In science one tries to tell people, in such a way as to be understood by everyone, something that no one ever knew before. But in poetry, it’s the exact opposite.
Because most stars are so far away, their light has yet to reach Earth.
I don’t know about you but me, I have had an overdose of the so-called Triple External Shocks argument brought forward and used ad nauseam by Rama Sithanen for many months now to paint a very dark picture of our economy. The main problem with this argument is that it stands on shaky grounds at best. Let me tell you why.
1st shock: Price of sugar to fall by 5% this year and up to 36% within a few years
We knew that this was coming for a long time so that there is no element of surprise or shock here. We have been growing sugar for 300 years now and it’s been the commodity that has financed the development of other pillars of our economy – under that famous protocol – which incidentally have now dwarfed the sugar sector itself. Paradoxically, Le Grand Argentier has perhaps failed to realise that by recently announcing that the seafood hub would double in size in a few years’ time it will be yet another sector to dwarf King Sugar.
The share of sugar in the economy will inexorably keep on shrinking from its current 5%. This looks like a textbook example of the Product Life Cycle at work – you can only produce something for a given amount of time before you are outgunned by entrants with a lower cost structure than yours. Yes, the economics of the cane industry looks better than that of the sugar industry but we need to look even beyond. And this year’s price cut of 5% shouldn’t have taken so much of our Finance Minister’s saliva. The €URO has also been surging ahead this year, hasn’t it? Naturally, we should see it to it that we are treated fairly by the European Union.
Paul Dirac
Because most stars are so far away, their light has yet to reach Earth.
Edgar Allan Poe solving Olber’s Paradox in a poem
I don’t know about you but me, I have had an overdose of the so-called Triple External Shocks argument brought forward and used ad nauseam by Rama Sithanen for many months now to paint a very dark picture of our economy. The main problem with this argument is that it stands on shaky grounds at best. Let me tell you why.
1st shock: Price of sugar to fall by 5% this year and up to 36% within a few years
We knew that this was coming for a long time so that there is no element of surprise or shock here. We have been growing sugar for 300 years now and it’s been the commodity that has financed the development of other pillars of our economy – under that famous protocol – which incidentally have now dwarfed the sugar sector itself. Paradoxically, Le Grand Argentier has perhaps failed to realise that by recently announcing that the seafood hub would double in size in a few years’ time it will be yet another sector to dwarf King Sugar.
The share of sugar in the economy will inexorably keep on shrinking from its current 5%. This looks like a textbook example of the Product Life Cycle at work – you can only produce something for a given amount of time before you are outgunned by entrants with a lower cost structure than yours. Yes, the economics of the cane industry looks better than that of the sugar industry but we need to look even beyond. And this year’s price cut of 5% shouldn’t have taken so much of our Finance Minister’s saliva. The €URO has also been surging ahead this year, hasn’t it? Naturally, we should see it to it that we are treated fairly by the European Union.
