Jamaica’s poverty levels increase

[evanovitch]

Jamaica’s poverty levels increase

Prime Minister Bruce Golding. New data have revealed that more Jamaicans are sinking into poverty.

Prime Minister Bruce Golding on Tuesday told Parliament that there has been a gradual increase in the country's poverty levels.

The percentage of Jamaicans categorised as poor rose to 12.5% in 2008 and then shot up to 16.5% last year, the highest level recorded since 2004.

The Prime Minister said his administration is closely monitoring the trend.

“It’s naturally of concern to us. It’s not unique to Jamaica but I am not offering that as an excuse. The US, for example, just recorded 3%, the highest level of poverty since 1994, so it is part of the effect of the global downturn that we have had,”

“It is something that we have had to be watching and it is one of the things that is given greater urgency to the efforts that we have made and that we will have to continue to make to strengthen the social safety net coverage,” Mr. Golding said.

He told the House that the Survey of Living Conditions for the last two years will be tabled by next month.

[blugiant]

Re: Jamaica’s poverty levels increase

soo bruce a blame de us instead aff oww imm mismanage ja eecaanyamikk. beg beg bruce lookinn fe annada small till payday



mii wandariff imm bawlinn bout remittances , jamaica welfare, fallinn

[neutral]

Re: Jamaica’s poverty levels increase

In his defense I would say that it is irrelevant whether bruce mismanaged the economy or not,almost every country on the planet is feeling the effects of the economic downturn.
In most cases the US is indeed to blame,things will get a lot worse before they get any better,and in many cases some countries will never recover,and jamaica's poverty level will continue to increase and not recover for years to come.

[evanovitch]

Blu u need to read dis..it bears being posted again

Washington (CNN) -- The Financial Times reported Sunday that "global economic co-operation is in disarray and further battles in the currency war look likely after the weekend's meetings of finance ministers and central bankers end with no resolution."

The rancorous meeting took place here in Washington, in the sleek headquarters of the International Monetary Fund. The ministers and bankers had gathered to settle a big dispute over interest rates and currency between the United States and China.

China thinks U.S. interest rates are too low, and the U.S. dollar too cheap. America argues the contrary: It is China's currency that is out of line.

Many influential Americans share the Chinese point of view: Thomas Hoenig, head of the Kansas City Federal Reserve, has strongly argued for higher U.S. rates to prevent future inflation. The Hoenig view is endorsed by prominent financial commentators, such as CNBC's Larry Kudlow and the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal.

But this is one case where the conventional wisdom in America is right. In fact, the conventional wisdom does not go nearly far enough.


We all can see the responsibility of Wall Street and the U.S. mortgage market for today's global recession. Yet behind both is a more fundamental cause: China's financial rise. As much as the products in the aisles at Wal-Mart, this recession was made in China.
China earns its living by selling to the United States. In recent years, it has sold more and more: China's exports doubled in the 1990s. In the 2000s, they doubled -- twice. And of course far and away the biggest market for Chinese goods was the United States.

Economists would expect that China's huge trade surpluses with the U.S. must sooner or later cancel themselves out. It's basic supply and demand.

1) China sells us more than it buys.

2) Therefore China accumulates dollars.

3) Therefore China spends the dollars.

4) Therefore the dollar declines relative to Chinese currency.

5) Therefore Chinese goods become more expensive.

6) Therefore Americans buy less from China and sell more.

7) Therefore the trade surplus ends. It's all beautifully self-regulating.

The trouble with the theory is that in China's case, step 3) does not happen.

To keep China's population working -- and to stop China's population from protesting -- the Chinese government must keep the exports moving. To keep the exports moving, China must keep the currency cheap. To keep the currency cheap, China manipulates its banking system so the accumulated surplus dollars never get spent.

Instead, the Chinese lent the dollars back to us. And because the Chinese had so many dollars, they lent the dollars very, very cheaply.

You got a fabulous deal on your mortgage because China's workers were prevented from spending the money they had earned.

This process accelerated through the 2000s, but it went into hyperdrive in 2005, when China's trade surplus abruptly spiked. Bigger surplus, more dollars, more lending. 2005 was the year the subprime mortgage boom began.

China's lending spree translated into an American debt binge. The debt of the U.S. nongovernmental sector surged after 2005 to levels last seen in -- uh oh -- 1929. And from the top of the roller coaster, it's a long, scary ride back to Earth.

The U.S. Federal Reserve has tried to cushion the pain of the Great Recession by cutting interest rates to zero. But those low interest rates have done an interesting thing: They have turned the tables on the Chinese.

Zero interest rates in the U.S. are pushing down the value of the U.S. dollar against every world currency. A dollar bought about 110 yen in the summer of 2008. A dollar now buys 83 yen.

The Chinese government has fiercely resisted a corresponding decline in Chinese currency. But that resistance has nasty internal effects for China.

As America prints more and more money to prevent deflation, China must (if it wants to sustain the dollar-renminbi parity) print equal money -- risking inflation. The excess cash that once triggered a housing bubble in the U.S. is now sloshing back into China, creating an even more horrifying housing bubble in China's big cities. China has been placed back where we were in 2005.

China faces two main policy options.

One would be to accept the need to stop Chinese inflation and allow its currency to rise -- accepting reduced exports and employment in China.

The other? Continue manipulating the currency to sustain Chinese exports and employment -- and accept accelerating inflation and probably an ultimate crash.

If China's finance ministers and bankers are yelling at Americans at the IMF, it is not because Americans are wastrels and spendthrifts. It is because China wants us to subject the American population to more economic pain to redress a problem the Chinese themselves have created for the world and for us.

Nuts to that. Let 'em howl.

The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of David Frum.

[johnnycakes]

Re: Jamaica’s poverty levels increase

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Natral</div><div class="ubbcode-body">In his defense I would say that it is irrelevant whether bruce mismanaged the economy or not,almost every country on the planet is feeling the effects of the economic downturn.
In most cases the US is indeed to blame,things will get a lot worse before they get any better,and in many cases some countries will never recover,and jamaica's poverty level will continue to increase and not recover for years to come. </div></div>


Natral,
Thank you for saving me the time and trouble to post what you did.
I guess Jamaicans are no different from the people in the States blaming the TITULAR head of state for the condition of the economy which controls the government and not the other way around.
Mr. Golding has no more power or ability to fix capitalism than does the head of state in any other poor country.

If you have a capitalist economy, you have lots of poverty above and beyond the official rate that the government doesn't even want to make public.

In the United States for example the OFFICIAL poverty rate is US$21,000.00 per year for a family of four when the real amount of money needed in the States for a family of four is about double that.

Any idea of what the Jamaican government considers the poverty level/ the amount of money needed to NOT be in poverty and what do you consider the real figure to be?

Is it not interesting that capitalism is failing the people badly and somehow the powers that be (government/big business/media) have made the elected officials the cause of it ?

I would say that the people have been conditioned to do that rather than have them blame capitalism. That way they won't go after the real problem but rather the politicians who are not admirable people to begin with since they know what the problem is but cannot or will not address it.

They saw what happened to Michael when he only dabbled in social programs and talked about socialism and they are not about to stick their necks out and join the unemployed.

The people are adequately misinformed so that they will not cause the status quo any concern.

BG is a case in point and he is far, far from being alone in blaming whomever happens to sit in the P.M.'s chair.