SMRT invests in Shenzhen Zona Transportation Group
-
Failure is failure. No need discuss so much about his post. =)
-
cannot even maintain well here, wanna try out in shenzhen?
-
Originally posted by Simple_boi:
Kiddo again, SBS Transit runs both buses and trains. Since everyone complains about smrt buses, and no one complain sbst buses, do you think sbst trains are bad? Aren't sbst doing to provide both buses and trains service well enough? Please lar, study more before you make any comments. Don't wish people to make comments without using their brain.
Are you willing to earn negative profits, but taking passenger feedback seriously?
Or
Willing to earn more profits and close one eye on feedback since everyone needs transport?You no need to sound professional down here without knowing anything about business mindset of companies. Either you make remarkable comments or shut up.
Well, certainly we know that SMRT management's objective is only for profit. Profit and nothing else.
We get your point.
-
Companies may not actually set profit-maximising as a goal.
An example would be:
Companies may wish to maximise revenue instead to increase sales or edge out competitors.
Not all business organisations are profit-maximising!
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
Well, certainly we know that SMRT management's objective is only for profit. Profit and nothing else.
We get your point.
We got no ways to get our points to him. -_-''' -
Originally posted by Simple_boi:
We got no ways to get our points to him. -_-'''
To quote someone here: EPIC PHAIL!
-
Originally posted by Simple_boi:
We got no ways to get our points to him. -_-'''But imo, I believe the government have some responsiblities to the citizens in term of public transportation.
This is a necessity. Government should keep the fare low and affordable for all of the citizens to use and not to pluck it to profitability.
Privatizing the transportation companies is meant to keep the competitiveness, maintain or improve the standard and keep the fare low and affordable/
In the end, we only see the opposite. So much so for our government's reasoning.
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
But imo, I believe the government have some responsiblities to the citizens in term of public transportation.
This is a necessity. Government should keep the fare low and affordable for all of the citizens to use and not to pluck it to profitability.
Privatizing the transportation companies is meant to keep the competitiveness, maintain or improve the standard and keep the fare low and affordable/
In the end, we only see the opposite. So much so for our government's reasoning.
Keeping fares low is just one part.
By keeping fares artificially low, you're simply passing costs to yourself in other ways.
In fact, privatisation is supposed to maximise efficiency.
It fails here because of the little room in the market for more players, and the established positions of the 2 big players.
Put yourself in the govt's shoes. Can you do a better job?
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Keeping fares low is just one part.
By keeping fares artificially low, you're simply passing costs to yourself in other ways.
In fact, privatisation is supposed to maximise efficiency.
It fails here because of the little room in the market for more players, and the established positions of the 2 big players.
Put yourself in the govt's shoes. Can you do a better job?
I will try if I am being paid their salaries.
Put that aside, the final outcome, as you mentioned, is they Failed. Any recitification from the government's part?
My point is not to pin-point the fault. It is to find some solutions instead. Our public transportation is the 2nd most expensive in Asian cities (note is cities and not country) and yet our standard is certainly far away from the world class standard. In fact, according to my own observation, the standard has deterioted compared to the past. Why is this so?
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
I will try if I am being paid their salaries.
Put that aside, the final outcome, as you mentioned, is they Failed. Any recitification from the government's part?
My point is not to pin-point the fault. It is to find some solutions instead. Our public transportation is the 2nd most expensive in Asian cities (note is cities and not country) and yet our standard is certainly far away from the world class standard. In fact, according to my own observation, the standard has deterioted compared to the past. Why is this so?
Why it has deteriorated?Have you considered the fact that passenger loads and road usage has increased substantially?
Not much has been done to ease the load.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Why it has deteriorated?Have you considered the fact that passenger loads and road usage has increased substantially?
Not much has been done to ease the load.
The passangers loading has gone up significantly while the mileage has being reduced over the years. Someone had done a research on this before so I wont post the statistic again. Please remember I am comparing the past and now. The standard, by right, should improve. Am I right to say so?
At least they have started to increase the mileage recently.
-
Originally posted by Spartans:
The passangers loading has gone up significantly while the mileage has being reduced over the years. Someone had done a research on this before so I wont post the statistic again. Please remember I am comparing the past and now. The standard, by right, should improve. Am I right to say so?
At least they have started to increase the mileage recently.
In the past chicken rice goes for $1.50 leh.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
In the past chicken rice goes for $1.50 leh.Ya lor, now chicken rice $3. Too lazy to search the increase in bus/train fares over the years.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Companies may not actually set profit-maximising as a goal.
An example would be:
Companies may wish to maximise revenue instead to increase sales or edge out competitors.
Not all business organisations are profit-maximising!
Read any economics or business text and you will find out that all firms have the main aim of maximising their prfoits
Of which, Total Profits = Total Revenue - Total Cost.
Which shows that you've got revenue and profits mixed up.
-
Originally posted by Scania:
Read any economics or business text and you will find out that all firms have the main aim of maximising their prfoits
Of which, Total Profits = Total Revenue - Total Cost.
Which shows that you've got revenue and profits mixed up.
Not all.I haven't got my stuff wrong despite a pause now before I take up economics again.
Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear enough, profit is a major aim. But maximising profits are not always on their mind. There are times when different goals are set as the environment changes.
Eg: If your firm's rating starts dropping, are you going to carry on with profits as your main aim? And if long-run is defined as the time after deprecated capital is replaced, it may not even be enough time for the company to look at profits again. Thus it also holds true that profit-maximising is not always the main aim, short or long-run.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Not all.I haven't got my stuff wrong despite a pause now before I take up economics again.
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Companies may wish to maximise revenue instead to increase sales or edge out competitors.
Then you are contradicting yourself, the act of maximising revenue, ceteris paribus, is an act to maximise profits.
-
Originally posted by Scania:
Then you are contradicting yourself, the act of maximising revenue, ceteris paribus, is an act to maximise profits.
If its at the expense of going beyond the point of efficiency then how can I be contradicting myself?I know I am damn rusty, I have forgotten what's those efficiency curves called, but circumstances do come about when firms abandon conventional ways of doing things and pursue different goals.
Maximising revenue is not maximising profit!
-
The goal of maximising revenue if I may add, is a pretty common goal as a short term measure, because it indicates consumer votes on the firms' products.
Having a high revenue thus also indicates a high market share and raises your ratings.
As a short-term goal, it is usually also associated with the long-term goal of expansion, with the expense of profit in the short-term.
-
Originally posted by 16/f/lonely:
Not all.I haven't got my stuff wrong despite a pause now before I take up economics again.
Edit: Maybe I wasn't clear enough, profit is a major aim. But maximising profits are not always on their mind. There are times when different goals are set as the environment changes.
Eg: If your firm's rating starts dropping, are you going to carry on with profits as your main aim? And if long-run is defined as the time after deprecated capital is replaced, it may not even be enough time for the company to look at profits again. Thus it also holds true that profit-maximising is not always the main aim, short or long-run.
In case you haven't found out from the equation, there is a positive corelation between profits and revenue, and profit maximisation can be done by increasing revenue or decreasing costs. In this case the argument was flawed from the start as people argued about SMRT's aims to maximise profits through maximising revenue (which everyone is doing), and nobody bothered to address SMRT maximising profits through minimising costs which people (including you) tried to argue but got everything mixed up. There are some business decisions which a company should make as minimsing costs may not lead to an increase in revenue if it damages your image (like what you've argued) etc.
Please don't mix maximising revenue with minimising costs as they are two different things which lead to profit maximisiation.
-
Originally posted by Scania:
In case you haven't found out from the equation, there is a positive corelation between profits and revenue, and profit maximising can be done by increasing revenue or decreasing costs. In this case the argument was flawed from the start as people argued about SMRT's aims to maximise profits through maximising revenue (which everyone is doing), and nobody bothered to address SMRT maximising profits through minimising costs which people (including you) tried to argue but got everything mixed up. There are some business decisions which a company should make as minimsing costs may not lead to an increase in revenue if it damages your image (like what you've argued) etc.
I never considered SMRT's case because I have no freakin idea what the heck they're doing with our $$!
-
Having econs lecture down here?
-
i guess so. SMRT invested in Shenzhen to make more profits and reduce losses.
-
please stick to the topic thanks..
for SBQ or etc..
go to Homework forum..
thanks..
-
Originally posted by Ajen:
please stick to the topic thanks..
for SBQ or etc..
go to Homework forum..
thanks..
i believe what they are saying now should still not be off-topic yet because since this topic is talking about smrt investing in another company so there's nothing wrong in discussing about smrt's investments and other related such as cutting cost, profit-making, etc. . i agree, though, that the SBQ discussions shouldn't be here.
-
i look forward to seeing more burnt buses.
like the amount of habits u see burnt so far.