- Joined
- Nov 24, 2008
- Messages
- 24,040
- Points
- 113
The comparison is made between Singapore as the highest cost city in the world and the other top 5 expensive cities, namely Paris, Oslo, Sydney, and Zurich. What the report does not mention is that the high cost of living is almost entirely the making of the PAP, whereas the other city’s costs are market driven.
In Singapore, the govt. owns or controls approximately 90% of the residential housing in the country through stat boards like HDB and URA, and GLCs like Keppel Land, etc. As well, they control the majority of commercial properties starting with Jurong Town Corporation as well as stakes in retail centers again, owned by GLCs. As such, they are the market makers and can and do set the tone for rental rates and purchase prices of both residential and commercial properties in Singapore. From this, a large component of the cost of living is derived. Because there is no real market forces at play here, the govt. can set a minimum floor price on what it wants to receive in terms of rental or land sales. The developers who pay high prices for the land have to pass on these costs to the end consumer. The same happens for example in your kopitiam. If the shop owner has to pay a high rent to the HDB, he has to recoup it through higher prices to the consumer.
This permeates throughout the economy. A taxi ride is not cheap because the taxi companies have to pay COE on their fleets, perhaps as much as $50,000 per vehicle. They too have to recoup this somehow though higher fare charges. Same for the petrol that the taxis have to buy from a GLC like SPC. SPC has to make money too and charges what they can for it. The same can be said for MRT. This is an organization that used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to build their lines, and stations, but the same tax payers do not get a price break for riding the trains. Think of the electricity that you receive, and the water that you pay, etc. All these are provided for by GLCs out to make money and not out to provide a service at cost. In many of the other countries mentioned with expensive cities, these services are delivered at cost or at a loss to the consumers. The reason simply being that the taxpayer’s money was used to build the expensive infrastructure to deliver these services in the first place. Therefore, the consumer is rightly treated as a partner and not someone to be fleeced for maximum profit. Let me illustrate with an example. If your friend came to you and ask you to provide financing for a new restaurant venture that he wants to start, and you do so, hence becoming his silent partner. Do you than expect to pay the same price as everyone else who eats there or do you expect to eat for free or at cost?
The govt of France does not own or control 90% of the residential properties in Paris, and the same can be said of the Norwegian govt in Oslo, and the Swiss govt. in Zurich, et al. Market forces of supply and demand determine more or less the cost of living in those cities. But in Singapore, the high cost is artificially created by the govt. In effect, it’s us shooting ourselves in the foot. When there is such a predominance of one entity in the economy, you have an oligarchy or a monopoly, all of which are inefficient. Have you ever asked yourself why airfares are so cheap from Singapore to other regions of Asia? It’s due to the proliferation of budget airlines that operate here. The competition from all these airlines like Air Asia, Valuair, Jetstar, etc drastically lowers the cost of flying. Would the PAP prefer that only SQ and Silkair service this market? Of course they would. But they know that if they allow only these 2 airlines in Singapore, than other countries whose airlines are not allowed to operate here, would also ban these 2 Singapore airlines. In this case, the PAP cannot control the competition in this industry due to external influences. As a result, you have a low cost industry that makes travel affordable to Singaporeans. Now imagine if we could only have some real competition in other areas of the economy, how much lower would our costs be. The article already mentions the high cost of running a car and utility bills, both of which are directly imposed by the govt. We have allowed the idiots in the PAP to artificially raise our cost of living when they should have been doing the opposite. This they did through their own greed and through the myth that they can make better use of these excessive profits through Temasek and GIC.
Singapore has topped 131 cities globally to become the world's most expensive city to live in 2014, according to the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU).
The city's strong currency combined with the high cost of running a car and soaring utility bills contributed to Singapore topping the list.
It is also the most expensive place in the world to buy clothes.
Singapore replaces Tokyo, which topped the list in 2013.
Other cities making up the top five most expensive cities to live in are Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney, with Tokyo falling to sixth place.
The EIU's Worldwide Cost of Living Survey is a relocation tool that uses New York city as a base. It looks at more than 400 individual prices.
Top 5 most expensive cities
Singapore, Singapore
Paris, France
Oslo, Norway
Zurich, Switzerland
Sydney, Australia
The top 10 cities this year have been dominated by Asian and Australasian cities as well as some in Europe.
"Improving sentiment in structurally expensive European cities combined with the continued rise of Asian hubs means that these two regions continue to supply most of the world's most expensive cities," said the editor of the report, Jon Copestake.
"But Asian cities also continue to make up many of the world's cheapest, especially in the Indian subcontinent."
In Singapore, the govt. owns or controls approximately 90% of the residential housing in the country through stat boards like HDB and URA, and GLCs like Keppel Land, etc. As well, they control the majority of commercial properties starting with Jurong Town Corporation as well as stakes in retail centers again, owned by GLCs. As such, they are the market makers and can and do set the tone for rental rates and purchase prices of both residential and commercial properties in Singapore. From this, a large component of the cost of living is derived. Because there is no real market forces at play here, the govt. can set a minimum floor price on what it wants to receive in terms of rental or land sales. The developers who pay high prices for the land have to pass on these costs to the end consumer. The same happens for example in your kopitiam. If the shop owner has to pay a high rent to the HDB, he has to recoup it through higher prices to the consumer.
This permeates throughout the economy. A taxi ride is not cheap because the taxi companies have to pay COE on their fleets, perhaps as much as $50,000 per vehicle. They too have to recoup this somehow though higher fare charges. Same for the petrol that the taxis have to buy from a GLC like SPC. SPC has to make money too and charges what they can for it. The same can be said for MRT. This is an organization that used billions of taxpayers’ dollars to build their lines, and stations, but the same tax payers do not get a price break for riding the trains. Think of the electricity that you receive, and the water that you pay, etc. All these are provided for by GLCs out to make money and not out to provide a service at cost. In many of the other countries mentioned with expensive cities, these services are delivered at cost or at a loss to the consumers. The reason simply being that the taxpayer’s money was used to build the expensive infrastructure to deliver these services in the first place. Therefore, the consumer is rightly treated as a partner and not someone to be fleeced for maximum profit. Let me illustrate with an example. If your friend came to you and ask you to provide financing for a new restaurant venture that he wants to start, and you do so, hence becoming his silent partner. Do you than expect to pay the same price as everyone else who eats there or do you expect to eat for free or at cost?
The govt of France does not own or control 90% of the residential properties in Paris, and the same can be said of the Norwegian govt in Oslo, and the Swiss govt. in Zurich, et al. Market forces of supply and demand determine more or less the cost of living in those cities. But in Singapore, the high cost is artificially created by the govt. In effect, it’s us shooting ourselves in the foot. When there is such a predominance of one entity in the economy, you have an oligarchy or a monopoly, all of which are inefficient. Have you ever asked yourself why airfares are so cheap from Singapore to other regions of Asia? It’s due to the proliferation of budget airlines that operate here. The competition from all these airlines like Air Asia, Valuair, Jetstar, etc drastically lowers the cost of flying. Would the PAP prefer that only SQ and Silkair service this market? Of course they would. But they know that if they allow only these 2 airlines in Singapore, than other countries whose airlines are not allowed to operate here, would also ban these 2 Singapore airlines. In this case, the PAP cannot control the competition in this industry due to external influences. As a result, you have a low cost industry that makes travel affordable to Singaporeans. Now imagine if we could only have some real competition in other areas of the economy, how much lower would our costs be. The article already mentions the high cost of running a car and utility bills, both of which are directly imposed by the govt. We have allowed the idiots in the PAP to artificially raise our cost of living when they should have been doing the opposite. This they did through their own greed and through the myth that they can make better use of these excessive profits through Temasek and GIC.
Singapore has topped 131 cities globally to become the world's most expensive city to live in 2014, according to the Economic Intelligence Unit (EIU).
The city's strong currency combined with the high cost of running a car and soaring utility bills contributed to Singapore topping the list.
It is also the most expensive place in the world to buy clothes.
Singapore replaces Tokyo, which topped the list in 2013.
Other cities making up the top five most expensive cities to live in are Paris, Oslo, Zurich and Sydney, with Tokyo falling to sixth place.
The EIU's Worldwide Cost of Living Survey is a relocation tool that uses New York city as a base. It looks at more than 400 individual prices.
Top 5 most expensive cities
Singapore, Singapore
Paris, France
Oslo, Norway
Zurich, Switzerland
Sydney, Australia
The top 10 cities this year have been dominated by Asian and Australasian cities as well as some in Europe.
"Improving sentiment in structurally expensive European cities combined with the continued rise of Asian hubs means that these two regions continue to supply most of the world's most expensive cities," said the editor of the report, Jon Copestake.
"But Asian cities also continue to make up many of the world's cheapest, especially in the Indian subcontinent."
