What's PM's LabourDay msg got to do with the aged?
-
100th reply....
-
I honestly appreciate this post engaging solely on our topic and nothing else. As for the hotline, I'm not in Singapore. Your verification is good enough.Originally posted by Atobe:
Dear Rock^Star
You should try calling DBS Hotline at 1-800-222 2222 to get the necessary information.
They confirmed that for Deposits of a minimum sum of $1000 for a period of anywhere from ONE Month to 24 Months - there are NO fees payable.
The only condition is that withdrawals will have to be made only on maturity date, or a penalty will have to be paid.
When a program has matured, the Bank will pay out in cash or Banker's Order; or one can start another Fixxed Deposit program with no additional costs.
The interest earned from the previous Fixxed Deposit can either be withdrawn on added onto the Principal Sum for the new FD program.
High cost of Management Fees, Bank Charges ? Where did you get your information from ?
Were you referring to Unit Trusts, or some other investment programs ?
Yes, what you mentioned above is correct. Management fees are for unit trusts, not fixed deposits. Please render point 1 invalid.
I just did a quick check on the fixed deposit rates from these banks: OCBC, UOB, Maybank and DBS/POSB. Seems that the "6% p.a. 3 months" promotion is not the norm of banks here. All the banks have their interest rates below CPF's retirement account's 4%. And as written in fine print on the DBS webpage HERE, only new funds from other banks are eligible. It seems to me that this promotion is meant more as an enticement to compete with rival banks than to stay as a perpetual feature.
Unless such plans come out all of the time, then CPF's plans for the individual after age 55 is still effective in my opinion.
As for Chee Soon Juan, perhaps there were some comments from me about him that you deemed condescending. I see it differently, I was just telling the truth as I saw it. May I quote an example: Lee Kuan Yew is revered by many but he also has his naysayers. Criticism of him will sound unpleasant and even insulting to his supporters. Everyone has a point of view, don't they? Whether right or wrong, only time will tell.
As for my shifty views on CSJ that you alleged, well, I leave it to your interpretation. -
Then you've to stretch your imagination wider!Originally posted by blueheeler:I think May Day is about celebrating the ‘worker’. In my imagination, the ‘worker’ is someone young(ish), full of life, healthy and has a lot to live for.
Many countries are having aging population and are asking their people to work longer.
With advancement in medicine and science people live longer, healthier and age much slower than their previous generations. Raising retirement age can be considered a recognition of these developments.
Singapore's population is also aging and that means its work force too isn't young. PM Labour Day message about the 'aged' (rather it should be aging work force) is therefore relevant.
The only problem i have with PM's message is that can we work longer when our above-40 are made redundant so recklessly? -
What's PM's LabourDay msg got to do with the aged?
The reason -
yonger and better educated new generation of Singaporeanss do not see eye to eye with the current government.
The next election is crucial in terms of swinging of votes. If majority of new voters continue opposing government for several reasons, this votors deficit has to be countered from somewhere else.
You have the answer!
Senior citizens.
Senior citizens support is critical for the ruling party if they want to cancel out the swing of votes to opposition parties .
They can then boast of a mandate albeit they never got any real mandate . Elections were won by using the fear factor and threats against the people. -
Did the Ruling Party get a sweeping mandate from the 2006 Elections in Singapore ?
Let's start with the demographics of Singapore Population as published by the Department of Statistics for 2006.
The total breakdown - of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other Ethnic Groups - according to age groups are as follows:
Age 0 - 4 Group total 196,500
Age 5 - 9 Group total 240,100
Age 10 - 14 Group total 261,500
Age 15 - 19 Group total 249,900
Age 20 - 24 Group total 222,400
Age 25 - 29 Group total 257,300
Age 30 - 34 Group total 308,200
Age 40 - 44 Group total 331,900
Age 45 - 49 Group total 319,300
Age 50 - 54 Group total 272,200
Age 55 - 59 Group total 219,100
Age 60 - 64 Group total 120,900
Age 65 - 69 Group total 111,500
Age 70 - 74 Group total 80,600
Age 75 - 79 Group total 57,600
Age 80 - 84 Group total 32,100
Age 85 & Over total 24,600
The Age Groups from 20 to 85 will total 2,357,700 of our population that was estimated to be 4.483 million - which will include foreign and permanent residents.
In Wikipedia's Summary of the Singapore Election 2006, surprisingly it stated that the Total Voting Electorate was only 1,222,884 - which is only about half or 51.86% of the total age group from Age 20 to 85+ that are supposed to be within the Voting Age (of 21 years and above).
From this total of eligble votes of 1,222,884 the election saw a participation of only 1,123,000 - with 97,000 did not get to vote, and 26,727 spoilt votes.
From a total of 1,123,000 votes considered valid, the Ruling Party only received 747,860 votes - making up the so-called mandate of 66.6%, while the Workers' Party received 183,604, and the SDA received 145,902 votes.
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
If this 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party is compared to the total population of 4,483 million, the percentage will even be more smaller at 16.67%.
It is a joke if this election can be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate' - someone is desparately in need of a boost.
A Lie can become the Truth, when spoken often enough by someone with some degree of authority. -
Fantastic Atobe...thanks for the breakdown stats
-
Half a truth is often a great lie. -Benjamin FranklinOriginally posted by Atobe:
A Lie can become the Truth, when spoken often enough by someone with some degree of authority. -
Hmmm....I wonder..
Is that the telling of half a truth, or half a lie? -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Obviously you are not aware that the population of 2,357,700 you have calculated also includes PR who doesnt vote.
Did the Ruling Party get a sweeping mandate from the 2006 Elections in Singapore ?
Let's start with the demographics of Singapore Population as published by the Department of Statistics for 2006.
The total breakdown - of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other Ethnic Groups - according to age groups are as follows:
Age 0 - 4 Group total 196,500
Age 5 - 9 Group total 240,100
Age 10 - 14 Group total 261,500
Age 15 - 19 Group total 249,900
Age 20 - 24 Group total 222,400
Age 25 - 29 Group total 257,300
Age 30 - 34 Group total 308,200
Age 40 - 44 Group total 331,900
Age 45 - 49 Group total 319,300
Age 50 - 54 Group total 272,200
Age 55 - 59 Group total 219,100
Age 60 - 64 Group total 120,900
Age 65 - 69 Group total 111,500
Age 70 - 74 Group total 80,600
Age 75 - 79 Group total 57,600
Age 80 - 84 Group total 32,100
Age 85 & Over total 24,600
The Age Groups from 20 to 85 will total [b]2,357,700 of our population that was estimated to be 4.483 million - which will include foreign and permanent residents.
In Wikipedia's Summary of the Singapore Election 2006, surprisingly it stated that the Total Voting Electorate was only 1,222,884 - which is only about half or 51.86% of the total age group from Age 20 to 85+ that are supposed to be within the Voting Age (of 21 years and above).
From this total of eligble votes of 1,222,884 the election saw a participation of only 1,123,000 - with 97,000 did not get to vote, and 26,727 spoilt votes.
From a total of 1,123,000 votes considered valid, the Ruling Party only received 747,860 votes - making up the so-called mandate of 66.6%, while the Workers' Party received 183,604, and the SDA received 145,902 votes.
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
If this 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party is compared to the total population of 4,483 million, the percentage will even be more smaller at 16.67%.
It is a joke if this election can be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate' - someone is desparately in need of a boost.
A Lie can become the Truth, when spoken often enough by someone with some degree of authority.
[/b]
Why? because the statistic you shown are for Singapore Residents, not SINGAPOREANS ONLY -
From elections department website
2006 Parliamentary General Election Results(partial)
Last Updated on: 11 Sep 2006?!
http://www.elections.gov.sg/past_parliamentary2006.htm
2,158,704 – eligible to vote
935,820 – did not vote(uncontested constituencies)
1,222,884 – total voting electorate
Due to Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia, did not go into full results. -
In you anxiety to give a reply, it seems you cannot differentiate that Singapore has a population of 4,483,000.Originally posted by Gazelle:
Originally posted by Atobe:
Did the Ruling Party get a sweeping mandate from the 2006 Elections in Singapore ?
Let's start with the demographics of Singapore Population as published by the Department of Statistics for 2006.
The total breakdown - of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other Ethnic Groups - according to age groups are as follows:
Age 0 - 4 Group total 196,500
Age 5 - 9 Group total 240,100
Age 10 - 14 Group total 261,500
Age 15 - 19 Group total 249,900
Age 20 - 24 Group total 222,400
Age 25 - 29 Group total 257,300
Age 30 - 34 Group total 308,200
Age 40 - 44 Group total 331,900
Age 45 - 49 Group total 319,300
Age 50 - 54 Group total 272,200
Age 55 - 59 Group total 219,100
Age 60 - 64 Group total 120,900
Age 65 - 69 Group total 111,500
Age 70 - 74 Group total 80,600
Age 75 - 79 Group total 57,600
Age 80 - 84 Group total 32,100
Age 85 & Over total 24,600
The Age Groups from 20 to 85 will total 2,357,700 of our population that was estimated to be 4.483 million - which will include foreign and permanent residents.
In Wikipedia's Summary of the Singapore Election 2006, surprisingly it stated that the Total Voting Electorate was only 1,222,884 - which is only about half or 51.86% of the total age group from Age 20 to 85+ that are supposed to be within the Voting Age (of 21 years and above).
From this total of eligble votes of 1,222,884 the election saw a participation of only 1,123,000 - with 97,000 did not get to vote, and 26,727 spoilt votes.
From a total of 1,123,000 votes considered valid, the Ruling Party only received 747,860 votes - making up the so-called mandate of 66.6%, while the Workers' Party received 183,604, and the SDA received 145,902 votes.
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
If this 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party is compared to the total population of 4,483 million, the percentage will even be more smaller at 16.67%.
It is a joke if this election can be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate' - someone is desparately in need of a boost.
A Lie can become the Truth, when spoken often enough by someone with some degree of authority.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------Obviously you are not aware that the population of 2,357,700 you have calculated also includes PR who doesnt vote.
Why? because the statistic you shown are for Singapore Residents, not SINGAPOREANS ONLY
In fact, from the same referenced site of the Department of Statistics that gave Singapore's Total Population of 4,483,000 - as at June 2006, it had also stated that the total number of Singapore Residents was 3,608,500 - which is understood as Singaporean Residents including Permanent Residents.
Is someone playing with numbers ?
Even if the 2,357,700 is to be discounted of Permanent Residents, the difference is only 10%.
This 10% is determined from the data given in the Department of Statistics Report from the Year 2000 statistics, the Total Singapore Citizen in 2000 was 2,973,091, and the Permanent Residents had numbered 290,118 - (Tables 1 on PDF Pages 2 and 3 of 17 pages - respectively ) .
Even if the figures were to be re-juggled, the 66.6% still do not amount to any sweeping mandate.
Try to hold your excitement to give a reply, and clear your head from all your prejudices. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
excellent statistics. often, the statement "A lie...authority" is being used on opposition that they forget that they can tell better stories
Did the Ruling Party get a sweeping mandate from the 2006 Elections in Singapore ?
Let's start with the demographics of Singapore Population as published by the Department of Statistics for 2006.
The total breakdown - of Chinese, Malay, Indian and Other Ethnic Groups - according to age groups are as follows:
Age 0 - 4 Group total 196,500
Age 5 - 9 Group total 240,100
Age 10 - 14 Group total 261,500
Age 15 - 19 Group total 249,900
Age 20 - 24 Group total 222,400
Age 25 - 29 Group total 257,300
Age 30 - 34 Group total 308,200
Age 40 - 44 Group total 331,900
Age 45 - 49 Group total 319,300
Age 50 - 54 Group total 272,200
Age 55 - 59 Group total 219,100
Age 60 - 64 Group total 120,900
Age 65 - 69 Group total 111,500
Age 70 - 74 Group total 80,600
Age 75 - 79 Group total 57,600
Age 80 - 84 Group total 32,100
Age 85 & Over total 24,600
The Age Groups from 20 to 85 will total [b]2,357,700 of our population that was estimated to be 4.483 million - which will include foreign and permanent residents.
In Wikipedia's Summary of the Singapore Election 2006, surprisingly it stated that the Total Voting Electorate was only 1,222,884 - which is only about half or 51.86% of the total age group from Age 20 to 85+ that are supposed to be within the Voting Age (of 21 years and above).
From this total of eligble votes of 1,222,884 the election saw a participation of only 1,123,000 - with 97,000 did not get to vote, and 26,727 spoilt votes.
From a total of 1,123,000 votes considered valid, the Ruling Party only received 747,860 votes - making up the so-called mandate of 66.6%, while the Workers' Party received 183,604, and the SDA received 145,902 votes.
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
If this 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party is compared to the total population of 4,483 million, the percentage will even be more smaller at 16.67%.
It is a joke if this election can be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate' - someone is desparately in need of a boost.
A Lie can become the Truth, when spoken often enough by someone with some degree of authority.
[/b] -
True, it was not a sweeping mandate for all the reasons.
It was the threats and fear factor that got more votes than the Lee label.
Many Singaporeans, I am sure, are wishing he would just disappear from our politics. I think he knows that too, pretending to laugh at it by saying he rather be unpopular with his policies than loved by the people. To me that is like saying, :"I dont care about Singaporeans feelings- it means nothing to me"
"You leaving too?"
"No problem I get more new people to replace you"
Unfortunately for PAP, this old man's well known arrogance isnt helping PAP win the popularity votes going forward. Especially with a new, mobile, smarter generation.
I celebrated that occasion when undergraduate Jamie labelled him "a despot" in a forum held at the university! It was a live telecast. That must have hurt him wholesale. He was visibly stunned by the daringness.
...... that incident just about summarises the growing disregard for him by younger Singaporeans. To them his name should only be confined to the history book, period. Out of sight, out of mind -
Originally posted by Atobe:
Here is a statement from you.
In you anxiety to give a reply, it seems you cannot differentiate that [b]Singapore has a population of 4,483,000.
In fact, from the same referenced site of the Department of Statistics that gave Singapore's Total Population of 4,483,000 - as at June 2006, it had also stated that the total number of Singapore Residents was 3,608,500 - which is understood as Singaporean Residents including Permanent Residents.
Is someone playing with numbers ?
Even if the 2,357,700 is to be discounted of Permanent Residents, the difference is only 10%.
This 10% is determined from the data given in the Department of Statistics Report from the Year 2000 statistics, the Total Singapore Citizen in 2000 was 2,973,091, and the Permanent Residents had numbered 290,118 - (Tables 1 on PDF Pages 2 and 3 of 17 pages - respectively ) .
Even if the figures were to be re-juggled, the 66.6% still do not amount to any sweeping mandate.
Try to hold your excitement to give a reply, and clear your head from all your prejudices. [/b]
Can 747,860 votes received by the Ruling Party out of a population of 2,357,700 be considered a 'Sweeping Mandate', which amount to about 31.7% of the entire population within or near the voting age ?
747,860 votes or 66.6% from the valid 1,123,000 votes cast, which is representative of only 31.7% of an entire population of 2,357,7000 voting age citizens - can this be a 'Sweeping Mandate' ?
a) How did you derive the 31.7% when within the 2,357,700 million people include PR who doesnt vote? (Am I right that your figure are distorted?
b) The population of Singapore residents has increase from 3.27m to about 3.61m from 2000 to 2006, and Singaporeans birthrate also hit an all time low. Hence dont you think it is incorrect to use the % of PR from 2000 to estimate the population of Singapore citizen in 2006?
c) Are those citizens who didnt have the chance to vote (due to walkover) included in your calculation?
My advice if that spend sometime to think about the number first before making sweeping statement that government if providing distorted information. -
I dont think LKY has anything to worry, for 1 Jamie, there will be 100 capable and reputable people around the world calling LKY a genius. Are you sure the MANY singaporeans are wishing he will disappear from the political scene or is it just a bunch of whinners who will blame everything beside themselves?Originally posted by justiceforall:True, it was not a sweeping mandate for all the reasons.
It was the threats and fear factor that got more votes than the Lee label.
Many Singaporeans, I am sure, are wishing he would just disappear from our politics. I think he knows that too, pretending to laugh at it by saying he rather be unpopular with his policies than loved by the people. To me that is like saying, :"I dont care about Singaporeans feelings- it means nothing to me"
"You leaving too?"
"No problem I get more new people to replace you"
Unfortunately for PAP, this old man's well known arrogance isnt helping PAP win the popularity votes going forward. Especially with a new, mobile, smarter generation.
I celebrated that occasion when undergraduate Jamie labelled him "a despot" in a forum held at the university! It was a live telecast. That must have hurt him wholesale. He was visibly stunned by the daringness.
...... that incident just about summarises the growing disregard for him by younger Singaporeans. To them his name should only be confined to the history book, period. Out of sight, out of mind -
There's no official poll on this and probably never will beOriginally posted by Gazelle:I dont think LKY has anything to worry, for 1 Jamie, there will be 100 capable and reputable people around the world calling LKY a genius. Are you sure the MANY singaporeans are wishing he will disappear from the political scene or is it just a bunch of whinners who will blame everything beside themselves?
.
Anyway, it does not mean that if one wishes LKY to disappear, he's a whiner. Perhaps it may be that his style of governance is too totalitarian, as evidenced in the GST and ministerial salaries increase.
Likewise, it does not mean that if one supports the opposition, that person is having a hard time in life. -
Originally posted by Rock^Star:
Rock_Star, you are rocking-right...!
There's no official poll on this and probably never will be .
Anyway, it does not mean that if one wishes LKY to disappear, he's a whiner. Perhaps it may be that his style of governance is too totalitarian, as evidenced in the GST and ministerial salaries increase.
Likewise, it [b]does not mean that if one supports the opposition, that person is having a hard time in life.[/b]
-
The above you described would only hold true in a real democracy. Are you telling me someone with the charm of Bill Clinton, if he ran under the opposition banner, would be able to seize power here?Originally posted by fire & ice:ai yo... sounds like CSJ needs a great PR manager to turn things around....
politics in modern day reeks somewhat of a great marketing campaign... believablity, human-touch, humble etc etc... not rantings and inappropriate behaviour like stalking....
In rogue regimes, you could be an idiot and still rise to a position of power under the incumbents; on the other hand, you could be a charming genius running for the opposition and still not come anywhere close to sniffing success. -
Can fund managers touch your money without your consent?Originally posted by Gazelle:Does fund manager guarantee the returns of investment, or is it subject to risk?
Do you think it is a good idea to let someone to invest our billion dollars CPF monies in high risk investment? Can CPF contribute to negative return during bear market?
Does this regime need your consent to touch whatever is in your CPF? -
Let put it this way my young skywalker. Lets assume that your dad, who provided you with whatever you have today, have a very different style of thinking and approach to life, would you ask him for Fcuk OFF or disappear?Originally posted by Rock^Star:There's no official poll on this and probably never will be .
Anyway, it does not mean that if one wishes LKY to disappear, he's a whiner. Perhaps it may be that his style of governance is too totalitarian, as evidenced in the GST and ministerial salaries increase.
Likewise, it does not mean that if one supports the opposition, that person is having a hard time in life.
If you are a loser you are a loser, there is nobody to blame but yourself. Because you can say that this country if fcuk type but look around there are tons of people in Singapore who is having a really comfortable life.
And let me qualify myself, being poor is not equal to being a loser. -
Ofcourse you can touch and use my money in anyway you like if you can guarantee me a fixed return. Btw, do you really think that the money you save in the bank is actually in the bank?Originally posted by walesa:Can fund managers touch your money without your consent?
Does this regime need your consent to touch whatever is in your CPF? -
Do you seriously believe employers are charitable organisations who contribute to employees' CPF without factoring that as part of their operational cost?Originally posted by Gazelle:The interest rate of CPF will always move in tandem with inflation rate. Plus why should you care how the government invest their money if they can guarantee a return of investment which is higher than bank saving interest rate?
Do you have reason to believe that Singaporeans will be better prepared for retirement if there is no CPF?
I suppose you have forgotten that it is also in all employers' interest not to contribute to CPF.
If CPF didn't exist, you could very well be taking home a more sizeable pay (evident if you were to compare the salaries of economies with a standing similar to Singapore's). So that isn't as preferable as having some rogues tell you how and when you can use what is effectively your money? -
Originally posted by walesa:
a) If there is no CPF, do you think that employer will automatically increase your salary by 13% or would they pocket part of the 13%?
Do you seriously believe employers are charitable organisations who contribute to employees' CPF without factoring that as part of their operational cost?
If CPF didn't exist, you could very well be taking home a more sizeable pay (evident if you were to compare the salaries of economies with a standing similar to Singapore's). So that isn't as preferable as having some rogues tell you how and when you can use what is effectively [b]your money?[/b]
b) Havent you realised that when you parents give you more pocket money, you will end up spending more?
c) CPF is just like buying insurance, they force you to save and I think it is important especially for Singaporeans who alway spend beyond their means. -
Really? So fund managers can gain access to your money without having need you to give them consent at any point in time? So I guess your money could potentially be invested without you even knowing who or what ventures your money is with, eh?Originally posted by Gazelle:Ofcourse you can touch and use my money in anyway you like if you can guarantee me a fixed return. Btw, do you really think that the money you save in the bank is actually in the bank?
I'm certainly learning something new about consumer protection laws here - either that, or I'm exposed to new depths of your stupidity.
a) Let's consider the case of a large corporation that employs thousands of employees. If you were the employer, are you telling me you wouldn't factor in the 13% employee CPF contribution into your overall operating cost that dictates your employment wage structure? So basically, you're telling me employers are so generous as to be paying you the additional 13% to your CPF contribution as a gesture of goodwill? If that were the case, maybe you'd like to shed some light on why such charitable employers wouldn't bat an eyelid in shifting their operations when the opportunity for a cheaper outsourcing alternative arises?Originally posted by Gazelle:a) If there is no CPF, do you think that employer will automatically increase your salary by 13% or would they pocket part of the 13%?
b) Havent you realised that when you parents give you more pocket money, you will end up spending more?
c) CPF is just like buying insurance, they force you to save and I think it is important especially for Singaporeans who alway spend beyond their means.
b) No. There's no correlation to the nonsense you espouse - show me a statistical correlation that proves otherwise. Tendencies and actualities do not necessarily go hand-in-hand, do they?
c) Maybe for folks like you who haven't got a clue on the importance of savings, you do need people to mind your finances for you. Surely, that alone doesn't render it necessary for other more capable and responsible individuals to be denied the right to utilise their savings as they deem fit? If your argument were true, why stop at having a minder for personal savings? Why doesn't this regime deploy minders to ensure I don't cross the road when the red man is on or ensure I consume a balanced diet daily? -
If you agree to park you money with any financial institute at an agreed rate of return, you have not right to question how the banks use the money as long as they pay you your interest on time in full.Originally posted by walesa:Really? So fund managers can gain access to your money without having need you to give them consent at any point in time? So I guess your money could potentially be invested without you even knowing who or what ventures your money is with, eh?
I'm certainly learning something new about consumer protection laws here - either that, or I'm exposed to new depths of your stupidity.
FYI, banks is not a store room for your saving, they are basically using your money to make more money in whatever way they think generate the best returns.
If you haven't finish your finance 101, I suggest that we stop this discussion because you are leading nowhere