In explaining the economy’s slide into recession, officialdom attributes the two main causes to ST’s drop in exports (understandable) and to Enemalta’s €22 million losses (confusing “without the negative impact from Enemalta, Malta would have had a nominal increase in GDP”.
Really? Even when dealing with aggregates?
The government’s (correct) decision was merely a transfer of a €22 million economic pain from the private to the public sector. No impact, however, on aggregates making up the GDP.
Perhaps I had better revisit my LSE notes of the 1950s.