If we are to solve our crime problem...

Jamaica is really an amazing place. Over the last week, while we have all recognized the need to get economic and social development going, and in a week when we are expecting the Finance Minister to tell us how he will finance the fiscal expenditure, we have been bombarded with discussions of toilet paper, markets, and divine intervention.

These are important issues, and correctly are discussed by the media. But what we really need is a society where when these matters come up they are dealt with immediately, so that we have an agreeable solution.

A distressed looking storeowner in front of her ransacked store on Red Hills Road, during unrest in the nation’s capital after an extradition request was made for convicted crime lord Christopher ‘Dudus’ Coke in May 2010.

The issues surrounding the need for divine intervention, however is a very important one. Crime robs us of an estimated four percent of GDP, or approximately $60 billion, and in doing so inhibits a lot of the productive capacity and competitiveness of the country. For example, the main reason for the high cost of agricultural production in Jamaica seems to be Praedial larceny.

It is therefore very important to deal with the crime monster, as if we are unable to do so then it means that anything else we do to attempt to make the economy, and society, better, will amount to futility.

So why have we not been able to deal with this crime problem. I have some views, which are by no means based on any expertise in crime fighting, but a logical approach to problem solving.

Let me first say that I think that the police force, under Commissioner Ellington, has done quite a lot to help bring back some amount of confidence in the police force, but still has a long way to go. Especially when they keep reversing some of the progress with actions that cause disruption in community relations.

In order for us to get a handle on crime, the first thing we must do is understand that we cannot sustainably solve the problem if we do not have a disciplined and orderly society. In other words it is difficult to create order within an environment of disorder. So if the parents in a household carry on with unethical behaviour in front of their children, then more than likely the children will act out what they see rather than what they are told.

So it is always going to be difficult to solve crime if we do not deal with the indiscipline on the roads, the violations of the noise abatement act and the zoning laws, and the littering of the roads. These are simple things to deal with but unless we address them then it will be like expecting someone to emerge from a mud lake without any mud on them.

A second point is that justice must be swift and low cost. If we are serious about taming the crime monster, we cannot have a situation where the police make an arrest, carries someone to court, and the case takes five years to complete. We also cannot have a situation where jurors go to court and don't even get lunch money, or transportation costs, reimbursed. And then if they do not turn up they get in trouble with the law. Imagine being asked to preside over the life or death of an accused, and you can't concentrate because you are hungry, or thinking about how you are going to get home.

The police needs to treat all crimes as equally violations of the law and act speedily in all cases. So when someone reports domestic violence or Praedial larceny, it is important for the police to treat all those cases as urgent. Don't wait until the petty thief, or the domestic violence accused, graduate to more serious crimes to act. In other words, if you do not act decisively when a young child tries to always get their own way, then you will have to deal with a bigger problem when they are older and may have to apply even more stringent measures.

The law also needs to be applied equally to everyone. And in this case I am not talking just about the person with connections, but also when we give someone leeway because you think they are among less fortunate. So the sentiment is normally to give the small man a chance. Soon you find out that you have a reason for giving everyone a chance and eventually corruption flourishes.

It is also very important that before any charges are brought against someone, or any accusations are made public, that proper investigation takes place before. There have been many cases of people being charged, or accused, of wrong doing which either proves false, or lacks sufficient evidence. This negatively affects the credibility of law enforcement.

The recent example of the traffic ticket amnesty is an illustration.

The last point, but by no means least, is that the enforcers of laws, such as the police, cannot be seen to disobey it. It is very important, that the credibility and authority of those persons in charge of enforcing the rules are intact.

So if we are to solve the crime problem, we cannot just focus on the outcome (such as murders). But we must of necessity, address the root causes of the problem, of which the main one would be a disciplined and orderly society.

Bureaucracy's effect on productivity and growth

FINALLY we can celebrate that we have an IMF agreement again. The real importance of the agreement is that it will bring with it a certain amount of confidence and multilateral support for the fiscal accounts. Importantly also, it will arrest the slide in the NIR.

However, unless we address the structural issues of law and order, energy, and bureaucracy, this will be like any of the past agreements we have had over the past 39 years. That is, nothing but additional debt, with no sustainable improvement in our economic or social situation.

Dennis Chung says he spent two hours in the line at the Constant Spring tax office on Monday, as there were only two cashiers working, while there were six empty stations.

Having discussed energy and law and order many times before, today I will examine the effect of bureaucracy on productivity and growth. What I will do is use an example relating to my recent experience at the tax office.

The 2013 Doing Business Report shows that out of 185 countries, Jamaica ranked 163 in relation to paying taxes. This means that in the category of how easy it is to pay taxes, we are better than only 22 of 185 countries. Is it any wonder then that tax evasion is rampant, and fiscal revenue targets cannot be met?

It is important to recognise (I believe because of the efforts of the TAJ) that we moved up 11 places from 2012, when we were ranked at 174. Despite the improvement, however, and the good work that the TAJ has been doing, the fact is that the bureaucratic nature of our tax system still creates a host of missed opportunities and leads to low productivity.

A real example is my recent experience with paying two types of taxes, over the past three weeks.

First, let me say that the recent online filing and payment of my annual returns went quite well. The customer service experience on the phone was great, and here I have to single out Taneka Newell, who way into the evening called me back to see if everything worked out all right, as I was having some difficulties navigating and recording the online payment because of the number of persons online.

A few days later, however, this excellent customer service was to be negated. I had reason to visit the King Street tax office, and while there sought to ascertain my property tax liability. When I asked the cashier to check it online, she indicated she couldn't because they had no access to the system. So I had to go to another location, and wait in another line. I had to leave because of time constraints, thus delaying the inflow of much-needed taxes to the government coffers.

The second experience came a few days later at the Cross Roads branch, where again I made an attempt to ascertain my property tax liability, so that I could pay it online. This was not to be, as there was a line extending outside the door, and the door was being manned by a security guard, determining who went in (note, not a customer service person). I indicated to him that I just wanted to go to the information desk to find out how much I owed. He told me that I had to join the line to find out how much I owed, and then join again to pay the taxes. That process could easily have taken two hours. Again, I opted to leave, as I figured that the government needed the tax more than I needed to pay it.

The next day I went to Constant Spring tax office where I explained my problem to an employee. He was good enough to ascertain on a computer the amount I owed. He was very pleasant, and was from the large taxpayer office. He also told me that I could have gone online to find out what was owed, even though the notice sent said that I should visit a tax office, and a similar thing was told to me by the cashier at King Street.

I went home and paid online quite easily.

While driving out of town last Friday, a policeman stopped me to do a random check, and when he saw my road licence, he told me that I was in the grace period. It was a good thing he stopped me, because I thought I had another month.

I went to pay it at the Constant Spring office on Monday. I spent approximately two hours in the line, as there were only two cashiers working, while there were six empty stations. The supervisors said they were not able to help, as they were short-staffed.

This meant that the 100 or more persons who were there, while I was in line, spent at least two hours trying to pay their taxes. And it is important to remember that the taxes have been increased significantly. The authorities are telling us to pay more taxes than we did last year, while they cut back on their staff to add to the pain of our experience.

The important point to note here is that there is significant productivity loss. We can compare the savings to the productivity loss as follows.

The saving from the empty work stations is approximately six salaries, which we can put at maybe $20 million per annum. However, this means that 1,000 persons per day will have to wait an extra 90 minutes to pay their taxes, resulting in a daily loss of productive time of 90,000 minutes, 1,500 hours, or 187.5 working days each day.

If we assume a straight-line contribution to GDP, 240 working days per year, a GDP of $1.3 Trillion; and an employed labour force of 1,000,000, then the average daily GDP per person is $5,417 ($677 per hour). The computations therefore show that the lost GDP value per year, from the 1,000 persons per day, at just this one location, is $243.8 million, and a tax (fiscal revenue) loss from that of $73.1 million.

So to save $20 million annually in salaries, we may be giving up $73 million in fiscal revenues. This is why a value-added approach to policy is essential. When you multiply this example by the number of public sector locations with this problem, then you can see the negative effect of bureaucracy on growth and productivity.

The role of government in market economies

My mother used to say of children, it is sometimes better to be seen and not heard. These were of course in the days when parents ruled children, and not as it is today. So it should be or governments in market economies. That is it is always better for the market to realize that the government is always present to ensure equity, opportunity, and protection of the poor and most vulnerable exist.

In other words the government should be like a referee in a football match, who ensures that the game runs smoothly according to the rule governing football, but never interfering with the play by becoming an active participant. If the referee even gets in the way of a pass, even unintentionally, it can change the whole complexion of the game significantly.

This is what governments need to understand about how market economies run. This is because the government, amongst all the stakeholders, is the least efficient when it comes to allocating productive resources. Put another way, the referee is usually the one on the field with the least footballing ability, at the moment even if he/she used to be a very skillful player.

So what happens when the referee gets involved is that they, even if inadvertently, cause an unfair advantage for one side over the other. So this could mean that the better side loses the match because of an interference by the referee. The referee may for example give an unwarranted penalty against the better side, causing its players to become demotivated or even causing it more difficulty in obtaining the three points they deserve.

The result is a result that does not reflect the true potential of the teams, which will in turn affect the quality and integrity of the tournament, and if this happens too frequently will cause the spectators to stop attending matches, or even cause discontent among supporters and sponsors, which will eventually lead to financial failure and collapse of the tournament.

So those single episodes of interference by the referee can ultimately result in the demise of the tournament.

So too the inability of the government to stick to its defined role in a market economy can ultimately lead to the decline in economic activity and the failure of the market to operate efficiently and result in poverty and decline.

My own view is that this is a role that the US governments have understood very well, and Caribbean governments have not. This is primarily why the US economy and society has done so well, and Caribbean economies and societies have not done so well. The fact is that (maybe because of our colonial and slavery past) Caribbean governments have preferred to act as “social workers”, dishing out welfare, rather than the referee who ensures fair play in the market and society.

This is the primary reason, in my view, why our economies seem to develop this dependency syndrome on governments, and why our economies have done so poorly, when compared to the rest of the world.

The fact is that we have become accustomed to a situation where market, and personal growth, depends on the welfare capacity of our governments. So if the government is not able to spend as used to, in the economy then we face economic decline. And instead of trying to fix the problem permanently, by allowing the private sector to take charge, while government bureaucracy steps back, instead governments taxes more, thereby further restricting productivity and innovation, and distributes more welfare in order to solve unemployment problems.

The result of course is that private investors hold on to capital, or invest it where the environment is more friendly (which is why people were investing in the US at negative interest rates), and ultimately the poor gets poorer, and in order to keep up with the plan of more welfare, and state interference, the country borrows more money.

And guess who is most burdened with the debt, economic, an social challenges.  And guess who ends up paying all the tax increases in the long run. None other than the poor, and most vulnerable, they are trying to protect.

On the other hand, guess who ends up getting all the welfare money eventually. None other than the owners of capital they are trying to tax.

So if we are going to play the market economy game, one of the first things to do is understand the most effective role that governments, and the private sector, has. In other words don’t play the goalkeeper in the forward’s role.

Confidence is key to economic stability and growth

Probably the most senseless decision I have ever seen in my lifetime, was the decision by the Cyprus government and European Union to impose a levy of up to ten per cent on bank deposits.

I really cannot believe that persons interested in global market recovery, and solving the Cyprus problem, actually thought that this would have been an acceptable solution. In fact, the consequence of the decision is to cause risk aversion, and goes to the heart of what causes markets to function effectively.

I think the best thing should be for the persons responsible for this decision to identify themselves so that they could be on a list of "registered market offenders" just like the US have a list of "registered sex offenders".

Any way this turns out there may still be a rush to pull deposits out of Cyprus banks, and what the proposal was trying to avoid may happen anyway. That is possible bankruptcy, and certainly capital movement away from countries like Cyprus that need the capital. This is indeed a big setback for developing countries that need capital to move to, not away from their banks.

In fact, the austerity policies being pursued across Europe, which seems to be the work of German influence, is actually sinking the European countries further into recession. Austerity, without adequate economic programmes, is like someone said to me this week, standing in a bucket and trying to lift it. Even the usually solid UK economy, is threatening a triple dip recession, as a result of the effect of the austerity programme pursued some three years ago.

When asked on Facebook about whether the Cyprus situation could happen in Jamaica, my response was a definite "No!". Say what you want about our politicians, they would never do something like this. In fact I don' know anyone outside of the Cyprus government who would have agreed to this decision. My own feeling is that they may have no option but to resign in order to restore confidence.

The Cyprus situation has caused persons around the world to remind themselves (once again after 2008) about how fragile financial markets are, especially in today's technologically interconnected world. The fact is that markets, and market transactions, are based fundamentally on trust. Trust in the market. Trust in the regulatory environment and justice system. Trust in the security forces.

Irrespective of how many laws we have on the books, what it shows is that the laws are only meaningful if everyone accepts them as the way to function. One of the roles of government is to ensure that the trust is maintained, as any breakdown in that trust causes increased risks, which lead to macroeconomic instability.

In the case of Cyprus, the government was the one that betrayed that trust and created market instability.

This Cyprus fiasco should cause us to reflect on understanding what is required to improve our own economic fortunes. It provides an avenue for reflection on how we have approach market development, and what we have been doing wrong, thereby resulting in Jamaica not seeing any growth of consequence since the late 1980s and even then it was too short a period to have any long term effect.

What we must understand is that government cannot by itself provide a sustainable growth path. What government can do is provide welfare, short term stimulus to the economy, or an environment that facilitates a path for private sector development. In other words, the best role for the government is to stimulate or facilitate economic activity, but not to seek to try to create economic development.

Economic development (activity) is best done by working though the private sector. It is only the private sector, and not public sector, that is motivated to be efficient through the profit motive, and ultimately improve market and country competitiveness. It is only the private sector that can take advantage of the comparative, and competitive, advantages of economies. Not the public sector.

One of the main problems that Jamaica has faced since independence (and possibly before) is that our government seeks to get involved too much in the economy, and by doing so creates a crowding out effect on private sector development. This desire to be involved in the economy, and be the hero of Jamaican's economic salvation, has caused the over taxation of production, over emphasis on welfare, and the increased and slow moving bureaucracy. It has also resulted in a private sector that in many respects is uncompetitive because of the fifty years of government effectively telling it how to run its business, through fiscal, monetary, and regulatory policies aimed at ensuring the survival of big government rather than private sector development.

As far as I am concerned the main thrust of the austerity policies, including Cyprus, coming out of the 2008 recession, has been to ensure the survival of government bureaucracy, through emphasis on fiscal adjustment. Only in countries like the US, Brazil, and China has the emphasis (through stimulus programmes - not necessarily just new cash) been on spurring growth through private sector resuscitation.

It is this philosophical difference, and deep understanding of what sustains the fragile balance of a market economy, that has led the US to turn around the fortunes of their economy, unlike the economic death sentence that Europe seems doomed to, and the seemingly haste with which Cyprus seems to want to carry out that death sentence by slitting its own throat.

Solving our foreign exchange crisis

Over the last week there have been two issues dominating the media, which illustrates to me that Jamaica's foreign exchange crisis is driven primarily by the way we approach challenges.

The first is the discussion that has taken place regarding the uncertainty of the Petrocaribe deal because of the death of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, and what it would mean for Jamaica's (and other Caribbean countries') balance of payments. In the case of Jamaica the immediate effect would be a US$600 million hit.

The second is the fact that the NIR went below the internationally acceptable benchmark of 12 weeks of imports, and the lowest level in ten years.

These two situations are an illustration of what the real challenge is that we face as a country.

In the case of the Petrocaribe uncertainty, the discussions focused primarily on how we can save the agreement, and what prospects we face for doing that if the opposition party were elected in the upcoming general elections. In other words, the conversations have focused around hoping that we can continue to benefit from this arrangement.

This for me is the wrong conversation to have. In other words, this development should be a wakeup call for us, that after 50 years of political independence we still cannot secure economic independence, not just in Jamaica but as a region. The conversation that we need to have is, how we can ensure that we move away from the need to ask another country to support our productive capacity, while putting us into more debt. We also need to ask ourselves, how have we utilized the Petrocaribe debt to spur greater productivity and increase our competitiveness? How has the manufacturing sector benefited from the use of the Petrocaribe debt to enhance the efficiency of their energy use?

These are the questions we need to ask ourselves so that we can get to a solution. And note I used the term Petrocaribe "debt" rather than "fund", as no matter how nice the arrangement sounds it really is just more debt that we are accumulating.

We rightly should be grateful to Chavez and his government, for allowing this facility to the Caribbean nations, but as a region we must also ask ourselves if we have been using this facility in the best way for the improvement of the country, productive sector, and the people. In other words after so many years benefitting from the Petrocaribe debt, are we still not facing a more serious energy and balance of payments crisis.

The second issue of the NIR seems to be a recurring theme. Whenever the NIR starts to decline we are always consumed with discussions like when will the International Monetary Fund deal be signed, or can the government access multilateral support or private capital.

In both these instances, the conversation we have in response to the crises is about how we can continue to live another day in dependency syndrome, rather than how can we eliminate the need to face these crises again.

This was brought home to me recently in two discussions I had this week.

The first was with someone who was coming to the end of a contract of employment and I asked the question, what are your plans after the contract has ended. The response was that something will work out. When I tried to engage the person on making plans, and not just leaving it to chance, the response was that Jamaica was a difficult place to live in and that the earnings was not enough, and the solution was to leave Jamaica. Contrast that with someone else who just a few months ago was earning less than the person, who said to me that she wanted to start a business and today earns more than she did and is in a growing business.

So I said to the person that the problem you have is that you always try to blame everything around you for the problem you are having when the problem really is that you have failed to act.

The other situation is where recently I addressed a group of persons about what they need to do to improve their lives, and in particular what they need to do about improving their health. This came out of my most recent book.

This set of persons has significant challenges in relation to their health, but everyone who was there seemed upbeat about their chances because they were determined to address the root cause of the problem. Because of this attitude, and approach to dealing with the challenge they face, some reported on the progress they were making.

So it is with our foreign exchange crisis, which has been with us since the 1970s. If we are to solve it then it is going to require that we do a lot of things differently. It is going to mean that we recognize that the problem to our energy crisis is not to defer some of the payment for our oil bill but reduce the cost of energy significantly by generating energy more efficiently, using a diversified energy source, and through an improved public transportation system.

It is also going to mean creating greater productivity in agriculture by dealing with crime, having greater economies of scale, and better marketing of our produce. It is also going to mean that government becomes a facilitator of the productive sector, and economic activity generally.

If we are to solve our foreign exchange crisis then the discussions about the Petrocaribe debt must move from how likely are we to save it to how quickly can we get to a position where we do not need it.

Prosperity requires new thinking

THERE is something the Honourable Dennis Lalor always says to me that has a lot of relevance for the country, and individuals. That is: "Bird seed don't make John Crow sing." For any reader who is not Jamaican, a John Crow is the same thing as a vulture. What it simply means is that no matter how much bird seed you feed to the John Crow, it will never sing like a bird simply because it cannot.

Similarly, Albert Einstein said the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

EINSTEIN... said, the definition of madness is to do the same thing over and over again and expect different results.

In effect, what both gentlemen mean by the respective quotes is that if you are doing something that can never produce the result you desire, then doing it over and over again can never give you the result you want. In other words, in order to get the result you want it is necessary to approach the problem with new methods and thinking.

So recently I have heard comments to the effect that the Jamaican dollar is overvalued, and that we need to let it find its true value. There have even been target rates quoted such as J$120 and J$150 to US$1. My question, though, is can we allow the dollar to devalue within the context of the current environment where productivity capacity is limited, where the major component of imports is oil, and where a significant part of our export inputs are imported. Is devaluation going to make us use less oil, if we do not change our energy source first, or are the exporters going to absorb the import cost increases when they price their exports?

Similarly, can we really improve the efficiency of the bureaucracy by just laying off public sector workers, or would it not be more beneficial to approach the problem from the point of view of changing the rules and processes to create a more efficient environment?

As individuals, can we improve our financial situation by the same consumption and investment habits we had before, or do we need to change them?

From both the country and individual perspective, if what we have been doing is giving us the results we want, then obviously there is no need to change it. And you should keep doing what you have always been doing. If, however, you are not happy with the results, then it means that you have been feeding bird seed to a John Crow and expecting it to sing. In other words, if you want to hear singing then you have to realise that it makes no sense feeding the John Crow, as it will never sing. Get rid of the John Crow and get a bird that has the ability to sing.

Only after you have done that do you even stand the possibility of hearing any singing coming from the bird. Note that the John Crow is a bird, but it is not one with the ability to sing.

So, if we want to see a country or individual prosper, then doesn't it similarly mean that we have to ensure that we equip ourselves with the resources that will lead to prosperity? If we change the brand bird seed, and feed it to the John Crow it still won't sing. Even if we increase the quantity, and change the brand, the John Crow still won't sing.

So, irrespective of how much money we get to borrow from multilaterals, and no matter how much tax we put on the people of Jamaica, and no matter how many public sector workers we lay off, or how many wage freezes we have, the fact is that if we continue to make these changes within the context of an environment that is not competitive or productive, it really is nothing more than an exercise in frustration.

The only way for us to see any sustainable prosperity in Jamaica is to fix the structural problems we have. And these structural problems have been with us since Independence, as even the growth in the booming 1960s was primarily because of foreign investments. All the structural challenges existed at that time also.

What are the major structural issues we face? Energy cost, inefficient bureaucracy, law and order, and the need for proper tax and incentive reform. Doing anything else without fixing these is, well, giving bird seed to a John Crow and expecting it to sing.

From an individual's perspective the same applies. If you have financial challenges and it arises primarily because your consumption expenditure is too high for your income, then refinancing any debt you have will not change your financial problems. What you must do is radically change the way you consume in relation to your income. For an individual it is much easier as you can get a good financial advisor to assist. Just make sure you get a good one and follow the advice. In other words, resist the temptation of buying a dog and then do the barking yourself.

In both cases, what is needed for any increase in prosperity has to start with a new way of thinking. This is the first step in changing that paradigm. Regrettably, I do not think that as a country, and as individuals, we have realised that this is the first step. So the old way of thinking persists and what happens is that the same ideas used in the past are repackaged under a different name. And sure, you can always get away with selling a newly repackaged item at least once. But the taste and effect are going to be the same, irrespective of the packaging.

So in order to hear that sweet singing sound that only a bird can make, let us first think about what type of bird can sing, and which one delivers the melody we want to hear, before we start feeding it bird seed.

Changing costly cultural habits

In 2011 I remember having a discussion with someone who questioned my continuous advice that people should look towards solar energy at home, and if necessary borrow the funds to install it. At the time he said that he would rather to borrow the money to buy a new car, as data showed that the investment in solar was not a good payback.

That argument I couldn’t understand because while an investment in solar energy gives a return on investment, in savings and convenience, I don’t see how one gets any return at all from a car. Particularly if you borrow the money for the purchase. Well maybe there is the social benefits.

At the same time, in 2012, we saw where bank loans, and in particular personal loans (mostly for cars) increased over 2011.

Being the stubborn person I am, I went ahead with my plans to invest in solar energy at home, and today enjoy significant savings and much convenience. I have never regretted the decision and investment.

Today I spoke with someone who advised that many persons today are having difficulty servicing their car loans, and over the weekend I heard two stories where cars were seized by the bailiff while they were in transit. Additionally I have heard stories of businesses in trouble because some business people borrowed money to purchase motor vehicles, instead of saving the money or reinvesting it in the business.

This reminds me of a real life story where two men who were truck drivers in the 70s had $250,000 each. One decided to buy a house in Beverly Hills and the other a business, and continued to rent. Today the one with the house still has it and the one who went into the business could but many of those houses, and in fact has many investment properties.

These examples show that one of the most significant factors that cause financial hardship, even though there is a recession, is the cultural attitude of many in the country. This is illustrative of what investment advisors always tell you that there are two things that cause people to lose money – fear and greed. And in the Jamaican context I want to add another – the need to “profile”.

I have found in many instances that people who make bad financial decisions do so because they want to impress others with the so called badges of wealth. That is the car, house, and other accessories. So what they do is borrow the money and live today with the income they expect in the future.

This cultural attitude is what has caused financial distress for many Jamaicans. And I find that the ability to overcome this “profile” attitude is a significant step in regaining financial health. This is why one of the first things I mention in my book is the first step to financial reform is an acceptance of what needs to be done and an acceptance of the inherent problem.

When I was around sixteen, my uncle said to me. “its not how much you earn that is important but rather how much you earn”.

Some will come to grips with this problem and reform their finances but many more will not. They will continue to make mistakes and suffer from the need to live the culture of profiling. My own view is that this need is derived from an underlying insecurity but I am no psychologist.

This cultural attitude can be found in many countries and cultures but I think Jamaica has a big dose of it. If we are to overcome our financial challenges then there is going to have to be a radical reform of this culture, so that we can invest in productive assets, just as Trinidad did in the 1980s, while we invested in motor vehicles. After all it is the individual lifestyles that sum up to the overall condition of a country,and we must remember that economics is a social science and hence is based on cultural attitudes also.

If anyone wants to make the change they can, especially if they have someone advising them about it, but the deeper you have found yourself in this culture is the more difficult, and more help you will need.