Wooing the super-rich (from BT)
-
1) Did I said make reference to economic text book? Or are you simple distorting facts again?Originally posted by maurizio13:I agree with his original statement, NOT those adulterated by you.
But I find it unproductive making arguments with you to make you understand, since it took like 3-4 to make you understand a simple phrase like "free market business". Which according to you, "there is no such word" because economic textbooks only say "free market economy". Where I go on to paste links, where business journalist use this word. But you just keep going on refuting it. I mean it's up to you to see what you want, I can only point out to you that there is a porthole in your path, but if you insist on falling into it, nobody can help you.
2) Could you quote me a few example of non-free market businesses in Singapore? -
Isn't it obvious, there are 2 ways you could have obtained knowledge. The proper way, is read an 1) economics textbook, then with the knowledge obtained apply it in the 2) real world.Originally posted by Gazelle:1) Did I said make reference to economic text book? Or are you simple distorting facts again?
2) Could you quote me a few example of non-free market businesses in Singapore?
You have shown the "basic" attainment of knowledge through you post on 15 May 2007 at 02:13pm.
You said you know what is "free market economy", which is oft quoted in Economic textbooks and you know that there is a definition for "free market economy" because you asked me for the definition for "free market business".Originally posted by Gazelle:I dont think I was asking you about that, did I? Since you have offer to give me a lead into that, could you please explain to me what is the definition of (Free Market Business). What I know is a free market economy, not business.
If you had no prior Economic knowledge, you won't even know what is "free market economy", let alone argue with me and pursue me for a definition.
When I explained to you, you won't accept my explanation. I provided a link and explained it to you 3-4 times again. Goes to show how thick your skull is that information cannot omose through it.
Free Market Business Reform by David Friedman (maybe Milton Friedman's kid)
Treat health care like free-market business
Healthcare is a monopolistic service. It does not have the characteristics required for a free market business: it never will have. Free markets require, amongst other things: open access, free competition and ‘perfect knowledge’.
If you had used your Economics 101 knowledge, read and apply your economic concepts widely, you would not have been as obtuse as not to understand the term "free market business".
If you didn't get your knowledge from an economics textbook, then where did you obtain your knowledge? I obtained my knowledge from reading and applying what I have learnt in the real world. -
I couldnt find the word "textbook" from the quote, so stop Bull Shi.ting lah.Originally posted by maurizio13:You said you know what is "free market economy", which is oft quoted in Economic textbooks and you know that there is a definition for "free market economy" because you asked me for the definition for "free market business".
If you had no prior Economic knowledge, you won't even know what is "free market economy", let alone argue with me and pursue me for a definition.
When I explained to you, you won't accept my explanation. I provided a link and explained it to you 3-4 times again. Goes to show how thick your skull is that information cannot omose through it.
Free Market Business Reform by David Friedman (maybe Milton Friedman's kid)
Treat health care like free-market business
Healthcare is a monopolistic service. It does not have the characteristics required for a free market business: it never will have. Free markets require, amongst other things: open access, free competition and ‘perfect knowledge’.
If you had used your Economics 101 knowledge, read and apply your economic concepts widely, you would not have been as obtuse as not to understand the term "free market business".
If you didn't get your knowledge from an economics textbook, then where did you obtain your knowledge? I obtained my knowledge from reading and applying what I have learnt in the real world.
Obviously you didnt quite understand my question, could you quote me a few example of free market businesses in SINGAPORE, I repeat, S-I-N-G-A-P-O-R-E -
Originally posted by Gazelle:I couldnt find the word "textbook" from the quote, so stop Bull Shi.ting lah.
Obviously you didnt quite understand my question, could you quote me a few example of free market businesses in SINGAPORE, I repeat, S-I-N-G-A-P-O-R-E
-
hey give us some example of free market business in Singapore leh.....dont shy lah...you very smart one what....google lah...maybe you can find something to prevent you from further embaressment?Originally posted by maurizio13: -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
''We'' ???
We are still searching hign and low for the news article which support your claim about PM Badawi's visit to Singapore to push and thanks our government for awarding the Sentosa IR to Genting International.
Since when did one Gazelle become a ''herd'' ?
Snow_leopard will have a feast of a life time...
If you do not believe in ''spoon feeding'' anyone, surely this much is expected from you too ?
Unless the sublimal hypocritical standard in you is overwhelming your ability at some self-control ?
As mentioned so often now, subscribe to the Singapore Straits Times, or the Malaysian New Straits Times or the Star, and ''you can prove yourself right''. -
Originally posted by Atobe:
[b]''We'' ???
Since when did one Gazelle become a ''herd'' ?
Snow_leopard will have a feast of a life time...
If you do not believe in ''spoon feeding'' anyone, surely this much is expected from you too ?
Unless the sublimal hypocritical standard in you is overwhelming your ability at some self-control ?
As mentioned so often now, subscribe to the Singapore Straits Times, or the Malaysian New Straits Times or the Star, and ''you can prove yourself right''.
[/b]
Atobe, I am accusing you of providing false information to defame our government. If that is who you are and what you does best in this forum then I have nothing further to say -
www.sgforums.com is based in UK and owned by J. L.
-
Now you accept that there is such a phrase called "free market business", but you still want to continue arguing. What's the point, you only have half a brain, you cannot balance your thoughts objectively. I can name you, but you will only come back with more disagreement. You are a person who cannot accept facts, if you believe crap is durian, you will not change your view, even if everybody in Singapore tells you it's crap. You will still continue thinking it's durian. So continue eating your crap!!! Nobody is going to change your mind!!!Originally posted by Gazelle:hey give us some example of free market business in Singapore leh.....dont shy lah...you very smart one what....google lah...maybe you can find something to prevent you from further embaressment?
Like the "slump in sales during IMF & World Bank meeting" (which you disputed, you claim that sales in restaurants and hotels went up), I took the data provided by you on 17th May 2007 at 6:55am (pg 6), did a regression analysis on 17th May 2007 at 5:06pm (pg 7) and removed the seasonal factors (i.e. Singapore Sales, Christmas, New Year.....). The results did show that there was a decrease in sales during IMF & World Bank meeting. You disputed the results stating that I did not use current prices, an honest mistake on my part because I didn't see the other page. You said current prices would better reflect the economic reality. Fine! I did another calculation on 18th May 2007 at 12:22am (pg 7) using current prices, it showed an even worse sales for the period coinciding with the IMF & World Bank meeting.
Then you proceed to dispute my use of regression analysis, saying ARIMA X-12 would be more accurate. I have to admit my knowledge is limited, unlike yours, you can claim that ARIMA X-12 provides a more accurate picture of the economic reality. So I asked that you provide calculation to support your claim, but you couldn't and ask that I do a calculation for you. Geez!!! How farking lame can you get???
Are you an retarded???
In case you haven't noticed, all your supporters are no longer posting, think you managed to convince them that the government was wrong. Right now, it's only you against 10-20 of the forumers in the "defamation" thread. -
You are a hopeless imitation of your Master's voice.Originally posted by Gazelle:
Atobe, I am accusing you of providing false information to defame our government. If that is who you are and what you does best in this forum then I have nothing further to say
He has never learn to apologise for his error; and have never even attempted to make an honest apology.
Either you must be a hopeless cheapskate and refuse to accept the challenge of subscribing to the Singapore Straits Times, or the Malaysian New Straits Times or The Star; or you simply do not have the "whithered *all" to accept a challenge to do so and prove yourself 'Right' ?
Do you think that you are capable enough to goad me to spoon feed you with the 'Facts' to the actual 'Truth' - with a childish accusation ?
Try turning green before you turn brown. -
Hey my little girl,Originally posted by maurizio13:Now you accept that there is such a phrase called "free market business", but you still want to continue arguing. What's the point, you only have half a brain, you cannot balance your thoughts objectively. I can name you, but you will only come back with more disagreement. You are a person who cannot accept facts, if you believe crap is durian, you will not change your view, even if everybody in Singapore tells you it's crap. You will still continue thinking it's durian. So continue eating your crap!!! Nobody is going to change your mind!!!
Like the "slump in sales during IMF & World Bank meeting" (which you disputed, you claim that sales in restaurants and hotels went up), I took the data provided by you on 17th May 2007 at 6:55am (pg 6), did a regression analysis on 17th May 2007 at 5:06pm (pg 7) and removed the seasonal factors (i.e. Singapore Sales, Christmas, New Year.....). The results did show that there was a decrease in sales during IMF & World Bank meeting. You disputed the results stating that I did not use current prices, an honest mistake on my part because I didn't see the other page. You said current prices would better reflect the economic reality. Fine! I did another calculation on 18th May 2007 at 12:22am (pg 7) using current prices, it showed an even worse sales for the period coinciding with the IMF & World Bank meeting.
Then you proceed to dispute my use of regression analysis, saying ARIMA X-12 would be more accurate. I have to admit my knowledge is limited, unlike yours, you can claim that ARIMA X-12 provides a more accurate picture of the economic reality. So I asked that you provide calculation to support your claim, but you couldn't and ask that I do a calculation for you. Geez!!! How farking lame can you get???
Are you an retarded???
In case you haven't noticed, all your supporters are no longer posting, think you managed to convince them that the government was wrong. Right now, it's only you against 10-20 of the forumers in the "defamation" thread.
How many times must I tell you not to distort information like what you always do.
1) This is the first report I presented to rebutt your arguement that Singaporeans doesnt benefit from IMF/World Bank meeting
2) And as usually, thinking you are great you jump in to reply without thinkingOriginally posted by maurizio13:
3) When I present to you this report you just kept your mouth shut and went under the skirt again.
Obviously you don't understand the meaning of the word [b]estimated.
Hahaha....
[/b]
4) If anybody want to see what M13 use to question our government's economic data, here is the glimpse of it. If you want more, you could visit
http://politics.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=252941&page=6
-
[quote]Originally posted by Gazelle:
I have reasons to believe that a property boom is good for the economy, especially for people who have been caught during the last recesssion.
the people who were caught by the last recession were caught by a cycle of boom and bust. hence if we can minimise the boom and bust in the first place, that is to stabilise price of housing over the long term, such predicament wouldn't have happened in the first place would it?
I would have reason to believe that all those who are involved in the enbloc sales will make a decent profit off loading them. no?
many of the buildings involved in enbloc sales are in pretty good condition. tearing them down is a waste of resources. the cost of rebuilding the place would be passed down to future owners which is an extra burden for nothing. even 30 year old HDB is being retrofitted and upgraded.
... because what we are seeing today is nothing compared with the property boom we have seen the 80s and 90s.
are you saying that if we have a recession tomorrow, we could still sit back and relax because it is only a fraction of the recession in 1997, 2001 or 2003?
If someone is always thinking of enjoying the finest things in life then I must say that he or she would have to work hard for it, not hoping that things will get cheaper.
no one's hoping for things to get cheaper, we're hoping govt policies don't cause things to suddenly become so expensive, like GST and boosting immigration to 6.5 million.
As long as the influx of super-rich will trigger the creation of new jobs and opportunities, I think that will be healthy.
that's your wishful thinking. no matter how super rich they are, every richie rich that comes here will not employ 50 taxi drivers or a 100 chefs. the other way is likely, 50 super rich, even though they're rich, will not pay more than is required to employ just one taxi driver or one chef. -
back up what you sayOriginally posted by Gazelle:I could confidently say that majority of those who were made bankrupt during the last recession are those who have spend beyound their means and their life are driven by greed. And there is nothing your government can do to prevent you from doing that regardless of how cheap the property. I believe property is not the main cause of bankruptcy in Singapore, it is the credit cards, car loan and failing businesses. -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
I think you should blame the politicians in MY and not the tourists for spending in JB. Every dollar spend in JB by Singaporeans, is an addition income to the country, it is how they distribute this income to the people in JB and ensure that thing such as food items are being managed. (an example is why we have NTUC fairprice to set the benchmark price for food items)
there is no reason to suggest our country would be any different considering that ministers get millions while poor folks get $300. you call this "distribute this income to the people"?
NTUC fairprice is bullshit, sheng shiong, though much smaller offers comparable if not cheaper prices. -
Obviously somebody has a language comprehension disability, the word "estimated" is printed on all your reports. They also have a problem understanding the word "seasonal".
The regression analysis removing the seasonal effects was done using the data provided by you from the department of statistics website. These are actual figures provided by you, not "estimates" used by you.
http://www.singstat.gov.sg/keystats/mqstats/ess/essa11.pdf -
Originally posted by Gazelle:
In any case, I was just tying to highlight to you that credit cards, car loans and failing business are the major caused of bankrupcy in Singapore, rather than what you say that majority of home owners who bought property prior to last recession were made bankrupt. If that is a fact, then majority of singaporeans adult will be made bankrupt isnt it?
the fact that the majority of home owners are not bankrupts doesn't infer that bankruptcy due to property bubble burst isn't as prevalent as bankruptcy due to car loans or credit cards. if you can become bankrupt as a result of car loans, isn't it easier to become bankrupt as a result of home loans, which generally involve a great deal more money?
Property boom will benefit all existing home owners, especially those who have been holding on to negative value property.
it will not. for most ordinary folks, buying a property is not something they can time. so when they buy at the height of a property boom, you can be sure that they would bear huge losses when the market corrects itself.
similarly, all those holding on to negative value properties are victims of previous property booms. using one property boom to correct an earlier property boom is a never ending story.
property price stability would resolve all these issues. -
bullshit. the average esplanade ticket is so expensive i am sure more rich folks than poor folks pay to watch playsOriginally posted by Gazelle:The single most expensive investment which our government has made (excluding circle line) in downtown area is probably the Esplanade, at $600m without the cost of land. And even that, it is not catering on the rich and famous, it is for people from all walks of life. -
The corollary negative effects are likely to be rising property prices and a higher cost of living.Originally posted by Gazelle:I dont think JB is a right comparison because the type of things singaporeans spend on in JB is different from what the super rich will spend in Singapore. eg. Sg like to buy grocery and eat cheap seafood in JB, hence this causes cost of food and basic items to increase.
- Wee Piew
CEO
HG Metal Manufacturing Ltd
The downside is the inflationary pressure caused by the greater demand for goods and services, thus pushing up the consumer price index.
- Derek Goh
Executive Chairman
Serial System Ltd