TriniTuner.com | Latest Event:
Moderator: 3ne2nr Mods
ingalook wrote:No one else has a problem with the plan to privatise the Couva Hospital???
ingalook wrote:Where was the staff of Couva supposed to come from?
The bulk of the staff was simply to be relocated from San Fernando General - the entire pediatric wing (with the exception of the neonatal unit)
This would have moved pediatric services to a centrally located, spacious, clean, and advanced facility and simultaneously freed up a lot of space at San do for expansion of other units (read: more beds) - but some people had a major problem with this
You think its a mystery why public health gets progressively worse in T&T??? HINT: $$$$
markhall86 wrote:What else do I do? I'm now fearful of spending in this economic climate. I stop playing mas, I go out for dinner and drinks less often, I put off big purchases like a car and house.
markhall86 wrote:Finance PhD student weighing in here. Firstly, I've created this account just to provide my 2-cents input into this debate.
If there's one thing economist can agree upon over the last 40 years of research is that you CANNOT tax your way out of recession. I don't know what playbook our local experts are pulling from, but they are making all the wrong moves.
True
In a recession, you want...sorry, need STIMULUS. Austerity measures, such as cutting government spending and social welfare benefits, seek to do the opposite of what you desire to pull yourself out of recession.
Stimulus from where? Central bank created new money? Bonds? IADB loans? Increased subsidies?
All of these have drawbacks. They generally increase the indebtedness of the State.
A lot of you talk big about 'diversification'. Let me just say a government cannot diversify an economy, it has to be done by the private sector, which has to be enabled and supported by government polices. Polices that make doing business easy.
True. Big Gubbament has rarely been successful at sustainably diversifying a national economy.
The only way is to get private sector enterprises is to invest and stimulate. It hardly f*cking matters what industry they seek to do so. The point is, it's the only sustainable way to grow a strong, diversified and growing economy. And eating away at savings in an economy makes it impossible and extremely risky to invest.
Some of you get it. Taxes, removal of welfare benefits, negative recessionary talk and inane taxes on goods that can be productive in our economy are all BACKWARD and economically regressive steps.
Let me explain it to you. Imagine my salary was a nice $10,000 per month. But now, the cost of zero rated VAT items have risen, food vendors and doubles men raise their price to compensate.......ok.....maybe I can absorb that cost. But now fuel subsidies are removed, diesel gone up so all things relying on transport gone up, my rent gone up (because of property tax) and now a 7% tax on goods that I can't or won't but locally.....eating away at my wallet.
What happens to me? Let's say I was trying to save $2000 per month. But clearly, with those inflationary measures and purchasing-power eradication polices enacted by the government, only allows me to save $1000 per month now.
Your cost of living has increased. Thats not the same as inflation.
What else do I do? I'm now fearful of spending in this economic climate. I stop playing mas, I go out for dinner and drinks less often, I put off big purchases like a car and house.
So, now imagine many businesses small and big were depending on people like me to continue spending locally. However, due to my cut backs caused by a BACKWARD government fiscal policies, they begin reducing their overhards.
What prey tall are some of the biggest overheads or opex spent by companies: Rent, Salaries and Marketing.
What do you think goes first? Company can't just shut down or reduce rents easily (and rents would have gone up due to property tax), Marketing? Yes to an extent, but they still want to sell sheit, what about employees? Bingo, layoffs almost always come first when revenue declines.
Labor iz the easiest cost 2 reduce.
Now not only am I spending less, but now there are less people earning money in our economy......a Downward Spiral.
Aka a recession.
PNM is trying recoup loss in revenues by taxing the population (and the burden is heavily on the middle class now), and they're doing this WHILE removing welfare measures (not saying they are good, but removing any welfare that was there before has consequences).
It is a recipe for economic disaster and a slow painful recovery (if it ever happens at all). Generally, adjustments achieved through spending cuts are less recessionary than those achieved through tax increases.
markhall86 wrote:Finance PhD student weighing in here. Firstly, I've created this account just to provide my 2-cents input into this debate.
If there's one thing economist can agree upon over the last 40 years of research is that you CANNOT tax your way out of recession. I don't know what playbook our local experts are pulling from, but they are making all the wrong moves.
In a recession, you want...sorry, need STIMULUS. Austerity measures, such as cutting government spending and social welfare benefits, seek to do the opposite of what you desire to pull yourself out of recession.
A lot of you talk big about 'diversification'. Let me just say a government cannot diversify an economy, it has to be done by the private sector, which has to be enabled and supported by government polices. Polices that make doing business easy.
The only way is to get private sector enterprises is to invest and stimulate. It hardly f*cking matters what industry they seek to do so. The point is, it's the only sustainable way to grow a strong, diversified and growing economy. And eating away at savings in an economy makes it impossible and extremely risky to invest.
Some of you get it. Taxes, removal of welfare benefits, negative recessionary talk and inane taxes on goods that can be productive in our economy are all BACKWARD and economically regressive steps.
Let me explain it to you. Imagine my salary was a nice $10,000 per month. But now, the cost of zero rated VAT items have risen, food vendors and doubles men raise their price to compensate.......ok.....maybe I can absorb that cost. But now fuel subsidies are removed, diesel gone up so all things relying on transport gone up, my rent gone up (because of property tax) and now a 7% tax on goods that I can't or won't but locally.....eating away at my wallet.
What happens to me? Let's say I was trying to save $2000 per month. But clearly, with those inflationary measures and purchasing-power eradication polices enacted by the government, only allows me to save $1000 per month now.
What else do I do? I'm now fearful of spending in this economic climate. I stop playing mas, I go out for dinner and drinks less often, I put off big purchases like a car and house.
So, now imagine many businesses small and big were depending on people like me to continue spending locally. However, due to my cut backs caused by a BACKWARD government fiscal policies, they begin reducing their overhards.
What prey tall are some of the biggest overheads or opex spent by companies: Rent, Salaries and Marketing.
What do you think goes first? Company can't just shut down or reduce rents easily (and rents would have gone up due to property tax), Marketing? Yes to an extent, but they still want to sell sheit, what about employees? Bingo, layoffs almost always come first when revenue declines.
Now not only am I spending less, but now there are less people earning money in our economy......a Downward Spiral.
PNM is trying recoup loss in revenues by taxing the population (and the burden is heavily on the middle class now), and they're doing this WHILE removing welfare measures (not saying they are good, but removing any welfare that was there before has consequences).
It is a recipe for economic disaster and a slow painful recovery (if it ever happens at all). Generally, adjustments achieved through spending cuts are less recessionary than those achieved through tax increases.
desifemlove wrote:markhall86 wrote:Finance PhD student weighing in here. Firstly, I've created this account just to provide my 2-cents input into this debate.
If there's one thing economist can agree upon over the last 40 years of research is that you CANNOT tax your way out of recession. I don't know what playbook our local experts are pulling from, but they are making all the wrong moves.
In a recession, you want...sorry, need STIMULUS. Austerity measures, such as cutting government spending and social welfare benefits, seek to do the opposite of what you desire to pull yourself out of recession.
A lot of you talk big about 'diversification'. Let me just say a government cannot diversify an economy, it has to be done by the private sector, which has to be enabled and supported by government polices. Polices that make doing business easy.
The only way is to get private sector enterprises is to invest and stimulate. It hardly f*cking matters what industry they seek to do so. The point is, it's the only sustainable way to grow a strong, diversified and growing economy. And eating away at savings in an economy makes it impossible and extremely risky to invest.
Some of you get it. Taxes, removal of welfare benefits, negative recessionary talk and inane taxes on goods that can be productive in our economy are all BACKWARD and economically regressive steps.
Let me explain it to you. Imagine my salary was a nice $10,000 per month. But now, the cost of zero rated VAT items have risen, food vendors and doubles men raise their price to compensate.......ok.....maybe I can absorb that cost. But now fuel subsidies are removed, diesel gone up so all things relying on transport gone up, my rent gone up (because of property tax) and now a 7% tax on goods that I can't or won't but locally.....eating away at my wallet.
What happens to me? Let's say I was trying to save $2000 per month. But clearly, with those inflationary measures and purchasing-power eradication polices enacted by the government, only allows me to save $1000 per month now.
What else do I do? I'm now fearful of spending in this economic climate. I stop playing mas, I go out for dinner and drinks less often, I put off big purchases like a car and house.
So, now imagine many businesses small and big were depending on people like me to continue spending locally. However, due to my cut backs caused by a BACKWARD government fiscal policies, they begin reducing their overhards.
What prey tall are some of the biggest overheads or opex spent by companies: Rent, Salaries and Marketing.
What do you think goes first? Company can't just shut down or reduce rents easily (and rents would have gone up due to property tax), Marketing? Yes to an extent, but they still want to sell sheit, what about employees? Bingo, layoffs almost always come first when revenue declines.
Now not only am I spending less, but now there are less people earning money in our economy......a Downward Spiral.
PNM is trying recoup loss in revenues by taxing the population (and the burden is heavily on the middle class now), and they're doing this WHILE removing welfare measures (not saying they are good, but removing any welfare that was there before has consequences).
It is a recipe for economic disaster and a slow painful recovery (if it ever happens at all). Generally, adjustments achieved through spending cuts are less recessionary than those achieved through tax increases.
this is a standard model, i agree, but doesn't work in our situation. all economies are different and the standard economic practices don't work all the time. when Europe was in recession, they had to cut spending, since debts were too high. the textbook practices dont work and cannot work in all cases. if debts are high, one lessens debts even in a recession.
your textbook stuff also doesn't show how Keynesian thinking (stimulus in recession) has been discredited for years. the USA did this under Bush and Obama, or QE in Europe, but it's moot if that worked in the way.
Return to “Ole talk and more Ole talk”
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 57 guests
