Is it not amazing how in 10 years you have become an expert on the Bahamas, our people, our politics, our mores, norms, values and our way of life. I don't know you and thus will not make stereotypical generalizations about all white persons that come here to live as unfortunately you have done about Bahamians. However, contrary to your belief we are not all murderers and criminals and some of us can even read and have college degrees. At this point I feel it also necessary to remind you that you are a guest in this country and as much as you or I may dislike Mr. Mitchell's politics or worldview, you have absolutely no right to call him a thug. Such behavior is despicable and if it is any reflection on your normal behavior or attitude then one may begin to gain some insight as to why Bahamians may respond to you in the manner in which you describe. Finally you did mention your country home country but I am hoping it is not the USA where you educated and enlightened Americans just elected the crotch grabber (By his own admission) to be your President.

Another very myopic and visionless budget whereby once again, our policy makers demonstrate that they either do not fully understand the underpinnings of our economy or that they lack the political will to make bold, game changing policy choices. Conceptually, I do believe that we must use fiscal policy to force the foreign commercial banks, who exhibit a bias toward repatriation of profits and short term consumer loans, to be much more accountable and cognizant of the needs of our domestic economy and the efficiency of our domestic financial markets. For far too long, for lack of a better term, they have exploited their oligopolistic standing in our country without giving an equivalent amount back to our economy or communities. However, in my view, direct taxation of these banks is not the answer or at best only a small part of the answer. The most obvious reason direct taxation is not the answer, which has been alluded to in several posts already is that these banks will only pass those costs onto the Bahamian public. In my view we must use fiscal policy to proactively incentivize these banks to promote greater efficiencies of our financial markets by facilitating more small business and entrepreneurial financing and growth which would lead to a more robust capital markets and higher levels of capital formation, economic growth and the realization of more domestic investment opportunities. As it currently stands, these banks are the greatest source of dislocations in our financial markets due to their biases noted above.

Professor Morris, this is a very interesting observation and one with which I fully concur. A direct corollary of this potential commercialization is a regressive taxation regime on the many to redistribute wealth to the few. What appears to be economic activity and benefits from gaming are merely the by-products of having wealth concentrated in the hands of a few individuals. These activities detract from a sustainable economic development plan and offer little to no inter-industry linkages or sustainable economic growth. As a matter of fact, if the estimated $400 million dollars per annum that is spent gambling were to be re-directed to savings by Bahamians, or even half that amount, in ten years the Bahamas would be a formidable economic force in this region. This increased savings would allow broader and deeper investments by Bahamian businesses in our economy. It would jump-start, broaden and deepen our capital markets thereby facilitating wider share ownership. It would also unleash our entrepreneurial spirits, stimulate small business growth and spur sustainable job creation that can keep pace with students entering the work force every year. Yet, instead of attempting to educate us about our potential, our politicians are too busy trying to enrich themselves and their friends, while they try to make us believe that it’s the bogeyman that is keeping us from our true potential.

There are numerous substantive issues that have not been and will not be addressed before we are asked to vote on January 28th, however, I am somewhat dumbfounded by the above explanation of Dr. Nottage who states that the term “regulation” in the gambling referendum “implicity covers” legalisation as unlawful activities cannot be regulated. If Dr. Nottage is correct, then I am afraid it can also be argued that it does not matter whether the "yes" or "no" vote prevails because either outcome satisfies or "implies" the condition precedent that the activity we are being asked to regulate is legal. Therefore, a "no" vote only means no to regulation. Oh what a slippery slope. No matter which side one supports, on such a serious and substantive issue with potential wide ranging consequences, we can do better than this!

This approach is quite sound. What I would like to see in addition to the above are some mechanisms and criteria for the selection of "Qualifying Mortgages" that address the moral hazard issue. Further, there is a need for legislation that essentially defers the right of the Bank to foreclose, for a reasonable period, on mortgages in default where the fair market value of the property is greater than the outstanding mortgage amount. This would allow the homeowner a reasonable time to execute an orderly sale of the property instead of the bank officer selling it to one of their friends in a fire sale.

The timeless Bahamian saying “talking fool is a very serious ting” aptly describes both the PLP’s position on the BTC sale and that of some of the bloggers suggesting that the PLP re-negotiate the CWC BTC deal. When one examines some anecdotal facts about the deal the PLP had in place with Bluewater it becomes instantly clear that the PLP indeed lacks credibility on this issue.

Let’s look at the facts. Persons with a rudimentary understanding of PE deals would know that the two most important terms in any PE deal are the terms around the economics and those around control. Starting with the economics, the Bluewater deal called for the purchase of 49% of BTC for a total face value price of $260 million. However, to properly understand the economics of this deal we must drill behind the face value price. At the end of May 2007 BTC had over $70 million in cash in the bank, therefore, theoretically this amount should be deducted from the purchase price. Also, the Bluewater deal called the payment of $40 million to be deferred, interest free, for at least five years or longer to be paid out of the operating profits of BTC. Therefore, the net cash flow or price that would have been paid by Bluewater would have been $150 million plus the PV of $40 million. This round out to about a total price of about $177 million Bluewater would have paid for 49% of the equity of BTC. It is also very important to note that the PLP negotiated this deal in 2006/2007, at the height of the economic boom which would have conservatively added about 15 to 20% to the value of the deal compared to the CWC deal which was done in the midst of the recession in 2010.

With respect to control, even though Bluewater was purchasing only 49% of the equity of BTC, the agreement Bluewater had in place with the PLP gave them the power to appoint the majority of the BODs, appoint the CEO and the management team and contained favorable protective provisions that allowed Bluewater to have unfettered strategic oversight, decision making and managerial control over the operations of BTC, without having to pay for it.

A first year law student would know that control trumps ownership in these deals every day of the week. In fact, a popular ploy in negotiating these deals is to take the “purported discount” for purchasing the minority interest but insisting on favorable control terms and protective provisions thereby gaining decision making and operational control of the company without having to pay for it. Also, Bluewater had no operating history, no financials, no background in the Telecomm industry and even today we still do not know who were the principals behind Bluewater, therefore, calling for the PLP to re-negotiate the CWC deal is like asking the wolf to guard the chicken coop. In any event CWC would probably be happy to take the deal that the PLP had on the table for Bluewater, as the government would owe them a refund and CWC would have the same control.

I am somewhat perplexed at the righteous indignation of those who are now claiming that it is somewhat mean, disrespectful, without class or somehow unethical to criticise Lady Pindling for her remarks. The history of modern civilisation is somewhat clear on the fact that during a conflict and make no mistake this election is a conflict for the future of the Bahamas, non-combatants, that is innocent third parties and observers should not under any circumstance be wantonly attacked by combatants to the conflict. To do so would be unethical. However, just as it is unethical for a combatant to attack a non-combatant, when a non-combatant begins attacking combatants that is as clear a declaration of one's intention to become a combatant as any.

With this in mind, Lady Pindling, who is a smart lady, knew or ought to have known that by allowing herself to be used to engage in personal attacks she moved from the rank of an innocent third party or observer to the rank of an active combatant who can attack and unfortunately also be attacked and criticised. As unfortunate as it is and as much as it saddens me, she just cannot have it both ways.

Arob you have put forth some good faith, reasonable and mature questions. They are exactly the type of questions one would expect from an informed and responsible citizen. I believe that it is important, especially when dealing with complex national or international issues, for our citizens and even more so our politicians to be measured, accurate and honest. PhilosopherKing has asked us to thank the DNA for bringing this issue to the forefront, and I ask thank the DNA for what? The DNA has been anything but measured, accurate or honest on this issue. Instead of focusing on this important and complex issue in a substantive and constructive manner, the DNA has instead attempted to gain political mileage, stirring up controversy with misstatements, inaccuracies, personal attacks and conspiracy charges with absolutely no supporting evidence. In fact from the post of PhilosopherKing above, I am not sure whether the writer just abhors and dislike the PM that much or whether he is simply using a page out of the DNA playbook on this issue in using the old debate trick of personal attacks when the facts are not on your side. On the issue of oil drilling, it would same to me that the actual positions of the DNA and PLP are quite similar, in that both parties are for drilling now. The facts are that it was the PLP that issued the license to BPC under the terms of the outdated legislation put in place under the Pindling government in 1971 and it is the PLP that appear to be conflicted on this issue. The FNM implemented a moratorium in 2008 on drilling to amongst other things ensure a comprehensive review of our regulatory, legislative, environmental, financial and tax structure and to provide greater public consultation on this substantive and complex issue. The moratorium effectively suspended the license of BPC and is still in place; however, from the perspective of BPC they still believe they have a valid contract and license. This creates an obvious tension and conflict between the interests of BPC and the government on a very complex and important national and international issue, in which every Bahamian is a stakeholder. Let's not further complicate it by gratuitously politicizing the issues.

There should be no excuse proffered for this type of behavior nor should we as a society provide any refuge for these persons. This is nor should it be political. If it were my or your grandmother, mother or sister, I am certain that we would be calling upon the police to investigate, apprehend and charge these thugs. The real issue is not that Ms. Cash got hit in the face, though that is important, it is that there are those amongst us that would throw a missile into a peacefully assembled crowd with no obvious provocation and some of us would think that that is ok. Crime is not a political problem, its a social problem and until we as citizens accept our responsibilty for the crime in our society nothing will change.

The true reality is that this country is feeding itself right now. There is no need to grow or produce all of our food here in the Bahamas to feed our selves. What is necessary is that we maximise and optimise our production of those goods and services for which we have a comparative advantage so that we are capable of trading for those goods where we do not enjoy a comparative advantage. In fact, the agrarian society approach and mind-set that Bran and S Poitier are talking about represents backward and not forward thinking and is anything but the 21st century. Using this standard, the USA, the country powered by the greatest economic engine in the world over the past 250 years is not feeding itself, because it does not grow or manufacture all of the food it consumes. We need foreign partners and investors with whom to trade. Any half prepared politician who understands econ 101 would also understand this and the law of comparative advantage. Understanding basic economic principles and constructs would help us to understand that resources are scarce, that there are no free lunches and that every choice or decision have an actual or opportunity costs. We cannot close our eyes and imagine these things into existence. Understanding basic econ principles also allows one to apply a systematic and structural underpinning and framework to problem identification and solving which is not possible without such an understanding. This anti-knowledge and expertise bias that most of our politicians and some of our citizens exhibit is, in my view, one of the greatest problems facing our country because it shows in the state of our schools and it shows in the small minded thinking of our current political leaders and the people that follow them.