With the exception of the years 1986-1991, two parties have been at the helm of Trinidad and Tobago’s politics. Red and yellow have filled our Parliament houses so much that their very presence seems immutable to most. So, one can imagine the stir when Nikoli Edwards registered his Progressive Party and confirmed that it was a contender for the upcoming national general elections. Nikoli, a 27-year-old man from San Fernando with a history in the civil service and a stint as an independent senator under his belt, declared that Trinidad and Tobago was at a critical point in its history and that his new party was the light that citizens have been asking for. Is it, though? In addition to the knight-in-shining-armour rhetoric, which while seductive, is extremely ambitious, I do not think that what the Progressives offer is what Trinidad and Tobago needs or what I would want to consume. Below, I outline the reasons why I do not think so.
As a member of the curious club, armed with smartphone and, dare I say, hope, I crafted a probing Instagram message on the party’s philosophical underpinnings, vision and mission and hit send. In response, I was told to wait for the June launch for clarification…so I did…and I waited some more…and then it happened. I was left with more questions than answers. In the interest of fairness, I sought Nikoli’s interviews post-launch so that I would not misrepresent his position. It was then that I happened upon this gem. It is the most extensive I have seen him get to date, which is not exactly a compliment.
The characteristic vagueness with which Nikoli speaks is both telling and exhausting. It shows me that he has no concrete ideas or mission or even opinions. That is scary. I mean, when a man can answer the question “Where and what is your manifesto?” with “How about I ask you what you would like to see in a manifesto?” a year before elections, and AFTER launching a whole political party and promising the moon and stars, it becomes clear that he is putting the cart before the horse. His vocabulary is splendid and his eloquence, notable. These are a testament to his communication studies degree, which, if I had to guess, would have first class honours attached. But what good is an eloquent speech about nothing in particular? I have grown weary of waiting for a meaningful response to anything I ask and have concluded that the reason for this vagueness is ignorance. I refuse to be led by a blind man, even if he has really cool hair. That highlights my first issue.
My second issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party overlaps with the first. He does not seem to have a grasp of effective policy. The meaning of “policy” is admittedly elusive, but there are certain things for which I demand exceptional evidence. One of those things is a policy on minimum wage, which I think does more harm than good to an economy. In his discussion with Let’s Talk About It podcast’s Jahleel Castagne, Nikoli, had much to say about Prestige Holdings Limited’s choice to advertise job vacancies in Spanish upon the influx of Venezuelan nationals to our shores. Of particular interest was his suggestion that pressure by the populace to raise the minimum wage was a viable solution to the apparent problem of persons not being able to raise a family on a KFC salary. The alarm bells in my head went off.
According to this study by Meer and West, minimum wages reduce employment (i.e. increase unemployment) over time in a dynamic manner, especially through a reduction in job growth. This holds even when questioning the validity of the traditional demand and supply model. There are arguments made for and against the validity of this traditional methodology which suggests more immediate changes in employment statistics when the minimum wage is increased, though most are for it. A study by Strobl and Walsh entitled “Minimum Wage and Compliance: The Case of Trinidad and Tobago” showed that the introduction of the minimum wage in Trinidad and Tobago resulted in a reduction in employment for low wage earners and an increase in the use of part time workers. This research has been cited by the Central Bank of Trinidad and Tobago in a 2013 working paper by research economists Reshma Mahabir, Vishana Jagessar, Crystal Neptune and Delvin Cox. This article has links to some relevant studies on the impact of minimum wages on unemployment.
To Nikoli’s credit, he acknowledged that people must creep before they walk and shared his own experience working in a herbal shop and later, starting his own herbal soap business. But it is this exact fact that suggests that he is not competent to do the job for which he is asking citizens to hire him. Such a policy decision would directly contradict the reality of his early employment. Sure, it is well-intentioned and even radical (I scoff at the word) to suggest that citizens should stand up and demand a vague “better” in the face of low wages. But if an increase in minimum wages increases unemployment over time, and if, as is most likely the case, traditional methods turn out to be valid and their findings on increases in unemployment in the short term are accurate, then why would he even dare to suggest pressure for such an increase as a solution? Is that actually better? A low-paying job is better than unemployment and these minimum wage jobs offer quick upward mobility through the provision of invaluable working experience. There is no shame in honest work and there is definitely no shame in growth over time. Is it that he wishes that others do not have the opportunity to work their ways up? Does he wish to make starting on a career path more difficult by removing the lowest rung from which people are to boost themselves? His mention of the gender and youth policies, as well as his clear desire to expand the public service only cement my opinions on his failure to grasp what makes for effective policy. Were these even policies? What did the gender and youth policies achieve? Has he seen the public service?
My third issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party is what I perceive to be his lack of regard for facts. In the interview above, he spoke about the existence of “multiple genders as opposed to male and female.” Biology and reality will make it clear that people are either male or female, with some genetic disorders accounting for intersex persons. Gender Dysphoria is a psychiatric disorder. You can be masculine, or feminine or androgynous in your gender and reflect this in your presentation. You cannot identify as whatever you want under the sun and be sane. That is called a delusion. I do not say this tongue in cheek. The politicising of gender and the invention of additional genders is an actual thing these days and in Canada, attempts have been made to mandate the use of invented pronouns and thus, limit free speech, all in the name of identity politics. I do not play that game and it will not do any good for Trinidad and Tobago to play it. A stable society requires an acknowledgement of basic facts like the existence of two genders.
On the less nefarious end of the ignorance-of-fact-spectrum, Nikoli stated with authority that in Trinidad and Tobago, you have to be at the age of majority (18) to access sexual education and sexual health treatment and resources without parental consent. A quick visit to the TTConnect website would show that this is not true. Further, minors can access information and consent to different medical procedures by meeting the threshold of the common law Gillick Competence test. The rationale of this test is that as a child develops, he or she becomes more independent and thus, is more competent to consent to certain things without parental input. Lord Fraser set out five guidelines in his judgment which are of particular relevance in this discussion, because the Gillick case was actually about sexual health education. He stated that (1) if a minor understands the nature of treatment/the advice given, (2) cannot be persuaded to inform his/her parents, (3) is likely to start or continue sexual intercourse without contraceptive treatment, (4) is likely to suffer physically and/or mentally if treatment is withheld and (5) the best interests of the child are taken into account, the need for parental consent shall be waived. So, Nikoli is either uninformed or intentionally sharing false information. Either situation should inform one’s decision to support him and his party, as it is acceptable to follow neither the ignorant nor the dishonest…especially when a simple Google search clarifies the matter. Can a man be trusted to manage an economy if he cannot manage a basic Google search? Have we not had too many Prime Ministers who bray and talk off the top of their heads on matters of public importance? I think we have.
My fourth issue is simple. Although no clear policy positions have been given by Nikoli, his Progressive Party’s website states that it is Centre Left on politics. What that seems to mean is that the party’s aim is to utilize the existing framework to improve social justice. This would be done through a mixed economy, an extensive social security system, increased regulation, trade union support, progressive taxation, wealth taxes and Keynesian economics. I subscribe to libertarian politics. I lean right. I love capitalism. I think the existing framework is horrible and that the government is too big. I hate regulation because it stymies economic growth and innovation. Trade unions are the bane of my existence and I think that they are a cartel…only, in the words of my friend Kevin, “Cartels actually provide services, so there is a difference!” I hate income taxes because they penalise citizens for being productive. I am definitely NOT a proponent of Keynesian economics. Government spending does nothing more than mislead us into overestimating a stagnant or recessive economy. My politics do not line up with centre-left politics. I like freedom and responsibility and while I do not have an issue with basic social security, I am neither naïve enough to think that it cannot be exploited nor bold enough to pretend that the public funding, monitoring, staffing and auditing of an extensive social safety net, with its high maintenance costs and associated bureaucracy, which inevitably reduce the amount of money allocated to help the people we want to help, is better than private funding and private charity. The quick response to last year’s extensive flooding is proof of the effectiveness of private actions by good and charitable citizens. The Progressives and I fundamentally disagree on what the role of government should be and to me, they are more of the same-old with a fresh, new face.
My fifth and final issue with Nikoli and his Progressive Party happens to be my primary one. His blatant use of identity politics is unbecoming to anyone with a modicum of conscience or maturity. I have already mentioned his pandering to the gender crowd, so it is clear to me that he is willing to play that game. I need not reiterate that aspect of things. The brand of identity politics that he seems to be milking most, however, is that of “youth”. While it is a fact that Nikoli was the youngest person to be appointed to the Senate, he mentions youth like clockwork every time he speaks as if it is some kind of virtue. Youth is as much a virtue as old age and the infusion of us-vs-them talk on age lines is unfortunate…and presumptuous…and sly. I do not see how the number of times one has orbited the sun affects the validity or effectiveness of one’s policies. Of course, if one has not actually outlined any policies, it becomes necessary to find a selling point. I get the sense that his sole aim is to become Trinidad and Tobago’s youngest Prime Minister and that he will stop at nothing to get there.
I am open to proposals and ideas and statistics. I am a sucker for a good scientific study and policies based on empirics. Empirics are sexy. Empirics are also absent from all of his statements and in their stead, we have received buzzwords, good intentions, doe-eyed naivety and shapeless, utopian assertions, which we are apparently supposed to excuse because he is “young” and aspires to “develop Trinidad to its fullest potential”. What exactly he means by that remains unspecified. “Give young blood a chance!” is a statement I have heard too many times this week as if the Progressive Party is owed a chance solely because its leader has not yet hit the big 30.
Politics isn’t musical chairs. The economy isn’t a UWI exam with supplemental exams in Semester 3 if you fail. This is not a Guild Election. We are discussing whether we should put billions of dollars into a government’s hands and trust them with managing it. We are discussing whether we can trust someone to do a job which will facilitate individuals in this country bettering their lives and the lives of their families and loved ones, through autonomy, responsible action, hard work and dedication. None of the previous parties meet the threshold and, in my view, neither does Nikoli’s. Trinidad and Tobago doesn’t need “leadership”. Political pundits have continually told us that we need “leadership”. Smooth-talking intellectuals with no grasp of the reality of our day-to-day lives have told us that they are the answer more times than we can count. What we need is freedom to pursue our best and a government that understands that it is neither parent nor nanny. The Progressive Party is rife with paternalism, is willing to pander to social hijackers like gender politicians and is void of direction. It is for those reasons that I shall not be lending my support to them.
Her Caribbean Legal Musings 
1. Gender and sex are two different things and cannot be interchanged. There are multiple genders and 3 sexes.
LikeLike
Sex is biology. Gender is sociocultural presentation. I get that. To divorce gender from sex as if the two are not correlated is to mislead though. Masculinity tends to be associated with males and femininity with females. Some males can be feminine and some females masculine etc. Many different levels of androgyny exist in between…but it is androgyny-ANDRO (masculine) + GYNY (feminine). To suggest that gender is nonbinary is to mislead. You cannot just identify as whatever you wish. What is this third sex you speak of?
LikeLike
great article
I’m currently being attacked on fb for my post on him.
LikeLike
Thank you. And no you’re not being “attacked”. I saw your post. I thought that it was illogical. His father did bad things and you compared him to his father on no valid basis. He ought to sue you for libel. Do not equate my critical commentary with your diatribe.
LikeLike
Excellent and insightful commentary.
LikeLike
Thank you for reading and for your feedback 🙂
LikeLike
Nikoli speaks eloquently, but he don’t have the experience and clear knowledge to lead a country at this time. I believe he would have stood a better chance, had he took a different direction. His narcissistic and egotistical ways is enough for me to see the type of person he is and the type of leader he will be.
LikeLike
I agree that he speaks well and that he is inexperienced and not knowledgeable. I cannot speak with authority about his narcissism or the lack thereof because I have not experienced it.
LikeLike
Gender Dysphoria and the spectrum on which gender lies are two different things. Dysphoria usually comed with a feeling of depression, stress and anxiety. The two arent always linked. Also, the are many economist that argue in favour of an increase in the minimum wage, and most studies that link unemployment and an increase in the minimum wage are discredited, just like most libertarian policies.
You had me with the fact that Mr. Edwards seems not to have a solid manifesto, or any manifesto for that matter, buy to say his statements have no foothold in the facts is simply wrong.
LikeLike
I agree that gender dysphoria is different from the gender spectrum based on the DSM criteria that guide the diagnostic process. Where I disagree, however, is with the assertion by Nikoli that there are multiple genders besides Male and female as he states in the interview. Gender is a binary with masculine and feminine on both ends and varying degrees of androgyny in between. Persons can present in various ways at various times. Gender refers to the sociocultural characteristics of sex. It is not independent of sex. Yes. Many economists argue many things. To say that the association of an increase in minimum wages with unemployment has been tacitly discredited is disingenuous. That simply is not the case. To say that “most libertarian policies” have been discredited is also disingenuous (and quite unspecific). Please quote me correctly. I am very careful with my word selection. I stated that he does not seem to have an appreciation for facts and that statement remains tethered to the two examples given. Those were the comments on the multiple genders and on sex education.
LikeLike
Well written, thanks for sharing your insights
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for taking the time to read and for giving your feedback. 🙂
LikeLike
I would say that since two of your commenters actually disagree with you on your beliefs and opinions, that you yourself need to take a step back and confirm whether your own statements are grounded in facts, or whether there is room for discussion and views on the topics you wish to label as fact.
LikeLike
Disagreement and agreement don’t alter the factual nature of statements made. Why do you think that they do?
LikeLike
The sad thing is that there are only a few who actually look beyond the surface.
LikeLike
That is true. People do not even have to agree with me. They just have to think critically and that would make me happy and the country better. It hardly happens unfortunately.
LikeLike
Excellent piece. It sums up the strategy of the Modern Left perfectly which is, if you have no plan to present, then use identity politics as your platform to campaign upon. We in the Caribbean are so obsessed with being “anti- imperialist” that we cannot end our love affair with socialism never mind the fact that it is a proven failure. I long for the day when we will have a party that will fully embrace capitalism and personal responsibility.
LikeLike
Thank you! So much! And I long for that day too. The wealth of our human resource and our culture demands it.
LikeLike
Ricardo can you say where is socialism a proven failure and where is Capitalism a proven success?
Can you also state which countries citizens have the best quality of life on the planet, socialist or capitalist?
LikeLike
I’m not Ricardo, but Venezuela, Cuba, Vietnam, Laos, Zimbabwe, Bolivia, Peru, Nicaragua, The Soviet Union, East Germany, North Korea AND EVERYWHERE ELSE IT HAS BEEN TRIED…meanwhile capitalism has raised every single place that it has been used to a higher quality of life. The US, Denmark, Switzerland, Canada, Peru after the IMF adjustments, India, Australia, The Caymans, Bermuda, The Bahamas and the list goes on. I suspect that you have some confusion about what socialism is and that you intended for Ricardo to erroneously state that Denmark and Scandinavian countries are socialist while having the best quality of life. Contrary to popular belief, private property is SACROSANCT in Denmark. Setting up companies and running businesses are both easy simple process. What they have is social democracy. That isn’t socialism. Socialism (a euphemism for communism) is the public ownership of all economic goods and the consequent removal of choice and competition. There is no rule of law when socialism is implemented. That’s the main difference between socialism and social democracy and it is a great disservice to yourself and to others to confuse the two.
LikeLike
I agree with some of her points but she has some serious biases and flaws in her argument that make me question what she says about his lack of policy clarity.
“Lack of regard for facts”
Science has supported the fact that there are more than 2 GENDERS. It also stood firm on the fact that there are two biological SEXES. Two very distinct terms that have been addressed by many, including the World Health Organisation. Her blatant disregard for this makes me question what else she throws out the window as fake because of her preconceived notions.
Also, the part about “you have to be at the age of majority (18) to access sexual education and sexual health treatment and resources without parental consent”. She then listed 5 very vague and subjective steps/criteria that have to be “passed” in order to finally get access to sexual education and health treatment without parental consent. This means that essentially it’s not actually available to minors as it should be or at least as freely as she claims.
“Her stance against centre left politics”
She stands firmly against income tax, government involvement and trade unions believing that welfare should mainly be seen to through private funding and charity. In a country like Trinidad with a colonial history that led to great inequality long before our independence with European settlers amassing large sums wealth, you can’t have a completely unregulated market (the capitalist dream literally wouldn’t come true) or else you’ll run into problems where only the rich have money to invest and slowly but surely the poor get poorer only having their labour to sell and no skills (exaggerated example of the proletariat). This compounded by an entire lack of trade unions would mean zero decision making power for the poor and the cycle increasing inequality continues.
I’m not saying whether the left or right political ideal is correct but the government certainly needs to play a (more effective) role in improving our still developing markets.
Before considering these main two points, I thought I largely agreed but after, I see that there’s potential for a LOT of twisted facts and biased viewpoints in her “article”.
She’s making valid points about his clear lack of economic and political experience though but nonetheless I would genuinely rather see his party at the moment than the current Red and Yellow options we have.
LikeLike
I am so happy you commented! Thank you! Your choice to speak in third person is a bit unsettling, but I shall address your two points in reverse order.
1. My opposition to centre left politics
I firmly oppose income taxation because it penalises people for being productive. An income tax is, very literally, the government taking a percentage of earned income as if it has an absolute, intrinsic right to do so. It is a charge for being an earner and is facilitated by penal sanctions against productive people. If anyone else does what the government does, it is called theft. The government has given itself the authority to rebrand theft, give it a fancy new name and deem it moral.
Nobody has a rightful claim to a share of any money earned by another person. Private property should be respected. Now that that is out of the way, I must let you know that I am for consumption taxes such as VAT, service charges etc. which do not demonize productivity. Our neighbour, The Cayman Islands is a wonderful example of how functional a country can be without income tax if there is respect for the rule of law, a strong regulatory framework which complements free and PRIVATE enterprise and when the provision of valuable products for consumers is prioritized. It has become the 14th wealthiest country in the world because of its fiscal policy.
Yes. I am against active government involvement in the economy. I think that a government’s role is to serve its people. Despite the spurious suggestions that a big government serves citizens, the relationship between a bloated government and its citizenry is one of codependence, This is why corruption is so rampant in socialist/communist countries. A government is made of people and people are neither 100% good nor bad. What they are, however, is self-interested. A big government functions like an overly-involved parent whose actions prevent the children from growing up. The best government acknowledges that human self-interest exists and accounts for it. Such a government does not get in the way of its citizens. Instead, it provides a safe, stable environment that facilitates their development. My mind turns to Adam Smith’s famous quote “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest.” A government is only needed to minimize and resolve conflicts of interest. It upholds the rule of law, protects privacy and private property. I agree with you 100% that the government should be more effective. I just think that active economic involvement makes it ineffective.
Yes. I abhor trade unions. I think they are regressive. I dislike the placement of artificial limitations on markets. They operate in very much the same way that protectionism does, by making competition more difficult (sometimes impossible). There is consensus among all economists worth their salt that protectionism harms economies. Further, collective salary negotiation does not augur well with meritocracy.
I think that private charity is more efficient than a public welfare system. For instance, Michael Tanner, Director of Health and Welfare Studies at the Cato Institute testified before US Congress that 70c of each taxed dollar that goes towards welfare is used to maintain the welfare bureaucracy instead of help intended beneficiaries. In contrast, Here are some statistics from one of the many private charity watchdog institutions on the administrative costs of private charities. https://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm/bay/content.view/catid/2/cpid/48.htm
Do you notice the difference? Check out what the St Louis Federal Bank has to say about who gives to charity: “Although several demographic characteristics have been found useful in predicting charitable giving, income is by far the most important predictor of giving behaviour, according to economists Robert McClelland and Arthur Brooks. Giving as a function of income has a U-shaped pattern-people in the lowest and highest income groups give larger proportions of their incomes to charity than individuals in middle-income groups. A plausible explanation for this is that people in lower-income groups tend to give more to religious organizations, while people in higher-income groups simply have more disposable income. (Interestingly, very rich people give almost nothing to religious charities.) McClelland and Brooks find that this U-shaped pattern persists even when accounting for additional variables associated with income. This relationship with income implies that the philanthropy industry will continue to thrive as the economy prospers.” We don’t want to make more people poor so that they could give more. That would be wrong. But we could increase the wealthy population by facilitating enterprise and that would increase charitable gifts. You know how we can do that? Through economies that prosper? Prosperous economies produce things of value, be they goods, services, etc. Increasing production requires an unencumbered market. Now, if an unencumbered market raises GDP, which raises income level, which raises the amounts given to charity and if a government welfare system is more costly to run, why not prefer charities? Why not optimize in favour of them?
Regarding countries “like” Trinidad and Tobago with a colonial history, refer to my statement on The Cayman Islands. See also Turks and Caicos Islands, Bermuda and The Bahamas. Your suggestion that a colonial history negates somehow alters economic functions is simply not true. If anything, we need to facilitate the growth that comes from deregulation so that our developing markets can thrive more quickly. My evident love for offshore financial centres should inform you that I do not want “a completely unregulated market” though I admit that in the original article, that was not clearly expressed. I hate paternalistic, bulky, hindering and non-facilitative regulation. I am for regulations which encourage the rule of law and stability. Trust is essential to large scale commerce and that requires legal certainty. Legal certainty requires a limited degree of regulation so that economic actors feel safe when investing. An example of the type of regulation I hate would be our local law regarding private vehicle inspection. I think it is a pointless law and ironically, after it was implemented, there was an increase in road accidents.
2. Lack of regard for facts
Because you claimed “science” and The WHO have acknowledged more than two genders, I refer you to The WHO. “Gender refers to the characteristics of WOMEN and MEN that are socially constructed. People are born male and female but learn how to be boys and girls who grown into men and women. This learned behaviour makes up gender identity and determines gender roles.” See the following link: http://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/health-determinants/gender/gender-definitions
There is masculinity. There is femininity. There are varying degrees of androgyny, which are expressions/presentations. You can mix black and white in several different ways, but the result will always be some form of grey. You won’t ever get red or blue or turquoise or anything else. There are two genders and there are mixes between the two. I have stated this in the article, but you have skimmed over it.
The strongly held belief that one exists outside of that binary system is a delusion. The definition of delusion is an idiosyncratic belief or impression that is firmly maintained despite being contradicted by what is generally accepted as reality or rational argument, typically a symptom of a mental disorder. I am not saying that people do not have these beliefs. I am saying that it remains the domain of their therapists and not of objective truth. It seems that my choice to put “as opposed to male and female” in parentheses rather than quotation marks has confused people. I shall adjust that.
In respect to the age of majority and sexual education portion, you have chosen not to click the TTConnect link that I so graciously provided in my article. Please do so. Google is wonderful. Regarding the 5 criteria by Lord Fraser, yes they are subjective. If you read the Gillick case, which is a part of our laws here in Trinidad and Tobago, you will realise that those five criteria are for doctors to be certain when approached by minors at health institutions. They must ensure that they have duly considered those five criteria. It is for them to protect themselves when parents try to sue them for administering treatment that minors request. Nothing stands in the way of a minor approaching a doctor to seek advice or treatment. The choice to administer remains within the doctor’s discretion and that discretion is guided by those five criteria. You have said “This means that essentially it’s not actually available to minors as it should be or at least as freely as she claims.” That is a huge non-sequitur because that is not what it means at all. Children are vulnerable. They are developing. They can also be impulsive. Advice on health does not harm them but treatment can. As such, professional discretion is necessary. Doctors use their discretion with adult patients as well. Why you would expect them to suspend that requirement for more vulnerable persons confuses me.
In closing, I would like to address your last sentence. I understand that frustration. I also feel like we have no real options. I cannot say, however, that I am willing to place an entire economy into the hands of someone so inexperienced who has shown me that he is not clear as to his direction. As such, I cannot share your stated preference. Thank you again for your thoughtful comment. I love debating.
LikeLike
Excellent! I must say though that given that the US is our main example of capitalism at work, it is difficult to embrace it fully as it has been used to advance a type of elitism that just doesn’t allow for social justice towards society’s most vulnerable. Looking at the culture and policies of places like Singapore which mix and match ideologies but depend heavily on holding decision makers accountable feels a bit safer than adopting captalism wholesale.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I am so sorry I took such a long time to approve your comment. It got lost in the pile and I just noticed that I had not. Thank you for your feedback! “Social justice” is an amorphous term to me. What do you mean by it? I will look more into Singapore’s economics and give you a more informed response very soon, but one thing I know about it is that it has been rated very highly in terms of ease of business. Thanks again and look out for my longer response!
LikeLike
I’m for capitalism. But removing regulations to stimulate growth is extremely naive and shows a lack knowledge of economic history. The last economic crash is evidence of what a lack of regulations can cause.
LikeLike
Thank you for your feedback! I disagree that it is naïve to suggest that deregulation facilitates growth. The last economic crash did not happen because of the kind of deregulation I am referring to. It happened because credit and mortgages were sold to too many people who would otherwise not have qualified for same. Those sub-prime loans then became assets purchased by the juggernauts on Wall Street against all better fiscal judgment. That is bad business, not deregulation. Lines of credit function like subsidies which increase demand without the requisite production. As more and more of those bad loans and mortgages failed, the bubble popped and the foundation upon which the banking system rested i.e. banks’ asset bases, crumbled. There is a distinction to be made between a regulatory framework which fosters trust in commerce (this was deteriorated by the time of the Lehman Brothers crash) and paternalistic rules which are implemented at will by a government and which come at a huge cost to economic actors, well beyond any intended benefit.
LikeLike
As I said, naive and unfamiliar with economic history. Twist it how you may, by calling it not that type of deregulation. This is the issue with libertarian ideology. Naive and unrealistic.
LikeLike
We will agree to disagree. Thanks for sharing your thoughts!
LikeLike
What I love most about this is that you’re a black woman😁
LikeLike
Thanks, I think. That is funny to me because I don’t do identity politics! And Im mixed by the way. 😂
LikeLike
Excellently written my feelings exactly. I went down to the launch of the party because I am one who likes to listen to all the different sides and how they plan to move us as a nation forward. Well after a short while I just couldn’t handle anymore and left because I realized was same ole same ole.
LikeLike
Thank you for your feedback!
LikeLike
You certainly reinforced your position with conslusive arguments. You have built such a strong case against him though, it’s like I’m seeing your legal background at play here Lol. You sure know how to defeat your opponent. If Mr. Edwards can defend this position, then we may see and know what he is truly made of.
LikeLike
Thank you for that. It made me smile. I shared it with him and we are meeting sometime in either July or August so that he can pick my brain and hopefully, tell me what kinds of policies he intends. That meeting has me excited already.
LikeLike
Can you do one for both the PMN and UNC leadership so we can weight on which is the better vote ?
LikeLike
I can try my best. A friend had suggested that I do an audit of the legislation which was passed during the PP administration and this current administration to start a discussion on which of them was more likely to derogate from constitutional rights. That requires hefty research. BUT I will try to facilitate your request as soon as possible.
LikeLike
Ok great, thanks for your response. Hope it gets done soon if you do pursue it.
LikeLike
Hi, I would like to meet with you and have a chat
I like some of what you said; I disagree with some of it BUT discussions, here, will not be quite possible because of the length for each – as seen from both your piece and a couple of the responses
Before I leave, tho, I should say that my request stem from the fact that I like to read assessments and I belong to another new Party – The Progressive Empowerment Party
I would like you to interview us and give us a feedback
My contact is: 488 4560
many thanks in advance for your response
LikeLike
Hey! As long as my safety concerns are put to rest, I don’t see why not.
LikeLike
This is the naivete of libertarian ideology specifically the taxation is theft mantra. Those same taxes afforded you the early education that formed your foundation. If by your ideology I shouldn’t have to pay taxes for someone else’s benefit , why should my taxes have paid for your education? I have no children so it doesn’t benefit me. Libertarians are so detached from reality they don’t realise everything isn’t black and white. Oh yeah for someone who doesn’t play identity politics you were in quite a rush to point out that you’re mixed.
LikeLike
I agree that you shouldn’t have to pay for my education. I’m not entirely sure what you’re arguing about. And that I am mixed is a fact of my life. I pointed it out because the person came across as mildly presumptuous, though not maliciously so. He stated that he especially liked that I was a black woman saying these things when it shouldn’t matter whether I am purple, pink, green or anything else. Ideas don’t have a colour. He should judge my ideas on their merits.
LikeLike