Agree fully and as I stated above I am not so sure total disintermediation should even be a national economic goal because it creates other problems/trade-offs. And that is the rub because as you begin to have thoughtful discussions about these complex economic issues you immediately realize that there is rarely an absolutely right or wrong solution but that every policy option has trade-offs with both positive and negative elements. What is important is to have a clear understanding of the problem, a clear, workable and transparent solution and a clear understanding of the nature of the trade-offs and costs involved and which elements of society will be most likely to bear those costs. As a society we are far from this model. Halkitis is a CFA just like me but to say that his lack of clarity on these issues has been disappointing would be an understatement. For that and other reasons, like you I am also pessimistic about our future.

Agree, a national dialogue about the impact and practices of these foreign commercial banks is also very necessary. But we leave that for another day.

I believe in constructive dialogue because we will never be able to solve any complex economic issue/problem without being able to differentiate causative from correlative factors. I have merely described a trend, and though this trend maybe necessary it is also having some very serious negative effects on our economy. It is just not sustainable for us to continue to have the balance of trade current account deficits that we have which is driven mainly by the new imports trends described above but also and very importantly by the unilateral payment transfers made by Haitians, Jamaicans, Chinese and other working foreigners to their home countries. Unless abated, mitigated or properly directed, increasingly this will eventually increase and accelerate our currency devaluation risk curve. As I noted above it is an intricate, complex and multi-faceted issue.

I agree and there are many other substitute choices consumers are now making in the face of the perpetual raising prices driven by the supply side. In fact what is happening now is indeed a more advanced model of the entire dynamic quantity supply/quantity demand model where Roberts and friends are finding out that quantity demanded is not as inelastic as it once was because average Bahamians have more options (competition) and are now choosing substitutes or like you say just generally buying less of that particular good and that ain't even no astute analysis that is merely econ 101. So instead of Roberts calling the Bahamian consumer ignorant for not buying is high priced groceries he should try changing his price gouging ways.

In no way am I saying that there are no negative externalities associated with gambling as that would also be naive. Our approach should include a public discourse about those negative externalities but it should most importantly also address the fact that our sovereign business model based on FDI is inconsistent with future global market trends and simply just does not have the horsepower to drive the GDP growth, employment, consumer and business confidence and sectorial linkages necessary to rescue us from our current condition.

Is that not what the Gaming Act & Regulations, 2014 did?

Rupert Roberts is a hypocrite plain and simple who is saying that it is ok for him and his type to sell numbers but not other Bahamian who do not look like him. Who anointed him and his peers with such privilege. Organised gambling has been going on in this country for over half a century. Therefore, even though gambling is a convenient culprit, in my view such an assessment is not only naive it shows a lack of understanding of some basic current trends. The urge or need that Bahamians have to gamble is in my view largely driven by the stranglehold that the white merchant class has had on the sell side of our economy for all that time. Up to this point the merchant class have been able to autocratically make and set prices in most sectors in the domestic economy, including the retail, grocery and banking and credit sectors. I have included banking and credit because this behavior also applies to the foreign commercial banks, only much worse. The average Bahamian consumer, the buy side, up to this point had no choice but to be price takers and take whatever price the merchant class and foreign banks set. This has led to a sense of economic dis-empowerment. Hypocrite Rupert Roberts is a VIP of that old school merchant class. Current trends show that the game is now changing and even average Bahamians are no longer price takers, except in banking and credit. The average Bahamian are now engaging in disintermediation whereby they are now purchasing their retail goods, groceries and other household items directly from the same purchasers that Rupert Roberts is purchasing from. This dynamic is evident by the proliferation of companies offering courier services to facilitate this new demand for foreign goods. This trend has had and will continue to have a devastating effect on Roberts and friends and the larger economy to a certain extent. A full education and more in-depth assessment and analysis on this is beyond the scope of this little blog but the long and short is that the damage that has been inflicted on our economy by the merchant class and the foreign commercial banks make the webshops look like choir boys by comparison. When you talk about economic structural constraints you need to start there.

Is this not the same Rupert Roberts who was trying to buy a webshop last year and already had installed fully functional webshop kiosks in his Super Value stores? Is he suggesting that it is ok for him to sell numbers but not other Bahamians? Very hypocritical!
Maybe he should try to stop killing his customers with his overpriced groceries. People are buying plane tickets to Miami, purchasing their groceries in bulk, paying freight and customs duties and still saving 25% compared to Robert's prices.

Great example!

Let's stipulate for the moment that you are right about his motivations, as an Economist and based on the fact that S&P stated that the downgrade was due principally to future below average economic growth projections, how would your monetary policy response be different from the Governor's?