HOW MUCH IS A BILLION DOLLARS?

  Sometimes we can get caught up with numbers that few of us really understand. For example, if you heard the the Government had spent a billion dollars on X (whatever X is) you would (depending on your political persuasion) say that was a fair price or that was completely exorbitant. But regardless of your belief as to whether the amount was fair or exorbitant the truth is that you really have no true appreciation of how much a billion dollars is. So let me help you by putting it in context for you:

If I told you that I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take you about ELEVEN AND A HALF years before that amount reached a million dollars. Now, if I said I would give you one dollar for every second that passes as from now, it would take a little over THIRTY ONE AND A HALF years before you collected one billion dollars!

Let me put it another way for you: if I gave you a billion dollars on the day that they crucified Jesus Christ with the proviso that you spend one thousand dollars a day every day, and you lived forever;  today you would have about a hundred and ten years to go before you ran out of money!

And that is why we find it difficult to understand news reports that say that a project cost $X billion or that the Government lost $Y billion on it.  Unfortunately, very few people in the whole world will ever amass any where close to a billion dollars either in cash or in kind and there are fewer still who really understand or appreciate how much one billion dollars really is. Oh! We know that it is a lot, but we have no real idea as to how much it is.

Perhaps it is time that we pay attention to Government spending and ask ourselves whether or not we are getting value for money or is there too much waste?

THE ESEQUIBO: WHOSE CLAIM IS BETTER?

 

The dispute between Guyana and Venezuela over the ownership of the Esequibo region has its origins in the distant past. In 1899 after an international arbitration the ownership of the region was confirmed to what was then known as British Guyana (the former name of the now independent country of Guyana).

The problem was that at the time of the award Britain was one of the most powerful countries in the world (if not the most powerful). Most Venezuelans believed then as well as now that the award was flawed and that Venezuela's claim was never properly or (more importantly) fairly adjudicated with the concept that 'might is right' dominating the decision. Certainly, there is a lot of justification for this belief that Venezuela's claim was  unfairly dealt with. Guyana has now said let the International Court of Justice deal with it. Venezuela has responded  with a simple 'why should we?'

It is fairly obvious that President Maburro (and yes, the misspelling is deliberate) is trying to resurrect this dispute as a way to garner support both locally and (more importantly for him) in Latin America where the distrust of the European powers has never gone away. 

So the question really is, does Venezuela really have a good claim to this very rich (in oil and gas) region, or is Maburro simply 'trying a thing'?

Except for the names and a few other obvious changes this story is rather similar to the current war raging between Israel and Hamas. Basically, the Israelis claim that they have a right to the lands that they occupy because they were forced out of there some 2000 years ago. Hamas claims that the Palestinians were always there but were basically forced out by the Americans and the Europeans some 70 or so years ago.  Now there is vicious killing (on both sides) especially of women and children.

All this goes to prove the simple truth that 'might is right' (even when it is wrong).

But going back to the Venezuela/Guyana dispute it is now almost impossible to say who has the better claim. It would be very easy to argue for or against either side. And either argument would be as right as it could be wrong. Certainly, my Venezuelan wife believes strongly in the justice of Venezuela's cause and my sister equally believes in the justice of that of Guyana. Me? I really don't know where the justice lies or who has the better claim, but I want to sleep in my own bed tonight so I'll side with Venezuela.

PERCEPTION vs. REALITY

 

Something that I read somewhere once, has remained with me forever. It is that there is only ONE reason for politics - only ONE reason for Government, and that is to make life better for the people! Full stop! Punto finale! There is no other reason.

So, with this injunction in mind I have engaged myself in looking at all the major (and minor) national political parties in Trinidad & Tobago. I have left out Dr. Farley and his team from this exercise because they are not national in their aspirations, but are only concerned with Tobago.

  Looking at the ruling Party first, I have rather reluctantly come to the conclusion that it has failed the country miserably. Take the number one issue, for example, on everybody's mind right now: crime. My (very, very unofficial) survey tells me that we have reached a stage where everybody knows personally somebody who has been affected one way or another by this terrible scourge that is plaguing our beautiful country The next stage after that is when everybody has a family member who has been touched by this scourge in one way or another. Unfortunately, we don't seem to be very far away from that. It would be very nice to be wrong on this point, but I don't think that I am.

The PNM also has problems with its cadre of leaders. As a Prime Minister Dr. Rowley has failed to gather around him persons of demonstrable competence in their various Ministries. Take, for example, the disastrous performance of the current Minister of National Security. The lousy performance of the Minister of Health has been pushed out of the headlines by the crime situation, but the Health sector is still an absolute disaster. The clear message is: don't get sick in T&T! And so it goes on; the roads are a mess, the education system is failing and in a country which has plenty of rain there is a sizable proportion of the population that can't get a regular supply of water.

With Dr. Rowley and Co. failing so obviously then it would only be natural to assume that the opposition UNC would be an overwhelming favourite to win the next elections. But this is clearly not so. Even the most die hard supporters of the UNC are privately admitting that "things look tight". For better or worse, this is obviously a fault of the current leadership. Mrs. Persad Bissessar has failed in her bid to present herself as a credible alternative Prime Minister. Part of the reason why this is so is because she has failed to gather around her credible, strong and demonstrably competent people. Indeed, the perception is that anybody who MIGHT be able to present him/herself as a credible leader is unceremoniously booted out of the Party or "killed" politically. Unfortunately, in politics perception is reality, so it really doesn't matter whether this is true or not. What is true is that such a perception exists. And this perception reinforces the negative opinion that people have of Mrs. Persad Bissessar.

Then we have the two "hopefuls": Phillip Alexander and Gary Griffith. Again, unfortunately, neither of these two gentleman seem to have been able to garner support from strong and competent persons. To be fair, both of them have made some excellent points as to how they think the country should be run and how they would do it if given the chance. Their problem is that they are perceived (that word again) to be 'one man shows' and without any kind of party political infrastructure.

So we come back to the beginning of this post and the question that ought to be in the forefront of everyone's mind: are YOU better off today than you were 8 years ago when Dr. Rowley and his team came to power? If you are, then it is clear who you should vote for. But if you aren't better off then the question as to what you should do is still (rather surprisingly) up in the air.

TYHE ISRAELI/PALESTINIAN DISPUTE - CARICOM SHOULD STEP IN

 A long career in law (more than 50 years) has taught me a few things: the first is that a bad settlement is always better than a good judgement. If the argument (to use an admittedly silly example) is about who owns a dog then it is better to reach a compromise of sorts rather than go through the time and expense of a major trial that could end up costing more than the dog is worth. Of course there will be an argument that X loves the dog too much to allow Y to have it (or vice versa) and the solution of King Solomon to cut the dog in half is clearly unacceptable. A compromise in this situation could range from one paying to the other the price of the dog or some portion of its value.  That there could be other solutions to this otherwise intractable problem is obvious. The point here is that both X and Y have equal but different claims to the dog and some sort of compromise is obviously essential.

The next thing that was drilled into me as a young lawyer is that if you ever want to understand a problem go back to basics, Without an understanding of the basics of the problem a solution will always elude you.

With these two self imposed injunctions on me I have found myself looking at the latest events in the long running Israeli/Palestinian dispute with a great deal of dismay. Clearly, given the whole history of this matter starting with 2,000 years ago and coming up to date it is clear that BOTH sides have rights and that neither side is innocent of wrong doing. I'm not going to get into the argument as to who is more to blame or who did what first. At the end of it all there is a serious dispute that requires  compromises from BOTH sides before there can be any resolution. 

Now, a compromise is just that: a compromise! In a compromise neither side will get what they want, but the basic question would be 'is this the best solution for everybody?' And such a settlement could be achievable if only there could be some sort of dialogue. "Jaw-Jaw" is always better than "War-War". And that is the third thing that I learned.

I hesitate to give my own ideas of what a compromise solution might look like. For one thing, this is not the purpose of this particular post. But I do have some ideas.

The purpose of this post is to criticize the leaders in Caricom for their failure to come forward and try to insert themselves  as a neutral third party to try and achieve a settlement. People (on both sides) are dying and obviously calmer heads are needed to try and bring some sort of resolution to this conflict. We (i.e., the citizens of Caricom) have nothing really to gain from trying to help but then, people are dying! If that alone was not a good reason to try and help stop the carnage then nothing is. There could even be some side benefits to us mounting  (or at least trying to) mount the world stage, but our basic aim should be to try and prevent more people who could be alive next week staying alive if they weren't killed today. The problem with dying is that if you are dead it will be for a lllooonngg time!