LPPL ...
-
A sad true fact of Singapore. But look on the bright side, not one country on this planet doesn't have this problem. It is just the size of it and whether they are doing something (may improve orOriginally posted by maurizio13:
) about it. -
1) Huh? Ermm.....shouldn't the subsidies belong to the poor and not the middle income who can afford housing in the private market?Originally posted by deathbait:1) I find it wierd that you first complain Singapore does not take care of it's people's needs...then turn around and complain that practically everyone gets a subsidy on a HDB. So you would rather HDB save it's resources for the really poor and give a huge subsidy, nevermind the rest of the population?
Stop setting up strawman arguments. Opportunity cost is opportunity cost, no matter who the land belongs to. You obviously saw the very obvious flaw in your argument and tried to head it off. Not working buddy. It could belong to the king of brunei and the land would still incur opportunity cost when you use it to build something.
2) Never happen? Really? Perhaps I should remind you of the last recession not so long ago. Do you think it was a fluke that Singapore was so mildly affected?
And yes, a company will always hold cash for emergencies, not distribute everything back to investors. That is perhaps the dumbest thing a company can do. And they aren't charging their shareholders for services. It just happens the shareholders are customers too. Much like you don't begrudge paying for coffee at starbucks, even when you own a few lots of it.
3) I thought you settled on Hong Kong. My mistake. Please choose again.
There is opportunity cost, but what if one day (just an example), land prices were to soar till it's not affordable by the poor? Then would we just build factories, casinos, theme parks, shopping centers without any provision for housing. Opportunity cost is the possible alternative uses for the land, that's all.
But in my example of each Singaporean being a shareholder, they pay an exhorbitant price for the land in their HDB, the profits in the sale is kept in reserves and not redistributed as dividends to shareholders.
Makes sense to you?
2) I suppose the other countries not affected also has the same fat reserves as Singapore? Maybe we should learn more from China, India, Taiwan and Vietnam.
Though there has been general agreement on the existence of a crisis and its consequences, what is less clear were the causes of the crisis, its scope and resolution. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also fairly hurt by the slump. Mainland China, India, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam were relatively unaffected. Japan was not much affected by the crisis but was going through its own long-term economic difficulties. However, all of these Asian countries saw their currencies fall significantly relative to the United States dollar, though the harder hit nations saw extended currency losses.
Nobody's advocating that they distribute everything back to the shareholders, but isn't the other revenues they generating from other sectors more than sufficient for them to keep healthy balances.
Your example of Starbucks, you should restrict consumption to 1 drink a day, like they would restrict ownership of HDB, that would be fair. Also provided that everybody needs to drink coffee like they need to have a place of accomodation. Else it doesn't make sense if some shareholders drink coffee while other shareholders don't. For housing, everybody needs housing, it's not like as if you have a choice.
3) If you want to make other comparisons, maybe you can pick Australia or New Zealand. They are both equivalent in GDP to Singapore. -
Sad to say it's true.Originally posted by justcooler:A sad true fact of Singapore. But look on the bright side, not one country on this planet doesn't have this problem. It is just the size of it and whether they are doing something (may improve or ) about it.
But there are others here who thinks that issues like poverty don't exist in Singapore.
I think they need to get out of their ivory towers and start looking at the moat surrounding their ivory castle. -
Just a wild thought as one of the car owner.
We, motorists, have to pay a hugh amount of road tax every year (avg = 1k) for using the roads. Furthermore, we have to alwyas give way to pedestrians who is also using the roads (well, walk on the roads) and never have to contribute a single cent for the road-tax.
Perhaps, the Government should seriously consider charging a little less road tax on motorists, and impose a small amount of road-tax to all residents in Singapore who do not own vehicle. Well, everybody uses the roads to travel in one way or another.
-
Maybe starting today all pedestrians should start walking on the left most lane of all the roads and expressway.Originally posted by ky13:Just a wild thought as one of the car owner.
We, motorists, have to pay a hugh amount of road tax every year (avg = 1k) for using the roads. Furthermore, we have to alwyas give way to pedestrians who is also using the roads (well, walk on the roads) and never have to contribute a single cent for the road-tax.
Perhaps, the Government should seriously consider charging a little less road tax on motorists, and impose a small amount of road-tax to all residents in Singapore who do not own vehicle. Well, everybody uses the roads to travel in one way or another. 
-
reverse complaint.Originally posted by ky13:Just a wild thought as one of the car owner.
We, motorists, have to pay a hugh amount of road tax every year (avg = 1k) for using the roads. Furthermore, we have to alwyas give way to pedestrians who is also using the roads (well, walk on the roads) and never have to contribute a single cent for the road-tax.
Perhaps, the Government should seriously consider charging a little less road tax on motorists, and impose a small amount of road-tax to all residents in Singapore who do not own vehicle. Well, everybody uses the roads to travel in one way or another.
Perhaps if the gov raised the taxes high enough, only the people who won't complain about silly things like these will be left with the cars.
It's amusing to see drivers complain about ERPs being set up. How do you think the government is able to lower the barrier of entry to car ownership, and restrict traffic flow at the same time?
If not for the ERP being set up, many of you who suddenly find yourselves burdened heavily by ERP wouldn't even be driving in the first place. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) I'm sorry. Did you just imply you know the true value of the land, and that HDB is delibrately jacking it up to make a buck? I'm going to need evidence of that.
1) Huh? Ermm.....shouldn't the subsidies belong to the poor and not the middle income who can afford housing in the private market?
There is opportunity cost, but what if one day (just an example), land prices were to soar till it's not affordable by the poor? Then would we just build factories, casinos, theme parks, shopping centers without any provision for housing. Opportunity cost is the possible alternative uses for the land, that's all.
But in my example of each Singaporean being a shareholder, they pay an exhorbitant price for the land in their HDB, the profits in the sale is kept in reserves and not redistributed as dividends to shareholders.
Makes sense to you?
2) I suppose the other countries not affected also has the same fat reserves as Singapore? Maybe we should learn more from China, India, Taiwan and Vietnam.
Though there has been general agreement on the existence of a crisis and its consequences, what is less clear were the causes of the crisis, its scope and resolution. Indonesia, South Korea and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis. Hong Kong, Malaysia, Laos and the Philippines were also fairly hurt by the slump. [b]Mainland China, India, Taiwan, Singapore and Vietnam were relatively unaffected. Japan was not much affected by the crisis but was going through its own long-term economic difficulties. However, all of these Asian countries saw their currencies fall significantly relative to the United States dollar, though the harder hit nations saw extended currency losses.
Nobody's advocating that they distribute everything back to the shareholders, but isn't the other revenues they generating from other sectors more than sufficient for them to keep healthy balances.
Your example of Starbucks, you should restrict consumption to 1 drink a day, like they would restrict ownership of HDB, that would be fair. Also provided that everybody needs to drink coffee like they need to have a place of accomodation. Else it doesn't make sense if some shareholders drink coffee while other shareholders don't. For housing, everybody needs housing, it's not like as if you have a choice.
3) If you want to make other comparisons, maybe you can pick Australia or New Zealand. They are both equivalent in GDP to Singapore.[/b]
And wait, are you now suggesting that despite(in your argument) everyone being a "shareholder", only the poor ones should get dividends?
And hey, did you just admit you didn't know opportunity cost equates to real value, in other words, the true price of the land?
But moving on...
2) Ah the fallacy of correlation. Sharks and cockroaches have both survived a long time. If we figure out how sharks survive, cockroaches must have survived the same way! Not true.
Whether or not Singapore was affected by the recession is a moot point. The reason I raised the example was simple. During the recession, it certainly helped that the gov was sitting on a nice big pile of cash, didn't it? Kinda made you feel a little more comfortable.
Why you would feel secure in that scenario, I will leave as an exercise to you.
3) Way to twist a challenge back at me. You were the one who started comparing with every country under the sun. As before, I urge you to pick a single country, and we can go heads up on a single comparison. I see you've narrowed it down to Australia or New Zealand. Good work. -
1) Huh? You are really something.Originally posted by deathbait:1) I'm sorry. Did you just imply you know the true value of the land, and that HDB is delibrately jacking it up to make a buck? I'm going to need evidence of that.
And wait, are you now suggesting that despite(in your argument) everyone being a "shareholder", only the poor ones should get dividends?
And hey, did you just admit you didn't know opportunity cost equates to real value, in other words, the true price of the land?
But moving on...
2) Ah the fallacy of correlation. Sharks and cockroaches have both survived a long time. If we figure out how sharks survive, cockroaches must have survived the same way! Not true.
Whether or not Singapore was affected by the recession is a moot point. The reason I raised the example was simple. During the recession, it certainly helped that the gov was sitting on a nice big pile of cash, didn't it? Kinda made you feel a little more comfortable.
Why you would feel secure in that scenario, I will leave as an exercise to you.
3) Way to twist a challenge back at me. You were the one who started comparing with every country under the sun. As before, I urge you to pick a single country, and we can go heads up on a single comparison. I see you've narrowed it down to Australia or New Zealand. Good work. I implied this I implied that. May I know which statement cause you to think what I implied whatever I supposedly implied? Who said anything about only the poor receiving dividends? Maybe you can explain to me instead of casting nonsensical questions all over the place. Since when did I mention anything about "real value equates to opportunity cost" or true value? Maybe you can quote me on that?
2) Ermm....I really don't know what to think of you. Sharks and c0ckroaches are living in two different environments. Unlike China, India, Taiwan and Vietnam, they all belong to the Asian continent. It did help when the government had some spare cash, but I do no agree with holding excessive cash at the expense of citizens.
So......have you seen the youtube video. Your original statement of "no poor in Singapore". Does it still hold? Was it an error due to lack of sufficient knowledge?
3) Ermm...I cited Hong Kong because despite it being in communist control, it provided good healthcare to it's citizens, it's not a better system than Australia or New Zealand. But if you wanted an overall comparison, then maybe you want to use Australia or New Zealand. If you want to persist with Hong Kong, please proceed.Originally posted by deathbait:2) You raise an accurate point about my personal observations. Yet, even "billionaires" such as myself wonder the streets, and visit the HDBs. [b]I have yet to see the desolate picture you paint of the singaporean lower class. Where are the beggers situated? I'm having a hard time finding them. Where is all the crime supposed to be happening? All around me, all I see is prosperity yet uncontented people. How much worse are we, social wise, compared to your example, hong kong. I dare say we're better off as a people. -
... you know, Deathbait sounds very much like Gazelle...
-
I know, I won't be surprised if deathbait is the reincarnation of Gazelle.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... you know, Deathbait sounds very much like Gazelle...
Either it's him or they came from the same instructor, school and department. -
deathbait,
Maybe with you infinite wisdom you can enlighten me with the issue listed below, because I am having problems understanding it.
Taiwan:
Population= 22,700,000
Legislative Members = 225
Population per Legislative member = 100,888
Singapore:
Population = 4,300,000
Members of Parliament = 85
Population per Member of Parliament = 50,588
Hong Kong:
Population = 7,100,000
Legislative Council = 60
Population per Legislative Member = 118, 333
U.K.:
Population = 59,400,000
House of Commons = 646
Population per Member = 91,950
South Korea:
Population = 48,000,000
Legislative Branch = 273
Population per Member = 175,824
A large number of population size relative to legislative council member (MP) would indicate higher efficiency as 1 member is required to serve a larger portion of the population.
Ranking of the 5 governments, highest efficiency first, least efficient last.
1)South Korea (Most Efficient)
2)Hong Kong
3)Taiwan
4)U.K.
5)Singapore (Most Inefficient)
Singapore finished last because each MP served only 50,588, half of what legislative councils members in Hong Kong served.
It's pathetic, our government is half as efficient as all the governments used in comparison. Perhaps we should cut down on our MPs to reduce the burden to taxpayers? Afterall won't it be more efficient and serving the needs of the nation. -
Originally posted by maurizio13:
got stats on china and USA?
deathbait,
Maybe with you infinite wisdom you can enlighten me with the issue listed below, because I am having problems understanding it.
[b]Taiwan:
Population= 22,700,000
Legislative Members = 225
Population per Legislative member = 100,888
Singapore:
Population = 4,300,000
Members of Parliament = 85
Population per Member of Parliament = 50,588
Hong Kong:
Population = 7,100,000
Legislative Council = 60
Population per Legislative Member = 118, 333
U.K.:
Population = 59,400,000
House of Commons = 646
Population per Member = 91,950
South Korea:
Population = 48,000,000
Legislative Branch = 273
Population per Member = 175,824
A large number of population size relative to legislative council member (MP) would indicate higher efficiency as 1 member is required to serve a larger portion of the population.
Ranking of the 5 governments, highest efficiency first, least efficient last.
1)South Korea (Most Efficient)
2)Hong Kong
3)Taiwan
4)U.K.
5)Singapore (Most Inefficient)
Singapore finished last because each MP served only 50,588, half of what legislative councils members in Hong Kong served.
It's pathetic, our government is half as efficient as all the governments used in comparison. Perhaps we should cut down on our MPs to reduce the burden to taxpayers? Afterall won't it be more efficient and serving the needs of the nation.[/b] -
same guy actually.Originally posted by HyperFocal:... you know, Deathbait sounds very much like Gazelle...
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) Huh? You are really something.
I implied
this I implied that. May I know which statement cause you to think
what I implied whatever I supposedly implied? Who said anything
about only the poor receiving dividends? Maybe you can explain to
me instead of casting nonsensical questions all over the place.
Since when did I mention anything about "real value equates to
opportunity cost" or true value? Maybe you can quote me on
that?
2) Ermm....I really don't know what to think of you. Sharks and c0ckroaches are living in two different environments. Unlike China, India, Taiwan and Vietnam, they all belong to the Asian continent. It did help when the government had some spare cash, but I do no agree with holding excessive cash at the expense of citizens.
So......have you seen the youtube video. Your original statement of "no poor in Singapore". Does it still hold? Was it an error due to lack of sufficient knowledge?3) Ermm...I cited Hong Kong because despite it being in communist control, it provided good healthcare to it's citizens, it's not a better system than Australia or New Zealand. But if you wanted an overall comparison, then maybe you want to use Australia or New Zealand. If you want to persist with Hong Kong, please proceed.
1)Well if it's quotes you want, quotes you'll get.
" There is opportunity cost, but what if one day (just an example), land prices were to soar till it's not affordable by the poor? Then would we just build factories, casinos, theme parks, shopping centers without any provision for housing. Opportunity cost is the possible alternative uses for the land, that's all."
That's what you said, right?
And in case your english is not as good as I presumed, I should remind you that it was I who said real value equates opportunity cost. You on the other hand seem to think opportunity cost is just a phrase, with no correlation to value.
Here's another one:
" But in my example of each Singaporean being a shareholder, they pay an exhorbitant price for the land in their HDB, the profits in the sale is kept in reserves and not redistributed as dividends to shareholders."
they pay an exhorbitant price? Like i said, knowing it is exhorbitant IMPLIES you know the true value of the land. How else can you know it is "exhorbitant"? Unless you KNOW the price of the land like you IMPLY, how can you be so sure no discount was actually made? Just because the price of property is high does not mean it is overpriced. Simple economics really.
2) Ok, so sharks and cockroaches live in different conditions. My point was the fallacy of correlations. But let's run with this approach you have chosen. Apart from being in the same region as Singapore, the countries you have listed have practically nothing in common with it. And while we're on the subject of proximity being important in comparisons, do you not realise that countries closer to Singapore than the ones you listed were hit hard as well? If you want to make an argument based on region, you will have to include them too.
3) It appears you still have not chosen the country you desire, so let's give you a little push. I just came back from hong kong. I am now capable 100% of saying that hong kong is not better off than Singapore. Streets are dirty, transport is crowded, and living standards nowhere close to the quality here. Would you like to choose another country for 1 on 1 comparison? As always, I'm happy to comply.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
deathbait,
Maybe with you infinite wisdom you can enlighten me with the issue listed below, because I am having problems understanding it.
Taiwan:
Population= 22,700,000
Legislative Members = 225
Population per Legislative member = 100,888
Singapore:
Population = 4,300,000
Members of Parliament = 85
Population per Member of Parliament = 50,588
Hong Kong:
Population = 7,100,000
Legislative Council = 60
Population per Legislative Member = 118, 333
U.K.:
Population = 59,400,000
House of Commons = 646
Population per Member = 91,950
South Korea:
Population = 48,000,000
Legislative Branch = 273
Population per Member = 175,824
A large number of population size relative to legislative council member (MP) would indicate higher efficiency as 1 member is required to serve a larger portion of the population.
Ranking of the 5 governments, highest efficiency first, least efficient last.
1)South Korea (Most Efficient)
2)Hong Kong
3)Taiwan
4)U.K.
5)Singapore (Most Inefficient)
Singapore finished last because each MP served only 50,588, half of what legislative councils members in Hong Kong served.
It's pathetic, our government is half as efficient as all the governments used in comparison. Perhaps we should cut down on our MPs to reduce the burden to taxpayers? Afterall won't it be more efficient and serving the needs of the nation.Well, I can but try to enlighten you. Simply put, those figures mean pretty much nothing. But I suspect you already know that.
Take a Universtiy classroom for instance. Would you rather attend a college that had an average of 100 students to a teacher, or 40 to a teacher? Does it mean the lecturer that takes on 100 students is more effecient? Or that the University is better, having enough resources to invest in it's classrooms?
You will also indulge me, of course, when I point out the readily obvious economies of scale. A country of population 100,000 will probably still need a core of at least 20 ministers. Does that make the ministers ineffecient, or simply a victim of fixed costs?
The astute reader no doubt has already realised that the countries listed there all have a greater population than Singapore. It's not about effeciency. It's the fact that a governance requires a minimum skeleton crew, and smaller countries obviously will have a bigger governance size to population ratio. It shocks me that you don't realise that. Or perhaps you already did, and was hoping I didn't.
Let's take a look at small countries, shall we?
According to Wikipedia, there are a few countries that have the similar population sizes as Singapore. Let's just take 3:
1)parliament : 169
Norway 4,741,000 2)parliament :120
New Zealand 4,256,000 3) senate : 60, lower house , 166
Ireland 4,301,000 noting of course, that Singapore has:
Singapore 4,681,000 85(according to you, data unchecked)
You will note, out of courtesy that I have included new zealand(which you seem to like alot) in this comparison.
You obviously like to toy with numbers to make a point. Please at least respect yourself and use solid facts in arguments instead of half truths. This kind of half assed attempt to create non-existant accusations against the government is exactly why the alternative political parties are still floundering.
-
Originally posted by HyperFocal:
... you know, Deathbait sounds very much like Gazelle…
if by gazelle, you mean people who aren't afraid to tell you you're wrong just because it happens to be pro-pap, you're right.
-
no comeback? really? no more biased revelations?