Dear Editor,
We live in the age of contortionists, distortionists, twisters and “analytical” spinners who pretend to be geniuses and who can take down any academic or intellectual at will. The venerable Joel Bhagwandin, the towering PPP intellectual and financial analyst, disposed of Mr. Ram, Dr. Goolsarran and I in a single letter to Stabroek News (6 November). That’s an incredible feat were it not for the fact that his response betrays academic shallowness, confusion, ignorance and blind loyalty. Here I refer to his response to my “GDP” letter (SN, 3 November). I read JB’s letter a few times and am not sure what he is saying. This talented young man has lost this old, decrepit and average man in his rigorous spin.
Essentially, though, JB, advances two arguments against me, GDP table and base period, and introduces confusion into each. Not so long ago, I charitably wrote that JB either misunderstood or misrepresented what I wrote but now he has moved beyond that. With respect to the GDP table, this is what I said in my 3 November letter: “these reports [BoG’s half-year reports] do not have a table of GDP for the first half of the year even though the BoG (or the BoS or both) are able to calculate growth… Without the GDP table, one is left to wonder how growth rates have been computed; the sectoral dollar amounts, in real terms, are necessary for the growth exercise.” Note I did not I write that the half-year report (HYR) does not contain ANY GDP table.
JB restated what I wrote in his own way: “He [Gampat] also asserted that the report does not contain any table with GDP as at the half-year period for 2024.” Then he proceeds to disagree with me and insists that the HYR contains GDP data for the first half of 2024, writing: “This is explicitly reflected in other tables within the report. It is quite mindboggling that these basic concepts and techniques have to be explained to a trained, seasoned economist.” Editor, may I make a request of JB: could he kindly unboggle the mind of this “trained, season economist” and show me where in HYR there are tables that contain the dollar value of GDP and its sectoral components for the first half of 2024? Tables 10.2 and 10.3 are the only two GDP tables in the HYR; the former contains GDP data at current basic prices, the latter at 2012 prices. Neither table has GDP data, nominal or real, for the first half of 2024. That was, and still is, my point.
If the dollar value of GDP are not available or not known, how did the BoS compute a real growth of 49.7 percent for oil GDP and 12.6 percent for non-oil GDP? Absent half-year dollar amounts, the BoS can estimate sectoral or the three GDP growth rates via modelling or averaging. But I doubt whether that’s what the BoS did because, to my knowledge, neither the BoS nor BoG has any econometric model of the economy, full or comprehensive. The HYR did not say how GDP growth rates were calculated and since GDP data are rarely, if ever, revised, modeling or averaging growth rates has to be ruled out. The forecast record of economists and statisticians, including those in Guyana, are no better than those of meteorologists.
What are these “other tables” that JB spoke about? It is at this point that the distinguished analyst introduced confusion. Switching from GDP, he told us about production indicators tables: “his assertion that there was no table on the GDP figures for the half-year period January-June, 2024, is inaccurate. Tables 10.3 (a) – 10.3 (d) reported on the production indicators for all the sectors, including for the half-year period, January–June, 2024.” There is a vast difference between GDP tables and production indicators tables. The two GDP tables are expressed in Guyana dollar amounts at current and real price (b = 2012) and conveys the most comprehensive picture on the economy. On the other hand, production indicators tables are partial tables that contain data on the physical quantum of commodities, such as sugar, gold, bauxite, poultry, fish, rum, various food items, various manufactured commodities, and various forestry products. All commodities in these tables are denominated in physical terms, such as tonnes, ounces, liters, barrels, cubic meter, etc. None of these tables conveys a picture of the overall state of the economy as GDP tables do.
To reiterate Tables 10.3(a) – 10.3(d) are not GDP tables, which are always expressed in dollar amounts. These “other tables” are “commodities tables” because they contain data on the quantum of various commodities produced by Guyana. The two sets of tables must not be confused and, to borrow from JB, “one has to compare like with like.” One cannot compare the dollar value of chicken with the physical quantum (tommes) of chicken or the quantum of chicken with the quantum of plywood or stones. Comparison requires a common denominator, a common medium.
JB’s second point is about base period: “Mr. Ramesh Gampat argued that the Bank of Guyana erred in the half-year report for the year 2024, that the base period for which the GDP growth was computed is unknown, thus he made the assumption that it has to be the end of 2023, and asserted that any other period would be nonsensical.”
I did not talk about base period, which anchors a time series to a particular point in time and calculates movements (growth) from that point. Introducing “base period” simply confuses the issue we are discussing. I merely wanted to know about the comparator period: growth in the first half of 2024 compared to when, the first half of 2023 or the entire year? The HYR does not indicate the comparator period and I assume that it’s the entire 2023, since the HYR contains GDP data for the entire 2023 (as well as from 2013 to 2022). The rub is this: since the HYR does not contain a dollar estimate of GDP for the first half of 2024 or 2023 but does have such data for the entire 2023, I wanted to know if growth rates refer to the entire of 2023.
JB concluded his letter with this sentence: “These argumentations and assertions by Mr. Gampat were a total waste of ink.” Of course, that’s the opinion of the learned gentleman but opinion is different from fact, data and science. Sometimes I wonder why this talented young man is so arrogant, intellectually dishonest and spins inconvenient but objective, evidence-based analyses to defend untenable positions. Of course, we, including JB, need to earn our daily bread, but tribal instincts and career prospects are apparently driving this esteemed analyst. These days, ethics, morals and truth can be dispensed with as easily as used toilet paper. Expediency is the name of the game.
Sincerely,
Ramesh Gampat