Dear Editor,
Does Richard Byles, commenting recently on the state of the economy, not realise how clearly he is acknowledging the anomalies, probably contradictions, in the current IMF-led economic programme?
Believing that passing the IMF tests is some magic potion that will automatically lead to Jamaica's economic and therefore social salvation is nothing more than ideology and wishful thinking. It may be alright for some, that is those not already struggling with continued wage freezes and rising prices.
Byles says that reaching the primary surplus target -- if it actually happened -- is significant. Yes, depriving tax-paying Jamaicans of the fruit efforts, preferring instead to keep shovelling money into the financial sector (local and foreign) has been largely responsible for our downfall.
Not surprisingly, he follows this with "growth has proven a little more elusive than we... [wait for it]... hoped for". You see, just hope, nothing more. And then he refers to the problem of jobless growth, being experienced worldwide and hard to avoid if we adopt a purely
neo-classical economic efficiency approach. The main giveaway comes next, that the magical hand of the market is not enough.
Every country in the world is trying to climb out of the recession. Government intervention is needed, the private sector must lead the way. In Jamaica, the budget has no growth agenda, capital spending is cut, and recurrent expenditure hardly keeping up with inflation. Thus, a lack of local demand and lack of private sector incentive.
The sharks will never face up to the ideology that drives the IMF programme as behind it is the need for interventionist government, because they want to make a profit out of everything instead. And just supposing the trade imbalance improves as we export more (hasn't happened yet) and import less, what then?
As Byles admits, with falling trade tax revenues to add to the falling income and consumption revenues people become poorer. Even the
bond-holders hit by the JDX and NDX are
now contributing less tax. When will the
fight-back happen against such wasted sacrifice as has occured in other countries? -- albeit a work-in-progress.
The love of money and the living for money brought the global economy to its knees, and still it is the innocent who are the victims who are being asked to pay.
We need the write-off some debt -- from FINSAC to IMF -- or put a moratorium on much of it until those spouted production-inducing measures have a chance to take effect. We require government investment, not the opposite.
Paul Ward
Kingston 7
pgward72@gmail.com
Economic oversight still means economc woes
-->
Does Richard Byles, commenting recently on the state of the economy, not realise how clearly he is acknowledging the anomalies, probably contradictions, in the current IMF-led economic programme?
Believing that passing the IMF tests is some magic potion that will automatically lead to Jamaica's economic and therefore social salvation is nothing more than ideology and wishful thinking. It may be alright for some, that is those not already struggling with continued wage freezes and rising prices.
Byles says that reaching the primary surplus target -- if it actually happened -- is significant. Yes, depriving tax-paying Jamaicans of the fruit efforts, preferring instead to keep shovelling money into the financial sector (local and foreign) has been largely responsible for our downfall.
Not surprisingly, he follows this with "growth has proven a little more elusive than we... [wait for it]... hoped for". You see, just hope, nothing more. And then he refers to the problem of jobless growth, being experienced worldwide and hard to avoid if we adopt a purely
neo-classical economic efficiency approach. The main giveaway comes next, that the magical hand of the market is not enough.
Every country in the world is trying to climb out of the recession. Government intervention is needed, the private sector must lead the way. In Jamaica, the budget has no growth agenda, capital spending is cut, and recurrent expenditure hardly keeping up with inflation. Thus, a lack of local demand and lack of private sector incentive.
The sharks will never face up to the ideology that drives the IMF programme as behind it is the need for interventionist government, because they want to make a profit out of everything instead. And just supposing the trade imbalance improves as we export more (hasn't happened yet) and import less, what then?
As Byles admits, with falling trade tax revenues to add to the falling income and consumption revenues people become poorer. Even the
bond-holders hit by the JDX and NDX are
now contributing less tax. When will the
fight-back happen against such wasted sacrifice as has occured in other countries? -- albeit a work-in-progress.
The love of money and the living for money brought the global economy to its knees, and still it is the innocent who are the victims who are being asked to pay.
We need the write-off some debt -- from FINSAC to IMF -- or put a moratorium on much of it until those spouted production-inducing measures have a chance to take effect. We require government investment, not the opposite.
Paul Ward
Kingston 7
pgward72@gmail.com
Economic oversight still means economc woes
-->