Dominica-Weekly.com: News | Blue Isle Jazz | Caribbean Recipes | Historic Dominica | Photos | Classified Ads | Search Jobs

Dominica Island Blog: Sharing Every Dominican Moment with the World

Ramblings From The Nature Paradise of Dominica


How significant that the United States has inflicted itself with a financial wound so grotesque and debilitating that it will never fully recover. With big numbers get thrown around like they are nothing these days—a $140 billion tax refund here, an $85 billion bailout there. America must be one rich country. But America is not rich. It’s broke!

This US financial fallout will seriously affected financial markets around the worldwide and there will almost certainly be a trickle down effect on the already weak Dominican economy and throughout the Caribbean.

This will have negative implications on countries like Dominica – whose tourism and agriculture are linked to the fortunes of developed nations. Tourism is dependent of the volume of tourists and their spending power. Agriculture on the other hand is linked to trade agreement based largely on the interests of developed economies.

It is time we stop and evaluate this likely impact on Dominica and plan a way forward that is in the best interest for Dominica. It is obvious that the sustenance of the Banana industry is handing on by a threat and Tourism is struggling under the effects of high energy prices and airline travel.

Dominica needs to seek greater economies of scale, like the organization of Eastern Caribbean states (OECS) and the CARICOM Single Market and Economy (CSME). In this context, it is in Dominica’s best interests to move quickly and path any conflict-ridden movements affecting the CSME or the OECS.

The only cushion to this trickle down effect would be the degree of unity among the Caribbean countries, and Dominica should run to the front of the line to enhance and sustain its economy.

Your Opinion: What do you think Dominica should do to curb this U.S. financial fallout?


Tagged with: , , , , ,

Related Post

planefood

In the few next up-and-coming weeks thousands of Dominicans will be boarding flights from all corners of the global destiny for Dominica. Nearly every Dominican I’ve spoken too in the last few months - who is living abroad wants to be back home to celebrate Dominica’s Reunion - 30 years of independence.

If you’re one of those travelers who are concerned about eating healthy while traveling, airports can be particularly nasty hiccup in your plans. A club sandwich for instance, a common airport staple for wayward travelers, has 700 calories in single serving. Packing healthy snacks is your best hedge against fat and sugar-loaded or overpriced airport eats.

Once upon a time everyone had the liberty to stuff whatever food your heart desired into you carry-on. But today, according to the Transportation Security Administration website limits the following food and liquids items:

  • Beverages brought from home or purchased before reaching the security checkpoint in a 3 oz. or smaller container and in your quart-size, zip-top plastic bag.
  • Canned or jarred goods such as soup, sauces, peanut butter, fruits, vegetables and jellies - 3 oz. or smaller
  • Cheese in pressurized containers, Jell-O, pudding, whipping cream, yogurt or gel-like food substances - 3 oz. or smaller

If you Pay attention to the size regulations, it will keep your oversize items from ending up in the TSA’s trash bin.

On the etiquette side of things they suggest avoiding foods with an overly strong scent for the benefit of your fellow, and possibly more sensitive.

What snacks have you found to be the perfect mix of airline-friendly and healthy? Share with your fellow readers and travelers below.


Tagged with: , , ,

Related Post

Photo via politicaljib.com

Editor’s note:This post was guest blogged by Dan Tanner of dan-ruth-tanner.com

In the USA, politics is only window-dressing. That is because, unlike in Europe, each political party is associated with only one economic system: capitalism. The only difference between the Republicans (the party of Greed) and Democrats (the party of Envy) is who should principally benefit from that economic system. Greed says it should be the wealthy and corporations, Envy says it should be organized labor (and lately, the middle class). Both Greed and Envy would throw a boon to the poor; Greed would call for private charity to handle it and Envy would use government largesse.

In the USA, we have a strange system that provides great governmental stability but at the price of inflexibility. Because Congressional terms are 2 years (staggered among equal thirds of the membership) in the House of Representatives and 6 years in the Senate (also staggered among the membership) and separately by electoral – not popular – vote every 4 years for President, it is impossible to turn government over entirely to one party in a single election, and nearly impossible to do so even in the span of two or more elections. Moreover, the doctrine of 3 co-equal branches of government (Legislative, Administrative, and Judicial) means that we have nothing like a no-confidence process, and the impeachment process is cumbersome and rarely used, and some argue, not correct to settle purely political questions. (Impeachment may be political in nature, but carries no criminal sanctions but only removal from office and is supposed to be used only for “high crimes and misdemeanors”.)

But stable one-party rule inevitably leads at least to excess and usually also to corruption. Under capitalism, the Greed party always rejects regulation, allowing robber-barons to get rich quickly and easily in a wild-west atmosphere. But unregulated capitalism does not work – it carries with the seeds of its own destruction through pursuit of greed.

Historically, every time the Greed party has been in power for a long time, it builds a house of cards based on speculation that nears collapse and the Envy party must come to power and – as is its wont – implement some regulation. In the process, it rescues capitalism. Franklin D. Roosevelt did that in 1932 after unregulated stock markets crashed and unregulated banks failed. We have as FDR’s legacy a Security Exchange Commission (SEC) and a Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) to regulate, respectively, the stock market and banks. The Greed party thinks it reviles FDR, but the communists hate him far more because he rescued capitalism from the collapse that that Karl Marx called “the dialectic”.

After the Envy party runs its course in power and looses its luster because of inevitable corruption, etc, the US electorate, fickle as ever, swings back to put Greed back into power. Under Reagan (Greed party) banks and thrift institutions (savings and loans, mutual savings banks) were lumped together and deregulated. The result was disaster that should have easily been predictable: the S&L scandal erupted because the thrifts had to compete with commercial banks, but could do so with government insured funds!

To this day, deregulated thrifts no longer offer long-term (30-year) fixed-rate mortgage loans. No commercial company in the USA does, because 30-years is far too long a term to lock in an interest rate. So, during the Regan administration, Freddy Mac and Fannie Mae were created by government to buy mortgage loans for 30-year terms. This was an historic change. When my wife and I bought our house on a 30-year fixed-term mortgage we went to the local savings bank and that is where we got our mortgage. Sixteen years later when we paid it off (we were thrifty and made accelerated payments on the principal) we went to see the same loan officer at the same desk at the same savings bank to do it. That is no longer possible. When you get a 30-year fixed-term mortgage (or, nowadays nearly any other type of mortgage) you go through a broker who places the loan with a bank or a mortgage company or God knows who, and that loan is quickly sold. It is sold as part of a “bag” of mortgage-backed securities.

This whole apparatus operates outside of any regulation. The game quickly became to issue bad loans and quickly pass them on – inside a bag that defies inspection – to the next sucker up the line.

Now history must make a turn. The Envy party – which favors regulated markets – must come to power to correct the excesses allowed during Greed’s turn.

Will this happen? Can it happen? I wonder. I fear that there is enough racism in the US to enable Greed to cling to power.

Capitalism is a lousy system, but it is probably still the best economic system that mankind can devise. And it can work if properly regulated (but even regulators can be come corrupt; we’re all only human). And democracy is a lousy system but also probably the best we can come up with. But democracy requires a fair, intelligent and informed electorate (not one that will simply favor the party whose VP candidate has a hot body – but remember that women voted for the “cute” JFK), and the US democracy has been thoroughly given over to the donor class. Anyone elected to office lets the lobbyists write legislation while he or she spends all of his or her time doing nothing but raising enough money to run for reelection. The donor class prefers it that way because it allows only them to determine the electorate’s choices, and often as not, to totally own those who gain elected office. This is true of both Envy and Greed party officeholders.

If the electorate comes to its senses and grasps what’s at stake – saving capitalism, which will surely collapse if the present Greed policies continue, it will elect Envy this time around, both for the Presidency and with enough of a majority in Congress to make governing possible. In 2006 it came to its senses (Iraq was the issue), but could only elect an Envy majority that was so slim that only stalemate between President and Congress (and due to rules, often even between the parties in Congress itself), not real governing, was possible.

The joker in the deck is the power of the Military-Industrial Complex. Usually Greed does not want to control the MIC and Envy wants to but can’t, because the MIC not only enriches the wealthy and large corporations but also provides a huge slice of employment in virtually every congressional district.

I won’t be voting. That’s because I live in Massachusetts. It is a foregone conclusion that Envy will win the electors and that the electorate will return all of the Envy incumbents (many running unopposed) to Congress.

Instead I will observe – fearfully. First that racism will cause Envy (which historically needs to win) to lose. If Greed wins, things get worse. And even if Envy should manage to win, the patient may be too sick to save.


Tagged with: , , , , , , ,

Related Post