- Bidding for Black Bess development? Read More
- BEHIND THE HEADLINES: The case for a Caribbean debt initiative Read More
- Pakistan on top Read More
- Cameron defends axing of Simmons Read More
- FLYING FISH & COU COU: People fearful of next step Read More
- SATURDAY'S CHILD: Pros, cons and pseudos Read More
- Bashment ‘part of we culture’ Read More
As the end of yet another year approaches, it seems appropriate to reflect upon the seemingly endless turmoil that continues to engulf mankind (hereinafter referred to as “we”). Essentially, this has always been and continues to be a struggle between the “haves” and the “have-nots”. The reasons for the existence of this disparity appear to be that the former are generally more gifted, more egocentric and more greedy than the latter. To counter said disparity “we” have tried, over many centuries, to level the “playing field” by using a variety of socio-economic policies. None of these has been a stunning success, for the simple reason that “we” have been unable to level the inherent abilities, capabilities and motivations of the players thereon. Given that seemingly intransigent problem, “we” may have to live with the status quo indefinitely, for greed per se is the engine of growth in any society/economy and growth is the lifeline of both the “haves” and the “have-nots”. “We” may therefore need to promote greed, while convincing the resulting “haves” that it is their own best interest to become their brothers’ (have-nots’) keepers. Not for noble altruistic reasons but for the purely selfish, self-centred reason of being able to remain “haves”. If said “haves” do not become their brothers’ keepers, then their brothers may well become their keepers; that is, keeping them behind the security bars of their homes in gated, possibly guarded, communities and away from access to the places of entertainment and recreation that they would wish to frequent. I could, of course, be way off target here, but it sure seems “we” face Hobson’s choice.