For whatever little it is worth, I thought last Saturday’s Newsfile was the worst I have ever seen. I have told a leader of Multimedia this.
So much shouting about so little – I learned nothing after 45 minutes of watching, and abandoned it.
As a simple citizen, it seemed obvious to me that:
- Ghana had made a loss. The net economic impact was a loss.
- Exchange losses leading to losses are net losses to the economy of Ghana (and therefore its people).
- Whether or not there is a strategic rationale for this loss is a separate but valid debate which can be had. I think the Cedi has been needlessly overvalued and therefore the loss is way too high. There are many competing investments in people and society that will get a higher priority weighting from me, but that is just me.
The frustrating thing is that so much time has been spent on whether GoldBod as a standalone made a loss. A kind of left-pocket-right-pocket argument.
I reported that money was stolen from your left pocket. You deny any theft. Then we discover it was your right pocket.
Is the key thing not that money was stolen from your trousers?
This reminds me of Sam George’s DSTV price reduction, which was not a price reduction.
I continue to agree with Vormawor. Whatever else this Gold matter is, it is also poor, opaque, and wobbly communications.
A little more transparency by politicians from the onset would have made the cacophony the IMF comments triggered unnecessary.
There can be good and strategic reasons for losses over a period. But then they should be calmly and professionally explained, in my view.
Thanks to Atsu for separating signals from noise. His treatment of the matter is exquisite. That is an exemplary illustration of the role independent scholars like him – a distinguished Professor of Economics can (or should?) play in society.
Lost in the whole debate, up to now, is any mention of externalities. Put bluntly, how much of this gold was obtained from Galamsey?
Any takers? Or is that where Obiara bɛgye ne blɛdi fool afe yi.
