Central Bank of Barbados

The Barbados Economic Forum – Governor Delisle Worrell Meets Local Journalists and Co

 Dr. DeLisle Worrel

Dr. DeLisle Worrell, Governor of the Central Bank

Barbadians have had to wait on the Governor to answer questions about the performance of the economy. Many regard the discontinuation of press conferences by the Governor as a blatant attempt to suppress information about an economy in a comatose state for eight years. Barbadians will be expectant the David Ellis hosted forum will be informative for a fatigue public.

Updated


.

Tags: , ,

111 Comments on “The Barbados Economic Forum – Governor Delisle Worrell Meets Local Journalists and Co”

  1. Vincent Haynes January 29, 2016 at 4:25 PM #

    Like

  2. millertheanunnaki January 29, 2016 at 5:11 PM #

    @ Vincent Haynes January 29, 2016 at 4:23 PM

    That’s like music to Bush Tea’s ears.

    The Big Lie has to meet its waterloo some day.
    How can the world economy continue to expand (given the earth’s limited resources) without an inevitable bursting like an overblown balloon?

    There is a principle called Pareto’s Optimality. And the World has reached that level.
    But here is a similar principle. The more the economy expands the more the world become a hotter and colder place due to man-induced climate change.

    Like

  3. NorthernObserver January 29, 2016 at 5:43 PM #

    @VH
    to answer your question I have been in a 100% cash position since Dec 15th 2015.
    Moves by CB’s to negative rates, albeit minimal negative, is to try and scare investment.
    Nearly every recent corporate move I had read of, has a heavy tax driver. It is not about the intrinsic investment but how it can improve the bottom line via some financial finagling. People everywhere are scared and they are sitting on their money.
    Since Jan 1 2016 the outflow from funds has been at an all time high; and several of the same funds have been moving from investments to cash.
    These are very uncertain times globally. We have Grexit, Brexit, Germany under siege politically, and almost all the central banks have maxxed out the aid they can provide via cutting rates. The investment low rates aimed to produce is not occurring. Forget growth, most operations are just trying to hold on to what they have. Froon told us of a 100M$ tax hit to keep some IBC business. Once they leave, they ain’t coming back? This however, drives the tax level down from already low levels.
    The signals are there for shit to happen.

    Like

  4. David January 29, 2016 at 6:13 PM #

    Did we read some where that the US economy is slowing down?

    Who has been monitoring the DOW and other exchanges of late? There is no rhythm to the market, it is always a tell tale sign there is something in the offing.

    Like

  5. NorthernObserver January 29, 2016 at 7:27 PM #

    The exchanges only give minimal surface information. I mean the bond market which precipitated the 2007-8 crash, was ultimately because the bond rating agencies were giving groups {tranches) of mixed packages higher ratings than they should, hence covering the underlying weakness. The entire ABCP debacle had a similar history.
    It is unclear to me, if there is a specific culprit here, hence play cash cause I don’t know what to short.

    Like

  6. David January 29, 2016 at 7:35 PM #

    Those who missed the discussion can view the recording updated above.

    Like

  7. caribbeantradelaw January 29, 2016 at 8:33 PM #

    @David, the markets are skittish about a number of things; uneven and uncertain global economic growth, oil price volatility, China’s slowing down and of course geopolitical issues like potential Brexit.

    Like

  8. caribbeantradelaw January 29, 2016 at 8:36 PM #

    Re, the discussion I found Lisa Gale’s contributions to be very valuable, particularly the concerns she raised in regards to business facilitation which has been an issue the Private Sector has been raising constantly.

    Like

  9. `Walter Blackman January 29, 2016 at 8:57 PM #

    Gabriel January 28, 2016 at 5:39 PM #

    “Thompson used the leper’s private jet plane to fly back and forth to NY at taxpayers’-money expense in ’09.”

    Gabriel,
    Your statement has aroused my curiosity and has left me trying to figure out how PM Thompson’s flight could have been made at taxpayers’ expense.

    The whole CLICO fiasco epitomizes unbridled theft, professional incompetence, and political piracy. I am not in any way defending the deceitful, illegal actions of David Thompson but I must say that he was not the first politician to steal CLICO’s policyholders’ premiums, and common sense alone tells me that he was not the last.

    In an attempt to maintain your reading interest, and to slow down the angry palpitations of your heart if I did otherwise, I have deliberately decided not to mention Owen Arthur’s name in this post. So far.

    Let us tackle the problem from basic principles so that you can understand the conceptual difficulties I am grappling with.

    CLICO, more out of business ignorance and less because of any justifiable corporate need, decided to rent a jet at the astronomical rate of US$75,000 per month. Bad decision or not, the jet was presumably rented to facilitate or conduct CLICO’s business in the interest of its policyholders. In no shape or form was that jet rented to transport ministers of the Government of Barbados. Using different words, any minister of government who has to travel overseas ought to book a flight on a registered, bona fide passenger airline or ship. These regulatory practices are imposed and observed in non-banana republics to prevent or minimize corruption, blackmail, and bribery of government officials.

    At the rate of 20 business days per month, the rent for CLICO’s jet would amount to $3750 per business day. We have not mentioned the cost of fuel.

    Gabriel, have you actually seen any invoices sent from CLICO to the Government of Barbados related to flying David Thompson, as a government minister, to and from New York? I would be extremely surprised if you have. I might be wrong, but I don’t recall the Judicial Manager mentioning such payments from the Government to CLICO.

    To my mind, the David Thompson-CLICO jet issue boils down to one of corrupt governance. The jet trips cannot be viewed as a gift, because neither the PM of Barbados, the Speaker of the House, nor any government official should be accepting gifts in excess of a low nominal amount.

    Technically speaking, the value of the trips made by David Thompson on CLICO’s jet would have to be viewed as imputed income to David Thompson. Imputed income would attract income taxes. However, on what basis can PM Thompson accept any form of income from CLICO when he never provided any services to the company?
    On what basis did PM Arthur accept $75,000 from CCB (CLICO’s subsidiary) when he never provided any services to the company? The two of these former PMs are birds of a feather that ought to have been “flocked” together.

    If we are serious about tackling the CLICO heist, a part of CLICO’s policyholders’ stolen money must be returned from the estate of David Thompson.

    Like

  10. David January 29, 2016 at 9:06 PM #

    @Alicia

    Did she say anything we don’t know though?

    Like

  11. Hopi January 29, 2016 at 10:08 PM #

    A people who’ve been on this planet forever and is now celebrating 50 yrs of independence, an independence that’s dependent on offshore corps setting up shop in their house and not paying any rent yet they can’t demand rent nor demand that they leave their property. Real Independence.

    Like

  12. Well Well & Consequences January 30, 2016 at 7:52 AM #

    “To my mind, the David Thompson-CLICO jet issue boils down to one of corrupt governance. The jet trips cannot be viewed as a gift, because neither the PM of Barbados, the Speaker of the House, nor any government official should be accepting gifts in excess of a low nominal amount.”

    Walter….with that statement, it appears you may know the low nominal amount government can legally accept from local and foreign business people, you may also know the maximum amount business people on the island can legally contribute to campaign elections….do you care to share that info with us, so we can get a clear picture about how much in favors government offcials would owe business people which is at taxpayers expense.

    As it was, David Thompson was the attorney for Clico doing all their dirty work of disadvantaging their policyholders. ….that can be counted as performing services.

    Like

  13. David January 30, 2016 at 7:57 AM #

    Didn’t Thompson also travel on Sir Kyffin’s jet as well? What does this imply if true.

    Like

  14. David January 30, 2016 at 9:06 AM #

    http://www.nationnews.com/nationnews/news/77062/-growth-expected

    Another view not reconciling with Governor Worrell and the Central Bank.

    Like

  15. Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 11:43 AM #

    Well Well & Consequences January 30, 2016 at 7:52 AM #

    “Walter…. it appears you may know the low nominal amount government can legally accept from local and foreign business people, you may also know the maximum amount business people on the island can legally contribute to campaign elections….do you care to share that info with us, so we can get a clear picture about how much in favors government offcials would owe business people which is at taxpayers expense.

    Well Well & Consequences,
    As far as I am aware, there is no limit on the value of gifts that government officials in Barbados can receive from donors. For comparison, an employee of the USA Executive Branch is limited to receiving individual gifts valued at $20 or less, and a maximum of $50 from one donor during a 1-year period.

    There is no limit on the amount of contributions that political parties and candidates in Barbados can receive from local and foreign business, or foreign governments.

    To summarize, in Barbados, there is absolutely no public transparency or accountability with respect to the financing of political parties. There is only one reason why this unwholesome state of affairs persists: the political class and the commercial elite in Barbados do not want any laws passed that would restrict or interfere with their ability to do whatever they like in the dark.

    Foreign governments also inject significant amounts of money into both political parties in Barbados and the Caribbean. The contributions are typically distributed to the various political parties throughout the region by using a handpicked, uneducated “political consultant”.
    To gain a deeper understanding of this particular process, I recommend that you contact Hartley.

    Of course, at the end of the day, those persons and businesses (local and foreign) who invest in Barbadian political parties and candidates must be given a return on their investment. That explains the ever-increasing presence of shady companies waving lucrative government contracts in our faces, and the hiring of dunces from 1st world countries to produce expensive “studies” and perform consulting work that Barbadians can easily do. Barbadians are being crowded out, in their own country, by their own government.

    As a result, the bulk of Barbadian workers and voters are being transformed, day by day, into highly taxed employed slaves.

    Like

  16. millertheanunnaki January 30, 2016 at 11:55 AM #

    @ Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 11:43 AM
    “There is no limit on the amount of contributions that political parties and candidates in Barbados can receive from local and foreign business, or foreign governments.
    To summarize, in Barbados, there is absolutely no public transparency or accountability with respect to the financing of political parties. There is only one reason why this unwholesome state of affairs persists: the political class and the commercial elite in Barbados do not want any laws passed that would restrict or interfere with their ability to do whatever they like in the dark.”

    Walter, your fellow “Cawmerian” Caswell might wish to disagree with your above assertion.

    There are laws on the Statute book that regulate the financing of ‘election’ campaigns. The problem is (as is the norm in Bim) with their enforcement.

    Like

  17. Alden Blackman January 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM #

    @ Walter Blackman
    I see you drop in on BU . a welcoming good set of eyes to the troubling situations in Bim, have your say

    Like

  18. Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 1:04 PM #

    David January 30, 2016 at 7:57 AM #
    “Didn’t Thompson also travel on Sir Kyffin’s jet as well? What does this imply if true?”

    David,
    If David Thompson flew on Sir Kyffin’s jet as a private individual, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. It would be left to the Board of Directors to chastise Sir Kyffin for abusive use of the jet, if it is company-owned.

    However, David Thompson as PM of Barbados, flying on Sir Kyffin’s jet, creates a huge problem. Firstly, the PM should not be using the jet to conduct government’s business. Secondly, since no government business is being transacted, the trip must be seen as personal travel. Thirdly, the situation becomes worse if Sir Kyffin’s company is the recipient of government contracts.

    To give you an insight into the problems that a PM would create by such a course of action, I will lean on the regulations of the USA, a “non-banana republic”.

    According to US regulations, “an executive branch employee is prohibited from accepting a gift from a “prohibited source” or given because of the employee’s official position, unless an exclusion or exception applies. A “gift” is defined to mean anything of monetary value, and specifically includes “transportation, local travel, lodgings and meals, whether provided in-kind, by purchase of a ticket, payment in advance, or reimbursement after the expense has been incurred.”

    A prohibited source is a person (or an organization made up of such persons) who:

    is seeking official action by, is doing business or seeking to do business with, or is regulated by the employee’s agency, or
    has interests that may be substantially affected by performance or nonperformance of the employee’s official duties.

    Note: If a gift of personal travel is from a foreign government or an international or multinational organization composed of foreign governments, an employee may accept the gift only in accordance with a statute.

    More specifically, notwithstanding an exception, an employee may not:

    accept a gift in return for being influenced in the performance of an official act;
    solicit or coerce the offering of a gift; or
    accept gifts from the same or different sources on a basis so frequent that a reasonable person would believe that the employee is using public office for private gain.”

    In Barbados, all of these regulations have been deliberately shunned and frowned upon by the powers that be.

    For more reading, please go to http://www.oge.gov/Topics/Gifts-and-Payments/Travel

    By 1976, Errol Barrow had transformed Barbados into a modern nation with a debt burden of only $250 million. Having been provided with such a good and cheap head start, one would have thought that the politicians coming after Barrow would have focused their attention on laws related to ethics and good governance with the aim of building a progressive and egalitarian society. Instead, they opted to sprawl open the floodgates of bribery, corruption, and kickbacks for the unscrupulous few.

    Consequently, we, as a sold out people, are now left to “peep about to find ourselves dishonourable graves”.

    Sad.

    Like

  19. Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 1:39 PM #

    millertheanunnaki January 30, 2016 at 11:55 AM #
    “Walter, your fellow “Cawmerian” Caswell might wish to disagree with your above assertion.

    There are laws on the Statute book that regulate the financing of ‘election’ campaigns. The problem is (as is the norm in Bim) with their enforcement.”

    millertheanunnaki,
    I am not arguing that there are no laws in Barbados that regulate the financing of election campaigns. We all know that Parliament provides an annual subvention (over 300k) that is shared between the DLP and BLP. Additionally, each constituency is provided with an office and stipend. On top of that, MPs can make an annual tax deductible contribution of $5000 (10% of their salary, if smaller) to their political party. Candidates must also report election expenses and list the name of persons who contributed to their campaigns.

    Well Well wanted to find out if there are limits to the amount of contributions that local business people can contribute to political campaigns, or if there are limits on the amount of “gifts” that government officials can accept from local and foreign interests. I was simply telling her that no such limits exist, and offering my “two cents” as to why.

    By the way, I mentally noted some excellent points you made with respect to NIS about a month or two ago. I plan to pick back up that NIS discussion sometime in the near future.

    Like

  20. Vincent Haynes January 30, 2016 at 1:44 PM #

    David

    The article on Amercan Banks de-risking and its impact on the Caribbean by Ronald Sanders,page 19 of Barbados Today……seems to need more airing…..if it is as dangerous as stated why has GoCB not shown how we will deal with it.

    Like

  21. Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 1:55 PM #

    Alden Blackman January 30, 2016 at 11:58 AM #
    “@ Walter Blackman
    I see you drop in on BU . a welcoming good set of eyes to the troubling situations in Bim, have your say”

    Alden,
    I drop in on BU to make a comment or two, whenever my professional life allows me to do so. However, I constantly and silently read and digest the writings and opinions of others.
    In my humble opinion, BU is growing by leaps and bounds and this growth is being fuelled by a high level of analysis on the part of the bloggers, and a thirst for knowledge and facts on the part of the readers.

    Like

  22. Well Well & Consequences January 30, 2016 at 4:04 PM #

    Thanks Walter….very informative. I am sure Hartley is a font of information. Don’t care how much legislation is available to curb and reduce corruption on the island, we all know none of the leaders want it to stop, we saw lately Stuart distancing him self from bribetaking but he never once said, as Prime Minister, he will stomp it out or reduce it, corruption is that attractive to both parties.

    Exclaimer….I hope you see the problem and why you will hear nothing about corruption in Barbados….as small as it is, the island continues to be divvied up so the local greedy and the foreign greedy can get their slice at the taxpayers expense.

    “Foreign governments also inject significant amounts of money into both political parties in Barbados and the Caribbean. The contributions are typically distributed to the various political parties throughout the region by using a handpicked, uneducated “political consultant”.
    To gain a deeper understanding of this particular process, I recommend that you contact Hartley.

    Of course, at the end of the day, those persons and businesses (local and foreign) who invest in Barbadian political parties and candidates must be given a return on their investment. That explains the ever-increasing presence of shady companies waving lucrative government contracts in our faces, and the hiring of dunces from 1st world countries to produce expensive “studies” and perform consulting work that Barbadians can easily do. Barbadians are being crowded out, in their own country, by their own government.”

    Like

  23. Hants January 30, 2016 at 5:58 PM #

    Guyanese gine leff Barbados an return to Guyana soon.

    http://guyanapress.com/guyana-poised-to-become-economic-giant-with-700-million-barrel-discovery/#

    Like

  24. Walter Blackman January 30, 2016 at 8:32 PM #

    With the discovery of 700 million barrels of oil in Guyana, I can picture the brains of Owen and Mia ticking excitedly. A fly on the wall would pick up the following conversation:
    “Hi Mia. This is Owen. Girl, forget about the little bassa bassa that is going on between the two of us about who should control Bajan taxpayers’ money. There is real real money to be made here from this oil discovery in Guyana.”
    Owen pauses to get an idea of what mood Mia is in.
    “I am listening”, says Mia.
    “Haven’t you figured it out yet?” Owen asks. “The same trick we used against T&T can be used against Guyana. The Arawaks of Barbados stocked the southern Caribbean Sea with flying fish, shark, bill fish, king fish, snapper, shrimp, Jacks, dolphin and ning nings long before the arrival of Columbus in the New World. Technically speaking, all of the fish in the southern Caribbean belongs to Barbadian Arawaks and we have inherited the ownership rights. Since the Barbadian Arawaks used to pursue their fish all the way to Demarara and Tobago, we can encourage our fishermen to start fishing in Guyanese waters. This is nothing new. They would simply be going where Barbadian Arawak fishermen had gone before. As you well know, it is very easy to trick Bajan fishermen into believing us and becoming pawns in our game. If they end up in Guyanese prisons, who cares? Of course, our covert intention is to take Guyana before UNCLOS and get our hands on that oil. I really believe that the two of us can join forces and pull this off. What do you say?”
    “Give me a few minutes”, says Mia. “I have to go and take a bite. I will get back to you when I am finished.”

    Like

  25. balance January 30, 2016 at 9:15 PM #

    sh Tea January 28, 2016 at 10:40 AM #


    Cuh dear balance…
    You don’t think Bushie knows about Carlton …. and anticipates his bias…?
    Even so, the picture of a man who was meticulous with the country’s money; avoided the temptation to enrich himself; and enjoyed the basic pleasures of life while having the power to do otherwise …presents a special lesson for us at this time in brassbados….”

    Cuh dear bushie didn’t know you were such a brassbowl to fall for Mr Barrows pleasure of pulling wool over the eyes of his minions

    Mr Barrow was born on a plantation- drove a Mercedes when mobolettes were the order of the day-never heard of him obtaining a scholarship for higher learning- attended the London School of Economics- give me a break bushie wuh even Grub became wealthy and you tell me his mentor remained poor and humble while allowing others to reap the rewards. another myth about the Skipper.

    Like

  26. ac January 30, 2016 at 10:20 PM #

    David Thompson ….ole news in new shoes even more popular in the grave the BLP foot soldiers seems to have a morbid love affair with the dead man

    Like

  27. Bush Tea January 30, 2016 at 10:35 PM #

    Balance…
    Sometimes Bushie is tempted to think that you are related to Simple Simon you know..
    Who said that Barrow was poor and scrunting…?
    What the hell is wrong with being wealthy?
    …wuh boss – do you know how rich Bushie is..?🙂
    Is it even POSSIBLE for such blessed and talented bushmen to be other than well-off?

    What was impressive was Barrow’s lack of interest in using political power to accumulate MORE wealth… as he could have ……as others of his contemporaries did …and as most of those who followed him continue to do.

    See if you can grasp that….

    Perhaps it is PRECISELY the fact that he was pretty well off …that insulated him from the greed we see in so many others. There is nothing more pathetic than seeing a broke, poor-ass joker prostrating and prostituting himself upon achieving political power – as they embarrass themselves, the country, and all black people – while looking top become ‘rich’.

    Recall a certain one who cried about how ‘broke’ he was before becoming powerful…?
    …and subsequently could not raise his eyes when presented with an cashed cheque…?
    …but could afford a massive cash donation to Cricket legends?

    Like

  28. Colonel Buggy January 30, 2016 at 11:20 PM #

    Hants January 30, 2016 at 5:58 PM #
    Guyanese gine leff Barbados an return to Guyana soon.
    ………………………………………………………………………………….
    And at the very bottom of one of those barrels, you may very well find Barbados .

    Like

  29. balance January 31, 2016 at 4:11 AM #

    Bushie point taken- I did expect you to take advantage of that slight gap I left between bat and pad but at least I got the opportunity to heap coals on that myth that Mr Barrow did not accumulate wealth -whether MOREOR MUCH MORE- while in office.
    On another note , remember one of his famous parliamentary quips was when he reminded fellow parliamentarians that out of them only he and Mr Bree St John had breeding because the two of them were from plantation stock.

    Like

  30. Well Well & Consequences January 31, 2016 at 5:54 AM #

    When 2 prime ministers could talk that shit, makes one understand why the present day lot are mere dummies. Being born on a former slave plantation does not give anyone special breeding, it merely means they were both bred on former slave plantations…..and these are the people who not only graduated from London universities but whom people follow and view as their leaders….steupss

    Like

  31. Bush Tea January 31, 2016 at 7:31 AM #

    @ balance
    You should have listened to Sir Gary and played ALONG the line….🙂
    Bushmen are always on the lookout for ‘gaps’ to explore….

    @ Well Well
    Don’t mind balance – he just setting up another trap for Bushie…. he knows full well that those fellows were just talking shiite like we do here on BU every day…
    Those were two REAL REAL bright Bajans – who appreciated some good old Bajan shiite-talk, but who unfortunately did not have BU back then.
    Just look at everything that they said in seriousness and you will see…

    Like

  32. David January 31, 2016 at 11:03 AM #

    It is a pity Pat Hoyos was not part of the Economic Forum discussion last week. He seems to have a grasp of the numbers better than most in local media.

    NOT ALL BLACK AND WHITE: The hunt for the fiscal deficit

    PAT HOYOS,

     

    bloc-pat-hoyos

    MORE ARTICLES

     

    “The 2015/16 fiscal deficit target of four per cent of GDP is within reach, provided that Government completes the planned divestment of the Barbados National Terminal Company Ltd. Accrued revenue for the fiscal year is projected at $2,584 million, and expenditure at $2,950 million, for a deficit of $366 million.” – Central Bank of Barbados, Press Release for December 2015

    Related articles

    ONE OF THE things I like to do on a rainy day when both the Internet and satellite TV are down, and nobody is home to talk to, is hunt for missing information in the Central Bank of Barbados’ Press releases.

    It is often like a real treasure hunt: You are provided with some clues, and then, at the risk of your own sanity, you begin to scrutinise and ponder how to get to the particular bit of data you are seeking.

    Now, this time, although none of the above conditions were in place, I had to spend a few minutes trying to figure out what our country’s fiscal deficit for 2015-16 was likely to be.

    That’s because what you see at the top of this article is as close as the bank came to telling us.

    But the clues are all there, so our fiscal deficit hunt is on.

    First we need to know what the estimated Gross Domestic Product will be for the year. So, let us take last year’s, which the bank says was BDS$8 817.00 (Table 2 in the December report) and add that estimated half a per cent growth which we have apparently achieved for the year. That would add about  $44 million, so let’s estimate the GDP for 2015-16 at, an even $8,850 million.

    Now, the current deficit is put at $366 million, but don’t forget we have to add how much we spent on capital expenditure too. Up to December, says the bank, it was $116 million. So it looks like our overall deficit at the end of December was around $484 million.

    And look, we seem to be going well so far, because just a couple of lines below, the bank gives us the fiscal balance as being $490.2 million.

    (As a “refresher”, since you know it already instinctively at least, read this, courtesy of Reuters glossary: “Fiscal balance. The balance of a government’s tax revenues, plus any proceeds from asset sales, minus government spending. If the balance is positive the government has a fiscal surplus, if negative a fiscal deficit.”)

    Now, last year, our fiscal balance was a deficit of almost $600 million, so as a percentage of our GDP of $8,817 million, the fiscal deficit was 6.8 per cent. (It is all there in Table 4.)

    So our deficit of $490.2 million on a slightly expanded estimated GDP of $8 850 million gives us a fiscal deficit (so far) for 2015-16 of 5.5 per cent.

    In other words, we are heading for the six per cent deficit put into the Estimates for the year.

    So what then of all of those Budget measures dreamed up by our Minister of Finance, and perhaps summarised best in his own words at Page 74 of last June’s budget speech, as follows:

    “On the basis of a projected net gain of $200 million in additional revenue this financial year, plus projected additional expenditure savings of 30 million dollars from reductions in (those measures announced), we now project an end of year fiscal deficit of between 3.5 – 4 per cent of GDP on an accrual basis. This would mean a shaving of two percentage points off the projected deficit in the 2015-2016 Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure of six per cent on an accrual basis. ”

    Somebody needs to get a razor blade with a sharper edge.

    Patrick Hoyos is a journalist and publisher specialising in business. Email pathoyos@gmail.com.

    Like

  33. Vincent Haynes January 31, 2016 at 1:24 PM #

    Bush Tea January 31, 2016 at 7:31 AM #

    Chuckle……and where pray tell did EWB get his weath from as he certainly did not inherit any?

    Like

  34. Artaxerxes January 31, 2016 at 10:22 PM #

    @ David

    Hoyos’ article is very interesting. Not only does “he have a grasp of the numbers,” he has the ability to present information in such a manner that anyone could understand.

    Like

  35. Artaxerxes January 31, 2016 at 11:03 PM #

    @ Walter

    Man, you like you looking fuh trouble, yuh. Hahahahaha

    Former PM Thompson’s reason for travelling to Trinidad in February 2008 on CLICO’s private jet was because LIAT’s service is usually unreliable and he would not have reached his destination on time. No one can blame him for mentioning that fact; LIAT’s service is definitely unreliable.

    Walter, do you want our cabinet ministers stranded for hours at the airport waiting for a LIAT service, for example, to St. Lucia, St. Vincent or even as far as St. Kitts? No way, Walter.

    But SERIOUSLY, Walter, I AGREE with your COMMENTS. I don’t believe businesses (CLICO) or individuals (Simpson) would loan private jets to government ministers just for the sake of doing so. There has to be some “return on these investments.”

    What we also need to know is who paid for the jet; were there any quantifiable expenses to tax payers if government paid for crew and all fees associated with using a private jet (i.e. maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc)?

    If CLICO paid, were the costs incurred tax deductible, under “donations to political parties?” (Hahahahahaha)

    In the absence of the relevant information as required by transparency and accountability, we are left to make assumptions of corruption. You know what I mean? I use your jet to travel to T&T and the USA; I will refuse to place CLICO under judicial management; I would invest $10M of tax revenue in the company; and I would make you chairman of CBC’s Board of Directors. Later, the others will facilitate a “commercial bank process” for you to deposit $5M on the Central Bank.

    However, since CLICO is no more, I guess the ministers have resorted to the use of LIAT.

    Like

  36. Walter Blackman February 1, 2016 at 1:29 AM #

    Artaxerxes January 31, 2016 at 11:03 PM #
    “@ Walter

    Man, you like you looking fuh trouble, yuh. Hahahahaha

    What we also need to know is who paid for the jet; were there any quantifiable expenses to tax payers if government paid for crew and all fees associated with using a private jet (i.e. maintenance, insurance, fuel, etc)?

    If CLICO paid, were the costs incurred tax deductible, under “donations to political parties?” (Hahahahahaha)”

    Artaxerxes,
    During the Middle Ages, the poet Geoffrey Chaucer, a reformer at heart, honed his satirical skills by humourously highlighting the frailties and absurdities of human nature.

    During the early renaissance period, Desiderius Erasmus effectively poked fun at the corrupt and immoral practices of the catholic church.
    Both of these writers remained in the good books of the powers that existed at the time.

    Your comments on the CLICO jet issue, laced with humour, sarcasm, and cynicism represent a blend of Chaucer and Erasmus. You got your points over well, whilst at the same time saving your head.

    On the other hand, like Donald Trump, I dispensed with finesse and shot my points and facts straight from the hip. In different times, such an approach would have convinced the “authorities” that I was “looking fuh trouble, yuh.”
    I can picture the leper, with anger and fire in his bulging chameleon-like eyes, issuing the orders: “Off with his head!”

    Like

Join in the discussion, you never know how expressing your view may make a difference.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: