5 best sentences on economics

[Fook Seng]

1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

Any body remember System X and System Y management theories? This looks very System X to me.

 

[Leongsam]

Any body remember System X and System Y management theories? This looks very System X to me.

This isn't about management. It's the very foundation of evolution.

 

[TracyTan866]

Direct it to the clowns who want the PAP to love, cherish and hug the poor while punishing the rich for being successful.

An economist is to manage economics, not to govern a country.

A govt is much more than just to manage economics. if the pap thinks that it has done well just be managing economics, it has failed big time

 

[Leongsam]

A govt is much more than just to manage economics.

When governments try to manage economies, the end result is always disaster. The best governments are those which interfere the least in the lives of citizens.

 

[Windsor]

you are the 1 muddying the water.....unbridled greed is good.... it mean endless innovation...

who say anything about lack of control...... fundamentally a market system is bout the protection of property right...... capitalism can only flourish when there is suufficiently complex and deveoped legal framwework to support it....

on the other hand socialism is theft.... it make every1 equally poor... which is a more evil system...?

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.

 

[Leongsam]

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.

There's nothing wrong with the capitalist component of today's Western Nations. It's those damned peasants who demand welfare benefits way above what the country can afford that are causing all the problems.

 

[Windsor]

There's nothing wrong with the capitalist component of today's Western Nations. It's those damned peasants who demand welfare benefits way above what the country can afford that are causing all the problems.

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

 

[Leongsam]

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

I didn't expect such a response from you. I'm really disappointed. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Governments aren't in a position to "allow" or "disallow" policies.

 

[Fook Seng]

This isn't about management. It's the very foundation of evolution.

Neither are System X and System Y theories on management per se. They are more a description of two opposing ways of predicting human behavior. They are very relevant to the topics of capitalism and socialism as actual human behavior will determine the outcomes of these economic models.

 

[neddy]

this parable has been trending on FB

These are possibly the 5 best sentences you'll ever read and all applicable to this experiment:
1. You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy out of prosperity.
2. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving.
3. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else.
4. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it!
5. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that is the beginning of the end of any nation.

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!

 

[Fook Seng]

When governments try to manage economies, the end result is always disaster. The best governments are those which interfere the least in the lives of citizens.

And you will say the government who survives the longest is to interfere when not called upon and to stay out when requested. Why do people say the Singapore Govt is paternalistic if it does not interfere?

 

[Leongsam]

And you will say the government who survives the longest is to interfere when not called upon and to stay out when requested. Why do people say the Singapore Govt is paternalistic if it does not interfere?

The Singapore govt is the most interfering bitch on this planet.

 

[Simbian]

Hogwash. No self-respecting economist will write down these five lines without context. Please be aware of own prejudices and biases before launching into a tirade against modern day social safety nets. Welfare + socialist state that was present in the U.K and many European countries are long gone. The problem in Europe is akin to the case of the bank handing supplementary credit cards to the less-well off tenants (politicians in PIGS) in the neighbourhood with the credit line of the most wealthiest person in the neighbourhood (France + Germany) and then expecting them to be responsible with their spending. You don't see this problem with the Nordics do you?

Like in the 1980's, our problem can be explained by Hayek - i.e. we have the same problem currently, as in wealth - or at least the commodity needed for market transactions - i.e. money - is being slowly concentrated into the hands of a few - mostly financiers and their ilk. I predict we will reach a tipping point come a few decades down the road and frankly, its either the old style capitalists being swept away with a new breed being installed who are more enlightened or it is the Randists (sociopaths, everyone of them) who get installed and a dystopia from "Brave New World" emerges.

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.

 

[Fook Seng]

I didn't expect such a response from you. I'm really disappointed. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Governments aren't in a position to "allow" or "disallow" policies.

Govts always have a control over this by regulating the funds, by tightening or loosening controls, by changing criteria. Often, Govts lose control because they do not want to, for political reasons.

 

[TracyTan866]

An economist is to manage economics, not to govern a country.

A govt is much more than just to manage economics. if the pap thinks that it has done well just be managing economics, it has failed big time

...............................

 

[TracyTan866]

When governments try to manage economies, the end result is always disaster. The best governments are those which interfere the least in the lives of citizens.

That's why this thread is irrelevant to the pap...why then your insinuation in Post #2?

 

[Leongsam]

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.

That's probably because most of them are in Monaco, Jersey Islands or Andorra. :p Are you really that naive or are you just putting forth your points for arguments sake?

 

[Leongsam]

Bono, Tax Avoider

The hypocrisy of U2.

By Timothy Noah|Posted Tuesday, Oct. 31, 2006, at 6:43 PM ET

• Tweet

Bono

A familiar paradox about leftist celebrities in the entertainment industry is that their embrace of progressivism almost never includes a wholehearted embrace of progressive taxation, i.e., the principle that the richer you get, the larger the percentage of your income you ought to pay in taxes. The latest example is U2's Bono, a committed and unusually sophisticated anti-poverty crusader who is taking surprisingly little heat for the decision by his band, U2, to relocate its music-publishing business from Ireland to the Netherlands in order to shelter its songwriting royalties from taxation.

The irony was stated in admirably stark terms by Bloomberg's Fergal O'Brien, who reported on Oct. 16:Bono, the rock star and campaigner against Third World debt, is asking the Irish government to contribute more to Africa. At the same time, he's reducing tax payments that could help fund that aid.

"Preventing the poorest of the poor from selling their products while we sing the virtues of the free market … that's a justice issue," Bono said at a prayer breakfast attended by President Bush, Jordan's King Abdullah, and various members of Congress earlier this year. Preaching this sort of thing has made Bono a perennial candidate for the Nobel Peace Prize.

He continued:

Holding children to ransom for the debts of their grandparents ... that's a justice issue. Withholding life-saving medicines out of deference to the Office of Patents ... that's a justice issue.

And relocating your business offshore in order to avoid paying taxes to the Republic of Ireland, where poverty is higher than in almost any other developed nation? Bono's hypocrisy seems even more naked when you consider that Ireland is a tax haven for artists. In June 2005, Bono (who was born in Dublin) told the Belfast Telegraph:

Our publishing, which is about one third of our income, we have tax breaks on, and that's great and that's encouraged us to stay in Ireland and if that changes, it's not going to affect anything for U2. ...

Six months later, Ireland's finance minister announced a ceiling of $319,000 on tax-free incomes, and six months after that, U2 opened its Amsterdam office. The relocation of U2's music publishing will halve taxes on the band's songwriting royalties, which already reportedly total $286 million. Although Bono has declined to comment on the move, the band's lead guitarist, David "the Edge" Evans, said, "Of course we're trying to be tax-efficient. Who doesn't want to be tax-efficient?'" Writing in the Observer, Nick Cohen noted that Evans "sounded as edgy as a plump accountant in the 19th hole."


U2's tax-shelter scheme caused an uproar in Ireland when the story broke there in August. But it's scarcely raised a ripple in the United States. A conservative would argue that's because in this country, we don't begrudge a man the opportunity to keep what he earns off the sweat of his brow (or even off the sweat of someone else's brow) … even if that man spends half his time trying to goad governments into spending more to alleviate poverty. But a liberal could answer that in the United States, we are so used to seeing rich people avoid taxation that even a wealthy hypocrite who shelters his cash abroad can no longer qualify as news.

 

[Windsor]

I didn't expect such a response from you. I'm really disappointed. You're putting the cart before the horse.

Governments aren't in a position to "allow" or "disallow" policies.

If the government of the day continues the old policies of providing more than generous handouts to peasants to remain in office and provide even more than the previous administrations, why blame the peasants? Afterall, the mindset of getting something for nothing is human nature.

 

[neddy]

If the government of the day continues the old policies of providing more than generous handouts to peasants to remain in office and provide even more than the previous administrations, why blame the peasants? Afterall, the mindset of getting something for nothing is human nature.

This is how you breed losers.

Losers love giving birth to children, because children give them access to better welfare and better respect.
The hubby looks like the loser who will ask me for money on Melbourne streets, which I will take pride in saying 'what will I get in exchange.'


Free emergency ambulance (2 trips!)
Free A & E care
Free transport voucher

In future, free childcare


Bleeding pregnant woman sent home on train
From: Herald Sun
December 29, 2011 7:43AM

A WOMAN has lost her baby after being sent home from a Melbourne hospital bleeding and forced to catch public transport.
Rebecca Dee suffered a miscarriage early yesterday, hours after returning to her home in Mordialloc, Victoria.
Partner Herbert Bouvard said: "I don't understand why they sent her home bleeding, and on public transport ... the way we were treated was absolutely disgusting.
"Obviously there was something wrong. How do you send someone home like that?"
The ordeal began when Ms Dee, seven weeks' pregnant, began bleeding on Tuesday morning, Mr Bouvard said.

After arriving at Monash Medical Centre's emergency department by ambulance, she waited two hours to see a doctor and three hours for an ultrasound, he said.
Ms Dee was told the baby's heart was beating, and it was fine, and she should go home, he said.
The couple had no money for a taxi and no one available to pick them up, so asked if a cab could be provided, given Ms Dee's condition, but were refused one.
Still bleeding, she undertook her 90-minute trip - walking to the station, catching a train to Caulfield, changing there for another one to Mordialloc, and then walking home.

They arrived home soon before 9pm on Tuesday, and yesterday morning, bleeding heavily, the couple called another ambulance.
They were again taken to Monash Medical Centre where doctors told Ms Dee she had lost her baby.
But a Southern Health spokeswoman said the patient's bleeding fell below the threshold for further intervention and she was discharged with clear instructions to return should symptoms worsen.
She did not fall within the criteria for a free taxi voucher, but had been given a free public transport ticket, she said.
Ms Dee was also admitted within the appropriate time frames, with records showing treatment began within half an hour of her arrival, she said.
"One in three women with bleeding in early pregnancy will go on to have a miscarriage," she said.


Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/ble...in/story-e6frfkvr-1226232332019#ixzz1htQjIfqA