Dear Editor,
There is understandable public concern about the cost of living. This is not a new topic but has been a hot one in every country since 2020. In developed and developing countries, Governments are battling with this issue. In Guyana, our Government has been very proactive in tackling this problem through demand-side and supply-side policies.
Indeed, almost every conceivable policy option available has been deployed by the Government to address the cost-of-living issue. By now, we should all be aware that the Government removed taxes on essential items, supplies, and equipment used by farmers, as well as fuel, a key input in every sector, including agriculture. You will also recall that independent agencies such as the IDB and IMF commended the Government for implementing these tax-reduction measures, which were deployed alongside a raft of other measures to boost disposable income.
However, not everyone is totally pleased with the outcome of the policies. This is evident from the continuous public outcry. As a responsible leader, President Ali and his Government have not only expanded the policy toolkit but have also signalled their intention to implement other innovative measures to address this issue. His actions suggest that the President is continuously working and not pretending that the ‘cost of living problem’ has been resolved to the satisfaction of every citizen.
His proposal to establish farmers’ markets across Guyana is especially important. When implemented, we should see a dramatic reduction in food prices, especially for foods grown at home. This is because the middlemen in the value chain add a significant markup to the farm-gate prices they pay farmers for their produce. While allowing farmers to receive better prices, this solution will also provide significant ease for consumers.
From his public pronouncements, it is also evident that President Ali intends to go beyond retail markets. President Ali has consistently encouraged farmers to scale up their activities so they can improve efficiency and lower prices for locally grown food. His Government is also helping farmers increase output by providing equipment, technical support, and other interventions (e.g., fertiliser, shade houses, etc). In the near future, the SME Development Bank will also provide farmers with affordable financing so they can form clusters that allow them to benefit from economies of scale and lower production costs. These initiatives will certainly translate into lower food prices in the medium and long term.
While these solutions will not provide immediate benefits, they will deliver a food production system that makes food more affordable and accessible. In the medium to long term, they will also address the underlying causes of high food prices.
In the meantime, it is reasonable for citizens to consider how their own spending choices affect their household budgets. The Government has a duty to create the conditions under which the Private Sector can produce affordable food. Consumers, however, also retain some control over where and how they spend. If they make rational decisions, they can enjoy significant relief in the short term.
Thus, where a household can choose between a high-priced imported product and a comparable locally produced alternative, choosing the lower-cost option may stretch that household budget. Similarly, where fresh produce is available at a traditional market or farmers’ market at a lower price than in a supermarket, it is sensible to compare prices and choose the cheaper option. Likewise, preparing meals at home can be more economical than regularly purchasing restaurant or takeaway food.
This is not an argument that every household has unlimited choices or that Government should not respond decisively to cost of living issues. But the advice from the President for households to spend prudently is not an insult to the public; it is practical and common-sensical advice that every household is expected to understand when managing limited resources.
The public debate, therefore, should be less about manufactured outrage and more about practical solutions. While Government must continue to curb the cost of living through various fiscal and monetary policies, citizens, where possible, should compare prices, support local produce, and make choices that maximise value for their money. This is not controversial. It is common sense.
Kind regards,
Kevin Persaud
Dear Editor,
THERE is understandable public concern about the cost of living. This is not a new topic but has been a hot one in every country since 2020. In developed and developing countries, governments are battling with this issue. In Guyana, our government has been very proactive in tackling this problem through demand-side and supply-side policies.
Indeed, almost every conceivable policy option available has been deployed by the government to address the cost-of-living issue. By now, we should all be aware that the government removed taxes on essential items, supplies, and equipment used by farmers, as well as fuel, a key input in every sector, including agriculture. You will also recall that independent agencies such as the IDB and IMF commended the government for implementing these tax-reduction measures, which were deployed alongside a raft of other measures to boost disposable income.
However, not everyone is totally pleased with the outcome of the policies. This is evident from the continuous public outcry. As a responsible leader, President Ali and his government have not only expanded the policy toolkit but have also signalled their intention to implement other innovative measures to address this issue. His actions suggest that the President is continuously working and not pretending that the ‘cost of living problem’ has been resolved to the satisfaction of every citizen.
His proposal to establish farmers’ markets across Guyana is especially important. When implemented, we should see a dramatic reduction in food prices, especially for foods grown at home. This is because the middlemen in the value chain add a significant markup to the farm-gate prices they pay farmers for their produce. While allowing farmers to receive better prices, this solution will also provide significant ease for consumers.
From his public pronouncements, it is also evident that President Ali intends to go beyond retail markets. President Ali has consistently encouraged farmers to scale up their activities so they can improve efficiency and lower prices for locally grown food. His government is also helping farmers increase output by providing equipment, technical support, and other interventions (e.g., fertiliser, shade houses, etc.). In the near future, the SME Development Bank will also provide farmers with affordable financing so they can form clusters that allow them to benefit from economies of scale and lower production costs. These initiatives will certainly translate into lower food prices in the medium and long term.
While these solutions will not provide immediate benefits, they will deliver a food production system that makes food more affordable and accessible. In the medium to long term, they will also address the underlying causes of high food prices.
In the meantime, it is reasonable for citizens to consider how their own spending choices affect their household budgets. The government has a duty to create the conditions under which the private sector can produce affordable food. Consumers, however, also retain some control over where and how they spend. If they make rational decisions, they can enjoy significant relief in the short-term.
Thus, where a household can choose between a high-priced imported product and a comparable locally produced alternative, choosing the lower-cost option may stretch that household budget. Similarly, where fresh produce is available at a traditional market or farmers’ market at a lower price than in a supermarket, it is sensible to compare prices and choose the cheaper option. Likewise, preparing meals at home can be more economical than regularly purchasing restaurant or takeaway food.
This is not an argument that every household has unlimited choices, or that government should not respond decisively to cost of living issues. But the advice from the President for households to spend prudently is not an insult to the public; it is practical and commonsensical advice that every household is expected to understand when managing limited resources.
The public debate, therefore, should be less about manufactured outrage and more about practical solutions. While government must continue to curb the cost of living through various fiscal and monetary policies, citizens, where possible, should compare prices, support local produce, and make choices that maximise value for their money. This is not controversial. It is common sense.
Regards,
Kevin Persaud