« December 2012 | Main | February 2013 »
"The Global Financial Summit for free market CEOs, business leaders, economists and investors will gather and discuss proven free market solutions to the problems of inflation, economic crisis, unemployment, recession and depression" in just a few days.
Featuring speakers like Steve Moore, John Allison and Richard Rahn, to name but a few, it should be great.
And with a special rate of $250 for Bahamians, wow.
Call 866-266-5101 or click here for more information…
| | | |
|
As the world’s best known thinkers (not necessarily the world’s leading thinkers) make their annual pilgrimage to Davos to discuss the global economy, I am minded once again to consider again how far removed our economy is from those of the developed world. In a series of Blogs so far, I have shown The Bahamas to be a ‘little’ country by virtually any measure selected (I chose to focus on Land area (161st in the world); Population (167th); and three Economic measures (e.g. Purchasing Power Parity (PPP), 152nd; GDP growth, 181st; and Exports, 162nd) but could have chosen others.
In each of the Blogs, I argued that in sharp contrast to our small stature, we face gigantic challenges, which include but are not limited to: Crime and anti-social behaviour; Economic dependency; Education; Food insecurity; Political indecision and lack of will; our Skewed socio-political reality; Disease and other health-related issues and two on the scourge of Trade unionism. In this two-part Blog, I explore yet another challenge, which I term the Economic Misfocus of successive Bahamian Governments, which blissfully have ignored the importance of updating our national economic development model. In the first part, I define the basis of a different model and comment on our tired economic policy; in the second, I will examine the benefits of that alternative model, underpinned by an entrepreneurial culture.
For decades we have clung, as if our lives depended on it, to an antiquated economic development model that saw its heyday in the 1960’s and 1970’s, after which it was dumped by most developed countries in favour of an entrepreneurial culture to drive and sustain the growth of their economies, with America leading the way. By entrepreneurial, I don’t mean ‘small business’, even though small businesses can be entrepreneurial but it does mean constantly scanning the business environment for opportunities and exploiting them. As defined by Peter Drucker, entrepreneurship is the practice of searching for change, responding to it, and exploiting it as an opportunity’, and which can be practised in large as well as small and medium firms[1]. At its core, lies innovation, new and different ways of doing things. Drucker was extending Schumpeter (1934) whose conception of economic development was based in the idea of ‘creative destruction’ in which “new entrepreneurs could emerge from the ruins of a fallen capitalist system (and) create a resurgence…” He pointed out that “entrepreneurs innovate, by introducing new means of production, new products, and new forms of organization that are built in the ruins of the old means of production and old organizations"[2].
Of course, there are many barriers to entrepreneurship, some of which are present in the Bahamian context (for example, access to finance, access to specialist support, excessive bureaucracy/regulations, etc), but these are not our main problems in The Bahamas. Our main problem is the total lack of regard for the role entrepreneurship plays in national economic development. The problem is one of Government but also of society at large. This is reflected in the 'professions' we value as a people, the personalities we celebrate publicly and our unbalanced enterprise stock because we prefer to study a limited number of subjects, idolise the wrong 'heroes' and invest in an economic development model that has long past its 'sell-by' date. Consequently, we search relentlessly for the ‘magic bullet’ of foreign direct investment (FDI) in the form of very large companies or projects that promise thousands of jobs. As labeled by William Wong and later, quoted by Pam Burnside in “Sustainable living in The Bahamas” [3], we rely on ‘mega resorts’ to stimulate economic activity but are often oblivious to the damage they can cause. She said: “I trust that its former “anchor property” mega schemes will be re-examined as the current global debate on living is now focused on the importance of sustainable development”.
Unfortunately, the mega anchor property or mega anchor firm (e.g. Kerzner International) has been the ‘Holy Grail’ of our economic development policy, which prides itself on seven tenets[3]:
The problem with the policy is that it’s unimaginative, undifferentiated (and therefore, uncompetitive because nearly every other developing country is offering the same incentives), but most of all, antiquated and shows laziness on the part of those elected to do better! It has been our policy, in one form or the other, since Independence and probably well before this time, so certainly, requires a radical re-think! Essentially pre-1970 in focus, the basic policy of attracting large firms was abandoned by progressive economies decades ago. For example, see the Bolton Report (1971), which became the basis for the changes in the UK to its enterprise stock and for an update, see Lord Young's 2012 Report, 'Make Business Your Business' [2]. In Part II, I will lay out the benefits of creating an entrepreneurial culture and explain why it is incumbent upon The Bahamas to pursue such a culture, without delay!
©S3S
[1] At the time of publication, it was not clear whether there is a classification system for firms in The Bahamas.
[2] Adapted from and as cited in: http://web.boun.edu.tr/ali.saysel/Esc578/Saeed2010.pdf 22.01.13
| | | |
|
When I was in my late teens I discovered Ayn Rand, in particular her novel The Fountainhead. Actually I ran across her when I appeared in a theater group’s rendition of her play, The Night of January 16th, at Andrews Air Force Base, but her significance hadn’t dawned on me at that point.
What was most striking about that Rand novel and much of her subsequent writing for me, both personally and intellectually, is her rejection of the widespread misanthrope that surrounded my life. I was raised a Roman Catholic and the doctrine of original sin didn’t sit well with me from the time I first encountered it. I took that doctrine to mean that human beings had in them a fundamental evil streak, from which Jesus rescued them if only they accepted him as their savior. Made no sense to me but who was I to take issue with such a powerfully propagated viewpoint? But I never quite bought it.
Rand’s ideas in The Fountainhead went clearly against this Roman Catholic, indeed Christian tradition and her reasoning for rejecting it struck a chord with me. It mattered somewhat, also, that my own parents were fiercely misanthropic and drove this home to me very violently at every chance they could get. Especially my father! He was an avid anti-Semite and even championed Hitler’s ideas--on top of which I got a solid dosage of Soviet indoctrination in communist Hungary, where I was raised until my early teens--that pretty much took the misanthropic theme as far as it could go. Individuals had no value as such was the steady message thrust at me!
To this day when I encounter echoes of this point of view, my blood starts to boil. Now and then I find some support for what I mostly felt and thought only in primitive terms but each time I witness the propaganda against individualism, against egoism and self-interest, I recover my resolve to combat the ideas with which it is expressed, be that in a simple sitcom or a movie or a piece of classical literature or a vicious political speech. In other words, I have internalized the view that human beings are not evil but very capable of doing and being good in all their endeavors, even if they do often go astray and betray their better nature.
And on every front I find occasion to reaffirm this idea, namely, that human nature hasn’t anything inherently evil about it and those who claim that it does are not just misguided but promoting what really is evil. Why would the self of a being like us deserve such treatment when everywhere evidence shows that human beings not just can be but actually are admirable? How can human beings as such be viewed so negatively by very prominent figures throughout history? Sure, some people are indeed vicious but that is not because of human nature but because of their own bad choices and conduct. By declaring us all inherently bad those who really are such are given an easy excuse, unjustly exculpated in fact!
I didn’t need anyone to alert me to how misguided misanthropy is but it was very encouraging to find a few people, such as Rand, who didn’t fall in line with that kind of perverse thinking. I will always be proud of having joined their ranks, in my various efforts, to point out that humanity is very much a plus in the total known scheme of things instead of complying with the hatefulness of those, like extreme environmentalists in our day and many on the political Left and Right, who demean it so recklessly and unjustly.
January 28, 2013
We are delighted to present Lessons in Freedom, essays by Dr. Tibor Machan, for your pleasure.
Dr. Machan holds the R. C. Hoiles Chair in Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at Chapman University's Argyros School of B&E.
| | | |
|
A few things jumped out while watching the opinion poll - called a referendum - last night.
First, the ambiguity of the question relating to web shops.
Second, Bahamian people seem to have voted against government action appearing to push things down their collective throats.
Third, what will come of the "web shops"? A release from the PLP party last night suggested that resources would be allocated to close illegal web shops. Many people think the status quo will remain however.
Fourth, the "No" vote clearly puts the ball in the governments hands to make a decision.
Fifth, the "Yes" campaigns promotion of how much good they are doing did not work. There are obviously people hurt by gaming, but that won't make gambling go away. It might be forced further under ground.
Sixth. While the vote delivered a resounding "No" to the questions posed, less than 25% of eligible voters cast a vote.
The government does not appear to have the leverage of a "Yes" vote to "regulate" and "tax" the gaming industry, but it would appear they think, like many others, that gambling is already legalised as a result of those companies holding a business license, so what will happen?
In a nut shell the government has to learn from the mistakes of the real Referendum of 2002 and this opinion poll and determine what the best way is to establish a gaming industry, incorporating the right of Bahamians to gamble in hotel casinos if they wish to do so.
The details of how the government propose regulating web shops and a national lottery should be laid on the table well in advance so they can be debated before a proper referendum might be held.
As an aside, it would appear that the government was counting on the revenue from the gaming houses (projected between $20 and $40 million) so what do they do about government spending and revenue?
In the final, it appears that the Bahamian people pushed back and has suggested that the Government revisit their proposals and do it right.
If I might be presumptuous, duplicate the referendum of 2002 and add the gambling bit and hold a plebiscite after several months of discussions and white papers etc.
What's your take?
| | | |
|
Steven Hayward has an interesting take on The Research Council of Norway's new study that shifts the climate change debate over at PowerLine with a post entitled, Climate Crisis Downgrade Arriving On Schedule.
He opens his piece with this powerful paragraph:
"A theme of my environmental coverage here and elsewhere is that most environmental problems are overestimated, partly because of the neo-religious fervor behind the Malthusianism-uber-alles methodology of environmentalists, and partly for the closely related reason that serial crises are the best means by which the political class gathers more power to itself. In the fullness of time we’ve come to recognize that environmental problems are not world-ending potential apocalyses, but normal problems that we manage as well or badly as other normal human problems like crime, education, health care, and so forth. We’ve noted here the collapse of the population bomb crisis, the resource scarcity crisis, and, just yesterday, the species extinction crisis."
Read more here…
| | | |
|
In this essay I wish to revisit democracy since all the power that our current administration is claiming for itself is supposedly justified by way of the democratic method. But in fact only a properly limited democracy is politically just and justified.
Democracy is a process by which some decisions are made and in the context of politics it means the kind of system that depends upon the participation of the citizenry for certain purposes. What grounds democracy as a just mode of political decision-making is that citizens have the ultimate authority concerning certain matters in the polis. And the reason they do have this ultimate authority is that they are, as adults, equal in their status vis-à-vis the stake they have in their political institutions, their laws, public policies, foreign relations, etc. That they have this equal status hinges on certain extra or pre-political matters, to be discerned by way of reflection upon human nature and proper human relations.
For now I'll simply note that as I understand political matters, they arise from the moral fact that each individual adult human being has as his or her task in life to live it rationally, to flourish as a rational animal. Since this task for adults can only be achieved if they are not unwillingly subject to the rule of others--in which case it is that other individual's rational choice that would be the ruling principle of one's life--in just communities human beings must be sovereign. From this it follows that they must have a say in their own political fate, ergo, democracy.
In any case, democracy is derivative of what human beings are taken to be as they find themselves within a community that aims at justice, a polity. From the Hobbesian framework, democracy is recommended because all of us are nothing but bits of matter- in-motion and thus lack any significant, fundamental differentiating attributes. Even our human nature is but nominal, a status in the world established by means of the human intellect's response to the motions that effect the brain, a response itself motivated by the drive for self-preservation or keeping in continued motion in part by naming groups of impulses effecting the brain. We make the categories, create them by naming our sensory input as we will. So the reason for democracy a la the Hobbesian view is that nothing justifies differentiating some people from others (indeed, if one were to be fully consistent, anything from anything else, at the metaphysical, fundamental level of being.) A somewhat different reason for democracy arises from the Lockean view, one closer to what I sketched above as my own. For Locke, at least when we turn to his political treatise, we are all equal and independent in the state of nature, i.e., prior to the formation or apart from civil society or the polis. Adult human beings begin, never mind the precise point of reaching adulthood, as equally embarking on a human life, one that is to be governed by the laws of nature, which is reason, if one but consult it. In other words, we are all moral agents having to live up to our moral responsibilities or duties, and in this we are all alike. So we are all endowed with natural rights, which spell out for each of us a sphere of sovereignty or personal authority or jurisdiction. There are no natural masters or natural slaves (although there may be borderline cases of defective or crucially incapacitated persons). If this is kept in clear focus, one will realize that a human community starts with no one superior or inferior regarding the issue of the authority to make law and to govern. Thus, democracy.
But democracy is a process, morally required by the right to take part in deciding or to give consent. It is in fact our natural right to person and estate that lies behind the right to be part of the decision-making process involved in politics. It is not a process that is applicable to everything one might want to influence, however. There is a proper sphere of democracy.
Continue reading "Lessons in Freedom: The Democratic Ideal (From the Archive)" »
| | | |
|
"Thornton was the first artist to record "Hound Dog", with which she had a Number 1 hit in the Billboard R&B chart in 1952. On the flipside of the single was "They Call Me Big Mama". Selling two million copies, this release helped immortalize her nickname in the world of funky gospel and R&B music. She also wrote and recorded "Ball And Chain", which gained Janis Joplin attention in the late 1960s." More…
Of course most people today remember Ball & Chain by the late great Janis Joplin, but I also like this version below and hope you do too.
Search out some of her work and buy it please. You Tube also has a good selection. "Hound Dog" with Buddy Guy live is a classic.
| | | |
|
Taken on a recent trip to Hope Town, Abaco, Bahamas. They were in the shallows at Tahiti Beach.
Not a great shot, but I like the wing spans - one up, one down.
Rick Lowe Images by Rick Lowe is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivs 3.0 Unported License.
Based on a work at www.weblogbahamas.com.
Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available at http://www.weblogbahamas.com/.
Find more photos at Through The Lens
| | | |
|
On January 24, 2013, The Research Council of Norway released a news article that is well worth reading.
Here's a couple snippets:
“The Earth’s mean temperature rose sharply during the 1990s. This may have caused us to overestimate climate sensitivity.
“We are most likely witnessing natural fluctuations in the climate system – changes that can occur over several decades – and which are coming on top of a long-term warming. The natural changes resulted in a rapid global temperature rise in the 1990s, whereas the natural variations between 2000 and 2010 may have resulted in the levelling off we are observing now.”
"The project’s researchers may have shed new light on another factor: the effects of sulphur-containing atmospheric particulates."
"Burning coal is the main way that humans continue to add to the vast amounts of tiny sulphate particulates in the atmosphere. These particulates can act as condensation nuclei for cloud formation, cooling the climate indirectly by causing more cloud cover, scientists believe. According to this reasoning, if Europe, the US and potentially China reduce their particulate emissions in the coming years as planned, it should actually contribute to more global warming."
"But the findings of the Norwegian project indicate that particulate emissions probably have less of an impact on climate through indirect cooling effects than previously thought."
"So the good news is that even if we do manage to cut emissions of sulphate particulates in the coming years, global warming will probably be less extreme than feared."
The article still suggests action must be taken to "solve" climate change, but the goal posts seem to have shifted in this debate. Shifted away from it all being a crisis that is.
More tomorrow.
| | | |
|
Thursday evenings book talk by Dr. Blundell for the Nassau Institute, was a fun and educational evening.
Speaking on his book Ladies for Liberty: Women Who Made A Difference In American History, Dr. Blundell provided brief vignettes into the lives of twenty amazing women: Mercy Otis Warren, Martha Washington, Abigail Adams, The Grimke Sisters, Sojourner Truth, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Harriett Tubman, Harriett Beecher Stowe, Bina West Miller, Madam C.J. Walker, Laura Ingalls Wilder & Rose Wilder Lane, Isabel Mary Paterson, Lila Acheson Wallace, Vivien Kellems, Taylor Caldwell, Clare Booth Luce, Ayn Rand, Rose Director Friedman, Jane Jacobs, and Dorian Fisher.
Suffice it to say these ladies were inspirations for us all so we bought the book and it's on the night table to read as soon as possible.
The Nassau Institute has a few copies remaining at $30 each. If you would like one, contact us here... You can also order it online at this link…
By the way, Dr. Blundell has also written on Margaret Thatcher.
Enjoy the following ReasonTV video about the recent movie on Lady Thatcher: Margaret Thatcher, Meryl Streep & The Iron Lady: Fact vs. Fiction with Dr. Blundell below.
| | | |
|
Recent Comments