Free Market Capitalism vs Monopoly - Q raised by CM06

• Skibi

  26 Apr 07, 12:37

  Originally posted by CM06:
  I'm not against another party being the all out dominant one as long as they run it right.
  
  I'm totally sick of how things wont get pushed through because of a significant number of opposition on the other side.
  
  Imagine, if party X is 60% has votes of the poor wants to push a tax bill to raise corporate tax and party Y has 35% and support of the rich and powerful...and you need a 70% vote to go through.... how?
  

  I hope this answers your question. Monopoly can be profitable yes, but you can earn so much more with free markets and enrich the common people as well - making it in their best interests to contribute to singapore. This will lead to a benevolent cycle of retaining local talents and eventually progressing to attracting talents from around the world.
  
  A simple analogy based on your question:
  
  Bread and Butter Issue
  If party X holds a monopoly and only supports the 1 % who are rich and powerful, it is only the rich and powerful who will want to stay and contribute to Singapore.*
  
  In other words, the remaining 99% who are not rich and powerful will want to leave to other places which recognise their talents - this is in their own self interests.
  
  The Human Element
  Another facet of the problem is that humans have feelings. Thus even tho party X supports the 1% rich and powerful, there may be talents within this 1% that feel party X is not being just and fair. These talents with that 1% may also leave to other places as this too is in their self interests - not for monetary gain, but rather the satisfaction that comes with intangible rewards.
  
  
• CM06

  26 Apr 07, 12:46

  But you see,
  
  you cant have 99% of the votes if you have only 1% of the support.
  
  I definitely dont see political as a free market.
• CM06

  26 Apr 07, 12:52

  I would like to see however a more detail answer to my question:
  
  1) What kind of % in a goverment would you like the parties to each hold
  
  E.g. PAP X%, WP X% other parties X%. Why in that order.
  
  2) How would a coalition government help make things better for the fellow men given that %
  
  3) How would the ministerial positions be handedout
  
  4) Would it solve the discontentment of the general populace over the current policies.
  
  I throw this out to everyone. I dont have much time now to say...and i feel this is quite out of my league. Big players please go ahead. I will read and learn though.
• Skibi

  26 Apr 07, 14:13

  Originally posted by CM06:
  I would like to see however a more detail answer to my question:
  
  1) What kind of % in a goverment would you like the parties to each hold
  
  E.g. PAP X%, WP X% other parties X%. Why in that order.
  
  2) How would a coalition government help make things better for the fellow men given that %
  
  3) How would the ministerial positions be handedout
  
  4) Would it solve the discontentment of the general populace over the current policies.
  
  I throw this out to everyone. I dont have much time now to say...and i feel this is quite out of my league. Big players please go ahead. I will read and learn though.

  The answer lies not in changing the % of the government e.g allocating seats to opposition. But rather how the PAP can progress to a new level in terms of talent, capabilities, and values to win the support of the people.
  
  To do this it will be necessary to redefine the criteria by which the government defines meritocracy and promotes civil servants. Are we giving everyone a fair chance to achieve what their natural born talents allows them to do? Should we include values as one of the criteria in our performance evaluations? What are the kind of talents that we desire - is it only excellence in academica? Or can it be of a more practical level, talents that are able to progress singapore no matter how humble the background.