Dear Mr Salt...

...If I hadn't known you as a businessman, and a successful one at that, I would have labelled you a politico on reading what you had to say (August 16) about the current malaise of our tourist industry.

Not that I take issue with how you describe the status quo. Indeed, I support you to the hilt... except for what I consider as two weaknesses, perhaps even flaws, in your diagnosis and prescription.

Firstly, like several local politicos and, sadly, even some professional economists, you did not apparently think sufficiently in depth before uttering the punchy oft-skewed generalisation: "Tourism employs a third of the working population and accounts for approximately a third of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP)".

Barely seven weeks earlier (June 26) it was reported in this same paper that an "economist" highlighted the important role this (tourism) sector plays, accounting for 24 per cent of GDP and 17 per cent of employment. Both these figures are a far cry from your own 33 per cent ('third')!

Who is right?

There is incongruity, albeit no exaggeration, in the economist's claim. Yours is not incongruous, but overly exaggerated. Or is it? Only the National Statistics Office can enlighten us. But, surprisingly, they demur, even though twice (July 17 and August 9) I asked for their explanation, suggesting it was faulty statistics in collection or in compilation.

That's the kind of service we sometimes receive from the professionals! Please, Mr Salt, check whether you are chairing a Planning and Product Directorate of an industry almost equal in importance to the whole public sector, or one which provides work opportunities for only half of what you claimed. Perhaps you would prevail on the NSO to undertake a survey, this time not on farm structure, but on the tourist industry's employment culture, with a view to explaining the yawning gap between its contribution to the GDP and its job creation potential.

Secondly, I quote you again: "But facelifts cost money. We need... Lm30 million to get tourism back on its feet". Amen. But then you proceed: "... the government could launch a tourist bond to raise the money needed, or use other fiscal measures, or get a loan from banks." Oh, oh, oh!

Why the government? Why not the industry itself, the main beneficiary? Would not this be more in keeping with a businessman's way of doing things properly, independently, efficiently and swiftly? Try something along the following lines...

Persuade the government to impose a once-only 10-year MTA bond contribution equivalent to between Lm250-500 per hotel bed, depending on classification, interest-free for the first three years, enabling the country to manage its public finances so well as to gain us access to Euroland in line with our commitment.

Afterwards, the bond would carry a commercial rate of interest for the remaining seven years, during which a levy of, say, one euro per sold bednight be imposed on hotels and a five per cent charge on restaurant meals with the sole and exclusive purpose of creating a sinking fund sufficient to redeem the principal-cum-interest of the said MTA bond.

Hoteliers are sure to cry "hell", but they must be made to regard their share of the MTA bond as an investment that would enhance their occupancy levels and/or their pricings.

No additional burden on the taxpayer or the national budget. No increase in the national debt.

Sorry, Mr Salt, but the accountant in me has taken over from the economist. Two of the latter usually come up with at least three views; two of the former rarely have any views at all! That's what I learned during my student days in London.