Want better transport? Pay for it

[specuvestor]

Don't tell me that you are naive enough to believe that the angel investing, start up investing, seed investing are philanthropic donations. If you tell them, the whole purpose of your business is non-profit driven, see how many angels will support your cause, aside from philanthropic source.

Investors who are investing in Amazon are not looking at near team profit, but if Amazon tells them it will NEVER make a profit, see how many investors will be left. The same applies to all your examples of so called "non-profit" driven private investments. The investors are just not looking at near term profit, it does not mean that they are not looking at profit at all.

If Temasek continues to invest into such not-for-profit ventures, the MPs should question the management of Temasek. The money is not for Temasek to squander.

Or maybe let me re-phrase, if every company is not aiming for profit, do you think there is going to be a profession called investment?

Don't tell me you are naive enough to believe that all listed companies are "solely" profit driven. If this axiom is true we wouldn't even need watch-dogs. Even if they are "profitable" some retain profits to benefit certain stakeholders. I happen to be in the investment profession so I probably can say that not all companies are aiming for profit, hence caveat emptor. In fact during the dot com days VCs anlayse companies based on cash-burn rate and not "profit" per se.

You keep looking at matters as binary: either all or nothing, profit vs non-profit, socialism vs capitalism, there vs now, me vs you... there is no continuum in your analysis. Even when analysing a company there is hardly ever a binary "must buy" or "must sell" stock. Reason is simple: For every pro there is usually an associated con. Missing the big picture is often the reason why value investors get stuck in value traps or even frauds.

Your Amazon example explains what I was saying: It is about your timeline, your objective, your stakeholders, etc. Amazon had been having lousy ROI since the dot com days and it is open secret that their objective is not making money, for NOW. So why people still invest in it? Because they believe mindshare and market share is still most important now. So when will they finally have ROI above their WACC? Your guess is as good as mine but their strategy is different because their objective is different. Google is another example of innovations that does not focus on profits per se... from digitising books to email to maps

Similarly government objectives and policies looks at the entirety rather than a small part of the economy. If they lose money in certain parts for example transport and infrastructure but entice other businesses and eco-systems to set up in Singapore, that's where they get their payback. That's hardly called squandering. It's the same idea from non-profitable Education to Defence. Objection to a policy just because it by itself is non-profitable is myopic.

ESM Goh has done a good job brain-washing the younger generations, just as he done on asset enhancements and rising property values. People should revisit his policies and think hard whether they make long term sense or just a smoke-bomb.