Let me first thank Right From Yaadfor the invitation to post an article on their site. I think their work for the most part is needed for Jamaicans to read at this time in our political and economic history…..Read my contribution below:
KILL THAT NOISE!
It seems as if week after week the Jamaican Taxpayer is hoodwinked by the incumbent Peoples’ National Party (PNP) Government and its operatives in the media. It is almost unbelievable some of the tripe passing as ‘Editorials’ coming out to print from the Gleaner Editor’s desk.
Since the general elections of December 2011, the Gleaner and various other news outlets with sympathies to the governing party have abdicated their 4th estate role as watchdogs and have instead taken on the role of lapdogs for this crypto-socialist regime. I will give a few examples:
Economics and Applied mathematics are not inherently difficult topics. In a lot of cases, they are merely an expression of some specific ideology in a symbolic form. One example of this, is the Laffer Curve.
The point of the Laffer curve is to show the relationship between the amount of revenue a government collects at each point of a tax rate. A tax rate of zero percent obviously raises zero revenue, while a tax rate of 100 percent is what mathematical economists call “slavery”, and is usually avoided as a fiscal policy. The idea is to find the point on the curve which revenue collection can be maximized.
Obviously, this parabola is nothing more than a graphical illustration of the porridges that Goldilocks had to drink. Too hot, and no one has any money to pay taxes. Too cold, and government gets no revenue. We have to find the point where its just right.
The problems with this should be fairly obvious at this point.
In a country with a progressive tax rate, you will need more than one Laffer curve. Sometimes, a lot depending on the demographic. This is a problem, because the Laffer curve was originally intended to help rich people.
The first bullet point needs some more explaining. The Laffer Curve was formalized by one Arthur Laffer, one of the main proponents of Supply Side Economics. The thrust of his argument was that the tax rate that maximizes revenue was at a much lower level than previously believed: so low that current tax rates were above the level where revenue is maximized. So, what should be done was to lower the tax rate – for rich people.
Supply Side Economics defined
Previously, Supply Side Economics was called horse and sparrow economics. Why?
According to John Kenneth Galbraith, the theory dates back to the 1890s when it was called horse and sparrow theory — i.e., if you feed horses enough oats, it will pass through their digestive systems and their droppings will provide enough leftover oats to feed the sparrows.
It is now known as either Reaganomics, after its most popular promoter, or trickle-down economics,, based on the idea that the rich will use the money saved from taxes to re-invest in the economy, instead of, you know, hiding it the Cayman Islands.
Suffice to say, the implementation has had some controversial results, especially under George W. Bush.
Bush cut taxes for the rich, eliminated the inheritance tax for wealthy people too stupid to consult with a financial planner, gave away bribes called tax incentive packages, sought and got an $800 billion bailout package (which he called $700 billion bailout), and paid for it all with a Chinese credit card.
During this same period, the dollar slipped against world markets, losing so much ground that some nations chose to no longer peg their currencies to the US dollar. Once at par with the euro, the US dollar lost a third of its value. When Bush junior entered office, the Canadian dollar was worth about 65¢. By January 2008, the Canadian dollar exceeded the value of the US dollar for the first time since 1976, although it has since receded to about 95¢, due in part to governmental intervention,and falling oil prices.
It’s also worth noting that N. Gregory Mankiw, who was at one point the chair of the president’s Council of Economic Advisers, actually lists supply-siders in his introductory economics textbook under a section entitled “Charlatans and Cranks.”
However, like all economic policies, it has its place, but a problem occurs when you shift the tax burden from the rich to the middle and poorer classes.
Peter Phillips, you bloodclaat dunce
Jamaica is a nation of higglers. Not in occupation, but in thought. Our idea of wealth creation is a simultaneous exchange of good for money – it is present centered. W do not appreciate that over time assets – and this includes people can , well, appreciate. So we ignore the stock market, but get caught up in monthly payout Ponzi schemes like Cash Plus. And this is what Peter Phillips has essentially created with his policies – a national Ponzi scheme. The government has already squeezed all the taxes they can from Jamaican people. See that second Laffer curve? Let me show you again:
Growth, not maximum revenue
We are waaaayyyy on the right hand side of he Laffer Curve – meaning tax evasion and black market trading, but the cool thing about the above curve is that it focuses on growth maximization, not revenue collection. You keep collecting more and more taxes, you will reach a point where you can’t get anymore taxes, just like how a Ponzi scheme reaches a point where it can’t get bring in any more money to pay its investors.What you need to do is stop taxing middle and lower class people, fix the bureaucracy and fix our infrastructure, if you want to get your our damn money. In other words, Supply Side economics for everybody.
I had previously criticized Javed Jaghai on his naivete and intolerance with regard to the victims of the Jamaican political system. On top of that, he openly admits to liking men’s testicles. While the idea that anyone would fantasize about men’s testicles disgusts me, so does my classmate who picks her nose with her pinky finger. Thus, having worked and lived with battymanism, and its female counterpart, battywomanism, their subcultures do not bother or threaten
Time and again, I see good people stand by as violence is inflicted upon defenseless victims……The onlookers in traffic may have sympathized with us but they dared not defend us. If these windscreen-wipers had assaulted me, many Jamaicans would have called in to radio programs and would sound off on social media to express that while they don’t ‘condone the homosexual lifestyle,’ they don’t feel it is appropriate to physically harm gay people. Some may even graciously offer a word of caution that we should be mindful of the cultural context and shouldn’t do anything that might trigger such a violent response from the sexuality police.
That particular spot where Mr. Jahgai was confronted can be thought of as an intersection between the poor people of Standpipe, with their ghetto values, and situational ethics, and the upper- and – middle class residents of Barbican and Liguanea, with their ghetto values and situational ethics. The differences can be quite jarring, especially if you do not realize that, despite the obvious differences in wealth, the street sweeper and the those hoity-toity people in their fancy cars are essentially the same thing. One thing we can be sure of. When we read the Bible, the would not have been walking with Christ in the New Testament, but been cursed out by the Prophets of Old.
This is what Mr Jaghai failed to realize in his guest essay on Veritas. Jamaican political parties are not the problem. We are. The only reason the parties exist is because the Jamaican people dreamed the into reality to help them against the British, and later each other. The parties are not some ideological geniuses. They are election machines. They exist because we are too afraid to confront the System, when it was Neo-Capitalism, Post-Colonialism, Neo-Liberalism, and now, Hypercapitalism. When we decide to stop grouping together like sheep, stand up, take risks, and engage in private enterprise and individual action, then they will die off.
Now, I don’t know what Jesus would , have don, but I know what I would have had done. Had I come upon them yesterday, during my usual walk from Papine to Half-Way-Tree, I would have had probably been blogging a longer post about the following:
Some funny looking niggas (the gays and the window cleaners)
The risk aversion among the observers. Yes getting shot or stabbed hurts (personal experience), but that is no excuse to stop you from doing the right thing.
The fact that one guy had to call a whole bunch of dudes to gang-up on some blonde, coollie faggots. Thus proving that your average Jamaican gay man has more balls that your average Jamaican “rude boy”
That if a man swings a cutlass at you (or nearby homosexuals), raise your left arm straight up to block his right arm, then use your right arm to catch him in an armbar.
I’m not fucking with you. This isn’t some belated April Fool’s Day joke, that bitch really does have balls. While this may seem trivial to you, it is not to me. I will, in all likelihood, be attending the University of California system in about a year. The problem is that I will be located in the Bay Area, so any tall black woman with her own unprocessed hair must now be put under Tranny Watch.
I don’t like this tranny shit. It disgusts me. It used be easy to spot these types.
Now just because something disgusts me, doesn’t give me the right to act violently towards it, or be a threat to its existence. Homeless people, baby diapers, afrocentrists and PNP supporters all disgust me, and the majority of decent honest hardworking citizens. Yet we tolerate them in our society, and in many cases seek to improve their lot. But my main problem with these trannies is not that they disgust me. It is shit like this
He kissed me on the cheek and put me in a cab, where I received his very first text: “You’re a complete pleasure. -Aaron.”
In the next month, Aaron and I went on a series of casual dates (the New Museum, a Tribeca Film Festival screening, the opening night of J.J. Abrams’ Star Trek), before I found myself on his bed, naked
This is exactly the type of dastardly, disgusting, devious, deceptive, deceitful, diabolical, disingenuous, disgraceful, disdainful, damnasty, despicable, dervish, despondent and demonic behavior that passes for progressiveness. Who the fuck is s/he/it to decide on my behalf that I should be attracted to a lie? This person has gone ahead and made me engage in behavior that I would not have had consented to otherwise! Just because you want to play The Crying Game doesn’t that I want to as well!
And then there are the justifications for their sex gender change.
I was born a girl but in a boy’s body, as media headlines tend to scream when telling stories like mine.
LOLWUT? How the fuck would s/he/it know what a girl feels like? Is there some sort of objective standard that allows us to know what it is to be a female? Some sort of checklist, where you can match your feelings with a pre-approved Female Emotional and Objective Feeling Checklist? Sorry, but I don’t believe in dualism. You went and did your gender change for some reason, but not the one that makes the media rounds.
Nolie, this shit weirds me out. Imagine carrying a girl home, and finding out, months later, that its a man. That means that you’ve been banging a fleshlight instead of a vagina, because s/he/it cut off s/he/its pee-pee and replaced it with a pum-pum.
Luckily for the rest of us , there is a solution. Instead of the binary choice of Male or Female normally given, there should be a least clealy visible four gender choices in social situations, one for Male to Female, another for Female to Male, and maybe even another for whatever the fuck is in between that. That way, the active community of tranny-loving deviants can go mate with those types, leaving the rest of us to engage in our normal activities.