The Guyanese economy has been on a downward spiral since the May 11 Election period, but unlike the recurrent trend, this “quasi” decline is prolonging, without any prospects of amelioration in the near future. Most analysts expect the downturn to become a full-blown decline, which is defined as two successive quarters of declining growth. We have completed one quarter. While those in the business sector expect some level of slowdown during the elections as it has always been in the country due to the heavy tensions that reign, what was not expected is this status quo where the economy seems to be hovering at a standstill. It appears as though this current administration either does not have the necessary expertise to chart a course for steady economic growth and development, or doesn’t have economic growth as a priority. Observers have wondered about who exactly is advising the Government in economic matters and they seem more interested in witch hunting. In the first case, then it could have handled the Venezuela Guyana border controversy with much more tact and diplomacy, in order to avoid the loss of Guyana’s main rice export market. Now, the rice industry is stagnating, as the new harvest of rice farmers literally has no foreign export market. In addition, the $23 billion promised by the Government to relieve the industry has now led to a confession that the money was for “shipping rice” – much to the frustration of the beleaguered rice farmers. On the Essequibo Coast for instance, where the main means of subsistence remains rice farming, the extent of the damage on the rice industry would be felt by hundreds of families who would be unable to obtain their regular income from crops. One large farmer was said to have committed suicide. The level of investments in the country is also at a high risk of collapsing. For instance in the gold mining sector, the world price of gold remains low, and the future of the industry remains uncertain due to the anaemic nature of reforms proposed by Minister of Governance, Raphael Trotman. The promise to limit the investments of companies in the mining sector so that small scale, local investors may benefit, might be perceived to be hostile to national and international companies which are interested in large scale mining. There is also the question on whether or not small scale investments could compensate for the possible losses in the economy by the limitation of big companies. In the case of foreign investments, bilateral relations with habitual business partners might take a toll. In the area of green investments, and despite the Government’s promise of “a good life in a green economy”, to date there has been little or no sign of interest in pursuing Guyana’s biggest green initiative, the Low Carbon Development Strategy.  Insofar as the LCDS stands, the Amaila Hydro Electric Project has been abandoned, representing the potential loss of US$80 million, almost half of the US$190 million of the revenues earned to date. Amerindians were the direct beneficiaries of a substantial amount of LCDS revenues, and stand to lose should the Government chose not to renew the agreement with Norway. Another instance where the economy is felt at the lower levels of society, is the decrease in consummation and investment by Guyanese, many of whom have lost their jobs, are affected by slow business, are compelled to leave the country due to escalating crimes or are simply unwilling to invest. The result is that the economy, though at this point it is affected by unfavourable Government policies, is also hindered by a lack of local direct and indirect investments, and a general reduction of consumerism. It is highly likely that speculations and projections of a dismal economy would force consumers to save rather than to spend, reducing the flow of capital in the country and stymying the habitual 3 to 5% growth Guyana has enjoyed for the past 5 years. Au finale, while the positioning of the country in the race for regional development might most likely be reconfigured, Guyanese, who had grown accustomed to steady economic development and who, through their investments and evolution had learnt to rely on positive Government policies which contributed to a favourable socioeconomic framework for development, are the ones who will feel the negative effects of a stagnating economy the most. When investors, foreign and local alike, would have lost the necessary trust fostered over two decades with the Government of Guyana, it is highly unlikely that demoralised Guyanese alone would be able to lift up the economy.