by Rick Lowe
Blog mate, Nicolette Bethel over at Blog World, has been on a bit of a tear about things lately. Capitalism seems offensive to her.
In this post… she closes by saying:
"And so our current “wealth” is almost wholly dependent on the goodwill of the foreign investor, who is interested in the people of this nation only as workers — as block-layers, lifeguards, toilet-cleaners, cooks, drivers, or middle managers who have no ability to affect or shape company policy."
Obviously this is an attempt at being provocative and nothing more.
There are many Bahamians that own their business or are more than "block-layers, lifeguards, toilet-cleaners, cooks, drivers, or middle managers who have no ability to affect or shape company policy."
The prosperity that Bahamians have experienced as a result of trade with the outside world in the past forty years or so is astounding.
She doesn't advocate policies that The Bahamas should pursue, but maybe she will get there in Part II of this blog series.
Just review the Economic Freedom of the World Index and compare where The Bahamas is to most countries in the region. While we are making many policy mistakes in recent years, causing us to fall in the rankings, the EFW Index indicates prosperity in The Bahamas is more widespread than most of our neighbouring countries.
I can't wait to see the policies Dr. Bethel recommends for our country. Or maybe I would prefer to wait? Time will tell.
Hey, Rick.
Lately? You haven’t been reading the blog well for the past several years, hey?
Free market capitalism, as practised in the late 1990s and early 2000s is and has always been offensive to me, being largely synonymous with greed and quick profit. The idea that the “market” will regulate itself is a concept that ignores the fact that the “market” is not an organism separate and apart from people, and that there are very powerful forces (people and companies) behind the scenes that help to make the “market” do what they want it to do.
Capitalism as a general concept is not offensive to me. But as usual, you miss the point of the article, which isn’t intended to attack “capitalism” at all (in fact, if you find the word in the article, I’ll give you a gold star). Rather, it is to say that the way in which we have participated in “capitalism” as a nation — i.e. by not participating in it, but allowing other people to come in and use our resources for their gain, not ours — has hurt us, and appears, thankfully, to have run out of steam.
I will become very pro-capitalist in a little while. I don’t expect you to notice it, though, as you appear determined to misread what I write these days. However, what I object to is the concept that we Bahamians are incapable of being capitalist without the help or the support or the activity of people from outside our borders — that economic imperialism works better than national development, and that foreign investment of the kind we have practised thus far is the only way we can hope to create wealth for the Bahamian nation. It’s a lie, an insidious, destructive lie, and it is offensive to me.
One more thing, though. What Patrick Rahming has written — which posted on the Nassau Institute Site — is not very different from what I have written. So I wonder what it is that makes my article anti-capitalist and his a comment on the way in which the economy should develop?
Cheers.
Thanks for stopping by Nicolette.
Can’t wait to see your policy prescriptions if you’re pro-capitalist.
Rick
Nicolette values and is a constant promoter of cultural capitalism. I think this is the base of her position on Bahamians being the owner and investor in their capitalistic product. Nicolette and I spoke at length on the capitalism opportunities for Bahamians associated with Carifesta and other cultural tourism activities. It is a coming together of our deep cultural talents and the ability to utilize it for our own personal financial benefit.
Thanks Ryan:
I do not doubt Nicolette’s sincerity.
What I am opposed to are special interest groups digging into the public trough that the next generation will have to suffer to pay.
Second, if our product is so great, why don’t tourists and Bahamians alike seek it out?
If it can’t make it on it’s own, should we be spending taxpayer dollars on it like the US is doing for other entities that can’t make it for example?
Rick
Rick – where is the initial capital of multi – millions of dollars going to come from to host a cultural tourism festival that will give a platform for Bahamian cultural entrepreneurs to generate revenues? Certainly not from the merchant class Bahamian. The first one or two will need financial support, after it becomes a process and capable to stand alone, I am sure there is no objection for allowing it to do so.
Good point Ryan, but as we know, Rome wasn’t built in a day.
NMC for example started 69 years ago, with minimal capital with sales of three cars that year.
Is it we are reaching for the stars when we should reach for the tree roots at this stage?
If the product is proven why do we need multi-millions of dollars to accomplish the task?
Right on Rick, you have to crawl before you walk. Everyone seems to think the government should do every thing for them, when the reality is, they can’t or will not even do what they should be doing,like cleaning up the judicial system & enforcing the law.I mean, people should be more concerned about taking care of the small things & maybe then others will fall into place.Just a thought.
Rick,
If we’re going to talk about special interest groups, I’d like to know whose interest it is in to dredge the harbour to hold larger cruise ships. The price tag is >10 times more than the price tag for CARIFESTA, and from every economic report cruise ship passengers do not return value for money (in 2005, 1.6 million stopover passengers spent $1.8 billion dollars as opposed to the $185 million spent by 3.1 million cruise ship passengers). Neil Hartnell, in Thursday’s Tribune, noted that cruise ship passengers are more and more being transported directly to Atlantis, bypassing the Bahamian side of the bridge. And yet nobody’s bleating about the debt that we’ve already gone into for that. Which special interest is being served there?
No argument from me there Nicolette.
That’s why I suggested in another medium the port for cruise ships should be privatised.
Since you didn’t like that idea, lease it to them for 25 years?
Let those profiting from it, bear the expense – not future generations.
I wonder how Bay Street survives as most of their business is from visitors I would think?
Bay Street’s survival is far more a question of special interests than the development of cultural industries — Bay Street is a finite, small, Nassau-centric group of people (many of whose faces are no longer Bahamian), while the cultural industries are elastic, nation-wide, and cross-cut all Bahamians and residents.
I think the port is as developed — as deep and as secure and consequently as polluted and degraded — as it needs to be. What is not developed is the land, or what brings the visitors off the ships in the first place to spend their money on Bay Street (whose survival depends on the tourists’ making it past the Wharf, which is not a guarantee these days). I see no good reason to bring in more cruise ship passengers on larger ships (the ones that currently dock are almost as tall as Atlantis when viewed from Fort Charlotte) when we already know that they do not spend much money onshore. I don’t see it as a valuable investment for anyone, except perhaps the powerpushers over on Hog Island.
But we are debating apples and oranges. You object, strenuously, and insultingly sometimes (with references to “special interests”), to cultural development that has not yet happened and that has little likelihood of happening. But when we talk about the port, that debt has already been incurred. It is without doubt a development that will benefit special interest groups only (Atlantis and Bay Street); but these groups are already disproportionately served.
The economics of the project are absurd — and I am utterly confused about the lack of protest from those people who resist our hosting CARIFESTA. The deal was done without a peep, and not a word about economic waste or debt for our grandchildren. I’m missing the consistency here. Or are some of our special interest groups more equal than others?
I think you protest too much Nicolette.
There are few people that object to government spending more than me and the Nassau Institute.
I know it would be easier for you to get the government to fund CARIFESTA, but why not form that committee and get it done in spite of their rejection?
My friend, if you think I protest too much, you ain’t seen nothing yet. I haven’t begun to protest nearly enough.
A committee was formed in 2006. It consisted of consisted of private, corporate, and government representatives, began work in November 2006 in preparation for 2008, but it has been dormant since July 2007. To this day members of it still ask me why it stopped meeting and when it will start to meet again. The willingness exists, and the committee exists, and the work has already begun.
The problem? CARICOM (which is a consortium of Caribbean governments) owns CARIFESTA, and has to release the franchise, so to speak, to a private group. CARICOM appears unwilling to do so without the Bahamian government’s go-ahead.
The Bahamas government has neither cancelled nor confirmed Prime Minister Ingraham’s March 2008 commitment to host CARIFESTA in 2010. The hosting has not been rejected. Indeed, given this government’s eagerness to host (and pay money for) Miss Universe, which is much the same idea, only with fewer benefits to Bahamians (again no peep from you about government spending or waste), I cannot imagine what logical reasons would be given not to host CARIFESTA. But nothing at all has been done, either one way or another. The government has the option of giving the franchise to a private group. Or it can establish a corporate body to govern the festival. Or it can officially refuse to host it. It has done nothing at all. Until I left office on December 31st 2008 I had received no replies to my (official) written inquiries about the state of CARIFESTA.
The committee exists. The work was in train, and can begin again. There is a broad commitment from people in the cultural community (which is a larger so-called special interest groups than Bay Street, believe you me) to host CARIFESTA. But without the government’s sanction, nothing can happen, because it is the Government of the Bahamas that is required to take care of the franchise and to sign the inter-governmental agreement that permits it to host.
I’m still waiting to hear what makes the cultural community, which even on a bad day collects more people together than the Bay Street business owners who benefit from cruise ships, a less legitimate special interest group to receive government spending than Bay Street and the harbour.
Or Miss Universe and Atlantis, for that matter.
Help me out.
Cheers.
Thanks Nicolette:
Seems like all you need is a letter campaign to the newspapers to shake the political class a little to release the rights to the festival then?
If they don’t repsond it wil be obvious what they are about, no?
And you were asking for people like that to host it?
I am convinced even more it should not be a government festival but a private festival managed by the cultural community, much like the beer fest or flying high circus etc.
In that you and I entirely agree. At last.
Cheers, and thanks for the stimulating discussion.