Many here want to brain wash you Slow growth = Less Stress?

[RonRon]

Excerpt of: Myths in the go-slow debate
Taking economy out of the fast lane may not be all it seems -- By Chua Mui Hoong, Opinion Editor

PM Lee:
'I know that some Singaporeans welcome the prospect of slower growth. Some want us to slow down even below our economy's potential. They argue that we already have enough material success, and should give less weight to economic factors, and more to social considerations. And that we should spend more on ourselves, and put aside less for the future.'

There are two different questions here. The first is: what pace of growth do we want for Singapore? The second is distributive: what level of social spending can Singapore afford?

The answer to the first is surely obvious: As much growth as we can get, while we can, in a way that does not make life difficult for the more vulnerable.

In fact, the debate is riddled with three mutually distorting myths.

The first myth is that slower growth equals lower stress.?
But slower growth also means the economy will shrink, some businesses go bust, workers lose jobs. It is the vulnerable workers who will bear the brunt of a shrinking economy: the elderly worker, the middle- aged technician or saleswoman.

Those who already have means may find a leisurely pace of life intellectually and emotionally appealing. But the average Singaporean heartlander is still at an aspirational phase: he wants a good job, pay rises, a nice home and prospects for his children.

The second myth: the idea that fast growth breeds inequality, and therefore slower growth is better?
It is true fast growth exacerbates inequality. But the solution is not to stave off growth. Size and distribution are different concerns. You go for a larger pie first, and then you figure out how to slice it more fairly.

The third myth is the notion that Singapore can choose to go slow or grow fast.?
In fact, the choice will be made for us. As PM Lee noted, slow growth is unavoidable. You do not need an economics degree to understand that Singapore's mature economy is at a very high base, which means future growth will be slower. Its limited land and labour also constrain growth. It is therefore important to understand what critics of 'growth at all costs' are lamenting. They are not saying Singapore should slacken. In essence, they are saying fast growth should be conditional on benefits being spread equitably, and on maintaining quality of life.

In other words, it is the impact of high growth, unmitigated by social policies, that is being faulted.

This is not the same as saying slow growth is preferred over fast growth. Rather, it is about saying: Go for growth that is balanced and sustainable, with benefits shared with the majority.

Fast growth is not suitable for everyone. But is slow growth or slowing down growth the answer for everyone too? Those who already have means may find a leisurely pace of life intellectually and emotionally appealing. They argue that we already have enough material success, and should give less weight to economic factors, and more to social considerations. And that we should spend more on ourselves, and put aside less for the future.

But the average Singaporean heartlander is still at an aspirational phase: he wants a good job, pay rises, a nice home and prospects for his children.

There are two different questions here. The first is: what pace of growth do we want for Singapore? The second is distributive: what level of social spending can Singapore afford?

The answer to the first is surely obvious: As much growth as we can get, while we can, in a way that does not make life difficult for the more vulnerable.


Easy Read on "If Only Singaporeans Stop To Think":
http://ifonlysingaporeans.blogspot....ml?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=facebook