WeblogBahamas.com

On Integration

Rick Lowe

A question we need to ask ourselves.

"What do you think might help people integrate? Leave aside how many people should come here. For the people who have already arrived, do you think government (either local or central) should be trying to do more to help people fit in? Or is it up to us? Do you even agree that we should be aiming for new arrivals to fit in and feel British?" Bahamian?

Sounds like debates were having here about the Haitian migration issue (click here…) but it is one we need to discuss in a serious manner. It should not be a hot button election issue.

Read the entire article about Britain and their integration issue here…

A cleaner, renewable Bahamas for sure. But it’s not going to happen overnight

Michael Reiach

I am about to graduate with a degree in electrical engineering and am planning to specialize in sustainable and renewable sources of energy. Admittedly, I haven’t quite got to the professional engineer status yet but most days I try and relate my studies to The Bahamas. I must give BEC and the Bahamian government credit. Running a power generation and distribution system is not easy. It is even more difficult when you consider the geographic make up of The Bahamas.

I would rather make a comparison of our electrical grid to that in North America, specifically Canada, since we derive our electrical code from them and not the UK or Europe. The grids are based on a 100-year-old mindset. The old idea was that there would be a few large generation stations to power a distribution network for a region. Now the industry is trying to evolve that idea into multiple, smaller generation sites that can alleviate the dependency and demand on central power generators and possibly even feed excess energy into the grid. The Bahamas has taken the old grid approach by developing an independent power system on each island rather than trying to share resources. This has resulted in 29 power stations on over 25 islands.

It’s easier said than done. A large portion - 55% - of the energy in Ontario is generated by nuclear power. Nuclear power plants cannot be turned off in an instant – look at what happened in Japan. Nuclear gets a bad rap, which is too bad. It is very efficient and keeps the fuel surcharge low. Unfortunately, nuclear plants generate far more than the population of The Bahamas could ever demand so I will not be saying anymore about them.

Now onto what Mr Humes was talking about in The Nassau Guardian recently. He said:

“I know the high cost of energy is a major factor when doing business in the country. We have to look at ways of reducing energy costs. We need to introduce renewable energy sources like solar, hydro and wind that all can be used to bring down the cost of doing business,”

You cannot just say that so simply since there are other costs to consider than just generation, but I’ll go with the flow.

So Mr Humes could suggest that we throw lots of money into wind power and then we should have really cheap rates? Some of the highest energy prices are in Europe. Denmark is known as the wind power capital of the world. They cannot cope with the demand and their average price for energy is ~$0.40 per kWh [1] with the majority of energy being supplied by fossil fuels. Last time I checked, BEC was at $0.15 per kWh with a fluctuating fuel surcharge that was below $0.40 per kWh.

Continuing

Lessons in Freedom: A Small Pleasure of Book Production

Tibor R. Machan

One of my books is a collection of prominent essays by mostly contemporary libertarian political-economic thinkers.  Its title, The Libertarian Reader (1982), was so well chosen that years later someone quite prominent, David Boaz of the Cato Institute, also used it for a collection of essays he put together, The Libertarian Reader (1998). (Just in case you didn’t know, in the publishing world it is acceptable to make us of the titles of already published books.)

One of the hopes of authors and editors of books is of course that these will be bought and read, not to mention in huge numbers.  But unless one is a famous author or so dedicated to learning of the fate of one’s works, it is rare that one learns whether they have made the rounds. (In the academic world, of course, professors often assign books they have written or edited in their classes, although such self-dealing is widely frowned upon.)

I do know that another book of mine was at least considered for display in a movie or TV program because some years ago I received a form letter asking that I give permission for a producer to do just that with my The Pseudo-Science of B. F. Skinner, originally published by Arlington House of New Rochelle, NY (later reprinted by the University Press of America) and once reviewed very favorably in by Robert W. Proctor and Daniel J. Weeks in The American Journal Of Psychology (Summer 1990).  But I never learned if this ever came to pass.

What to do about unemployment

Rick Lowe

Mr. Jeffrey Todd, Business Editor of The Nassau Guardian called on Tuesday to ask what I thought about how the government can help stimulate the economy to create employment. See the interview with Mr. Winston Rolle, head of the Chamber of Commerce and myself here…

My initial suggestions:

1. Government needs to reduce some of the regulations. Even remove minimum wage for first time employees. At least let them get a foot on the ladder.
2. Review the business licensing process and cut down on the red tape and delays.

Obviously there is no easy answer with the economic turmoil around the world, and if Europe crashes, well who know when things will improve.

I know the political class intend to "help", but so often their policies inensify the problems they think they're alleviating.

Further reading: Unemployment. Causes and Cures by Farrell E. Block

Lessons in Freedom: How to Win this One in November

Tibor R. Machan

Seeing that it looks like Mitt Romney may well win the Republican nomination--though it’s too early to be sure about that--It has been a concern of freedom loving Americans whether the nod given to human individual liberty by the Tea Party back in 2010 will have staying power.  When the Republicans began their primaries it looked like one or another of the champions of serious liberty, such as former New Mexico Governor Gary Johnson or Texas representative Ron Paul, could either make it or at least have an influence on who will.  This last is still a possibility but not very likely now.  With Gingrich injecting the influence of the Beltway Republican insiders into the race and with Mitt Romney derailing any progress toward a consistent political philosophy of liberty among Republicans, prospects for repeating, let alone enhancing, the central trends represented by the Tea Party--which itself has never been fully focused on true liberty--are waning.  And that is very disturbing because it looks more and more like Barack Obama has no interest whatever in individual rights, in a bona fide free society and market, or even in civil liberties.  What he is after is a populist reformation of the American polity, one that will usher in democratic socialism, with its confusing “market” socialism added.

"...What it needed is to run an articulate, self-confident, and unapologetic campaign that emphasises the minimalist thesis of liberty as against the totalitarian thesis that all of us must be herded into a collective mass (of which the best current manifestation is North Korea)."

This is the politics of soft Marxism; which is to say it aims to establish a legal order that’s basically collectivist, communitarian to the core.  The idea is that all Americans should be treated as one huge team lead by Obama or some similar minded politician and his or her cronies, with all property (including human labor) treated as public or social, with the serious implementation of the major step Marx and Engels identified on the road to socialism, namely, the abolition of the right to private property.  The modern explication of this idea was laid out by NYU professors Liam Murphy and Thomas Nagel, in their book The Myth of Ownership (Oxford 2002).  It is an unabashed attack on the principles of free market economics and individualism (i.e., on a system of law based on Lockean individual rights).

On introducing renewable energy any time soon: A pipe dream?

 

From GridCarbon iPhone App

Rick Lowe

Mr. Mark Humes, chairman of the DNA, was recently quoted in The Nassau Guardian feature column, "My Ten Cents", as saying "We need to introduce renewable energy sources like solar, hydro and wind that can all be used to bring down the cost of doing business".  (http://bit.ly/A0fT4m)

Preserving the environment is one thing, and it might even be desirable for the political class to encourage us to be more conscious of this, but even a country the size of the United Kingdom relies on coal, gas and nuclear for over 90% of its energy requirements. So is it even feasible at this point in time for an investment in these so called "green" technologies for The Bahamas?

Using an iPhone App that measures the UK Grid Carbon Intensity, developed by the University of Southampton called GridCarbon, only 3.9% of the UK's power was from Wind and .9% from Hydro. Coal accounted for 54.8%, Gas 20.6% and Nuclear 20% (as at 1:45am GMT on February 4, 2012). See image at left.

What is the cost of a wind farm or hydro plant? Where would they have to be placed to work? How about solar panels large enough to run a power grid for an average New Providence neighbourhood? In other words, has a cost benefit analysis been done or are these cute, throw away lines at election time?

Sure, why not dream of a cleaner and cheaper way of producing electricity. But to suggest this technology or even our ability to use it in a practical manner is available and at prices we can afford any time soon, so the price of business will be reduced, is little more than a pipe dream.

Lets protect the environment of course, but we also have to be practical about it.

Some sensible talk on economic inequality

Rick Lowe

Hope you enjoy the following video from Economic Freedom and Professor Robert Lawson.

Poke around their web site for a bit. I bet you'll enjoy it.

Observations on current politics and Atlantis

Edward Hutcheson

In a  recent letter to the editor, a writer opines that sooner or later the Bahamas will be “caught up in something”, because the interests of China and the United States will eventually clash, and at that time we will have an epiphany. He also states that we will have a choice to make at that time; I beg to differ. We have already made a choice, we have chosen to play the two Super Powers against each other in the name of “progress” and jobs. I agree that we will have an epiphany but it will be about how to survive in this drama that we are creating for ourselves. The politicians who are making the choices seem to be clueless about our situation; and this cluelessness is inclusive of those in the FNM,PLP, and the DNA. The only persons who are going to survive this event are those who own something tangible and have not allowed themselves to be sold the lie that all we have to do as Bahamians is “believe in ourselves”, “vote for the change you want to see”, etc;etc;etc;. Realistically, there is nothing wrong in belief or change, but we have made the awful mistake of having persons with very questionable agendas, redefining what belief or change means every five years; and the tools of fear and distrust are used to sell these subjective definitions.

But what about welfare you ask

Rick Lowe

A reader of our post yesterday, while sympathetic to the point raised, wondered what happened to those people in society that cannot work or help themselves.

This is a legitimate question, although she was conferring the responsibility to help on the "government". I quickly pointed out that private charity was pushed out by government mandates as noted by Dr. Richard Ebeling in a lecture entitled The Economics of Liberty and The Welfare State, watch it here… and I still think private charity is the best route.

If that doesn't help, read The Poverty of Welfare: Helping Others in Civil Society by Michael Tanner.

Here's what sums it up best as far as I'm concerend.  It's from Donald J. Kochan and his 1997 article for The Freeman entitled, The Pervasive Duty to Rescue: Only Private Charity Can Help Those Truly in Need of Assistance.

"…Government programs create dependency, create flawed incentives, and are too broad and generalized to target resources effectively. They hurt more than they help. In tort law, an individual can be held liable for a failed rescue when his heroic attempts are beyond his capacity and actually do harm to the one in need of assistance. The government, however, is not liable for the harm its rescue programs do.

"Only private charity can meet the requirements of those truly in need of assistance. Private funds can be targeted toward those in actual need. Moreover, private organizations are smaller and more localized, allowing them to address the specific problems that needy people have and apply specific solutions, instead of merely sending out impersonal checks drawn against government accounts. Finally, private charities must be more accountable, for they do not have the coercive power of taxation available to ensure continued funding.

"Government programs, unfortunately, have co-opted this superior private approach. Many people believe that they need not get involved because of a flawed perception that the government is doing the job. Moreover, many cannot afford to assist privately, given the drain on their budget from taxation. In tort law, a person can be held liable for preventing a needy individual from getting more effective assistance.[6] That, essentially, is what the government does by its discouragement of private charity, but again, the government is not liable for the harm it does.

"The rules of the common law, developed over many centuries, usually exhibit a profound wisdom in the ordering of human affairs. The rule against compulsory rescues is such a rule. If you were obligated to help everyone in need, the demands on your time and money would be almost endless. The only solution to the problem that protects the individual’s freedom of action and property rights is the one adopted by the common law: there is no legal duty to rescue. There may be a moral duty, but the law leaves that to the individual and his conscience." (Emphasis added).

Using the coercive force of government to "help" the less fortunate only encourages depedency, and I don't think that's what society wants. It is surely not what's best.

Lessons in Freedom: The bottom line on Obama-economics!

Tibor R. Machan

Economic fairness is impossible: an oxymoron. Since economic activities are inherently varied and often competitive and since one size doesn’t fit all and not everyone can win in a competition, no such thing as fairness is possible unless it simply means no one may be prevented from taking part. Certainly, however, the outcome will most likely be very different for different participants.

The sort of fairness and equality President Obama and his supporters are after maybe achieved around a family or fraternity dinner table or in a last will and testament where goods are being distributed among family members who each expect the fulfillment of an implied promise from elders to receive a “fair share” of the wealth left to them. “Fair” here makes sense since the idea is that no one is going to get much less or more than another. But no such expectation makes any sense throughout a country!  The government owns nothing and can thus leave nothing to the citizenry without engaging in massive redistribution of wealth it doesn’t have any authority to distribute or redistribute.

Still, there will always be those who want to level the economy. The main reason is the misguided conviction that we are, after all, in the same boat, just as are the children in a family. But the government isn’t like our parents who have made a promise to care for all their children. We aren’t the children of Mr. Obama and his administration! To try to serve us all with all the benefits that parents owe to their offspring would be futile and invites totalitarianism.

When fairness is demanded, it implies that the government does have the authority to assign winners and losers in the economic sphere. As if we still lived in a monarchy awaiting the decision of the king as to who will be the beneficiary of his largess. All the subjects can hope they will receive a fair share of the wealth of the country.