I am obviously one of the many who do not understand finance so please explain to me what webshops have to do with RBC charging customers to make deposit to their accounts, refusing to negotiate checks unless you have an account with them, downsizing and closing 4 branches?

You totally miss the point in that the consumer already has a real alternative and they are enthusiastically expressing their preference by spending their hard earned dollars to purchase Japanese used cars instead of your new cars. Over the past year, I have spent almost $75K to purchase a new car but I have also purchased a total of four Japanese cars, one for each of my children, and I have been beyond satisfied with my purchases. So I have no issues with the BMDA, however, for me like for most consumers the Japanese cars are plain and simply an excellent substitute for a new car.

Further, it is not that I have a low self-esteem, because as I said above, it pains me to keep saying that you guys must think we are stupid. It pains me because the BMDA members, in the face of overwhelming objective evidence that the Japanese used cars are legitimate substitutes for your new cars and therefore the local automobile industry and market dynamics have experienced a significant disrupting market event, your group continue to behave in the same manner, repeating the same behavior and for whatever reason expect the results to somehow be different. At the same time the BMDA appears to be blaming the consumer for choosing the Japanese cars, as if they believe the consumer is is not making a rational decision in selecting a Japanese car. The issue is not roadside vendors, the issue is that your industry has experienced a significant disrupting market event which requires the BMDA to do something different to adjust to the new reality. Instead you blame the consumers and blame the roadside vendors and ask the government for special protection from competition. If there were no roadside vendors your fate and results would be exactly the same. So it really pains me to keep saying that you guys must think we are stupid because there is another alternative explanation to describe the BMDA repeating the same behavior and expecting a different result but I prefer to give you guys the benefit of the doubt.

What utter nonsense Mr. Lowe and quite frankly it pains me to keep saying that you guys must think we are stupid. I think you are an economist so you should know better. As noted above there are legitimate car dealers with business licenses and who pay business license tax, VAT and salaries but choose to merchandise their cars through a website and market over social media. Why should they not be allowed to operate just because their business model is different from yours. There are other persons that may sell a car every three/four months to help make ends meet who also pay all of the prescribed taxes. Why should they not be allowed to sell two or three cars a year. You act as if this activity of persons selling two or three cars a year just started this year when you fully well know this has been going on in the Bahamas and around the world forever. The primary difference is that in terms of quality, enjoyment, comparability, functionality, cost, maintenance and value for dollar the Japanese used cars provide greater customer satisfaction and is an excellent cost efficient comparable substitute for your overpriced cars. For the first time there is actually competition that benefits the consumers which has spurred significant dislocations in the historical supply-demand equilibrium. So stop this nonsense about lost taxes for government because as I explained to you last week due to the elasticity of demand government is actually earning more taxes now as a result of the affordability of the Japanese cars. What makes you and your peers so special and privileged to tell someone that they can "only import one car every few years". This is a classical case of a few privileged merchants attempting to manipulate the government to protect their interest at a cost and to the disadvantage of the average consumer. It will not stand.

Is this the same Rick Lowe from the Nassau Institute, who believes in free markets because, if it is, you should know better? All I could say is that you fat cats must think because we poor we are also stupid. Mr. Lowe and Mr. Albury you both are entitled to your own opinions but not your own facts. As we debate, let's at least attempt to have an intellectual honest debate. Your statements above about VAT and real property tax are just not evidence based and you should know better. Every person that imports a car into the Bahamas pays VAT for that car. If that person has income of less than $100K per annum then you darn well know there is no requirement for them to register to reclaim VAT inputs. Real property tax is a function of property ownership not business ownership because many businesses lease space. So stop it and start compete.

You are absolutely correct about conflict of interests but it actually is more pernicious than just conflict of interest. Individual self-interest is indeed a powerful organizing force and incentive in a free market economic, however, when self-interest is infused into public policy decision making then there is certainly the potential for conflict of interest but more importantly it almost invariably serves as the precursor for market abuse and political corruption. This government came to power as a result of the rejection of the corrupt practices and self-interest dealings of the PLP and their cronies. It is ironic that my greatest disappointment in this government to date is that they appear to be complicit in similar corrupt self-interest practices with respect to public policy formation, the only difference being that for the PLP and their cronies it was new money for them but the current FNM cronies already control most of the wealth in this country. How much is enough and why are they so afraid of competition?

Every time our Minister of Finance opens his mouth all I can do is shake my head as it certainly appears that the job maybe bigger than his capabilities. Shelter and food are basic human needs. If there is widespread dislocation in either of these basic human needs due to a catastrophe what do you think will happen to productivity in this country and your tax revenue position. Think about Puerto Rico Mr. Minister, because if uninsured businesses are closed and employees are not working then what do you think would happen to your Fiscal Position then in addition to the other potential social/economic consequences. We are willing to borrow hundreds of millions after a catastrophe to help persons repair their homes but we cannot make tax concessions to incentivise persons to purchase adequate business/homeowners insurance before a catastrophe. C'mon man, if you are gonna make statements then please make some sense and stop trying to just sound like you are smart because it is neither smart or prudent for a Minister of Finance to utter these type statements.

Further, I am still deeply troubled by our $USD FX borrowing and debt expansion to repay B$ debt at a time of record level liquidity in the domestic banking system. I am also deeply troubled with our flirtation with NHI when we damn well know that we cannot afford it in its current form as a nation but more importantly we do not have the infrastructure to support the increased demand that will inevitably result from its implementation.

Utter nonsense!

I applaud you sir for the willingness to have an open dialogue about this issue. In a civilized society there will be disagreement but transparent dialogue with open minds is extremely important to optimizing the collective benefits to society on any contentious issue.

No I don't and are you kidding me. You really think we daft hey. The figures that I used was $5K at 15 persons and not $1K. This is important because at $1K, I suspect, more than 35 to 50 persons would be able to afford a car at $1K as opposed to $46K. Elasticity of demand, remember, and that is just the obvious. Therefore, in addition to your premise being factually incorrect, there are several other more fundamental economic and social reasons why your reasoning and approach is sub-optimal to the benefit of society as a whole not only in respect to taxation but also spending, the multiplier effect, job creation, no added future credit repayment burden and the related GDP growth impact. I have nothing against the new car dealers but this fact scenario has all the markings of a breakthrough market event that moves the entire Demand and Supply curves Mr. Lowe and you should know what that means even though it may be painful to accept. I am a believer in free market forces and competition that benefits the consumers and ultimately society as a whole, not a few merchants.

With all due respect Mr. Lowe I find your reasoning unpersuasive. Every car that is imported into this country pays duties, VAT and import fees according to the prescribes fees and tax schedules as outlined in the law. Therefore, just because a person is importing a car of a lesser value it is absolutely incorrect to say that they are operating outside the law because they are paying the same proportionate taxes and fees as the fool that imports the overvalued car that cannot be sold in the USA.

Further, I am sure you have heard of the economic concept of elasticity of demand which states that for elastic goods,the lower the price of a good the greater the volume of that good demanded and sold. Therefore, whereas one person may be able to afford an overvalued car at $46K, there is likely to be 15 persons that can afford a car at $5K. The obvious impact will be a much higher tax revenue receipt component for the government. We may be poor but we ain't stupid!