by at least IMF and EU leaders.
The fear is the contagion of the financial crisis. As you well know, contagion risk after the first financial crisis, brought on by the USA, was not seen as quickly and hence, the current global recession was deeper and more severe.
Ireland is no where near the level of the USA in terms of financial clout, or interconnectivity throughout the world, but it may seep slowly in through to other, relatively, smaller EU countries and emerging markets that dabbled in Irish markets- particularly with sovereign bonds.
Ireland was not on the same stabilisation package as Britain was during the onset of the US led financial crisis. So, help reaching Ireland was late and was not an option at the time- as the thought was that their impact and contagion would be minimal.
However, fears over spread of contagion is evident, by at least IMF and EU leaders.
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Cholera epidemic in Haiti..
Over 10,000 people are suspected to have Cholera in Haiti. This is a serious concern. The news broke a while ago, but it is worth repeating. As you know, the Bahamas has more than their fair share of Haitian immigrants that come to the Bahamas-- an epidemic in Haiti, may mean a spread of the disease in the Bahamas.
At the very least, we should all be concerned about Haiti, overall. As you would be well aware, the earthquake last year in Haiti, still has the country on it's knees. Development Aid is still hard to get to the areas that need it the most. And, with a major disease outbreak, things may get more difficult and hard to manage. See attached a video from the UN on the seriousness of the outbreak.
At the very least, we should all be concerned about Haiti, overall. As you would be well aware, the earthquake last year in Haiti, still has the country on it's knees. Development Aid is still hard to get to the areas that need it the most. And, with a major disease outbreak, things may get more difficult and hard to manage. See attached a video from the UN on the seriousness of the outbreak.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
IMF/World Bank Group has a new Chairman!
Prime Minister Hubert A. Ingraham of The Commonwealth of The Bahamas, was recently elected to the post of Chairman of the IMF/World Bank Board of Governors this October. Congratulations are in order! All Bahamians and Caribbean people should hail this achievement in our hemisphere's history. His supporters should be as pleased as punch-- as well they should be. His detractors are probably saying to themselves; "Dear God!". Then again, some people don't care either way, because they want to know: what does it have to do with me? They all have their reasons to feel what they feel.
However, stepping around all of that; I have to say that this appointment is an important step for the Caribbean, as it would put attention on small developing state matters, at a most critical time in global economic development.
The question must be asked; what authority will prime minister Ingraham have that would cause there to be a change in the focus of the group? Firstly, he will have the authority to set the agenda of the board of directors on what should be discussed at general meetings, as well as, secondly, liaising between leading finance officials as to what should be prioritized on the agenda.
It is not exactly a position of total authority. Neither is it a position of sinecure, either. But, it is a chance for small states to have a voice placed in a position that clearly state what the situation is.
As we know, current, larger country issues, are allot different than developing country issues, and totally different than micro-state issues. This is where affecting global economic change becomes important.
The G-8 and G-20 countries have worked out some of their issues through the IMF already during this crisis-- an important move back in 2008 was the enlargement the SDR fund to facilitate a large stabilization fund for the G-20. By doing this, the fund attempted to stabilize larger countries and as a result, smaller states would also benefit.
Some argue that this method is outdated, because of the increasing effects of globalization and the shift in capital to large developing countries from developed countries, in addition to the misdirected use of capital inflows, which has placed smaller states down the line in the economic production order. This issue is particularly magnified when capital inflows are not infused into the main economy of smaller states, but rather used through offshore transfer points or in specialized investment vehicles that are headed for larger consumer markets.
A second question to be asked is; does Mr. Ingraham have the tools to address these issues, as well as other plaguing financial issues that small developing states have? No doubt he has the experience, serving his third non consecutive term as prime minister of The Bahamas, in addition to having international respectability-- or else he wouldn't have been in the discussion, let alone be selected as the Chairman of such a prestigious grouping. However, no one person has all of the answers. This is where we, as people who have a vested interest in a brighter tomorrow, have a duty to give input into these issues in a critical, broad based and impartial manner.
For instance, there needs to be a stabilization fund for external supply shocks, particularly with regard to oil and circumstances that affect food prices. Small developing states are, primarily, price takers in the market for oil and processed food. This means that they are victims of imported inflation, as well as victims of external supply shock caused by foreign externalities. Imports affect the level of foreign reserves and foreign reserves, are needed in order to purchase goods on the international market because countries look for a stable, recognized currency in which smaller countries can purchase goods with.
There is also a need for a separate, foreign reserve stabilization fund in the Caribbean. The process we have now, is that countries access the IMF stabilization funds on request-- some of the time after a lengthy process. However, the administrative cost and timeliness of accessing the funds, could be much improved if a standard requirement for a grouping of Caribbean countries is set, with flexible parameters on when this fund can be accessed-- this would also eliminate the problems that arise as a result the emergency nature of accessing the funds, and allow countries to take pre-emptive strikes when forecasts indicate that their foreign reserves may be impacted negatively.
Another major concern is the lack of Central Bank supervision and coordination in the region. Not that there is proper Central Banking coordination in any other region, but there is an opportunity to find a shared commitment on a coordinated, Central Bank policy. For one reason, small developing states are not like large states, because small states are dependent on any and every means to maintain macro-economic stability, unlike large countries that have the ability and the capacity to monetize debt, or dynamic enough to provide goods and services for consumption in order to create independent wealth and make money multiply on a large scale.
Coordinated central bank policy for the region, from a regional body, autonomous enough to enforce its own rules, but sensitive enough to be intelligently responsive to individual country needs, would assist with working closely with failed institutions as what we have in Haiti, and also equipped enough to handle the run away freight train in that of the Jamaican Central Bank.
Thinew body does not have to compete with the IMF for business. In fact, the IMF can go a long way with providing technical assistance, and supervisory controls for this grouping, or, sub grouping, within the Caribbean.
There also needs to be a way for Caribbean states to develop a sovereign bond-swap facility. The reason why it would be beneficial between Caribbean states is that it would be useless to attempt a bond swap with larger developed or developing countries to small developing countries, because of the size compatibility. However, the theoretical aspect of sovereign bond swap facility between small, but dynamically different by comparative economic scale, countries, can prove meaningful.
It would allow Caribbean countries to swap debt on one end, and build up foreign reserves on the other end, while having an added weapon in fighting domestic inflation in addition to giving an autonomous Central Banking body, a purpose for existence.
I'm certain that there are allot of pressing issues on the agenda, but let's see what the new Chairman has to say on the matter when he meets with his colleagues throughout this course.
However, stepping around all of that; I have to say that this appointment is an important step for the Caribbean, as it would put attention on small developing state matters, at a most critical time in global economic development.
The question must be asked; what authority will prime minister Ingraham have that would cause there to be a change in the focus of the group? Firstly, he will have the authority to set the agenda of the board of directors on what should be discussed at general meetings, as well as, secondly, liaising between leading finance officials as to what should be prioritized on the agenda.
It is not exactly a position of total authority. Neither is it a position of sinecure, either. But, it is a chance for small states to have a voice placed in a position that clearly state what the situation is.
As we know, current, larger country issues, are allot different than developing country issues, and totally different than micro-state issues. This is where affecting global economic change becomes important.
The G-8 and G-20 countries have worked out some of their issues through the IMF already during this crisis-- an important move back in 2008 was the enlargement the SDR fund to facilitate a large stabilization fund for the G-20. By doing this, the fund attempted to stabilize larger countries and as a result, smaller states would also benefit.
Some argue that this method is outdated, because of the increasing effects of globalization and the shift in capital to large developing countries from developed countries, in addition to the misdirected use of capital inflows, which has placed smaller states down the line in the economic production order. This issue is particularly magnified when capital inflows are not infused into the main economy of smaller states, but rather used through offshore transfer points or in specialized investment vehicles that are headed for larger consumer markets.
A second question to be asked is; does Mr. Ingraham have the tools to address these issues, as well as other plaguing financial issues that small developing states have? No doubt he has the experience, serving his third non consecutive term as prime minister of The Bahamas, in addition to having international respectability-- or else he wouldn't have been in the discussion, let alone be selected as the Chairman of such a prestigious grouping. However, no one person has all of the answers. This is where we, as people who have a vested interest in a brighter tomorrow, have a duty to give input into these issues in a critical, broad based and impartial manner.
For instance, there needs to be a stabilization fund for external supply shocks, particularly with regard to oil and circumstances that affect food prices. Small developing states are, primarily, price takers in the market for oil and processed food. This means that they are victims of imported inflation, as well as victims of external supply shock caused by foreign externalities. Imports affect the level of foreign reserves and foreign reserves, are needed in order to purchase goods on the international market because countries look for a stable, recognized currency in which smaller countries can purchase goods with.
There is also a need for a separate, foreign reserve stabilization fund in the Caribbean. The process we have now, is that countries access the IMF stabilization funds on request-- some of the time after a lengthy process. However, the administrative cost and timeliness of accessing the funds, could be much improved if a standard requirement for a grouping of Caribbean countries is set, with flexible parameters on when this fund can be accessed-- this would also eliminate the problems that arise as a result the emergency nature of accessing the funds, and allow countries to take pre-emptive strikes when forecasts indicate that their foreign reserves may be impacted negatively.
Another major concern is the lack of Central Bank supervision and coordination in the region. Not that there is proper Central Banking coordination in any other region, but there is an opportunity to find a shared commitment on a coordinated, Central Bank policy. For one reason, small developing states are not like large states, because small states are dependent on any and every means to maintain macro-economic stability, unlike large countries that have the ability and the capacity to monetize debt, or dynamic enough to provide goods and services for consumption in order to create independent wealth and make money multiply on a large scale.
Coordinated central bank policy for the region, from a regional body, autonomous enough to enforce its own rules, but sensitive enough to be intelligently responsive to individual country needs, would assist with working closely with failed institutions as what we have in Haiti, and also equipped enough to handle the run away freight train in that of the Jamaican Central Bank.
Thinew body does not have to compete with the IMF for business. In fact, the IMF can go a long way with providing technical assistance, and supervisory controls for this grouping, or, sub grouping, within the Caribbean.
There also needs to be a way for Caribbean states to develop a sovereign bond-swap facility. The reason why it would be beneficial between Caribbean states is that it would be useless to attempt a bond swap with larger developed or developing countries to small developing countries, because of the size compatibility. However, the theoretical aspect of sovereign bond swap facility between small, but dynamically different by comparative economic scale, countries, can prove meaningful.
It would allow Caribbean countries to swap debt on one end, and build up foreign reserves on the other end, while having an added weapon in fighting domestic inflation in addition to giving an autonomous Central Banking body, a purpose for existence.
I'm certain that there are allot of pressing issues on the agenda, but let's see what the new Chairman has to say on the matter when he meets with his colleagues throughout this course.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Chilean Miners days from escape...
Sorry guys, been away for awhile. The only thing worth reporting-- other than the plugging of the BP Oil leak-- is that the Chilean Miners are days away from being free.
This underscores a major problem with deep coal and mineral mining-- the safety issue. I guess there is nothing you can do in Lat-Am Countries, but we should all be concerned about multi-lateral conventions on countries that do not mine with safety.
Perhaps larger countries can impose offshore mining restrictions on their own companies. But, that would hinder their competitiveness. Besides, with globalization so far advanced, large companies from developed countries would just move offshore for good.
But, in any event, glad to see that these miners will be going home.
This underscores a major problem with deep coal and mineral mining-- the safety issue. I guess there is nothing you can do in Lat-Am Countries, but we should all be concerned about multi-lateral conventions on countries that do not mine with safety.
Perhaps larger countries can impose offshore mining restrictions on their own companies. But, that would hinder their competitiveness. Besides, with globalization so far advanced, large companies from developed countries would just move offshore for good.
But, in any event, glad to see that these miners will be going home.
Friday, September 24, 2010
What The Bahamas could have done!
Everywhere I turn, persons are asking me: "what has The Bahamas done during this economic downturn?" People from all sides, all spectrum's and all colours feel as if more could have been done to assist people during this economic downturn. Some have said that we have done enough. Perhaps it both could be right. Then again, it could be wishful thinking on all sides.
There is no question that conventional wisdom on recessionary relief was used for Bahamian economic policy making during this downturn, that is; 1. Welfare support to the poor and new poor and, 2. Tariff/Tax cuts to the private sector- even if both had to be revoked, as if the government was the Indian giver of last resort.
For the first part, welfare spending in The Bahamas went in 2008 and promoted as a way to help people to sustain the damages of the worsening economy. Two problems I have with this. One is that the governmental systems, particularly within the Social Services Department, is a little frayed and to some extent, outdated to handle the influx of persons they had received. Not only that the numerous reports from the Social Services Department showed this, but also the means testing apparatus to assess persons who may need assistance, is also a considerable challenge and even more a challenge when bearing in mind the personality issues that come about as a result of a lack of policy coherence and standard means testing for assessment.
The idea that certain persons didn't truly need the support, or would rather have spent their discretionary income on other non-essential items and in turn sought social support to subsidize their income and lifestyle, was something that was noted by The Minister of State for Social Services. In addition, in the beginning of the increase of funds to the social services department and prior to the Minister's acknowledgement, the Director of the Department went on record in stating that Bahamians, generally, do not take advantage of the resources made available. So, along with a lack of policy coherence, we have a pitfall with regard to economic relevance.
The fact that we need public sector reform, could not have been underscored any better than it has been with what we have experienced with this admitted, in-efficiently ran program, which did more to subsidize supermarkets rather than stimulate growth with creating jobs and investment.
The second issue is that tax cuts and exemptions were given to businesses at large in 2008/09. It was something that would keep business open and able to import cheaply and make goods less expensive, helping families with keeping cash in their pocket.
The problem is that it widened the fiscal deficit and deepened the public debt. The same has happened in America pre-economic crisis and post financial crisis; in that tax and tariff cuts were used to spur economic activity through the free market to keep investors and consumers confident, but the consistent recessionary pressure did more damage to the government's fiscal credibility as economic activity did not rise as a result and employment conditions worsened, which lessened economic transaction in which to tax.
This in turn, particularly in the case for The Bahamas, led the government- as with other governments world wide but for differing, prioritized reasons- to sacrifice economic growth and relief to businesses and the consumers who was intended to benefit, for fiscal austerity and even more so, as an attempt to salvage it's macro-economic credibility to investors in The Bahamas and abroad by increasing and stabilizing government revenue.
This has put The Bahamas back at square one; the social support has been downscaled after the recent 2010-2011 budget and on a small scale the year before, or negated due to the higher taxes and also the higher taxes/tariffs within the same time frame. This, while the economy is still slightly depressed, would more than likely dampen investor appetite while not solving the macro-economic issues with regard to long term and short term growth- with the government's fiscal issues still not yet fully clarified, during this unconventional and extraordinary economic downturn.
One thing that can be used as an anodyne to this situation, is if construction related activity is spurred either through state action (with appropriate targets set and reappropriations of rents set at key cyclical drivers), or at the cost of large scale developments that can employ mass scales of persons, or with private home buildings, private infrastructural renovations tied to a program geared to stimulate activity first, rather than provide tax breaks in the hopes it spurs activity, first. Every Bahamian construction affiliate, whether they are prime contractor or apprentice with hammer in hand, need to have a chance to work at a decent price and The Bahamas as a collective needs to benefit from that incentive.
A second thing is that an import tariff reduction program to the private sector, should be considered and tied to private sector employment; i.e., a program designed to create private sector employment, with subsidized salaries- if need be- by the government, through the reduction of tariffs for companies that wish to participate on the basis that they will employ a certain amount of individuals.
A third place to look, and with a more controversial issue, is with the cutting of the prime Central Bank rate; and the cutting of that rate, to supplement supported, commercial bank lending programs to businesses and consumers. While it [cutting the prime rate] may be less effective than it would have been had it been done at the onset of the crisis, with liquidity levels in the country now more than adequate, the government should be in a position to micro-monitor and give strong support to this segment of the market system and say firmly that it is in a position to stand behind the financial system in case the situation worsens, or in the event that new loan repayments may be affected and at risk of non-performing in the short term.
Banks are in the best position to pick the winners in this instance more than the state. But the state must be in a position to back economic activity and its inherent risk, and to some extent short term failure, at any cost, as a way to assure the public and as a provision to wash away the negative effects of action as it tries to support a greater good.
There is no question that conventional wisdom on recessionary relief was used for Bahamian economic policy making during this downturn, that is; 1. Welfare support to the poor and new poor and, 2. Tariff/Tax cuts to the private sector- even if both had to be revoked, as if the government was the Indian giver of last resort.
For the first part, welfare spending in The Bahamas went in 2008 and promoted as a way to help people to sustain the damages of the worsening economy. Two problems I have with this. One is that the governmental systems, particularly within the Social Services Department, is a little frayed and to some extent, outdated to handle the influx of persons they had received. Not only that the numerous reports from the Social Services Department showed this, but also the means testing apparatus to assess persons who may need assistance, is also a considerable challenge and even more a challenge when bearing in mind the personality issues that come about as a result of a lack of policy coherence and standard means testing for assessment.
The idea that certain persons didn't truly need the support, or would rather have spent their discretionary income on other non-essential items and in turn sought social support to subsidize their income and lifestyle, was something that was noted by The Minister of State for Social Services. In addition, in the beginning of the increase of funds to the social services department and prior to the Minister's acknowledgement, the Director of the Department went on record in stating that Bahamians, generally, do not take advantage of the resources made available. So, along with a lack of policy coherence, we have a pitfall with regard to economic relevance.
The fact that we need public sector reform, could not have been underscored any better than it has been with what we have experienced with this admitted, in-efficiently ran program, which did more to subsidize supermarkets rather than stimulate growth with creating jobs and investment.
The second issue is that tax cuts and exemptions were given to businesses at large in 2008/09. It was something that would keep business open and able to import cheaply and make goods less expensive, helping families with keeping cash in their pocket.
The problem is that it widened the fiscal deficit and deepened the public debt. The same has happened in America pre-economic crisis and post financial crisis; in that tax and tariff cuts were used to spur economic activity through the free market to keep investors and consumers confident, but the consistent recessionary pressure did more damage to the government's fiscal credibility as economic activity did not rise as a result and employment conditions worsened, which lessened economic transaction in which to tax.
This in turn, particularly in the case for The Bahamas, led the government- as with other governments world wide but for differing, prioritized reasons- to sacrifice economic growth and relief to businesses and the consumers who was intended to benefit, for fiscal austerity and even more so, as an attempt to salvage it's macro-economic credibility to investors in The Bahamas and abroad by increasing and stabilizing government revenue.
This has put The Bahamas back at square one; the social support has been downscaled after the recent 2010-2011 budget and on a small scale the year before, or negated due to the higher taxes and also the higher taxes/tariffs within the same time frame. This, while the economy is still slightly depressed, would more than likely dampen investor appetite while not solving the macro-economic issues with regard to long term and short term growth- with the government's fiscal issues still not yet fully clarified, during this unconventional and extraordinary economic downturn.
One thing that can be used as an anodyne to this situation, is if construction related activity is spurred either through state action (with appropriate targets set and reappropriations of rents set at key cyclical drivers), or at the cost of large scale developments that can employ mass scales of persons, or with private home buildings, private infrastructural renovations tied to a program geared to stimulate activity first, rather than provide tax breaks in the hopes it spurs activity, first. Every Bahamian construction affiliate, whether they are prime contractor or apprentice with hammer in hand, need to have a chance to work at a decent price and The Bahamas as a collective needs to benefit from that incentive.
A second thing is that an import tariff reduction program to the private sector, should be considered and tied to private sector employment; i.e., a program designed to create private sector employment, with subsidized salaries- if need be- by the government, through the reduction of tariffs for companies that wish to participate on the basis that they will employ a certain amount of individuals.
A third place to look, and with a more controversial issue, is with the cutting of the prime Central Bank rate; and the cutting of that rate, to supplement supported, commercial bank lending programs to businesses and consumers. While it [cutting the prime rate] may be less effective than it would have been had it been done at the onset of the crisis, with liquidity levels in the country now more than adequate, the government should be in a position to micro-monitor and give strong support to this segment of the market system and say firmly that it is in a position to stand behind the financial system in case the situation worsens, or in the event that new loan repayments may be affected and at risk of non-performing in the short term.
Banks are in the best position to pick the winners in this instance more than the state. But the state must be in a position to back economic activity and its inherent risk, and to some extent short term failure, at any cost, as a way to assure the public and as a provision to wash away the negative effects of action as it tries to support a greater good.
Sunday, September 19, 2010
Tune in to "Dare To Be Great"- Cable 12 Bahamas, 8:00pm on Monday 20th September, 2010.
Dear Friends,
Please tune in to Cable 12 Bahamas on Monday the 20th of September, 8:00pm for "Dare To Be Great" with your host the Master Motivator, Spence Finlayson and guest Management Consultant, Youri Aramin Kemp.
It is a fantastic taping and please feel free to send this along or tell friends to tune in. The show has already aired in Trinidad, Barbados and a few other Caribbean countries already through Direct TV and CaribVision. We talked a little politics, a little of the economy and we also started and ended with a little of myself on each end... great night!
Mr. Finlayson will also be hosting another live taping on Tuesday 21st of September, 2010 at 6:30pm with Mr. Ortland H. Bodie Jr. / aka Baby Pindling, aka Prophet at The British Colonial Hilton.... I hope you make an effort to attend and if you do, I will see you there!
If you wish to be a sponsor of the show, please feel free to contact Mr. Finlayson at:
Email: info@daretobegreatshow.tv or spence@daretobegreatshow.tv or phoenixinstitute@gmail.com or by telephone: 242-364-4011...additionally by Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daretobegreatshow.tv%2F&h=14586
Much Love!
Please tune in to Cable 12 Bahamas on Monday the 20th of September, 8:00pm for "Dare To Be Great" with your host the Master Motivator, Spence Finlayson and guest Management Consultant, Youri Aramin Kemp.
It is a fantastic taping and please feel free to send this along or tell friends to tune in. The show has already aired in Trinidad, Barbados and a few other Caribbean countries already through Direct TV and CaribVision. We talked a little politics, a little of the economy and we also started and ended with a little of myself on each end... great night!
Mr. Finlayson will also be hosting another live taping on Tuesday 21st of September, 2010 at 6:30pm with Mr. Ortland H. Bodie Jr. / aka Baby Pindling, aka Prophet at The British Colonial Hilton.... I hope you make an effort to attend and if you do, I will see you there!
If you wish to be a sponsor of the show, please feel free to contact Mr. Finlayson at:
Email: info@daretobegreatshow.tv or spence@daretobegreatshow.tv or phoenixinstitute@gmail.com or by telephone: 242-364-4011...additionally by Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.daretobegreatshow.tv%2F&h=14586
Much Love!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
