Singapore : Top 10 Lowest Growth Rate in 2009
-
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12811290&source=features_box4
Was just reading the economist and found that Singapore is projected to have the 9th lowest growth rate in the world during 2009. Just slightly ahead of UK at around -2%.
For a country where the leaders pride themselves on extraordinary GDP growth and reward themselves with incredulous salaries. Shouldn't the leaders of Singapore explain why they are still getting the highest salaries in the world for steering Singapore to the bottom 10 in the world?
It reminds me of the bankers who justified their million dollar paychecks when they were making huge profits for the banks in the last 10 years via the subprime debacle, but then it turned out the profits were all short-term and actually huge losses in the long run.
Would paying ministers such high salaries encourage excessive risk taking in terms of drafting national policies? And is it sustainable paying ministers 1000x salaries compared to the normal working class? I am sure more than 90% of Singaporeans don't think they're worth the salt, but the ministers are still getting away with it.
Anyway, good luck to all in Singapore who have to battle the economic fallout in 2009. I believe in the strength of the Singapore people who will preserve in crisises despite who's leading us.
Happy 2009 to all.
-
i wish for more good years in golden period.
-
Originally posted by ShitSandwich:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12811290&source=features_box4
Was just reading the economist and found that Singapore is projected to have the 9th lowest growth rate in the world during 2009. Just slightly ahead of UK at around -2%.
For a country where the leaders pride themselves on extraordinary GDP growth and reward themselves with incredulous salaries. Shouldn't the leaders of Singapore explain why they are still getting the highest salaries in the world for steering Singapore to the bottom 10 in the world?
It reminds me of the bankers who justified their million dollar paychecks when they were making huge profits for the banks in the last 10 years via the subprime debacle, but then it turned out the profits were all short-term and actually huge losses in the long run.
Would paying ministers such high salaries encourage excessive risk taking in terms of drafting national policies? And is it sustainable paying ministers 1000x salaries compared to the normal working class? I am sure more than 90% of Singaporeans don't think they're worth the salt, but the ministers are still getting away with it.
Anyway, good luck to all in Singapore who have to battle the economic fallout in 2009. I believe in the strength of the Singapore people who will preserve in crisises despite who's leading us.
Happy 2009 to all.
U gotta understand how our economy works. Read up on why our economy is so badly hit at this time before writing this kind of crap.
-
how about more showcases of hip hop and band jamming by the young mps/future singapore leaders in 2009 to lighten up the dreary mood?
-
Originally posted by ShitSandwich:
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=12811290&source=features_box4
Was just reading the economist and found that Singapore is projected to have the 9th lowest growth rate in the world during 2009. Just slightly ahead of UK at around -2%.
For a country where the leaders pride themselves on extraordinary GDP growth and reward themselves with incredulous salaries. Shouldn't the leaders of Singapore explain why they are still getting the highest salaries in the world for steering Singapore to the bottom 10 in the world?
It reminds me of the bankers who justified their million dollar paychecks when they were making huge profits for the banks in the last 10 years via the subprime debacle, but then it turned out the profits were all short-term and actually huge losses in the long run.
Would paying ministers such high salaries encourage excessive risk taking in terms of drafting national policies? And is it sustainable paying ministers 1000x salaries compared to the normal working class? I am sure more than 90% of Singaporeans don't think they're worth the salt, but the ministers are still getting away with it.
Anyway, good luck to all in Singapore who have to battle the economic fallout in 2009. I believe in the strength of the Singapore people who will preserve in crisises despite who's leading us.
Happy 2009 to all.
do u know SG,as a developed country, has been growing at a rate of developing country?
If SG grew at very low GDP in the paty years,like Australia,
then SG will not be the first went into recession nor the worst 10
growth in 2009.Always remember,the GDP growth rate do not compare
SG with other countries.The rate is compared with previous rate of SG!!
Look at the records which countries grew fast!!
-
Originally posted by lionnoisy:
do u know SG,as a developed country, has been growing at a rate of developing country?
If SG grew at very low GDP in the paty years,like Australia,
then SG will not be the first went into recession nor the worst 10
growth in 2009.Always remember,the GDP growth rate do not compare
SG with other countries.The rate is compared with previous rate of SG!!
Look at the records which countries grew fast!!
High growth rate, but salaries still below first world countries.
Generally, the salary in Hong Kong is much higher than Singapore, despite our equivalent GDP per Capita. This is because of Singapore government's policy of not recognising the contributions of the lower wage workers. High pay for Ministers while low pay for workers.
The crime rates for Hong Kong is only slightly higher (0.3%) than that of Singapore.
I wonder what is the pay structure for ambulance officer in Singapore.
Hong Kong (approx. SGD 4,401):
or equivalent; and be able to speak fluent Cantonese and English; ($25,620 per month) or have a pass in 2 subjects at Advanced Level in the Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination and Level 3/Grade C or above in 3 other subjects in HKCEE (the subjects may include Chinese Language and English Language), or equivalent; and have met the language proficiency requirements of Level 2 or above in Chinese Language and English Language in HKCEE Note (b), or equivalent; and be able to speak fluent Cantonese and English. ($24,050 per month)
http://www.hkfsd.gov.hk/home/eng/vacancy.html
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/1480/topics/328845?page=3
Whether first into recession or last into recession doesn't make much sense for comparison. What's more important is the duration of the recession.
Also, which other developed country is currently facing recession and inflation together? It's more like LHL economic mismanagement resulted in high prices while the economy is facing a recession.
-
Somebody thinks that recession is like a race, first to reach recession is bad while last to reach is good.
What if the last to reach recession has 5 years of negative growth, while the first to hit recession takes only 1 year to recover.
-
Originally posted by lookslikegod:
U gotta understand how our economy works. Read up on why our economy is so badly hit at this time before writing this kind of crap.
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that our economy is performing badly next year because Singapore's economy is highly globalized and most of the economic growth is due from exports. And that our economy is highly correlated to US and Europe's domestic consumption, I will agree with you. If that is true, my point is why pay Singapore ministers the highest salaries in the world? We should instead pay the US president and European Ministers millions of dollars since they have more impact on the growth of Singapore's economy.
Does this not mean the high growth in the yesteryears were actually due to the booming global economy instead of our ministers' astute policies, and if so they shouldn't have rewarded themselves with millions for something they had little impact.
Here's an analogy, it might be a bad one but here goes. It's like paying a kid to grow up to be an adult. It doesn't matter how much you pay the kid, the kid will grow at his/her natural growth rate.
To Lionnoisy, there's a reason why developed countries have lower growth rates than developing countries. That's because that's the sustainable rate of growth. There's no point having high growth if the growth rates are not sustainable. It would be better to smooth the growth over time to reduce impact to the people in the country. That means a growth rate of 3% over 20 years is better than high growth rates of 5% for 10 years and - 2% growth rate for another 10 years. You won't want to be out of a job every alternate year right?
Also growth rates in SG is artifically boosted by population growth or immigration. A population increase of 4-5% a year would of course boost GDP by a minimum of 4-5%. Do you like this kind of growth? There's no quality and it's all about the quantity of people in that country.That is definitely a very short sighted policy. For one day, SG will reach the maximum population it can sustain and at that point in time, we will just have an overcrowded Singapore with little or no growth. That doesn't sound ideal right? Growth rates should be ideally obtained via innovation of the people, productivity increases and higher education levels of the local populace.
-
Economic growth is good.
But in singapore's case, the economic figures cover up the increasing hardships singaporeans have to suffer. Singaporeans is paying and will be paying for their whole life a very high social cost.
Everything comes from Singaporeans' pockets.
It's squeeze and squeeze till you die.
Yes, literally.
-
what happen to all the super talented zillionaire minister?
-
Originally posted by ShitSandwich:
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that our economy is performing badly next year because Singapore's economy is highly globalized and most of the economic growth is due from exports. And that our economy is highly correlated to US and Europe's domestic consumption, I will agree with you. If that is true, my point is why pay Singapore ministers the highest salaries in the world? We should instead pay the US president and European Ministers millions of dollars since they have more impact on the growth of Singapore's economy.
Does this not mean the high growth in the yesteryears were actually due to the booming global economy instead of our ministers' astute policies, and if so they shouldn't have rewarded themselves with millions for something they had little impact.
Here's an analogy, it might be a bad one but here goes. It's like paying a kid to grow up to be an adult. It doesn't matter how much you pay the kid, the kid will grow at his/her natural growth rate.
To Lionnoisy, there's a reason why developed countries have lower growth rates than developing countries. That's because that's the sustainable rate of growth. There's no point having high growth if the growth rates are not sustainable. It would be better to smooth the growth over time to reduce impact to the people in the country. That means a growth rate of 3% over 20 years is better than high growth rates of 5% for 10 years and - 2% growth rate for another 10 years. You won't want to be out of a job every alternate year right?
Also growth rates in SG is artifically boosted by population growth or immigration. A population increase of 4-5% a year would of course boost GDP by a minimum of 4-5%. Do you like this kind of growth? There's no quality and it's all about the quantity of people in that country.That is definitely a very short sighted policy. For one day, SG will reach the maximum population it can sustain and at that point in time, we will just have an overcrowded Singapore with little or no growth. That doesn't sound ideal right? Growth rates should be ideally obtained via innovation of the people, productivity increases and higher education levels of the local populace.
There is no sustainable rate of growth because our very concept of economic growth depends on the rape of the environment. If we grow 5% last year, and predict 4% growth this year, it'll be 4% more on top of the previous 5%. On a graph, its not a straight line, but an exponential rate of growth that ploughs more of the planet's resources into factories to be used for less than 24 hours, then chucked into a rubbish bin (most consumer goods follow that cycle). How can there be infinite growth in a finite world?
Our monetary-based system is fueled by the desire for profits, not a system that operates on the basis of how much resources we have. While all those corporate fucks have their "environmental" policy, its clearly a farce when all their board members talk about at their meetings is whether the company is meeting its profit targets, when our concept of economic well-being is measured by how "well" so-called "stocks" (which do not represent the real wealth of the world) "are doing".
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
There is no sustainable rate of growth because our very concept of economic growth depends on the rape of the environment. If we grow 5% last year, and predict 4% growth this year, it'll be 4% more on top of the previous 5%. On a graph, its not a straight line, but an exponential rate of growth that ploughs more of the planet's resources into factories to be used for less than 24 hours, then chucked into a rubbish bin (most consumer goods follow that cycle). How can there be infinite growth in a finite world?
Our monetary-based system is fueled by the desire for profits, not a system that operates on the basis of how much resources we have. While all those corporate fucks have their "environmental" policy, its clearly a farce when all their board members talk about at their meetings is whether the company is meeting its profit targets, when our concept of economic well-being is measured by how "well" so-called "stocks" (which do not represent the real wealth of the world) "are doing".
Eh .... I think the calculation of gradient and exp is off the mark . The 4% on top will put the line heading down and not exp up .
-
Oops..my bad. But the intention of "economic growth" is using up more and more resources to produce more and more goods. In the long run, that's just what it is, perpetual growth. Anyone can see that the very system is unsustainable.
-
Originally posted by ShitSandwich:
I don't quite understand what you are trying to say. If you are trying to say that our economy is performing badly next year because Singapore's economy is highly globalized and most of the economic growth is due from exports. And that our economy is highly correlated to US and Europe's domestic consumption, I will agree with you. If that is true, my point is why pay Singapore ministers the highest salaries in the world? We should instead pay the US president and European Ministers millions of dollars since they have more impact on the growth of Singapore's economy.
Does this not mean the high growth in the yesteryears were actually due to the booming global economy instead of our ministers' astute policies, and if so they shouldn't have rewarded themselves with millions for something they had little impact.
Here's an analogy, it might be a bad one but here goes. It's like paying a kid to grow up to be an adult. It doesn't matter how much you pay the kid, the kid will grow at his/her natural growth rate.
To Lionnoisy, there's a reason why developed countries have lower growth rates than developing countries. That's because that's the sustainable rate of growth. There's no point having high growth if the growth rates are not sustainable. It would be better to smooth the growth over time to reduce impact to the people in the country. That means a growth rate of 3% over 20 years is better than high growth rates of 5% for 10 years and - 2% growth rate for another 10 years. You won't want to be out of a job every alternate year right?
Also growth rates in SG is artifically boosted by population growth or immigration. A population increase of 4-5% a year would of course boost GDP by a minimum of 4-5%. Do you like this kind of growth? There's no quality and it's all about the quantity of people in that country.That is definitely a very short sighted policy. For one day, SG will reach the maximum population it can sustain and at that point in time, we will just have an overcrowded Singapore with little or no growth. That doesn't sound ideal right? Growth rates should be ideally obtained via innovation of the people, productivity increases and higher education levels of the local populace.
Great , you try to pay the US president. Then it the open the topic for discussion on you going to a US jail or Singapore jail.
If you want to bribe , might as well bribe the top right .... haha
-
Originally posted by lookslikegod:
U gotta understand how our economy works. Read up on why our economy is so badly hit at this time before writing this kind of crap.
ya, guess he must hv be eating crab before writing all these crap. -
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Oops..my bad. But the intention of "economic growth" is using up more and more resources to produce more and more goods. In the long run, that's just what it is, perpetual growth. Anyone can see that the very system is unsustainable.
what ever it is, with an inflation est at 6-7%, the situation of this crisis will get worst than previous due to high prices of goods, we are looking at a recession, jobless, cuts wages, retrenchment and loss of income within a high cost of living society.And that is serious.
i expect crime rates to rise
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
what ever it is, with an inflation est at 6-7%, the situation of this crisis will get worst than previous due to high prices of goods, we are looking at a recession, jobless, cuts wages, retrenchment and loss of income within a high cost of living society.And that is serious.
i expect crime rates to rise
crime rates?ooo u better keep all your money well at home
and watever u have hor
maybe rem to car locked your car well
or else ended up , u start using sbs service
-
Originally posted by noahnoah:
crime rates?ooo u better keep all your money well at home
and watever u have hor
maybe rem to car locked your car well
or else ended up , u start using sbs service
I just bought a levis jean with zip up pockets to zip my purse and hp. Cos everytime go toilet my hp drop into the bowl -
Originally posted by angel7030:
what ever it is, with an inflation est at 6-7%, the situation of this crisis will get worst than previous due to high prices of goods, we are looking at a recession, jobless, cuts wages, retrenchment and loss of income within a high cost of living society.And that is serious.
i expect crime rates to rise
Thats the result of a fundamentally flawed monetary sytem. If no one wants to look at it and change it, then all these "serious" problems will continue no matter what is done.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
Thats the result of a fundamentally flawed monetary sytem. If no one wants to look at it and change it, then all these "serious" problems will continue no matter what is done.
The stand of the ruling party is allow price to stay at high cost, the intention is to allow market to adjust the cost by itself, ultimately, most sellers will rise their prices or reduce quantity and quality of goods sold inorder to generate more profits. A bowl of fishball mee can reduce the nos of balls but still selling at the same price, result is still the same as price increasing.As what Raymond Lim said, the price of goods cannot be lowered, what we will do is to give rebate to those poor or average peoples thru CDC and other institutions, in this way, we can plough from the rich and give it to the poor. Criterias to qualify for rebate was set $1,800 per household income or below $500 per capital.
How to qualify with a $5k pay??
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
what ever it is, with an inflation est at 6-7%, the situation of this crisis will get worst than previous due to high prices of goods, we are looking at a recession, jobless, cuts wages, retrenchment and loss of income within a high cost of living society.And that is serious.
i expect crime rates to rise
All these ills stem from the existence of money. The problem is that the people producing the real wealth of the world (blue-collar workers, farmers etc) have to compete for a minute percentage of the pieces of paper that have their value created by Law. And the people who make these pieces of paper, the central banks, hold the ultimate power over the rest of the world even though they dont contribute one bit towards the real wealth of the world.
I dont see why you have to adopt such a superficial view that laments over the ills without questioning the fundamentals.
-
Originally posted by freedomclub:
All these ills stem from the existence of money. The problem is that the people producing the real wealth of the world (blue-collar workers, farmers etc) have to compete for a minute percentage of the pieces of paper that have their value created by Law. And the people who make these pieces of paper, the central banks, hold the ultimate power over the rest of the world even though they dont contribute one bit towards the real wealth of the world.
I dont see why you have to adopt such a superficial view that laments over the ills without questioning the fundamentals.
But dear freedom, these is how capitalism works, and we adopted it from the west since independence. It worked base on meritocracy, academy and capital. The hierrachy of a capital organisation work in a way that overheads are paid more than the real producers/contributors. Someone hv to oversee the operation, someone hv to manage it, someone hv to account for it, someone hv to market it and someone hv to control all of it.
So do you hv a better system to govern a country?? The division of labour/people is a fundamental control of people, and human are like computer, without a system, chaos take control.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
But dear freedom, these is how capitalism works, and we adopted it from the west since independence. It worked base on meritocracy, academy and capital. The hierrachy of a capital organisation work in a way that overheads are paid more than the real producers/contributors. Someone hv to oversee the operation, someone hv to manage it, someone hv to account for it, someone hv to market it and someone hv to control all of it.
So do you hv a better system to govern a country?? The division of labour/people is a fundamental control of people, and human are like computer, without a system, chaos take control.
Yes, control over all the peasants in a feudal system. There is a better system. Technology was supposed to liberate us, but it seems that it has been developed to enslave us even further. If money was abolished, and the resources of the world is geared towards creating a humane society, where human concerns are addressed instead of profits, then we'll be much better off. However, its not in the rulers' interests to give us that lifestyle. After all, when people are too comfortable and start thinking, the purpose of an elite will start to vanish, posing a threat to their monopoly over power.
I'm not promoting any other -isms, because capitalism, communism etc all function in the same way. Always a pyramidal structure where exploitation and suffering will plague the people while the elites leech off them.
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
But dear freedom, these is how capitalism works, and we adopted it from the west since independence. It worked base on meritocracy, academy and capital. The hierrachy of a capital organisation work in a way that overheads are paid more than the real producers/contributors. Someone hv to oversee the operation, someone hv to manage it, someone hv to account for it, someone hv to market it and someone hv to control all of it.
So do you hv a better system to govern a country?? The division of labour/people is a fundamental control of people, and human are like computer, without a system, chaos take control.
not easy to govern a country one de
sometimes i really admire our Mr Lee~~
can make so many of his "people" like being so sayang de
I also want to learn sia
-
Originally posted by angel7030:
But dear freedom, these is how capitalism works, and we adopted it from the west since independence. It worked base on meritocracy, academy and capital. The hierrachy of a capital organisation work in a way that overheads are paid more than the real producers/contributors. Someone hv to oversee the operation, someone hv to manage it, someone hv to account for it, someone hv to market it and someone hv to control all of it.
So do you hv a better system to govern a country?? The division of labour/people is a fundamental control of people, and human are like computer, without a system, chaos take control.
not easy to govern a country one de
sometimes i really admire our Mr Lee~~
can make so many of his "people" like being so sayang de
I also want to learn sia