Still, the long string of irresponsible statements uttered by the man responsible for the annual sprouting of hundreds of pockets of poverty throughout our island did not help matters. Here's what his score looks like:
2006: Triple External Shocks
2007: 5 cyclones along with early harvest
2008: 3 crises coupled with bumper crop
2009: He's working hard to prevent us from going into the ICU of the IMF but we're so resilient (come on, be thankful to the guy!)
I guess the next terms in this uncertainty-creating sequence are 4 storms, 2 earthquakes, 6 tornadoes, 42 volcanic eruptions, 3.5 tsunamis, 1 typhoon, 3 mudslides and 2 hurricanes.
11 comments:
The self-professed experts in economics who knew everything about anything are the last persons to whom we should listen to. Our local Chief Economist is among them. The famous editorial signed by Simon Jenkins titled 'When the goings get tough....' in the Guardian some months back is a perfect illustration of the degree of integrity left to these people after the disaster which has fallen on us. The speed and the manner in which 'les prophètes de mauvaises augures' take all the credit for any positive outcome is a measure of the hypocrisy and arrogance prevailing among our leaders. In the meantime the have-nots are served the usual sermon that one day life will be better.
Lol, I still believe you are for an opposition party :D You really dont like Dr Sithanen, do you?
It is amazing how everything is reduced to party politics in Paradise Island and to identify someone as an opponent as soon as he or she does not share the same opinion.
Well politics, personal feelings and all the rest set aside... it doesn't take away the reasons Moody's gave for investigating the 2 bank!
Those reasons are very much valid as proven by the corporate results coming out!
Hence also why the 2 banks in question have not commented on the issue publicly!
Hey Bruno, let me share a little anecdote with you. When I was critical of the MSM-MMM government between 2000 and 2005 some people would not look at the merit of my arguments and just deduce that it was the ultimate Labourite criticising political opponents.
When there was a change in government in 2005 and I criticised the economic policies of Sithanen some people concluded that, well, he didn't get his 'boute' so that's why he's so vocal. Some even asked whether I was really a 'Labour' because according to their low standards being that is about shutting your mouth and getting what you don't deserve. That's kind of amusing.
Of course this is not the strategy espoused by many a bootlicker: they instead always manage to be in government for their personal benefit alone.
Am sorry, I can't do anything about it: I was raised like that.
I wonder what the analysts at Moody would have thought if they had attended the crying-whining session RS organised when he found out that he might not get the Finance portfolio again.
@ SJ:
Now that I've read this string of comments, I remember the interview you gave to radio-sousou about the stimulus package and which got lost somewhere and was not aired... I now realise that you were probably a victim of the same kind of reasoning: "if you criticise X you are a Y, and if you criticise Y you MUST be X, else... No, there is no "else", we can't distinguish / we are lost between the shades of grey, you MUST be either black or white. And this preconceived opinion we have on you has no time-limit."
So, when radio-sousou interviewed you, they asked "Dan ki direksyon ou pou kozer" on purpose: which label to put on you. Then, they thought that you being a son of a Labour "tribun", you MUST have been blindly following whatever that party's stance was on all matters of the time. And when they realised that your analysis was in the same vein as those who were against Rama's policies, they were surely caught in their own game of opposing logic, when in fact logic coming from any side dictated that Rama's policies were in fact toxic ones. Yep, too late to seek another opinion on the matter, they axed/dumped your contribution without notice.
By the way, I'm almost sure now that the discussion staged between you and Kee Cheong Li Kwong Wing by ray-idiot-wouâââânn must have caught the journalist by surprise too because you two were going in the same general direction. Did this show during the meeting in the studio?
@ Anonymous of July 22, 2010 6:53 PM:
Maybe they could not care less for such mere cannon-fodder. As long as the loan-sharks are happy...
@akagugo: I don't think Habib Mosaheb was surprised because he knew that he had two guys with healthy nuances on his show that day.
I am reading this post again and trying to understand how I missed such an important observation: the guy was actually doing his mea culpa.
Can't help noticing that in 2008 as described in the post above he was also a calamity-counter.
Turns out the calamity-counter is the biggest calamity of all. And it’s important to note that in 2007 he said we had gone through 5 cyclones when the damage he had done to our savings culture was larger than the one done by three terrifying intense cyclones.
Post a Comment