5 best sentences on economics

[jw5]

I will have no complains if that 10% are really talented and deserving, helping to churn more economic activities for the good of all. Unfortunately, many are just mediocre who happened to be there because of connection, porlumpar,etc

This imho is the most serious problem that Sg is facing and the biggest risk to the country's future.
No doubt it also happens in other countries, but either to a lesser degree or if to the same or greater degree, it's apparent to the everyone.

Perhaps some credit should be given for the talent to hoodwink the majority of the country and the world after all.

 

[Cruxx]

Pardon my ignorance but how free are the economies of super rich countries such as Germany, China, France, India, Sweden, Norway? Big government reigns in all these countries. The link between economic freedom and prosperity is tenuous at best.

 

[Cruxx]

As for the assine argument about high taxation punishing the successful, nothing can be less true. The few very self made people I've met are successful because of their intrinsic motivation. Never have I met a person who was successful yet decided to be less so because he was being a mean little person and thinking that the poor are poor because they deserve it. And frankly, when you start thinking someone who is unable to hold down a regular job and feed his family is somehow beneath you - like that "get out of my uncaring, elite face" scandal many years ago, its time to take a deep breath and do some introspection.

In the words of the 3rd richest man in the world: "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation."

All those droning on and on about high taxes deterring investors and welfare handouts destroying entire economies clearly do not inhabit the real world where ambition and greed usually override the bare subsistence that welfarism provides.

 

[Leongsam]

In the words of the 3rd richest man in the world: "I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off.

Come on you don't expect the wealthy to come out and say "All of us rich pricks do our very best to avoid paying tax. In fact, we go to great lengths and hire the best accountants in order to pay as little tax as possible. Screw the poor. That's not our problem.".

In order to find out how the rich really feel about taxes, you have to examine what they actually do and not what they say. Here's a sample.

http://www.wealthprotectionreport.co.uk/public/1402print.cfm

Sean Connery and Shakira living in The Bahamas

Paula Radcliffe, Richards Farleigh (Dragons Den), David Coulthard, Jenson Button, Roger Moore, Ringo Starr, Wafic Said, Ken Bates, Tony Ryan and Julian Lennon in Monaco

Mick Jagger (and at one point in the early 1970s, the rest of the Rolling Stones as well) Led Zeppelin living in Malibu and Jersey


Michael Schumacher, Kimi Räikkönen, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton, Phil Collins, Boris Becker, Tina Turner, Ingvar Kamprad and Shania Twain living in Switzerland

Sir Richard Branson UK resident living in British Virgin Islands

If you do a bit of research with google, you'll be able to track down many, many more.

EG: http://www.isyours.com/e/celebrities/by_country.html

 

[Cruxx]

Pray tell, how many of these are investors? Anyway, I wasn't even arguing that the rich are some sorta altruists who have no qualms paying extortionate taxes for the common good. My contention was that investors are a rapacious lot. They'd rather accrue meager profit margins than to cut their noses off to spite their faces by not investing/working altogether.

 

[Leongsam]

[video=youtube;nQA8N6o3un8]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nQA8N6o3un8[/video]

Watch from 39.00

 

[Goh Meng Seng]

Sam,

We will have to be realistic about capitalism. It is not a sustainable system if left alone.

One of the most fundamental free market principles is many buyers and sellers, i.e. no monopolistic structure on both sides. But we have witnessed that when capitalism is left alone, ironically, it will just develop into monopolistic structures which it sets out to prevent.

You may want to say we should not have government to monopoly certain things but the key is, would it be
better for the society to have private entities to monopolize these entities instead?

Goh Meng Seng

 

[Leongsam]

Pray tell, how many of these are investors?

Anyone who has money to spare is an "investor". It's not a profession. It's the description of a person who does not live hand to mouth but has money that he does not need immediately. Such a person does not want the value of his wealth to be eaten away by inflation so he "invests" it for max returns. However, since he has better things to do with his life, he places his money in the hands of someone who does this for him.

I'm an investor. I've retired and live off my savings and I certainly do my best to get maximum returns while paying minimum taxes. I'm not talking tax evasion. It's simply a matter of structuring the portfolio to minimise tax liability. EG setting up a trust can save 9% in taxes. Registering a business to create write offs etc saves even more... all perfectly legal.

All F1 stars are "investors". They earn in excess of $10 million a year and they don't spend it all. They hire a tax consultant and the first thing they'll say is move out of UK, Germany, USA etc and take up residency in Monaco, Switzerland, Jersey Islands etc. They then structure their investments for max returns and minimum taxes.

Very few millionaires are in the 39% tax bracket. In fact, the smart ones earn nothing and own nothing in their name. All the earnings are credited to holding companies and all possessions belong to someone else and are leased back to them. You don't have to OWN a yacht and a private jet to enjoy the luxury and convenience of these big boys toys. All that is required is that one or more is at your disposal when necessary. Take LKY for example. He probably owns very little. However, the entire Singapore is at his beck and call. Everything on the Island is at his disposal with one phone call.

 

[Leongsam]

But we have witnessed that when capitalism is left alone, ironically, it will just develop into monopolistic structures which it sets out to prevent.

Capitalism cannot be left alone just as football teams can't simply take to the field without referees and linesmen.

There are rules on how to play soccer. You kick your opponent in the balls and you're red carded.

There are also rules on how the game of capitalism should be played in the form of consumer protection, the prevention of cartels and so on.

If the rules are not enforced fairly or at all, you can't blame the concept of capitalism. The fault lies with the enforcement and not the principles of free enterprise.

 

[scroobal]

Well well, you seemed to be backing down.

No one is against free enterprise. You in fact encourage it, sponsor it, seed it, germinate it as the rewards to society is immense. Free enterprise does not work in a vacuum. It needs human labour and skills. The govt of the day manages that interaction and lays down the rule. In simple terms, not all entrepreneurs will offer fair wages, not all all entrepreneurs are expected to pay for their share in building the country and it's infrastructure. We send men and women to war so that free enterprise can flourish.

The poor and the lazy are a faction of the community. Lets not carried away by painting the the picture that everyone is going to down tools and rely on welfare. Don!t also assume that entrepreneurs are going to less motivated and stopping doing business when some element of welfare is provided.

It's is always a balance. I have no intention of feeding the useless and I am sure most of us are the same.

Capitalism cannot be left alone just as football teams can't simply take to the field without referees and linesmen.There are rules on how to play soccer. You kick your opponent in the balls and you're red carded. There are also rules on how the game of capitalism should be played in the form of consumer protection, the prevention of cartels and so on.If the rules are not enforced fairly or at all, you can't blame the concept of capitalism. The fault lies with the enforcement and not the principles of free enterprise.

 

[Leongsam]

Well well, you seemed to be backing down.

I'm simply pointing out and giving examples to show that I'm not advocating anarchy and free for all, no rules, fights to the death

What I am saying is that losers have to be allowed to lose and winners should not have to give away a portion of their winnings.

Having top class referees, linesmen and fantastic stadiums enhances any game.

However, mucking around with the rules so that winning margins are capped and losers given bonus goals or points to avoid relegation will destroy the whole purpose of why the game is played in the first place.

You may have no intention of feeding the useless but in a welfare state, it is this category that will consume the lion's share of your tax dollars.

 

[scroobal]

Firstly I take exception to putting those 5 sentences under the discipline of economics as it not the case. Economics by the way is classified as a social science and concerned with the efficient distribution of resources primarily.

Enterprise is the engine of growth. Communism and socialism have no place in society as they have been truly discredited. So let's not discuss about things you have little clue about.

What we are looking for is a just society is for each man to contribute his fair share. If there is a growing imbalance is society where wealth and resources are increasingly accumulated at one tiny end, we must surely br negligent or incompetent not to realise its dangers.

Despite the above, there will always be a small minority that will fall thru the cracks, some as result of their own doing and some by misfortune. We cannot pretend that they do not exist and we have a duty of care to look after them.

No is suggesting that they get $1k a month, free housing and transport concession. Let's provide a minimum where dignity is not lost and where there are young involved, let's attempt to invest in them.

hey sccobal and fren... like I told nice goot... you can throw up 1000 historical fact which are very interesting but doesnt help help your arguement.... the bad thing is he try to bypass the official tender process...... there is nothing wrong with the official tender process... its the best system that allocate the contract... the problem is he cheat the main enemy of capitalism are the incumbents, those who already have an established position in the marketplace and would prefer to see it remain exclusive.

 

[neddy]

Under the current selfish blend of capitalism, there is no limits to resource consumption.






Our days of Financialization and Monetization reminds me of the beginnings of Industrialization.

 

[brocoli]

Let us not drag socialism into this. You are muddying the water. Why do you think that unbridled greed without any form of control is good? Capitalism in itself is greed with no limit. A giraffe cannot grow it's neck too long otherwise it too will face extinction and capitalism is the neck of that giraffe.

you are sorely misunderstood here... capitalism is not unbridled greed... human nature is unbridled greed ...

capitalism is smart and entrepreneurial people who mange to get financing to make ideas and dream into reality....

the problem is we do not have enough ,,,, the rich and power denied the smart and entrepreneurial the mean to get financing .... we need more capitalism not not more protectionism... be it for the poor or the rich

Why do I have a feeling you are a NUS academia? A good 5-10 years in the private sector and I promise you will be tossing away those citations.
Capitalism or socialism, both ideologies filled with assumptions.
Ever heard of "If you switch the positions of an economist and a weatherforcaster, you might get the correct prediction"?

Capitalism is econ not... not ideologies

To those experts on capitalism and socialism, is the Government involvement in so many areas of investment, forget about the form it took (statutory board or private company), capitalism or socialism? For example like Mapletree, various companies in ST group etc.

these are state own private company

How can I be muddying the water when you are the one talking about socialism when the points Iam refuting is your take on capitalism. Did I ever mentioned anything on socialism? Please point it out.

The model of today's capitalism has spun out of control and there is an urgent need to address and throttle the runaway effects. The failures of western nations is due to this.

its govt bailout that cause todays problems ... in a pure free mkt ... bad biz are allowed to fail... but the US choose to ignore this basic idea and choose to throw bad $ after good....

Let us not drag socialism into this. You are muddying the water. Why do you think that unbridled greed without any form of control is good? Capitalism in itself is greed with no limit. A giraffe cannot grow it's neck too long otherwise it too will face extinction and capitalism is the neck of that giraffe.

you are sorely misunderstood here... capitalism is not unbridled greed... human nature is unbridled greed ...

capitalism is smart and entrepreneurial people who mange to get financing to make ideas and dream into reality....

the problem is we do not have enough ,,,, the rich and power denied the smart and entrepreneurial the mean to get financing .... we need more capitalism not not more protectionism... be it for the poor or the rich

Why do I have a feeling you are a NUS academia? A good 5-10 years in the private sector and I promise you will be tossing away those citations.
Capitalism or socialism, both ideologies filled with assumptions.
Ever heard of "If you switch the positions of an economist and a weatherforcaster, you might get the correct prediction"?

Capitalism is econ not... not ideologies

To those experts on capitalism and socialism, is the Government involvement in so many areas of investment, forget about the form it took (statutory board or private company), capitalism or socialism? For example like Mapletree, various companies in ST group etc.

these are state own private company

How can I be muddying the water when you are the one talking about socialism when the points Iam refuting is your take on capitalism. Did I ever mentioned anything on socialism? Please point it out.

The model of today's capitalism has spun out of control and there is an urgent need to address and throttle the runaway effects. The failures of western nations is due to this.

its govt bailout that cause todays problems ... in a pure free mkt ... bad biz are allowed to fail... but the US choose to ignore this basic idea and choose to throw bad $ after good....

Peasants cannot be faulted if the governments themselves allowed welfarism to flourish until it became "extra welfarism."

who ask for welfarism ? lazy Peasants

In Laissez faire Hongkong over the past 40 years, we saw how the rich got richer and the poor, poorer.

You have got hardworking people living in cages.
You have the lazy spoilt 2nd generation inherited wealthy living like little Emperors.

There has to be a balance somewhere, and that is the original job of government - re-distributing wealth to ensure that the working poor can live with some dignity with legislation and not outward begging & charity.

But to the wealthy class, they love to be seen as powerful, there is nothing more powerful than be seen doing charity work while promoting their own selves. That is why there are so many Charity Shows in HK.

Why do some people became rich and some not? Is there a level playing field? Are humans all born equal?

LKY tried to create smart people, now China people want to do the same by buying smart human eggs.

If this continues, civilisation will move backward to the Edwardian era.

How come the 1% is able to earn millions without really working for it.

This theory of yours is an idea of the 1% and has to be BUSTED!

if you are rich ... do you wan people to take away your $ that your earn with your sweat and blood? I personally dun believe in inheirtance... most of the people who make it on their own dun either ... like Buffet and Gates...

they all donate it away.... there is a big difference between giving it away and having it taken away

Pardon my ignorance but how free are the economies of super rich countries such as Germany, China, France, India, Sweden, Norway? Big government reigns in all these countries. The link between economic freedom and prosperity is tenuous at best.

they also happen to be big and have resources....... if they are more economically free.... they will be more prosperous

Well well, you seemed to be backing down.

No one is against free enterprise. You in fact encourage it, sponsor it, seed it, germinate it as the rewards to society is immense. Free enterprise does not work in a vacuum. It needs human labour and skills. The govt of the day manages that interaction and lays down the rule. In simple terms, not all entrepreneurs will offer fair wages, not all all entrepreneurs are expected to pay for their share in building the country and it's infrastructure. We send men and women to war so that free enterprise can flourish.

The poor and the lazy are a faction of the community. Lets not carried away by painting the the picture that everyone is going to down tools and rely on welfare. Don!t also assume that entrepreneurs are going to less motivated and stopping doing business when some element of welfare is provided.

It's is always a balance. I have no intention of feeding the useless and I am sure most of us are the same.

who is backing down?? no1 is sayiong we should goes back to dickensian era... but you take from the rich and give even 1 cent to the underserving ,,,, you are on the slipery route to Great Leap forward

Under the current selfish blend of capitalism, there is no limits to resource consumption.
Our days of Financialization and Monetization reminds me of the beginnings of Industrialization.

there is no limits to human wants to consume resources... but free market offer the best way to allocate resources

 

[Cruxx]

Under the current selfish blend of capitalism, there is no limits to resource consumption.






Our days of Financialization and Monetization reminds me of the beginnings of Industrialization.

Scarcity will eventually equilibrate the rapacity of the modern consumer (it's consumerism, not capitalism that is the problem).

 

[mojito]

Scarcity will eventually equilibrate the rapacity of the modern consumer (it's consumerism, not capitalism that is the problem).

We live in an age where labour is abundant with access to China and India; where capital is plentiful through securitization and sleight of hand in the capital markets.

In the long run, we are all dead!

 

[Conqueror]

Earth Going Cheap

Under the current selfish blend of capitalism, there is no limits to resource consumption.

Our days of Financialization and Monetization reminds me of the beginnings of Industrialization.

Capitalism, corporatism, competition, consumerism are no good for the Earth. The human population has reached 7 billions. More animals are going to lose their homes and die away. Now, human beings themselves are their own ultimate enemies.

 

[palden]

Sinkees will sink further in 2012.

 

[Seee3]

We live in an age where labour is abundant with access to China and India; where capital is plentiful through securitization and sleight of hand in the capital markets.

In the long run, we are all dead!

I agree with you. The situation has changed. With internet access and ease in cross-border travels, doing business is no longer the same. Why should I mechanize if I can cut cost by importing and employing "slaves"? Productivity has lost its meaning. Invention of mechanical hardware takes time and capital while creation of financial instrument only needs crafty thoughts to satisfy the greed of the average. Talented are channeling their energy to the wrong purpose. Capital market is no longer a place for entrepreneurs to secure funding for expansion. It is more a place for crooks to siphon money (S-chips is an example). Capitalism has become a guise for illegal activities.

 

[Windsor]

you are sorely misunderstood here... capitalism is not unbridled greed... human nature is unbridled greed ...

capitalism is smart and entrepreneurial people who mange to get financing to make ideas and dream into reality....

the problem is we do not have enough ,,,, the rich and power denied the smart and entrepreneurial the mean to get financing .... we need more capitalism not not more protectionism... be it for the poor or the rich



Capitalism is econ not... not ideologies


these are state own private company




its govt bailout that cause todays problems ... in a pure free mkt ... bad biz are allowed to fail... but the US choose to ignore this basic idea and choose to throw bad $ after good....


you are sorely misunderstood here... capitalism is not unbridled greed... human nature is unbridled greed ...

capitalism is smart and entrepreneurial people who mange to get financing to make ideas and dream into reality....

the problem is we do not have enough ,,,, the rich and power denied the smart and entrepreneurial the mean to get financing .... we need more capitalism not not more protectionism... be it for the poor or the rich



Capitalism is econ not... not ideologies


these are state own private company




its govt bailout that cause todays problems ... in a pure free mkt ... bad biz are allowed to fail... but the US choose to ignore this basic idea and choose to throw bad $ after good....



who ask for welfarism ? lazy Peasants



if you are rich ... do you wan people to take away your $ that your earn with your sweat and blood? I personally dun believe in inheirtance... most of the people who make it on their own dun either ... like Buffet and Gates...

they all donate it away.... there is a big difference between giving it away and having it taken away



they also happen to be big and have resources....... if they are more economically free.... they will be more prosperous



who is backing down?? no1 is sayiong we should goes back to dickensian era... but you take from the rich and give even 1 cent to the underserving ,,,, you are on the slipery route to Great Leap forward



there is no limits to human wants to consume resources... but free market offer the best way to allocate resources

You are repeating yourself and your response is very confusing. Please try and gather your thoughts and perhaps not lumped all in one post.

It is foolish don't you think, to regurgitate phrases without real understanding of the human aspects that dictates how the ideals of capitalism can be and had been corrupted and twisted for selfish reasons. When peasants asked for more welfare, politicians threatened by being voted out will promise heaven and earth to stay in power longer. Both parties are motivated by greed which is a natural human failing and thus corruption exists to dismantle whatever idealistic goals we humans strived for. So your arguments about capitalism so far fails to be convincing because in reality it does not exist.