Is there a free market given all the GLCs in the market?
-
Try to tell that to our GLCs, that there is a free market they will laugh their asses off. They can simply write any internal circular to limit tender participations in any projects to their own government agencies and not to admit any particular private sector if they choose to do so.
Try to tell NTUC to follow the market practice they will tell you that they are the cooperative and should be allowed to do anything in that name.
Some foreign insurance companies will tell you why they are backing away from government controlled businesses whenever NTUC is bidding - they have no chance to compete because of certain discriminations.
Try to tell Straits Times not to charge their excessive advertisement fees, they will tell you all their rules and regulations and policies. But when they decide that the news print has gone up they will tell you they will have to increase their copy prices.
So much is the monopoly of government in businesses that the market freedom is not real. That is why all the government services and GLC prices will keep going up.
Furthermore GLCs are simply not enterprises in the sense that they will be run like the private free-market entities. They will always use the government backing to increase profits to make up for the lack of competitiveness or entrepreneurship.
So when MediaCorps splits into two but failed due to bureaucracy and lack of entrepreneurship, they know that they could merge again to make them the only monopoly to entitle them to charge higher fees.
Now Mediacorps is profitable again because of monopoly not free market.
Try to tell the HDB not to go into business, or increase their shop rentals beyond what the market can afford, they will laugh away all such simplistic suggestion because they know that no one can tell them what to do.
On the day the government decided to go into business there is no more free market and all the free market talks today is just an assumptions and not the truth because there is no such thing as markets once the government decides to go into business. -
Still one cannot deny the fact that government intervention in one way or another, do add a boost in luring investors and stimulate economic growth.
-
Try to tell that to our GLCs, that there is a free market they will laugh their asses off. They can simply write any internal circular to limit tender participations in any projects to their own government agencies and not to admit any particular private sector if they choose to do so.
First of all, there is no evidence of such internal memos. I have competed with GLCs before for govt projects and won even though my offer costs more.
Even if they do have such an instruction, it is still a free market cos they are free to choose anybody they want to do business with.
Huh? Is NTUC a GLC? You don't even know what a GLC is, what the hell are you talking about?
Try to tell NTUC to follow the market practice they will tell you that they are the cooperative and should be allowed to do anything in that name.
Rubbish! NTUC only does retail insurance.
Some foreign insurance companies will tell you why they are backing away from government controlled businesses whenever NTUC is bidding - they have no chance to compete because of certain discriminations.
Can you tell us which foreign insurance company and which GLC you are talking about?
Again, NTUC is not a GLC. You can't even tell which is a GLC. I suggest you stop BS here.
Excessive fees? Based on what?
Try to tell Straits Times not to charge their excessive advertisement fees, they will tell you all their rules and regulations and policies. But when they decide that the news print has gone up they will tell you they will have to increase their copy prices.
Whats wrong with increasing print price when the price of paper has gone up so much? How can a free market economy restrict companies from increasing prices? Are you anti free enterprise?
Be specific will you? What monopoly are you refering to?
So much is the monopoly of government in businesses that the market freedom is not real. That is why all the government services and GLC prices will keep going up.
I don't think you have an idea of what a free enterprise market is. How can a free enterprise market be restricting profits?
Furthermore GLCs are simply not enterprises in the sense that they will be run like the private free-market entities. They will always use the government backing to increase profits to make up for the lack of competitiveness or entrepreneurship.
Er.. can you explain why the govt would want to canibalise its own profits in the first place if they want a monopoly?
So when MediaCorps splits into two but failed due to bureaucracy and lack of entrepreneurship, they know that they could merge again to make them the only monopoly to entitle them to charge higher fees.
Now Mediacorps is profitable again because of monopoly not free market.
What is wrong with increasing shop rentals when there are so many people queuing to rent? Are you sure you know what is free enterprise?
Try to tell the HDB not to go into business, or increase their shop rentals beyond what the market can afford, they will laugh away all such simplistic suggestion because they know that no one can tell them what to do.
I think you just don't have the guts or ability to compete hard, you want easy business. This is a free enterprise economy my friend. Whining instead of competing won't get you anywhere.
On the day the government decided to go into business there is no more free market and all the free market talks today is just an assumptions and not the truth because there is no such thing as markets once the government decides to go into business.
Singapore has consistently been voted as one of the freest economies in the world, second only to Hong Kong and even overtaking them at one time. -
If GLCs take up say 30% of private sector's traditional business what will happen to our economic competitiveness?Originally posted by TooFree:Still one cannot deny the fact that government intervention in one way or another, do add a boost in luring investors and stimulate economic growth.
Let us examine the following:-
(1) These GLCs will step into the traditional domestic sector to take away equivalent amount of business.
(2) These GLCs will develop to take away the domestic businesses by fair or foul means causing shrinking domestic businesses.
(3) CEOs and managers will take over the traditional entrepreneurs in running of GRCs displacing the free-market entrepreneurs who will dwindle in numbers.
(4) With gradual reductions in entrepreneurs, domestic economy will grow weakers while the GLCs continue to expand to take over all the government-related businesses displacing more and more domestic business pies.
(5) Monies and profits of GLCs go into government's coffers and not the private citizens' investments thereby reducing expansions of investments in the private sector.
(6) GLCs being mostly run by government, are not run like enterprises but monopolies thereby reducing entrepreneurship in these companies. Over time they will have to seek price increases as the way to continue their growth.
(7) Citizens end up being made to pay fees increases for all the GLC-run services and businesses while the domestic sector is deprived of corresponding growths.
GLCs are not helping to grow the economy but are constraining the real growth by monopolies. Examples are failures - SBSs and MediaCorps which cannot do well due to lack of entrepreneurship and finally have to depend more and more on fee monopolistic fee increases and not true competitions to make profits. -
If GLCs take up say 30% of private sector's traditional business what will happen to our economic competitiveness?
Where did you get that figure? Out of the air?
What is your definition of tradional business?
Like?
Let us examine the following:-
(1) These GLCs will step into the traditional domestic sector to take away equivalent amount of business.
(2) These GLCs will develop to take away the domestic businesses by fair or foul means causing shrinking domestic businesses.
GLCs are in fact better managed than local antrepreneurs? Have you worked with local companies?
(3) CEOs and managers will take over the traditional entrepreneurs in running of GRCs displacing the free-market entrepreneurs who will dwindle in numbers.
Not true. GLCs can grow the economy and they are actually very limited in scope. In other words, its not a problem for true entrepreneurs.
(4) With gradual reductions in entrepreneurs, domestic economy will grow weakers while the GLCs continue to expand to take over all the government-related businesses displacing more and more domestic business pies.
It goes into public spending and back to private citizens.
(5) Monies and profits of GLCs go into government's coffers and not the private citizens' investments thereby reducing expansions of investments in the private sector.
I think you don't have a clear view of fund flows in an economy do you?
Not true, GLCs are better runned than many local enterprises.
(6) GLCs being mostly run by government, are not run like enterprises but monopolies thereby reducing entrepreneurship in these companies. Over time they will have to seek price increases as the way to continue their growth.
Not necessarily. GLCs can also be a stabilising factor when it comes to prices.
(7) Citizens end up being made to pay fees increases for all the GLC-run services and businesses while the domestic sector is deprived of corresponding growths.
In fact, had there been no GLCs, many goods and services would have gone up even higher in prices either under private individuals or by foreign companies.
SBS privatised remember?
GLCs are not helping to grow the economy but are constraining the real growth by monopolies. Examples are failures - SBSs and MediaCorps which cannot do well due to lack of entrepreneurship and finally have to depend more and more on fee monopolistic fee increases and not true competitions to make profits.
Mediacorp is doing fine. The market in Singapore is just too small for two players. -
In reality, all economies to some extent are mixed. US, theoretically is a capitalist economy but in reality, 10% of its economic activities are carried out by the government.
If you have studied economics, you will have know that one of the characteristics is that the government only intervene in particular industries where:
1. Initial costs are too high for private sector to undertake. E.g SBS
2. Duplication is to be avoided so as to prevent wastage of resources. E.g Mediacorp
3. Strategic or Military reasons.
4. Humanitarian reasons.
5. Not profitable for private sector. E.g Low-cost HDB
Look at the industries the GLCs ventured into.
-
Good point. But in the US, it is actually more than 10%.
At one time, 50% of the US economy was generated by govt spending. Thats too much of course but what do you expect when you have liberals running the place? Does it stifle entrepreneurship? -
Salmon, pls dun multi-quote...it is making very hard for ppl to reply u
-
Its not difficult, in fact its clearer for readers. Thats why I take the effort to do it.
I replied to such formats myself. -
If GLCs don't displace our fair share of entrepreneurs from the domestic sector of the economy, I can see certain sense in government going into business. Prove that GLCs will produce more Li Ka Shings or Kwek Leng Bengs I will vote for more GLCs. So far I only see GLCs constraining growth of our own domestic sector and I see this as threatening and decimating our real economic vibrancy. While we can see some advantages of government being involved in business, we must also see the larger picture.Originally posted by TooFree:In reality, all economies to some extent are mixed. US, theoretically is a capitalist economy but in reality, 10% of its economic activities are carried out by the government.
If you have studied economics, you will have know that one of the characteristics is that the government only intervene in particular industries where:
1. Initial costs are too high for private sector to undertake. E.g SBS
2. Duplication is to be avoided so as to prevent wastage of resources. E.g Mediacorp
3. Strategic or Military reasons.
4. Humanitarian reasons.
5. Not profitable for private sector. E.g Low-cost HDB
Look at the industries the GLCs ventured into. -
Try to click "qoute" on your multi-quotes reply, and you should know what I meanOriginally posted by Salman:Its not difficult, in fact its clearer for readers. Thats why I take the effort to do it.
I replied to such formats myself.
-
where is salman?
-
cant agree on this. S'pore's GLCs are World Class institutions. GLCs are also needed to rectify market failures bacause incumbent businesses do not have the scale to enter certain industries. and like the previous posts, SOEs are not unique to S'poreOriginally posted by robertteh:If GLCs don't displace our fair share of entrepreneurs from the domestic sector of the economy, I can see certain sense in government going into business. Prove that GLCs will produce more Li Ka Shings or Kwek Leng Bengs I will vote for more GLCs. So far I only see GLCs constraining growth of our own domestic sector and I see this as threatening and decimating our real economic vibrancy. While we can see some advantages of government being involved in business, we must also see the larger picture. -
WORLD CLASS???? which world u talking about?? Mars?Originally posted by ben1xy:cant agree on this. S'pore's GLCs are World Class institutions. GLCs are also needed to rectify market failures bacause incumbent businesses do not have the scale to enter certain industries. and like the previous posts, SOEs are not unique to S'pore -
I think he is referring to the rose tinted world of his pappy masters. The world where there are "More good years ahead", "swiss standard of living" , "assets enhancement" and of course not forgetting their favourite response when they do something wrong "it was an honest mistake"Originally posted by I-like-flings(m):WORLD CLASS???? which world u talking about?? Mars? -
Worst ppl are those in NTUC
Says they are here to balance the market w/o making high profits, yes, $99M profit is low? -
5 entries found for co-operative.Originally posted by sbst275:Worst ppl are those in NTUC
Says they are here to balance the market w/o making high profits, yes, $99M profit is low?
co·op·er·a·tive ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-pr--tv, --rtv, -pr-)
adj.
1) Done in cooperation with others: a cooperative effort.
2) Marked by willingness to cooperate; compliant: a cooperative patient.
3) Of, relating to, or formed as an enterprise or organization jointly owned or managed by those who use its facilities or services at a higher than normal price so as to feed those fat cat in their ivory tower: a cooperative department store; cooperative apartment buildings, NTUC. -
i dont understand the domination and the purpose of making so much money when they hardly use it to help its people.
-
Aiyah, govt things all profits need to be made and is justified...Originally posted by dragg:i dont understand the domination and the purpose of making so much money when they hardly use it to help its people.
You think this is the 70's where they care for everyone? -
they need that money to pay school fees in suzhou and russia . Also someone has to pay the million dollar salaries of our incorruptile ministers and not forgetting to top up whatever that Ho Jinx has lost while managing temasekOriginally posted by dragg:i dont understand the domination and the purpose of making so much money when they hardly use it to help its people. -
Aiyah, those $$ are goneOriginally posted by meleagent:they need that money to for school fees suzhou and russia . Also someone has to pay the million dollar salaries of our incorruptile ministers and not forgetting to top up whatever that Ho Jinx has lost while managing temasek -
Our world-class institutions have tried to go into technological applications like disk drives, micro-chips, micro-electronics, bio-medical and pharmaceuticals, but before they started they lost $700 millions in Micropolis and CSM is still struggling with losses in hundreds of millions.Originally posted by ben1xy:cant agree on this. S'pore's GLCs are World Class institutions. GLCs are also needed to rectify market failures bacause incumbent businesses do not have the scale to enter certain industries. and like the previous posts, SOEs are not unique to S'pore
What is so world-class about corporatizations of existing serviecs to create bigger companies which were started by some private individuals just to make them bigger and look good. This kind of business will not bring in the technological advancement or start-ups. There is no evidence that our scholars or public servants possess the true entrepreneurship.
By taking over some existing shipyards and going into ship repairs or rig buildings, many private sector people have done it all the time. By cannabalizing and restructuring existing banks taken over with monies like DBS may be growing but sooner or later it will have to come up with its own products in order to stay successful like the fortune 500 banks. So it is not a case of entrepreneurship or technology growth which is what we need to upgrade the whole economy.
We may end up with more losses as government might still take over some micropolis type and found that they lack the technology excellenece and have to suffer losses. CSM is losing a lot of monies because of such lack of total knowledge applications.
Many new technologies will have to be understood by going into them based on master plans and thorough implementation excellence otherwise they will continue to lose monies one after another ventures.
Now Yeo Cheow Tong tried to say that biomedicals would take up to 30 years to see results. After so many boos boos and U-Turns, and even MRT and Nicol highway fiascos, we are waiting for one world-class ventures to take off. -
is it??? i always thought its states & japan... cos nothing is impossible thereOriginally posted by Salman:Singapore has consistently been voted as one of the freest economies in the world, second only to Hong Kong and even overtaking them at one time.
-
Our Envionment is anti-business, that is why. Even the MNCs will have to move away from here eventually as well because of higher operating costs due to direct and indirect taxes like double-charges on lands and triple charges on vehicles etc that make their operations uncompetitive.
If government understands fundamentals of economics they should know that by letting citizens make more monies with less taxes and charges monies will go round and round among the people more times and at the end the government coffers will grow more from higher volumes of taxes.
In this way, a pro-business government can create greater vibrancy and the domestic sector will grow more viable and competitive. -
let talk about communication sector.....Originally posted by Salman:Where did you get that figure? Out of the air?
What is your definition of tradional business?