Equally puzzling is the response of the FNM to this US State Dept. Statement. If the PLP is out of touch, then certainly the FNM is not much different. The DNA has not reached a level requiring a comment. As a people, we have sat down and allowed these politicians to dumb us down so effectively that we now behave as if we are psychologically enslaved to them. My heart cries for my country because, in my view, our core values have evolved to become inconsistent with incentivizing our politicians to act and behave in a manner that is best for the Bahamas as opposed to their personal interest.

These Investment Climate Statements are issued by the US State Dept. annually on over 100 countries. The purpose of the statements are primarily to provide guidance and information to potential US investors in these countries on the general economic outlook of the country, the country's business risks, market barriers, transparency and the ability of the government to execute it's strategy. All of these factors are critical to potential investors as they engage the governments of these countries in negotiations. I am therefore, puzzled as to why our government is so defensive and sensitive about what is essentially a factual summation of their performance to date. The fact that our government may believe that better days are ahead is of little value to a potential investor in analyzing business risk or market barriers. The fact is the PM and his party made some extravagant promises to get elected and most of those promises remain unfulfilled. Some have asked why is the US State Dept. commenting on the fact that our government have not delivered on their promises, even calling this meddling or irrelevant. The answer is that it is relevant because it speaks directly to our government's competence and ability to formulate and execute their stated strategy, which would certainly be of interest to potential investors in selecting which governments they would want to partner with as they make their investments. Some have also stated that Obama also has unfulfilled promises, which is indeed correct. Unfortunately, we still live in a world and are the victims of the age old maxim that "he who has the gold, makes the rules".

Mr. Munroe has raised the pivotal question of how can our government create a law that retroactively establishes an arbitrary penalty for a prior act deemed to be illegal that possibly contradicts the current law and penalties for those same deemed illegal acts. The legal implications are scary and this appear to be another issue that was not well thought out. If our government is now so convinced that laws have been broken such that they are now prepared to be judge and jury and summarily establish an arbitrary retroactive penalty what does that say about their integrity and actions, or lack of action, to date with respect to this issue?

What Mr. Miller is conveniently refusing to say is that it is his daughter and son-in-law that actually owns End Zone Sporting lounge. Mr. Miller is probably right that the Union is out to get him, nevertheless, the issues that the Union are raising are not insignificant as they speak directly to Mr. Miller's moral competence to lead BEC.

I am sorry Mr. Smith, but if the private sector, as you note, seem to possess a lack of understanding of the “fiscal complexities”, I assure you that they are not alone. This government, in my view, has shown an equal or greater lack of understanding of those same fiscal complexities to which you refer. To continue to speak about tax reform merely as a government sector revenue grab, as this government has consistently done, without concomitantly speaking about economic and fiscal reform is not only short sighted but some may even say that it is fiscally irresponsible. Is 55% of recurrent government expenditure on salaries, wages and some fixed costs reasonable? Are we getting value for those dollars spent or is that even important? Can portions of that expenditure be re-directed to incentivize and stimulate economic diversification, economic growth and private sector job creation? This is the epicenter of our economic conundrum. Consistent with Mr. Smith’s faulty logic, successive governments have been in the business of subsidizing consuming demand for so long through gratuitously giving civil service jobs, wages and salaries to their respective supporters that our government is now arguing that any critical analysis of this civil service gratuitous subsidy will undermine the very foundation of our fragile economy. Talk about a circular argument! The penchant of successive governments to focus on the short term by allowing government expenditure and decision making to be driven by the timing of elections and to finance their re-elections as oppose to any long term economic development planning has certainly created a catch 22 dilemma for our economy. Mr. Smith and company have clearly demonstrated that they lack the creativity and wherewithal to solve this catch 22 dilemma.

Almost my exact sentiments. In addition the statements show an appallingly obvious absence of basic economics.

I did not use the term racism or the concept of racism in my post, however, for whatever reason you have responded to my post with references to racism. I don’t know if that was intentional or just a lack of comprehension of the main points in my post. However, either way please note that race is not synonymous with racism. Also, my view is that the objective of an education should be the quality of our learning and that our most important and qualitative learning naturally occurs outside of any classroom. Most schools have become institutions of teaching and not learning. Learning should equip us with the social and interpersonal skills to behave toward each other in a respectful and dignified manner; emotional skills that inform and guide our thinking, inherent biases and behavior and the cognitive skills to comprehend objective facts from which we can draw inherently consistent, logical, rational, reasonable and unbiased conclusions. It is in this light, in my view, that the school missed an opportunity and was derelict in their duty by not facilitating a qualitative learning experience to all parties concerned. The fact that it involved five year olds only heightened that duty because it is during those tender years that most permanent learning and beliefs are crystallized. If it is your view that, given the objective facts in this situation, it is only the parents that have behaved in an undignified manner then so be it. With little effort I can decimate your logic, rationality and inherent consistency of your view but to what end. What I would say to you is that you may want to pay attention to your basic grammar, proper use of words and spelling lest you bring further scrutiny to the quality of the learning imparted at the fine institutions you have noted as attending above.

And because it is between two five year olds the school does not have a duty and responsibility to protect its students and responsibly address concerns from parents? I do agree that there is some culpability for the parents of the child insulted, however, that culpability, in my view, is due to the fact that they knew or ought to have known that the core business model of this school and others like it is based on discriminatory practices based on perceived social status, race and attracting the children of ex-pats working here or other foreigners. In fact the reason the parents most likely sent their children to this school is as a result of this bias that they are happy to brag about and be the beneficiary of but not so happy when it is turned on them. This however, does not absolve the school from the duty and responsibility of protecting these children. A parent has a right to raise issues of concern to the school, even between five year olds, and the school has a duty to respond to those concerns with dignity and responsibility. Using this standard, the Langfords may be "nice", but their public behavior have fallen well short of dignified.

Wow, some of the most extraordinary commentary from the leader of a commercial bank that I have heard in ages. From what I understand a significant amount of the non-peforming commercial credit was originated after the global recession had began in 2008 and therefore, a first year economics student would have been able to accurately predict the likely outcome, yet apparently, no one at BOB saw this coming. Unbelievable! May I remind BOB that in 2013 Commonwealth Bank experienced their third best year in its over 50 year history in terms of profitability and they are operating in the same economy, business and market environment.

Excellent question! I was watching and waiting to see how long it would have taken for someone to ask this question. The government does not even do business with its own bank.... go figure! There is absolutely no commercial rationale for the government owning this bank and instead of talk nonsense about BTC and rambling about VAT this asset should be sold at once.