(26-09-2013, 11:29 AM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]For example MRT was not a private listed entity when it started. MRT was planned way ahead in the 70s and no private venture would want to undertake it. Our transport system, including bus service, for a third world country was top notched if I recall correctly. And now coming to developed world status and under Singapore Inc ideology, I'm not sure things got better even as we got richer. It's like the new computer animated cartoons I watch with my kids... vibrant colors on the outside but no substance.
If public transport was based on capitalism, MRT wouldn't stand a chance. I doubt capitalism would solve our transport issues. I don't agree with the dogma that government taking over is always bad.
Capitalism might not solve all transport issues, but fully state-owned MRT service will have more issues, IMO
Isn't the same as the debate for communism and capitalism? No perfect system. For us, human beings, capitalism with the state's regulation seems a better, and more sustainable system.
中庸之道 not all problems can be solved with just socialistic ideals or capitalistic efficiencies. It can be actually BOTH.
Singapore has done a relatively good track threading in between these 2 systems pre-90s, before we brainwash people into thinking PnL is necessary for public goods. The invisible hand ideology of US policy makers/ academics including Greenspan, takes part of the blame because it became a prevalent mainstream thought.
The obsessive focus in recent years on PnL has diminished our public policies to focus less on the effectiveness and desired outcomes.
(26-09-2013, 12:09 PM)NTL Wrote: [ -> ]If the public transport now all goes private, letting the companies decide on the fare system and the quality of transport to deliver, will there be less complaints? Some operators may go for budget mode, without aircon, poor quality seats, using China made buses,and charging less; while others may go for aircon buses from Europe with luxury seats, and charge higher. LTA only mandates the route, but multiple operators can go same route, or even none. Will the result be better?
It will widen the class divide even further, regardless if it is just perception. And no buses would go the less traffic routes in Jurong. Public goods is inherently incompatible with profitability because it is a necessary cost center. The key and difficulty is how to incentivise the decision makers to make policies that benefits the greater good.
Ya, I know. There is no real solution really. If govt intervene, operators suffer. If don't, the public suffer. If public and operators benefit, govt suffer, and may lead to the public suffer. The cost of living in Singapore is not low, and it is not possible to lower it without someone suffer.
Luckily I am not in the position to make the decisions.
(26-09-2013, 03:37 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]中庸之道 not all problems can be solved with just socialistic ideals or capitalistic efficiencies. It can be actually BOTH.
Singapore has done a relatively good track threading in between these 2 systems pre-90s, before we brainwash people into thinking PnL is necessary for public goods. The invisible hand ideology of US policy makers/ academics including Greenspan, takes part of the blame because it became a prevalent mainstream thought.
The obsessive focus in recent years on PnL has diminished our public policies to focus less on the effectiveness and desired outcomes.
Yes, 中庸之道 is the way. The next question is where is the balancing point. Doesn't it the current structure work in this way? Capitalistic in operation by SMRT/SBS, and socialistic in regulation by LTA. The question now is we need to find a more appropriate balance point between the socialistic and capitalistic objectives.
I agree that obsessive focus on PnL or state support alone on public goods, is not sustainable.
NTL you're a bit too pessimistic
It is not a zero sum game. Increasing cost of cost centers may not be a bad thing if it increases productivity. A person who trades successfully may want to employ a middle office because it makes him more effective focusing on more important stuff. In aggregate, the system benefits as a whole. We have more important stuff to do than to get stuck travelling point A to B.
As per my post below in this thread, we should look at the totality. And there is no best solution. there is only
optimal solution that benefits the most people.
That's NOT how capitalism would work... ie to benefit the most people. It is pure faith that as the system becomes more efficient, the society benefits as a whole; and most of the time it is true, if given right incentives. But incrementally and historically we know over time it benefits those with capital much more and the wealth gap widens. Capitalism is also inherently incompatible with democracy as it is one $ one vote. There is not just argument for argument sake but long term implication on policies and society. Once we understand that we understand why capitalistic Buffett support death tax and minimal tax rate for the rich. And I'm also supporting that as a guy in finance past 15 years.
Public transport is a public good. It should be operated as one.
(16-09-2013, 12:29 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]An academic that made sense
"So why did we fail? The answers must be complex. But one fundamental error could be simple. We expected every artery of this ecosystem to be financially viable. The disastrous result of looking at each artery and not looking at the ecosystem as a whole is that while each artery made sense in isolation, the combination did not result in a good ecosystem. Even more dangerously, by looking at each unit in isolation, we did not consider its impact on the island or the nation as a whole."
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-969-p...l#pid61967
(26-09-2013, 04:47 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, 中庸之道 is the way. The next question is where is the balancing point. Doesn't it the current structure work in this way? Capitalistic in operation by SMRT/SBS, and socialistic in regulation by LTA. The question now is we need to find a more appropriate balance point between the socialistic and capitalistic objectives.
I agree that obsessive focus on PnL or state support alone on public goods, is not sustainable.
The problem is I observe that regulatory balance had given way and played second fiddle to capitalistic ideals. But this is not unique to Singapore. Just look at US on the credit crisis where no self serving bankers or traders were charged, or the SuperPac system. US is priming itself for another crisis of SIMILAR nature further down the road because the system has not changed, from lobbying by vested interest.
ya, public goods should not be marked to market/nav, put a pnl tag on each of them,put cost recovery model..it will generate a lot of hell out of it including inflation etc..
(26-09-2013, 05:22 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]NTL you're a bit too pessimistic It is not a zero sum game. Increasing cost of cost centers may not be a bad thing if it increases productivity. A person who trades successfully may want to employ a middle office because it makes him more effective focusing on more important stuff. In aggregate, the system benefits as a whole. We have more important stuff to do than to get stuck travelling point A to B.
As per my post below in this thread, we should look at the totality. And there is no best solution. there is only optimal solution that benefits the most people.
That's NOT how capitalism would work... ie to benefit the most people. It is pure faith that as the system becomes more efficient, the society benefits as a whole; and most of the time it is true, if given right incentives. But incrementally and historically we know over time it benefits those with capital much more and the wealth gap widens. Capitalism is also inherently incompatible with democracy as it is one $ one vote. There is not just argument for argument sake but long term implication on policies and society. Once we understand that we understand why capitalistic Buffett support death tax and minimal tax rate for the rich. And I'm also supporting that as a guy in finance past 15 years.
Public transport is a public good. It should be operated as one.
(16-09-2013, 12:29 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]An academic that made sense
"So why did we fail? The answers must be complex. But one fundamental error could be simple. We expected every artery of this ecosystem to be financially viable. The disastrous result of looking at each artery and not looking at the ecosystem as a whole is that while each artery made sense in isolation, the combination did not result in a good ecosystem. Even more dangerously, by looking at each unit in isolation, we did not consider its impact on the island or the nation as a whole."
http://www.valuebuddies.com/thread-969-p...l#pid61967
(26-09-2013, 04:47 PM)CityFarmer Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, 中庸之道 is the way. The next question is where is the balancing point. Doesn't it the current structure work in this way? Capitalistic in operation by SMRT/SBS, and socialistic in regulation by LTA. The question now is we need to find a more appropriate balance point between the socialistic and capitalistic objectives.
I agree that obsessive focus on PnL or state support alone on public goods, is not sustainable.
The problem is I observe that regulatory balance had given way and played second fiddle to capitalistic ideals. But this is not unique to Singapore. Just look at US on the credit crisis where no self serving bankers or traders were charged, or the SuperPac system. US is priming itself for another crisis of SIMILAR nature further down the road because the system has not changed, from lobbying by vested interest.
And i agree. Nine times out of ten World Financial Crisis started from USA. No matter what is or are the reasons. September 11, 2001 or not.
Quote "Public transport is a public good. It should be operated as one."
Is this a desire / ideal rather than what it really is?
Public goods have two distinct aspects: nonexcludability and nonrivalrous consumption.
In Singapore, due to increasing demand and physical supply constraints, we will find it difficult to satisfy both aspects for public transport. it's different from street lighting.
In any case, I see people raising concerns when PTOs are making profits, and concerned again when PTOs are not doing well. it boils down to which model can give the most optimal balance of service and cost - private or nationalised model. can our govt do a better job if they are directly running it? did we see success in public hospitals n polyclinics?
(26-09-2013, 05:22 PM)specuvestor Wrote: [ -> ]Public transport is a public good. It should be operated as one.
Specuvestor
I disagree with you that as long as anything service is considered a public good, it should be operated as one. E.g. Telecommunications.
However, I strongly agree that the current competition model for public transport is broken. I'm just wondering how long will it take for the government to admit it and re-vamp the model.
Hi Speculator,
I understand what you mean. However, this is Singapore. No matter how well they try, no matter how hard they do, as long as it does not meet the high expectation, the optimal is still not enough. People are expecting things that cannot (easily?) meet by economic sense.
Guess I better stop ranting about this.