Does it occur to anyone that by bringing in qualified foreigners (as workers, as PRs -> citizens) with "qualities" > those of the locally produced, the "overall standard" of Singapore (e.g. % of PMET -> gov's KPI) will be raised?
[When the standard is raised, those who can't cope will KPKB as usual, and vent their anger through their votes.]
(30-01-2013, 10:34 AM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Although many people sneer at GIC and Temasek for investing overseas while abandoning local companies, it is actually making a lot of sense if we are heading towards an aging population scenario. We will need to earn more foreign currencies through investments rather than through export of products and services.
IMHO, i think this is the only sustainable solution (intelligent overseas investments) to singapore's ageing population. The profits are then repatriated back to singapore and used to subsidise the elderly. Afterall, it is the older generation that assisted the government with earning the large foreign reserves. The assumption here is GIC has to make profitable investments.
As for population growth via immigrants, whether the pros outweigh the cons, i am really uncertain, you may do numerous debates but the results really mean nothing. (*recall that during 20-30 years ago, singaporeans was encouraged to stop at 2 kids. The government then must have done numerous studies, but they were still wrong.) Population growth via immigrants is only a short term solution, it is not sustainable because the 6.9 million will also grow old.
(29-01-2013, 11:20 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about politics and policies. But I know how a Ponzi scheme operates.
For a Ponzi scheme to continue, it has to attract more and more people into it. And at the same time, the people must be able to pay to join the scheme.
Businesses deliberate between organic growth and acquisition - which is cheaper and easier?
You can grow organic but if those you grow can't produce profits, why grow them?
I suppose you are talking about the following article.
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321
Interestingly, Joseph Chamie gave an interview to Singapore research associate on the population policy in 2006.
http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Et...20IS01.pdf
Page 6.
Another interesting one by Chamie
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8868
Basically, the author concludes that all gov policies are unlikely to raise TFR.
(30-01-2013, 12:50 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ] (29-01-2013, 11:20 PM)cif5000 Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about politics and policies. But I know how a Ponzi scheme operates.
For a Ponzi scheme to continue, it has to attract more and more people into it. And at the same time, the people must be able to pay to join the scheme.
Businesses deliberate between organic growth and acquisition - which is cheaper and easier?
You can grow organic but if those you grow can't produce profits, why grow them?
I suppose you are talking about the following article.
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8321
Interestingly, Joseph Chamie gave an interview to Singapore research associate on the population policy in 2006.
http://www.cscollege.gov.sg/Knowledge/Et...20IS01.pdf
Page 6.
Another interesting one by Chamie
http://www.theglobalist.com/storyid.aspx?StoryId=8868
Basically, the author concludes that all gov policies are unlikely to raise TFR.
These four paragraphs are most striking to me.
Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).
(30-01-2013, 01:02 PM)arthur Wrote: [ -> ]These four paragraphs are most striking to me.
Standard measures of GDP do not reflect, for example, the degradation of the environment, the depreciation of natural resources or declines in individuals’ quality of life.
According to Ponzi demography, population growth — through natural increase and immigration — means more people leading to increased demands for goods and services, more material consumption, more borrowing, more on credit and of course more profits. Everything seems fantastic for a while — but like all Ponzi schemes, Ponzi demography is unsustainable.
When the bubble eventually bursts and the economy sours, the scheme spirals downward with higher unemployment, depressed wages, falling incomes, more people sinking into debt, more homeless families — and more men, women and children on public assistance.
That is the stage when the advocates of Ponzi demography — notably enterprises in construction, manufacturing, finance, agriculture and food processing — consolidate their excess profits and gains. That leaves the general public to pick up the tab for the mounting costs from increased population growth (e.g., education, health, housing and basic public services).
Depending on the time frame that you set. So, from 1960 to 2000, Singapore population increased from 1.8 million to 4.0 million. Is it considered a Ponzi ??
Of course, if everything is extrapolated to a great economy recession, everything is a ponzi.
Private placement non stop till 2030. All originals get diluted.
I think by 2030 it will be too late even if most of the 60% change their minds. It will not affect them much but their children will pay for for it by having to compete with children of FT for schools jobs housing and by then the PAP may not even need these 60% anymore they may have enough grateful votes by then.
(30-01-2013, 01:26 PM)yeokiwi Wrote: [ -> ]Depending on the time frame that you set. So, from 1960 to 2000, Singapore population increased from 1.8 million to 4.0 million. Is it considered a Ponzi ??
Of course, if everything is extrapolated to a great economy recession, everything is a ponzi.
If 1960 - 2000 is a Ponzi scheme, I believe alot of us reading in this forum would be part of the Ponzi as well. I reckon many of us are in our 20s to 40s.
Lets not practise the same "plucking words from thin air" attitude from our leaders and throwing the words back at people who have views different from them.
We should be more discerning that this and judge through the context of our current environment.
After 20 years , we know the 'stop at 2' policy implemented 20 years ago was a big mistake, now we could face another big mistake that can only be proven 20 or 30 years later. Who should be responsible for this ?
There is no shortcut to the low fertility problem. What the govt is doing is refusing to face this fact. A floating foreigner buffer creates more problem becos this buffer while being renewed at ease means there is little incentive for employers to hire older local workers.