'Horse dead and crow fat'

[Peter R]

Crow (as in John Crow) makes sense... Horse dead and Joncro nyam him...

[Rockman]

Not Honduras..

[Historian]

Maybe not, Peter

Crow (as in John Crow) makes sense... Horse dead and Joncro nyam him...

Horse dead and cow fat probably simply means that with the death of the horse, the cow will have more food to eat (in other words, the cow will get the portion that the horse normally had) .

[Sir X]

That too, it seems all those that paid with blood for a socialist or communist revolution came out with a better educated and capitalist class, compared to jamaica and grenada that flirted with the idea.

[Rockman]

Good!

[Peter R]

true enough, assuming there was a shortage of grass...

[Gamma]

damnit!!! they both work .... it is now down to us to use it in context ... a scavenger benefits or another domesticated animal? it makes a difference i think..

[Gamma]

btw i had heard a variation ... "horse dead and cow fat and donkey cubby born"

[Peter R]

interpretation?

[Assasin]

. I guess so

[Don1]

Good economic points as usual, Assasin .

With reference to Rockman’s post, I am not sure if Hugo Chavez should be held as a shining light for anyone to admire or emulate. (Have we not learnt anything from the failures of the Cuban model, the Soviet model, the earlier Chinese models, the North Korean model, etc.?)

By the way, here is another (albeit rather simple) way of looking at this matter of private vs. state ownership.

Privatization generally includes the following:
Increased efficiency (in order for the investor to maximize profits);
The implementation of new technology;
A higher standard of living, generally, for those fortunate in retaining their jobs;
Lower prices to consumers (in competitive environments).

Government ownership generally involves the following:
Over-employment in many cases (retaining those votes for general election time);
Marked inefficiency in service and products;
“A wi own it, so…” and its accompanying “don’t care” attitude, slackness;
A tendency to cater to those faithful to the party.

That's indeed a simplistic construct ...too much so...real life is far more nuanced.. not black n white but plaid or even shades of grey.

Privatization may also lead to:

Loss of strategic national assets to foreigners to dispose of as suits them..often in ways inimical to national interests

Increasing concentration of wealth to myopic, selfish local elite groupings...thereby strengthening a backward class system which is one of the main impediments to development

Wild speculation with national resources by privateers especially if transferred on soft or sweetheart terms by connected political cronies

Accelerated export of profits to foreign points where it may be more beneficial to reinvest surpluses locally

Higher pricing where barriers to market entry are significant and monopoly or oligopoly results and market players coordinate strategies to artificially prop up prices

... and many more possible ills which may result from privatization if it's done in the wrong way, to the wrong parties or corruption, incompetence and collusion is rampant between counter-parties in the privatization process

In Jamaica we have experienced and continue to be victimized by such practices in our neo-plantation economy dominated by a few families and their tribal JLPNP political underlings.

While privatization can be a huge positive if done correctly... it is naive to suggest in a blanket way that privatization = progress & prosperity

Case in point, the Scandinavian nations which generally enjoy the world's highest Human Development Indicator rankings employ a mixed economy with a strong industrial policy...where govt has equity stakes in major sectors of the economy...from controlling interest to minority equity...but Govt and private industry actively collaborate to evolve production modes that fulfill agreed national objectives....some people call that a Social Contract..Nordic style

Jamaica would do well to study that model for the lessons to be learned.

Selah

[Historian]

Of Course I Know That (Lol)

That's indeed a simplistic construct ...too much so...real life is far more nuanced.. not black n white but plaid or even shades of grey.

Well, I see I got Don1 to surface once again (lol) .

Now, bro, your eagerness to describe my post as “simplistic” and “naïve” is really unnecessary, as I know my post is (lol)! In fact, I included the following sentence -- with true sincerity -- as a part of the preface to my post: “By the way, here is another (albeit simple) way of looking at this matter of private vs. state ownership.”

In other words, my response is indeed “simplistic” because I certainly oversimplified the whole matter of privatization vs. government ownership. There are serious complexities, as you correctly pointed out, and of which I have always been aware, at least since my undergraduate years at university. However, since I had no genuine interest in making a detailed or even serious contribution to that thread, I saw no reason to elaborate beyond my posting of what the man on the street (and employees to an extent) experiences.

Finally, I share your view on the model employed by the Scandinavian countries. I have always admired the economic alternatives adopted by those countries, which is partially why Norway and Sweden are the countries that I would most readily relocate to if I had a choice at the moment.

But yes, I certainly agree with all of the points you made in your post!

[Don1]

ok boss... no disrespek intended

[Gamma]

my guess is that someone keeps on talking about EVERY striking irrelevant thing ... going on and on an on about it and somene is having to report what was said

[Willi]

Well jankro is really a vulture, not a crow. A real crow is not a carrion feeder.