They still ask: Why doesn't Jamaica grow?....

[ReggaeMike]

How do you explain when the world was growing an average of 4 percent and places like China, Ireland etc was growing we didn't enjoy such favors especially in the 1990s to 2006?

China has economy of scales and is a major trading partner of the USA, Europe and Russia. We delude ourselves into thinking that the US values us as a trading partner - the US doesn't need us, but we need them. The US does need China however and China needs the US. Even Singapore (6 million people) and the UAE (6 million of which 80% aren't even citizens) make it on one of the 3 lists of the US top 10 trading partners (the surplus list).

Ireland benefits from the EU and their single market (which was launched in the 1960s and strengthened considerably in......1993!). Ireland also has economy of scales aiding it since it has about 4-5 million in the republic and 6 million on the island (where there has been freedom of movement ever since partition) and access to a market (labour and capital) of over 200 million. We on the other hand have 2 million, mostly undereducated and poor souls and question the wisdom of Caricom because of trade deficits even though Caricom doesn't cause those deficits (basically we like to find scapegoats).

Most importantly, China and Ireland had leaders who were committed to growth-policies but for different reasons. China's communist leadership since Deng Xiaoping has been committed to making the average Chinese citizen richer so that they will be loyal to the Party and the State (which is almost one and the same where China is concerned). Ireland's leaders just want growth and education because they see it as the right thing to do.

The fact is our leader threw us under the bus. Wasn't Barbados also with the CBI? The fact is others prepare while we idle. We could have done much better. The fact is we need to use whatever advantages we do have because even in a world crisis right some countries are growing but it takes good leadership.

Yeah Barbados was in the CBI. Pretty much all of the Caribbean was. If Seaga attempts to take credit for the CBI he will have to share it with Adams from Bim and Reagan from America and we all know that Reagan could rightfully claim most (if not all) of the credit since the CBI was basically a handout by the US to the region and Seaga and Adams can't handout what they don't have. As you said though other countries (like Bim) take advantage of whatever they have (resources - so educating their people) and whatever comes their way (external factors like the CBI) to grow. We only wait for external factors to be favourable.

[Assasin]

what is the reason for our devaluation policy?

In Jamaica is devaluation really a policy? or it is just the after effect of our uncompetitiveness and bad policies.

[ReggaeMike]

Nah man...oil price started trending up from about 2003.

See graph...

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Stuff we did..structurally adjust the economy, 807 push resulting at one time having Jam. supplying 14% of all underwear sold in the US, Heart retraining, liberalize the dollar, Agro21/Winter veggies, etc.

I agree that far more should have been done, such as diversify into cultural tourism (all now Pt Royal nuh fix up), lure amusement parks like Disney to Jamdown, increase trade with Europe, partner with countries like Chile and Costa Rica that actively courted us and we ignored them, expanded the stock market by introducing junior listing, diversify into niche agro sectors, introduce Casino diversification to tourism etc, etc.

The graph shows oil starting to rise in price around the time of the Asian Financial Crisis which was in 1997. The lowest price (after the First Gulf War/Iran-Iraq War) was in 1995/1996. Since then it has been on an upward trajectory. In 2003 it really took off, but the upward trend started long before that. So couple that with our devaluation policy (which is flawed in a major way because Jamaican businesses tend not to adjust the equivalent price of their goods and services in US dollars to reflect the devaluation) and uncompetitive businesses are only a matter of time.

[Assasin]

How do you explain when the world was growing an average of 4 percent and places like China, Ireland etc was growing we didn't enjoy such favors especially in the 1990s to 2006?

The fact is our leader threw us under the bus. Wasn't Barbados also with the CBI? The fact is others prepare while we idle. We could have done much better. The fact is we need to use whatever advantages we do have because even in a world crisis right some countries are growing but it takes good leadership.

[Willi]

Yow, where were you all this time??

I like the tone of your discussion. You are into serious solution oriented meaty arguments. Unfortunately, sometimes we descend into the cass cass. Funny stuff, but distracting to serious arguments at other times.

[Willi]

Nah man...oil price started trending up from about 2003.

See graph...

http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif

Stuff we did..structurally adjust the economy, 807 push resulting at one time having Jam. supplying 14% of all underwear sold in the US, Heart retraining, liberalize the dollar, Agro21/Winter veggies, etc.

I agree that far more should have been done, such as diversify into cultural tourism (all now Pt Royal nuh fix up), lure amusement parks like Disney to Jamdown, increase trade with Europe, partner with countries like Chile and Costa Rica that actively courted us and we ignored them, expanded the stock market by introducing junior listing, diversify into niche agro sectors, introduce Casino diversification to tourism etc, etc.

[ReggaeMike]

Some good points there.

Our polytrixians really are running a caricature of the Westminster moggle.

And they will run a caricature of ANY model if we let them.

[Willi]

Some good points there.

Our polytrixians really are running a caricature of the Westminster moggle.

[ReggaeMike]

So basically you are saying the external factors and not the policies of our government is responsible for the rise in the standard of living? The external factors alone don't do it. How is it others prepare better to meet these external crisis than we do?

Well how else would you explain the unusual nature of the economy since 1962?

Which other countries do you know which experienced a rising standard of living alongside rising unemployment?

How else do you explain why Barbados' standard of living has more less always been on the increase no matter what was going on in the world whilst our standard of living seems to mirror events? Plus what policies can be cited as being in common between Seaga in 1987 to 1989, Manley in 1989 to 1992 and PJ Patterson between 1992 and 1996? Note the graph shows a definite upward trend in the standard of living over 1987 to 1996 with basically nothing to indicate changes in administration which might indicate changes in policy being responsible for this upward trend.

On the other hand there were definitely external events which more or less coincide with these time periods - the recovery after Black Monday in 1987, CBI II, CaribCan, falling oil prices, Mexican accession to NAFTA, the drop in interest by the US and rising oil prices in the mid-1990s. Nothing that Seaga did between 1980 and 1987 seemed to do anything and the free zones established between 1976 and 1985 certainly don't show any effect on the chart, so what did our leaders do between 1987 and 1996 to cause a rise in living standards?


How is it that others prepare better to meet these external crisis than we do? Simple: They prepare; we don't. Mauritius or one of those islands in the Indian Ocean prepared itself for the end of sugar by diversifying it's agriculture to include ornamental flowers, fruit trees and various vegetables. We just sat around believing that Lome would continue forever and then bawled when the EU brought about changes. Tell you what to answer your own question, name 5 ways in which Seaga, Manley or Patterson prepared the country for any external crisis of note. I'm drawing blank (maybe you can think of something). I can't consider the CBI or CBI II to be the work of Seaga or Manley because it was a US initiative and involved more than just Jamaica and the USA (Seaga can trumpet it all he wants, the fact is the US was aiming to do something like CBI in order to weaken leftists movements in the region and I don't consider hanging on to someone else's coattails to be "preparation" - in any case the first CBI in 1984 had no noticeable effect on the graph). Similarly CaribCan is a Canadian government initiative. In fact I can't think of anything that Jamaica has done over 1985 to 1996 that even approached the scale of Barbados' 1993 Wage and Price Protocol (and this in a country with the land area of Hanover and the population of St. James).

[Assasin]

So basically you are saying the external factors and not the policies of our government is responsible for the rise in the standard of living? The external factors alone don't do it. How is it others prepare better to meet these external crisis than we do?

[ReggaeMike]

Small disagreement. The PNP hit a wall in 1996...long before 2002.

To me PJ messed up what Manley laid down.

Yes, the graph on page 15 did show the standard of living levelling off around the mid-1990s, but the rise in the standard of living between 1987 and the mid-90s probably had little, if anything, to do with what Seaga or Manley did. Just as with the rise in the standard of living from 1962 to 1972 it isn't hard to imagine that the 1987-1995 rise in living standards had much more to do with external factors such as falling oil prices (the Iran-Iraq war was dying down, the Gulf War was short and there was no more Arab oil embargo); US economic recovery following Black Monday in 1987 (leading to increased demand for some of Jamaica's exports as well as boosting the spending power of tourists); CaribCan and CBI II.

The wall experienced in the standard of living in the mid-90s might also have a lot to do with external factors (Mexico joining NAFTA in 1994 and thus nullifying the effects of CaribCan and CBI II; the free zones becoming uncompetitive due to foreign competition; lessened US interest in the region following the end of the Cold War and the steady rise in oil prices after the mid-1990s) as well as the traditional government negligence. So just as the JLP government of 1962-1972 basically ignored the problems in bauxite and rising unemployment (which reached over 20% by the end of their stint and most likely directly contributed to later problems as high unemployment always has the potential to generate more crime and problems), the PNP government from the mid-1990s onwards followed the PNP and JLP governments (or the "JLPNP" as I've seen them called on some creative graffiti) of the 1970s and 1980s and early 1990s in basically ignored the problems of uncompetitiveness and crime which just strangled the economy.

To me that is the saddest part of the study. It basically summarizes in 15 pages what commentators and pundits and regular folks have been pouring out volumes of work to describe: the fact that our politicians don't really do anything positive but just let things happen while encourage negative things (garrisons, corruption, uncompetitiveness).

It wouldn't surprise me if further study indicated that the high unemployment by the early 1970s contributed to the acceptance of the argument that "better mus' come" (as opposed to "better mus' be earned"). When you have 1 in 5 people unemployed that represents a large pool of discontented people. The fact that the PNP in the 1970s then implemented ruinous policies only made matters worse.

The study also indicates that a lot of the debate surrounding institutions is almost a waste of time. With the set of politicians we have had since independence it wouldn't have mattered whether we used the Westminster model or the American model. We would still be in trouble. That is because it is the people who are operating the model which is the problem not the model itself. So Mr. Burke can wax on about faults in our electoral system, but it is really faults in ourselves. Britain, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Bahamas and Barbados use the same model but they don't have the supposed problem of scheduling polls (a by-election and a local election) two days apart. That is because their politicians are mature enough to realize that elections shouldn't be played around with that way (certainly they do still play around with elections, but within sensible limits). All that needed to be done in the case Mr. Burke cited in his article was for the 1969 local and by-election to be rescheduled (as was entirely within the powers of the government) so that they would be maybe 10 days apart. Corrupt politicians intent on subverting the system for themselves first and for their parties second (with the country as an after-thought to an after-thought) will invariably find ways to pervert the system. So there are numerous examples of corrupt politicians in Africa, Latin America and Asia who operated under both the Westminster/Parliamentary style of government and the American/Presidential style of government. The most prominent examples I can think of who were corrupt under the American style system are Nixon, Marcos (the Philippines) and Batista (Cuba). I'm sure those 3 "gentlemen" would have been corrupt under the Westminster system too. On the flip side Singapore under the almost one-party rule of Lee Kwan Yew has been a much better place to live than other similar quasi- or full blown one party dictatorships like Laos, PRI run Mexico or Diem's South Vietnam. I won't even bother to go into the example of the bunch of folks in the 1930s who subverted one of the most progressive constitutions of the day..

So now we find ourselves debating our system of government instead of debating who governs us and end up falling hook, line and sinker for the platitudes of politicians like Seaga, Patterson, Simpson-Miller and Golding who wax lyrically on about "real sovereignty" and "term limits" and "republic" and other such nice sounding words which won't make damned bit of difference if the same buch of people are running the show (and note, term limits and separate elections for Prime Minister do NOT work well with a Westminster system as can be seen when Israel basically had a non-function government in the mid-1990s when they introduced the idea - they actually abandoned it and went back to the old system). As long as our politicians put self and party before the greater good of the island and continue to maintain links with dons, then no system of governance (except maybe foreign occupation) will help Jamaica.

Basically real change won't happen as long as the JLPNP runs the show and gets fat and lazy off closed-minded thinking by the electorate (which has now been lead to believe that they only have 2 choices (or in some cases forced/pressured into making only 1 choice)). More people should thus probably vote independent or failing that beg Britain to take us back for 6 or so years under trusteeship until we learn how to run the system properly. As a society we have become so focused on party "politrics" that many pundits, commentators and the average man seems to forget that the constitution mentions nothing of parties (the Westminster and American Congress systems are all originally geared towards independent candidates in theory) and many now worry about a "tie" (as if it were a bad thing) and as a result call for uneven numbers of seats (as though we still couldn't get a tie if say JLP won 31, PNP won 31 and some lucky independent won 1 seat).

[Islandman]

Yes, there are some parts of the paper I am not convinced about either.

If you have some time it is definitely worth a quick read through. Barbados does deserve some credit for doing a decent job with thier economy since independence and more importantly, showing that it CAN be done in the Caribbean, hence success or failure is not totally out of our control.

[Islandman]

True ting! And is not the first time me see Rockman do that still.

[Willi]

Bwoy yuh mind open, eh?

That is an inspiration for the rest of us here!

[Rockman]

Nice and more important very informative, thanks, and your post changed my views on the matter.
Blessed