5 best sentences on economics

[brocoli]

this parable has been trending on FB

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?f...=a.98301942733.92939.541152733&type=1&theater

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before, but had recently failed an entire class. That class had insisted that Obama's socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.
The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on Obama's plan". All grades will be averaged and everyone will receive the same grade so no one will fail and no one will receive an A.... (substituting grades for dollars - something closer to home and more readily understood by all).
After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little..
The second test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F. As the tests proceeded, the scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else. To their great surprise, ALL FAILED and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed. It could not be any simpler than that.
Remember, there IS a test coming up. The 2012 elections.

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.

 

[Leongsam]

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

 

[brocoli]

there is worrying trend of sinkies be succumbing to the temptation of socialism .....

WP being the 2nd largest party should be more responsible and stop advocating socialist policies.... even Today's editor-at-large publish a article sarporting ,,,

time to sack him

http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC111223-0000087/Time-to-reconsider-the-N-word?

Time to reconsider the N-word?
by Conrad Raj
04:46 AM Dec 23, 2011
Although nationalisation may be a dirty word to many these days, I think it is time to revisit its benefits in the wake of the recent transport debacle.

Although the free market has been a boon to the majority, there are some essential services that I think need to be in the public domain. Public transport, especially on a small island like ours, is one of them.

The last few days have been trying for many of us here, with the breakdown of parts of the subway system coming in the wake of higher taxi prices.

And with two security lapses occurring at two MRT train depots within the past two years, the Government has to seriously relook at how our transport system is run.

There is an obvious need for a comprehensive public transport policy that gives greater priority to addressing the needs of the commuter rather than other stakeholders, such as shareholders. What the commuter wants is to be taken to his or her destination in the shortest possible time, at the lowest possible price.

Private companies, like the SMRT and ComfortDelGro, with shareholders to answer to - and therefore motivated by the need to produce ever-increasing profits - just can't or don't seem to be able to do that.

What we need is a single entity - either a statutory board or a state corporation that is completely in charge of Singapore's transport system. While the taxi service could be run separately, perhaps in the manner of the Hong Kong system, it should be regarded as an integral part of our public transport system. It is not as if a taxi takes the place of just one car as it takes multiple riderships on any single day.

The nationalisation concept is not something new. At one time, the Government took control of all our bus companies. And Temasek Holdings still has substantial stakes in SMRT and ComfortDelGro, the two main public transport providers.

With one entity running our rail and bus services, there could be a rationalisation of routes and costly duplication, not only of routes but also of staff, could be avoided.

Any blame for poor or unreliable service could then be directed to just one entity. Pricing can be benchmarked against similar corporations elsewhere.

Each Singaporean will be able to save at least S$100 a year on public transport - based just on the profits in the last financial year of the two companies, S$161 million for SMRT and S$220 million for ComfortDelGro. More savings can come from greater efficiency.

Why should all that money go to a few thousand shareholders when it could result in lower fares for all?

It is not fair that while public funds are used to build the infrastructure, the profits go into the pockets of a relatively few shareholders. In any case, there's no real competition between the two operators as they do not ply identical routes.

And when it comes to apportioning blame, it is sometimes difficult, as the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is responsible for building and owning the infrastructure. SMRT and ComfortDelGro - which lease the infrastructure from the LTA for 30 years - are mere operators of the system and only own the rolling stock, buses and taxis.

So while the two operators are responsible for the maintenance of the system, it becomes a bit murky in terms of responsibility when the fault lies with the infrastructure.

Much of the blame for the recent train problems has been placed on "collector shoes" that pick up electrical power from the third rail and "claws" that keep the third rail stable.

To reduce vibration to surrounding buildings, some sections of the tunnels have been installed with floating slab tracks. If these devices were not working properly, where does the blame lie?

There was also an attempt to push the blame, at least some of it, on increased train frequencies to cater to the rapid rise in population, which was said to have left less time for the train operators to carry out inspections and maintenance.

With one, single entity there can be no passing of the buck. We won't need a Public Transport Council to decide on fares - which should be based on the actual cost of running the system, plus some surplus for a rainy day or for certain stated purposes.

The problem with our two listed companies is that they are often distracted from their main goals in order to increase yields. With SMRT, the main concern was on how to maximise its rental yields from the shops and stalls at the MRT stations.

A Commission of Inquiry is being established. It should not only look into the recent problems but expand its scope to review the entire transport system and come out with something better.

And by the way, imposing fines for the problems caused by the train delays only benefits the Government and not the commuter who had been inconvenienced. Better perhaps to roll back for a period of time the fare increase the operators were recently granted as a penalty.

Conrad Raj is Today's editor-at-large.

 

[scroobal]

This is hogwash and no genuine economist will write crap like this.

Most economic activity require labour and management skills. Except for the owner or owners, the rest are employees. Both the employer and employer must reach an agreed partnership before that economic activity can commence.

To cut a long story short, employees in Singapore cannot go on strike by law. As a result they have very little power or leverage. Those that feel shortchanged, will leave other companies or other trades. If it become systemic and structural, the govt will be thrown out as can be seen by the results of this years GE and PE. Most telling was the minority President and it was in the 30%.

Outright capitalism will fail. Isn't it any surprise that the most developed countries are a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Most people generally are motivated to work. Its only a minority that is the issue.

Which rational person would want to be poor and receive handouts. Everyone is keen to own a house and enjoy life and he certainly can't achieve that by being poor. Who then are the poor. Let me guess, - structural employment displacement, illness, lack of education and training, economy not well managed and demand for labour and management skills are not there etc. So what is the role of the govt? - hold cabinet meetings and then call it a day.

GoH Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen delivered an economic climate that overshot the supply of labour and skills. And they did year after year for 25 years. How did they do it.

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.

 

[brocoli]

This is hogwash and no genuine economist will write crap like this.

Most economic activity require labour and management skills. Except for the owner or owners, the rest are employees. Both the employer and employer must reach an agreed partnership before that economic activity can commence.

To cut a long story short, employees in Singapore cannot go on strike by law. As a result they have very little power or leverage. Those that feel shortchanged, will leave other companies or other trades. If it become systemic and structural, the govt will be thrown out as can be seen by the results of this years GE and PE. Most telling was the minority President and it was in the 30%.

Outright capitalism will fail. Isn't it any surprise that the most developed countries are a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Most people generally are motivated to work. Its only a minority that is the issue.

Which rational person would want to be poor and receive handouts. Everyone is keen to own a house and enjoy life and he certainly can't achieve that by being poor. Who then are the poor. Let me guess, - structural employment displacement, illness, lack of education and training, economy not well managed and demand for labour and management skills are not there etc. So what is the role of the govt? - hold cabinet meetings and then call it a day.

GoH Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen delivered an economic climate that overshot the supply of labour and skills. And they did year after year for 25 years. How did they do it.

they did it because singapore was developing..... most developing countries grow like roaches

 

[mojito]

brocoli, if you can put into your own words, the gist of the articles you have quoted and why you think they make sense, I think that would facilitate discussions. You ought to understand it is not very time efficient for posters to reply to every ad hoc hypotheses you develop after they have just demonstrated to you how your original view was oversimplified.

Go ahead. I am sure this will be thought provoking for you and other readers here.

 

[brocoli]

brocoli, if you can put into your own words, the gist of the articles you have quoted and why you think they make sense, I think that would facilitate discussions. You ought to understand it is not very time efficient for posters to reply to every ad hoc hypotheses you develop after they have just demonstrated to you how your original view was oversimplified.

Go ahead. I am sure this will be thought provoking for you and other readers here.

CAPITALISM, or more precisely, the free market system, is the most effective way to organize production and distribution that human beings have found. Constant financial innovation creates devices to channel risk capital to people with daring ideas.

Throughout its history, the free market system has been held back, not so much by its own economic deficiencies, as Marxists would have it, but because of its reliance on political goodwill for its infrastructure. The threat primarily comes from two groups of opponents. The first are incumbents, those who already have an established position in the marketplace and would prefer to see it remain exclusive. The identity of the most dangerous incumbents depends on the country and the time period, but the part has been played at various times by the landed aristocracy, the owners and managers of large corporations, their financiers, and organized labor.

The second group of opponents, the distressed, tends tosurface in times of economic downturn. Those who havelost out in the process of creative destruction unleashed by markets—unemployed workers, penniless investors, and bankrupt firms—see no legitimacy in a system in which they have been proved losers. They want relief, and since the markets offer them none, they will try the route of politics.

The unlikely alliance of the incumbent industrialist—the capitalist in the title—and the distressed unemployed worker is especially powerful amid the debris of corporate bankruptcies and layoffs. In an economic downturn, the capitalist is more likely to focus on costs of the competition emanating from free markets than on the opportunities they create. And the unemployed worker will find many others in a similar condition and with anxieties similar to his, which will make it easy for them to organize together. Using the cover and the political organization provided by the distressed, the capitalist captures the political agenda.

For at such times, it requires an extremely courageous (or foolhardy) politician to extol the virtues of free markets. Instead of viewing destruction as the inevitable counterpart of creation, it is far easier for the politician to give in to the capitalist, who ostensibly champions the distressed by demanding that competition be shackled and markets suppressed. Under the guise of making improvements to markets so as to prevent future downturns, political intervention at such times is aimed at impeding their working. The capitalist can turn against the most effective organ of capitalism and the public, whose future is directly harmed by these actions, stands on the sidelines, seldom protesting, often uncomprehending, and occasionally applauding.

Much of the prosperity, innovation, and increased opportunity we have experienced in recent decades should be attributed to the reemergence of free markets, especially free financial markets. Free markets depend on political goodwill for their existence and because they have powerful political enemies among the establishment, their continued survival cannot be taken for granted, even in developed countries.

 

[Seee3]

I don't think our problem is that of 50% not wanting to work but choosing to depend on the remaining 50% for charity due to the so-called "averaging of reward". What I see is more a case of 90% sweating it out, only to get 10% of the pie while the remaining 10% gets to keep 90% (of course I have exaggerated). At the end, each peasant gets next to peanut, not enough to pay for transport and meals. As such, some got fed up and quit working for good. Unfortunately, there are also the lazy ones which become a good excuse for people to conclude that the poor are too lazy to work which is why they will remain poor.

The distribution of wealth (salary) is just too lopsided. 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 Ah soh "Saw" immediately comes to mind when I was thinking for an example. To make matter worse, cheap FT were brought in. My guess is we need a depression (which I hope is after my time) for things to be set in the right course again.

 

[scroobal]

There is no such thing as "developed". It is a continous process. Even developed countries have to keep moving to avoid stagnation and stagflation.

The aim of most govt is ensure that the economy has an acceptable unemployment rate. The issue is not the poor. The issue is that there are people looking for work but unable to get it. Education and managing the economy has be joined at the hips. Skills must meet industry needs. It appears there is skills mismatch. People are going to Poly and Universities are finding it difficult to hold to their jobs past the age of 40. The younger ones are outbid by cheaper labour.

These are serious structural issues and keen minds are needed by the Govt. The Govt cannot blame everything on the people. Why else form a govt?

they did it because singapore was developing..... most developing countries grow like roaches

 

[scroobal]

Well said. I do like the medication - depression, quite interesting.

I don't think our problem is that of 50% not wanting to work but choosing to depend on the remaining 50% for charity due to the so-called "averaging of reward". What I see is more a case of 90% sweating it out, only to get 10% of the pie while the remaining 10% gets to keep 90% (of course I have exaggerated). At the end, each peasant gets next to peanut, not enough to pay for transport and meals. As such, some got fed up and quit working for good. Unfortunately, there are also the lazy ones which become a good excuse for people to conclude that the poor are too lazy to work which is why they will remain poor.

The distribution of wealth (salary) is just too lopsided. 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 Ah soh "Saw" immediately comes to mind when I was thinking for an example. To make matter worse, cheap FT were brought in. My guess is we need a depression (which I hope is after my time) for things to be set in the right course again.

 

[Windsor]

CAPITALISM, or more precisely, the free market system, and blah blah blah

Yeah right, neat cut and paste that hardly relate to your post about those 5 sentences. As requested, by bro mojito, brocoli, "if you can put into your own words, the gist of the articles you have quoted and why you think they make sense, I think that would facilitate discussions. You ought to understand it is not very time efficient for posters to reply to every ad hoc hypotheses you develop after they have just demonstrated to you how your original view was oversimplified.

Go ahead. I am sure this will be thought provoking for you and other readers here."

At least we know your brain is working rather than spewing some highfalutin passages from an unknown link. Obviously you got that from somewhere, right?

 

[kingrant]

A depression will not hurt the top 10% super rich. they have deep pockets and thick insulation. The ones to get hurt will be those in the middle. The really poor is already at the margins of subsistence, so their decline will not be so sharp.

Bad medicine, witch doctor!

My guess is we need a depression (which I hope is after my time) for things to be set in the right course again.

 

[mesmerised]

Economic theories and instruments only make sense when the principle of "cetris peribus" is applied, i.e. some factors are held constant. In real world, many things are variable. There is no single formulae that will work under all circumstances. No matter which form of govt comes or whatever is the work ethic of the people maybe, economic success is not a given, esp when you can't dig the ground up to grow things nor strike oil in Singapore.

 

[kingrant]

Rampant/runaway capitalism devotees believe in trickle-down effects to allow those lower down to level up, but in reality, tends to create wide income disparities. This is where govts have a duty to bridge the gap, failing which social tensions will tear society apart. China is a great example between the fast growing rich classes versus those still below poverty line in the interior. There is now backlash against those land-owning class.

 

[brocoli]

Outright capitalism will fail. Isn't it any surprise that the most developed countries are a combination of capitalism and socialism.

Most people generally are motivated to work. Its only a minority that is the issue.

Which rational person would want to be poor and receive handouts. Everyone is keen to own a house and enjoy life and he certainly can't achieve that by being poor. Who then are the poor. Let me guess, - structural employment displacement, illness, lack of education and training, economy not well managed and demand for labour and management skills are not there etc. So what is the role of the govt? - hold cabinet meetings and then call it a day.

GoH Keng Swee and Hon Sui Sen delivered an economic climate that overshot the supply of labour and skills. And they did year after year for 25 years. How did they do it.

most developed countries are trying to dismantle welfare state, min wages because of all the shithole they are in, and they admire our cpf, coe and medisave system .... while in sinkie land, PAP under pressure and NSP/WP/SDP/RP because of their ignorance... are trying to resurrect welfare state, min wages ...

I really blame WP and all that talk about Nationalisation..... most harebrain socialist idea ever... socialise/nationalise mean now every 1 have to bear the risk and cost of running the transport system? is that fair for those who dun take MRT ????

Which rational person would want to work when they can receive handouts and enjoy certain level standard of living ..???

I don't think our problem is that of 50% not wanting to work but choosing to depend on the remaining 50% for charity due to the so-called "averaging of reward". What I see is more a case of 90% sweating it out, only to get 10% of the pie while the remaining 10% gets to keep 90% (of course I have exaggerated). At the end, each peasant gets next to peanut, not enough to pay for transport and meals. As such, some got fed up and quit working for good. Unfortunately, there are also the lazy ones which become a good excuse for people to conclude that the poor are too lazy to work which is why they will remain poor.

The distribution of wealth (salary) is just too lopsided. 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 Ah soh "Saw" immediately comes to mind when I was thinking for an example. To make matter worse, cheap FT were brought in. My guess is we need a depression (which I hope is after my time) for things to be set in the right course again.

are sinkie really sweating it out or surfing sammyboy and facebook ?? why is our wages so low compared to other developed nation because our productivity is the lowest... fair enough....?

why are we complaining about distribution of wealth ??? this is an age where any1 can set up a biz without much capital outlay .... ebay is there....
any1 with a brilliant idea can set a website... teenage girls are setting up blogshop all over....... did mark zuckerberg inmherit his wealth???

did most wall street bankers inherit their wealth??? most of the slog their way though ivies which stupid people cant get ... i see the politics of envy @ work

There is no such thing as "developed". It is a continous process. Even developed countries have to keep moving to avoid stagnation and stagflation.

The aim of most govt is ensure that the economy has an acceptable unemployment rate. The issue is not the poor. The issue is that there are people looking for work but unable to get it. Education and managing the economy has be joined at the hips. Skills must meet industry needs. It appears there is skills mismatch. People are going to Poly and Universities are finding it difficult to hold to their jobs past the age of 40. The younger ones are outbid by cheaper labour.

These are serious structural issues and keen minds are needed by the Govt. The Govt cannot blame everything on the people. Why else form a govt?

maybe there should not ITE and Poly then.... what is the point of stuffing education down the throat of those who are are not willing to swallow???

why do we need so many educated people for anyway ? some need to pour the shit...

Yeah right, neat cut and paste that hardly relate to your post about those 5 sentences. As requested, by bro mojito, brocoli, "if you can put into your own words, the gist of the articles you have quoted and why you think they make sense, I think that would facilitate discussions. You ought to understand it is not very time efficient for posters to reply to every ad hoc hypotheses you develop after they have just demonstrated to you how your original view was oversimplified.

Go ahead. I am sure this will be thought provoking for you and other readers here."

At least we know your brain is working rather than spewing some highfalutin passages from an unknown link. Obviously you got that from somewhere, right?

you cant cure poverty by throwing money .,,,, its like a drug. a temp relief.... soon they will ask for more and more and 1 day when you got an aged population... it will be impossible to dismantle all those benefit and entitlement which need to be paid by some1...

capitalism is the best system.... the price mechanism is more effective and efficient system than any available....

imagine you want to buy a car... some get it by offering a lower price because the govt think he need it more... how would you feel? how would the seller feel???

economic freedom is the most important liberty

I agree with every single words that is said and they have said it better,.,,, why need me to be bad interpreter wehn you can read the original....

why is david beckham paid so much..? because he is worth it... because he can generate far more $ for those who paid him... why else would they pay him shitload of $$$

again the politics of envy is at work

Rampant/runaway capitalism devotees believe in trickle-down effects to allow those lower down to level up, but in reality, tends to create wide income disparities. This is where govts have a duty to bridge the gap, failing which social tensions will tear society apart. China is a great example between the fast growing rich classes versus those still below poverty line in the interior. There is now backlash against those land-owning class.

why we care about disparities and inequalities as long as the lowest among us got enough to get by ???

why? the politics of envy again...

disclaimer: I am poor but I got backbone.... WHEN I do MAKE it, i dun wan to have to hand over whatever i have made....

 

[Conqueror]

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

Are you a PAP voter ? You tend to look at one perspective and then you declare it is what you think it is than it actually is. The fascist pigs Napoleon and gang with the closely knitted collaboration with Jones (evil capitalists) will continue to suck the life blood of the majority of this republic. Then, I'll say, "Let's have a republic and cast out those fascist pigs now !"

 

[Windsor]

you cant cure poverty by throwing money .,,,, its like a drug. a temp relief.... soon they will ask for more and more and 1 day when you got an aged population... it will be impossible to dismantle all those benefit and entitlement which need to be paid by some1...

capitalism is the best system.... the price mechanism is more effective and efficient system than any available....

imagine you want to buy a car... some get it by offering a lower price because the govt think he need it more... how would you feel? how would the seller feel???

economic freedom is the most important liberty

I agree with every single words that is said and they have said it better,.,,, why need me to be bad interpreter wehn you can read the original....

why is david beckham paid so much..? because he is worth it... because he can generate far more $ for those who paid him... why else would they pay him shitload of $$$

again the politics of envy is at work

In response to your reply, it is a very simplistic view and do not take into account some other factors. Your oft-repeated quote about politics of envy although not entirely wrong is only one facet of the problem. Why can't you see that in this present age, the 1st world nations are facing one major destructive aspect of capitalism, i.e., what is termed as the Peacock Effect? If you don't know about this then google it.

Anyway to use your David Beckham example, you asked why is he paid so much? If you can understand the Peacock Effect of capitalism then there is the answer. Then perhaps you should see why the world's greatest soccer player, Pele received only a pittance. Maybe you think Beckham is a much better player than Pele or Eusebio or George Best and so he deserved much much more than all 3 of them.

 

[brocoli]

In response to your reply, it is a very simplistic view and do not take into account some other factors. Your oft-repeated quote about politics of envy although not entirely wrong is only one facet of the problem. Why can't you see that in this present age, the 1st world nations are facing one major destructive aspect of capitalism, i.e., what is termed as the Peacock Effect? If you don't know about this then google it.

Anyway to use your David Beckham example, you asked why is he paid so much? If you can understand the Peacock Effect of capitalism then there is the answer. Then perhaps you should see why the world's greatest soccer player, Pele received only a pittance. Maybe you think Beckham is a much better player than Pele or Eusebio or George Best and so he deserved much much more than all 3 of them.

why are you comparing past and present???

can Pele or Eusebio or George Best generate the kind of revenue and cable viewership that beckham?

not just beckham but mario ballotelli, messi and cristiano ronaldo also can ???

technological changes allow the best performers in a given field to serve a bigger market and thus reap a greater share of its revenue. ....

go read this paper "The Economics of Superstars” http://www.jstor.org/pss/1803469

and this book saving "capitalism from the capitalists" http://www.amazon.com/Saving-Capitalism-Capitalists-Unleashing-Opportunity/dp/0609610708

this is also a good book ... Tim Harford's The Undercover Economist: Exposing Why the Rich Are Rich, the Poor Are Poor--and Why You Can Never Buy a Decent Used Car!

http://www.amazon.com/Undercover-Economist-Exposing-Poor-Decent/dp/0195189779

 

[scroobal]

There are many excesses in the developed world's welfare and support structure and I will the first to see these gone. But base acceptable standards must exist.

Here is a good example that came up for discussion some 10 months ago in a local think tank setup.

A hawker 20 years ago with hard work and with a little bit of risk taking is able to move to a bigger shop, possibly a private shophouse and eventually buy it. He might be even be able to set up a few branches.

20 years later, in view of Singapore's limited land stock, private commercial properties for such an enterprising hawker will likely to be in hands of GLC such as Mapletree, Fraser Properties etc. The rent will be very high and the tenure no longer 5 + 5 + 5 but 2+2. The hawker choice is limited to rundown properties that are now poorly maintained, low traffic or patronised by consumers with little spending money such as Katong Shopping Centre.

So who owns these properties that are able to generate profits. Increasingly you will find that opportunities are in the hands of a few. If we don't check it, we return to feudalism but with a slant - Lords who wear Gucci, holiday in the Bahamas and visit the Grand Cayman to move their money around. Lew Syn Pau ex-PAP MP who was charged in court for corporate fraud and acquited was using offshore entities to make loans and retain profits without taxation. I am trying to be simplistic.

This country does not belong to the PAP or its cronies. Do get fooled by them claiming that a hardworking individual has all the opportunities available to them to advance just like any other individual. Thats bullshit.

An ACJC boy who had to repeated his A levels, went on to take an OMS scholarship and is now in the elite Admin Service. What about his classmates who passed the first time around and had better grades than him. His was an interesting case. His father was a Perm Sec and former Head of Civil Service. How did a chap who did not clear his A levels in a top rung eventually end up in the Civil Service Elite.

Yong Pung How's daughter was given home tuition by a PHD chap and the tuition fees would easily pay for someone salary. She is now a Perm Sec. Can the average Singaporean able to get those kinds of leverage and resources. Are we all on the same playing field.

I came on this forum more than a decade ago because I was aware of these abuses. I could have easily sipped on my Pina Colada while having my bacon and eggs and see Singaporeans swallow the hard work crap. Only dumb think that Singapore is wide open to anyone who wants to work hard. Tell that to the engineer who was retrenched at the ageof 40 and now drives a taxi. Tell that to the office manager who has to downgrade to keep things going.

Are you aware that there is company called Kwa Geok Choo and Co that sounds quite innocuous. Let me just say that it is a real company and it does make noodles in a small flatted factory in Lower Delta Road. We are not talking about a typical family run business with kids coming back from school to help serve food. If this company calls Mapletree, it is not going tell them that they are cooking wanton noodles for lunch and the top dogs in Mapletree are certainly going to pick up the phone and listen.

How did a CCC Chairman get development rights in Sentosa without going thru the official tender process. When someone tells you he is clean, are you going to accept it?

 

[Conqueror]

Capitalism Is Not A Good Standard For A Proper Governance

most developed countries are trying to dismantle welfare state

I really blame WP and all that talk about Nationalisation..... most harebrain socialist idea ever

Which rational person would want to work when they can receive handouts


why are we complaining about distribution of wealth

did most wall street bankers inherit their wealth??? most of the slog their way though ivies which stupid people cant get ... i see the politics of envy @ work


you cant cure poverty by throwing money

capitalism is the best system.... the price mechanism is more effective and efficient system than any available....


disclaimer: I am poor but I got backbone.... WHEN I do MAKE it, i dun wan to have to hand over whatever i have made....

There will always be people who trust a dictator to do whatever he feels like doing it. To them, there's no right or wrong in his decision. They will just follow what he dishes out to them - good ones or bad ones. Unlike what some people may preach capitalism to be (good), it isn't what it seems to be. Now, you can see people are being pissed when their government is drawing them into eternal poverty and slavery. Capitalism is not a good resource distribution.

However, I had warned many people of this (capitalism) that controls your freedom and destroying the equilibrium that we are trying to create a good society but not necessarily a strong nation. People who hope for a strong nation are often fascist supporters or capitalist supporters. The reason is that most percentage of the people have no tendency to give up their land and rights for cash which they hardly able to understand or to manage it. Failure in such a thing will create poverty and slavery. The republic should FOCUS on the majority who cannot attain that level of happiness without being robbed by their own 'government' and the evil capitalists who are in cahoot with them for more benefits than usual.

Wall Street can be evil. We are already too many bad things about what these people did. It's greed and avarice that creates a bad and irresponsible society.

The republic is YOU ! It's everyone of you. You have to supervise those who are 'in power'. They are supposed to be your servants and not as your masters !