Lim Swee Say: Making the economy and workforce cheaper

last SG · 2009-10-15T11:54:41+00:00

Lim Swee Seng Really nth to do and comment on this statement. It is really very disappointing.

xtreyier SG

I think maybe your interpretation of the Chinese auto-industry might be misleading as well.

China's auto-industry can survive very much on its domestic markets. If you look at China's HUGE domestic market, and still low wage levels, it would thus make perfect business sense to produce cheap cars in large quantities so that the domestic market can actually afford them.

What they are doing is essentially not repeating Latin America's mistake: Making expensive cars that no one can domestically afford, and deemed to unreliable to export.

America's auto industry was badly hit in the crisis not because it was not cheap enough; but because it went into recession while China still had a gdp growth rate of 9.1%. While America's domestic market stopped buying, China's domestic market barely flinched. And that is why China is a rising economic superpower. It has a strong domestic market, while at the same time it is export oriented. The non-Chinamen didn't make any mistake, they just don't have an economy like China.

Another important question to ask is, "In context of the manufacturing sectors, are wage levels increasing or decreasing in China?"

You'll be surprised, wage levels are increasing, and provincial governments are looking into minimum wage laws! BTW, Something we do not have in Singapore! Hint: the causal relationship of the demand of the domestic market and wage levels may be reversed. Because wage levels increase, people are able to spend more, further strengthening domestic demand

So another question is, do we have that kinda domestic market that China has? We don't and hence we are export oriented. It means we get hit harder by global fluctuations. And if the government pushes down wages, Singaporeans are just gonna be forced to spend even lesser, killing whatever domestic demand we may have. It means our pillar of economics thus gets shifted even more heavily towards export orientation. When the next round of global export dip comes in, we get hit even harder and then we get our wages pushed even lower. I see big potential problems with this strategy.

The next part of your science and tech arguments sounds like propaganda to me. And I am sure the Chinese are paying heed to it as well. They too are embracing science and technology, and they have a lot more capability to take it further than we can in 50 years time. They are buying over foreign MNCs, technologies and integrating into their own domestic companies, re-engineering them and re-exporting them out. Singapore just cannot compete with China on that level.

Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation. And for that, the focus is not on science and technology. In the long run, China's income gap and declining population may have a negative impact on their primary and secondary sectors. Which means, their secondary sectors may suffer in quality and lack of standardization across its many different provinces. This is not a problem in Singapore. In fact, we may even latch on to this and become final product assembly stations for Chinese products if we were to develop capabilities to support that. Ie. "Made in China, Assembled in Singapore."

And if we want to be more than that, we need to look away from sciences and technology for a bit and start looking at how we can boost and build on our financial services sector. That point I agree with MM Lee, that we need to strive to be the Switzerland of the East or if not at least the UK.

Whatever the case, the strategy of cheaper labor may do us in.

Thanks for your reply. I sincerly appreciate your thoughts and efforts.

Just a few quick points:-

1. Yes, China has a domestic market, BUT NOT yet. Selling pots and pans would have greater demand than cars today but not high price items like cars.

2. Leading to the cause which is a result of their low wages. They BETTER have a minimum wage because it is inhumanely low for the efforts they put in. Even our roadsweepers earn more than their supervisors today

3. Which will ultimately lead to an eventual rise in cost in their productions and exported goods, in line with outside markets, if such markets still exists without being bankrupt by them in the first place.

4. I agree fully with you cheap labour is not the way to go for ANY economy. But in time, eventually humans will seek for a better market share of profits between employers and govt taxes, as it had been throughout history.

Lower wages is an anamoly for China today, but once the uneducated peasants becomes a huge educated middle class and more vocal thru capitalist policies, it will be a thing of their silent fearful commie past.

5. I would disagree with you on science and tech part. Studying it and regugitating facts will not create the 'next big thing', otherwise anyone else would have created windows OS or handphone tech long time ago. It takes many factors for it to happen, but the most critical one is human ingenuity, which cannot be taught but nurtured by environment. Our 4th uni is the way to go to develope and nurture such talents.

It had been a pleasure to partake in this discussion with you, but i guess time will prove who is right or had been wrong. But in the meantime, we all just have to buckle up, CBF style and face up to reality to put food on our table, which is more critical. As mentioned, we dont need the kind of money China needs, just a fraction of it as we are only a small population will see us survive secure and with savings for our next generations.

Cheers.

Shotgun SG

Thanks for your reply. I sincerly appreciate your thoughts and efforts.

Just a few quick points:-

1. Yes, China has a domestic market, BUT NOT yet. Selling pots and pans would have greater demand than cars today but not high price items like cars.

Cheers.

I've gotta rest early tonight so I will make this quick as well.

1. You have been misinformed. China's domestic market is there and its demand for goods is increasing. That is why many countries also want to tap into its market. Just cars alone, the total number of vehicles grew to 64.67 Million by the end of 2008, up by 18.1% from 2007. Out of which, Private motor vehicles grew to 19.47 million, up by 28%. China's domestic market is there, and is just waiting to be tapped in. The recent financial crisis saw that happening when exports fell, and domestic demand being played up. This is happening across sectors, not just the auto-industry. So who ever who told you that China domestic market is not there yet, needs to go back to re-examine the statistics.

2. Not sure what you meant by "the cause of the result is low wages." What result is being caused by low wages. That has been a very ambiguous statement that almost means nothing. My point is that, wage levels are rising in China. Again, statistical fact. It is the rural primary sectors such as agriculture that is experiencing wage decrease. Sooner or later, that is going to be a problem not only in terms of the huge wage differential, but also socially. But as far as local demand is concern, the rising wage levels are positively correlated.

3. Not sure what you mean by "which." Low wages? Or rising wages? What market being bankrupt by them? Wage levels don't rise indefinitely, and especially not in China. China's "federal" unitary system is kinda interesting because each province actually does compete against the other in terms of production costs, and even raise tariffs against another. So such competition within China itself may actually regulate production prices downwards if necessary. I haven't seen a market being "bankrupted" by China, so I am unclear what you are referring to.

4. Low wages is not anomaly in NICs. And China is still very much considered an NIC. Not sure if you are clear about NICs. Not sure what you mean by "humans will seek for better market share between employer and govt taxes," also. Doesn't really make sense.

5. Again, myth. It is a myth to believe that innovation is part of culture and must be nurtured by environment. That is a very deliberately ambiguous statement. What constitutes the word "environment." Innovation can be cultivated through education, but not if its so focused on sciences and technology. Fact is, Liberal Market Economies such as the United States and United Kingdom particularly own most of the world's patents for ideas and innovations. Their education syllabus leans more to the arts and social sciences and that has been seen to be a correlation to innovation. That is because these arts and social sciences lean more towards finding out "why" and "what does it matter" type of education systems. It is sciences and technology that requires students regurgitate what they learn without asking why. Innovation can be cultured through education.

And I fundamentally disagree with your conclusion. Singapore needs money, its a matter of what strategy to adopt and how to get money to come in. Savings won't last forever, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Atobe SG

What are you actually saying or had said? Is it based on any facts? None the least, except to claim I am stupid. What am i stupid of ? That the fact exist we are still in the prime geographical location? If that's a lie and stupidity, then i cant seem to see how far is your intellect, bonzo. The Thai canal is still a pipe dream, wake up, kid!

And had I commented on any minister's salary, including the opposition as well. Look who is the myopic one here!

C'mon, bonzo, if you hate me that much to be blind to reality, at least try to be objective and accept the truth. A Turd is no brainer and a waste of time for me to respond. Dont make me do the same to you, if it is discussion you seek, bonzo.

The problem with a X-rated intellect is that it believes too much in its own self-inflated relevance to believe that it cannot be wrong in every department which it has so much opinion - that is based on superficial snippets of information picked up from the roll of paper that it prefers to read at the toilet.

Is the Thai Canal a pipe dream, or has the X-rated intellect fallen asleep and believe that anything that it has no knowledge of is a pipe dream ?

If only the X-rated intellect had taken the trouble to google the subject of the Kra Canal - it would have at least been able to salvage some of its tattered imagninery pride.

The subject on the Kra Canal had been first brought up as early as the 19th Century, and seen its intense revival over the last two years, as seen in the frequest reports:-

‘Thailand’s “Suez Canal” across the Isthmus of Kra is a strategic battle – 15 September 2008’ (*1)

‘Thailand’s Kra Canal – 18 March 2009’ (*2)

‘ASEAN affairs breaks the news of latest attempts to revive Kra Canal – 1 June 2009’ (*3)

‘Region calls on Thailand to reactivate Kra Canal Project – 18 June 2009’ (*4)

If we have supposedly educated intellect - such as the resident X-rat to be at the helm of the Singapore Ship, it will certainly guide us into an iceberg - as it will simply refuse to believe that the iceberg can exist.

soul_rage SG

Is the Thai Canal a pipe dream, or has the X-rated intellect fallen asleep and believe that anything that it has no knowledge of is a pipe dream ?

If only the X-rated intellect had taken the trouble to google the subject of the Kra Canal - it would have at least been able to salvage some of its tattered imagninery pride.

The subject on the Kra Canal had been first brought up as early as the 19th Century, and seen its intense revival over the last two years, as seen in the frequest reports:-

‘Thailand’s “Suez Canal” across the Isthmus of Kra is a strategic battle – 15 September 2008’ (*1)

‘Thailand’s Kra Canal – 18 March 2009’ (*2)

‘ASEAN affairs breaks the news of latest attempts to revive Kra Canal – 1 June 2009’ (*3)

‘Region calls on Thailand to reactivate Kra Canal Project – 18 June 2009’ (*4)

I am waiting for him to acknowledge his error in saying the canal is a pipedream.

So far, he keeps quiet when he is proven wrong.

But he repeatedly commits the same error, commenting on matters he does not know.

"China has a domestic market, but NOT YET"

What exactly does this mean? It is totally self-conflicting a statement.

And he is truly stupid to underestimate the wealth of the Chinese, making comments such as "selling pots and pans"

Only stupid people continue to rattle off even when their knowledge loopholes have been exposed totally. This reminds me of what my gal friends tell me. They absolutely despise guys who DON'T KNOW anything but attempt to look as if they are all-knowing in a pathetic attempt to impress them.

xtreyier reminds me of this category of pathetic guys. Only, who is he impressing? :D

Atobe SG

The X-rated intellect never fail to amaze with its insistence in flogging its intelligence in public with such uninhibited immodesty.

I applaud your post. Very thought provoking.

However, some perceptions, In My Humble Opinion (IMHO) they may be flawed.

A more effective strategy is to maintain wage levels, but focus on efficiency and qualitative standards

This was the model the jap auto industry thought workable in the face of the chinese production juggarnaut back when Deng started political reforms in the 80s and started their own auto industry. The japs, europeans and americans were complacent, laffed at the cherys and geelys.

But they had woken up after the 08 crisis when their own auto makers crashed and burned. And the chinese are making better cheaper cars. The chinese are not stupid people but highly intelligent, just like us. In a few more short years, with active wooing of jobless westerners to their companies, Hondas, Toyotas and your BMWs would be relics of the past.

Let us learn quickly now and not make the same mistake non-chinamen made.

‘Was China a “production juggernaut” back when Deng started political reforms in the 80s ?’ (*1) or was it not a fact that Deng had started political reforms in the 1970s and only began to open the country to the outside world in the 1980s - with its production still based on the antiquated, non-competitive state-managed communist model ?

Was that a threat to the Japanese automotive industry in the 1970s and the 1980s, when China's State-owned and managed factories could not even produce any kind of consumer goods that could be comparable to Hongkong's or Taiwan's ?

During his current visit to the USA, MM LKY did remarked that China at present ‘have a little (home-made) car called the Cherry. I would be bold to predict that in 20 to 30 years, they could build a Mercedes or a Lexus.’ (*2)

Can the intellect of a X-rated kid do better than MM LKY - in its X-rated claim that China will in a few short years employ engineers from BMW, Toyotas, and Hondas that are busted by China's present automotive success ?

The era for double digit growth for the asian tigers are about to end with the rise of the dragon. Its time to switch strategies to more stabilized growth strategies than to compete with a country that has so much more labor and resources to fuel extensive growth strategies

There is no need to fear the chinamen. The reason is political. How long more can chinamen accept low wages? Again, compare our past. Malaysian labour was cheap, but when they improved, by piggybacking on our growth, their wages are no longer cheap as compared to the 60s.

And with such ecomic growth came social problems as the educated growing middle classes demanded more share of the economic pie. So too will China become when their middle class grows up. They do not own every single resources or are self sufficient in production, as Japan was back in the 60s when powered up.

They too dont call the shots and have to cooperate with the world. If the world feel threatened too much by the explosive Chinese juggarnaut, they too will react politically, espacially those with resources China needs.

All these are still far into the future. In the meantime, there is no stopping China. Either we lower our wages and get some revenue, or we raise it up and get nothing, starve to death.

Is the X-rat shamelessly redefining its position after being screwed for criticising the calls for minimum wage for Singapore Workers - who are facing the rising numbers of imported foreign labor that is suppressing Singapore wages ?

If there is nothing to fear from China's workers - who will soon call for their wages to be increased, why does the X-rat so willingly defend the idiocy of Lim Swee Say's message of "cheaper, better and faster" ?

Opening up our nation to welcome cheap labour will at least ensure our intelligent workforce can be placed on middle management levels. More workers and stacked up factories or offices means more of our citizens will have jobs till the middle class chinamen becomes strong enough to make demands on their political masters.

The X-rated intellect must have been blind to the fact that the Foreign Talent does not only include the cheap labor but also the foreign talent that compete for the middle management posts in Singapore.

Is the X-rated intellect expecting Singaporean workers to delay making demands for wage increases until the "chinamen make demands on their political masters" ?

China may have trillions in reserves, but if you work the sums, it means only 1000 dollars per chinaman. One virus worse than swine flu affecting majority of the population and China will be bankrupt by health care overnight. Taiwan, the true republic of china will then just walk in and take over China without even firing a shot.

Is this the depth in the intellect of the X-rated talent here - to believe in the simplicity in the political gambit that China can be wiped out by one virus that allow Taiwan to walk in and takeover China without even firing a shot ?

What does it take for Malaysia or Indonesia to walk in and takeover Singapore ?

Our biggest threat in the next 50 years is not politics or labour, for it can be manipulated, but science and technology. When we, a consumerist world import more than we export, we will be doomed. Like the wheels of time, tech progresses unstoppable by building upon current advancement. Science fiction today often becomes science reality tomorrow. Home computers and portable phones are a joke once upon a time in the 60s. Today, it is no longer laffing matter.

Thus, we must always be the forefront in science and tech, with extensive education, and national education for our young not to forsake it for wealth management courses.

Again, can the intellect of a X-rated kid dazzle that of the MM LKY, who believed that

"Let us not deceive ourselves: our talent profile is nowhere near that of, say, the Jews or the Japanese in America. The exceptional number of Nobel Prize winners who are Jews is no accident. It is also no accident that a high percentage, sometimes 50%, of faculty members in the top American universities on both the east and west coasts are Jews. And the number of high calibre Japanese academics, professionals, and business executives is out of all proportion to the percentage of Japanese in the total American population." - 1982

Can Science and Technology alone save Singapore, or has it not been identified that the future will require a new generation of Singaporeans with the entrepreneurship, drive, creativity, and daring to push the frontiers and seek new opportunities ?

Are these not the qualities that were sorely missed from Singaporeans, who are compared with the Hongkong and Taiwan - both having abundant entrepreneurs and creative thinkers that push the frontiers of industrial designs that the capture world consumer interests with winning products ?

Were the absence of such qualities not already evident amongst Singaporeans and have been lamented by LKY, GCT and now LHL ?

The present situation in Singapore is a result of 40 years of PAP's indefensible policy of neutralizing the individual interest for the sake of the larger community, and the mad push for uniformity and conformity - which killed any initiative or drive by the individual.

G. Goddard and german immigrant Einstein led US to become a power house with atomic tech no other human could even comprehend yet. College dropout Gates controlled the world with Windows OS. Boeing ruled the skies. Nokia and Erricson grew fat by borrowing our ears. GlaxoSmithKline maintain our health.

We must embrace science and tech, grow our own brains for research and developement, buy if we must, to carve out our niche, so that we and our young will have a better future if we are to sacrifice our todays to compete for food on our table.

All the wishy-washy thinking of a X-rated intellect in making such inspirational lines can only fall flat when it has taken these great names to be emulated, but could not recognised that it was the political, social, cultural and economic environment that allowed these great names to flourish and be their individual best.

Can Singapore Society accept anyone to be a university drop-out much as Bill Gates had dropped out of college to pursue his Windows OS development ?

Albert Enstein was laughed at in his younger days, and spent much of his time doodling with his formulaes - would he have survived in a result oriented Singapore environment in both the areas of academia and industry ?

It is already insufferable to see the immodesty of an X-rate in inflating its own self importance with the X-rated intellect, does it have to make anyone believe that the success of Nokia and Ericsson is dependent on Singaporeans ?

"If we are to sacrifice our todays to compete" - with the foreign talent - "for food on our table", how does the X-rat think our children will get enough to eat and grow their brains for research and development, and have the resourcefulness to carve niches for their survival ?

Is this not an idiocy in the statement made by an X-rated intellect ?

PS: Can seawater be turned into potable drinking water? If so, our own Hyflux and its subsidiaries or tech such as theirs may provide well paid employment for millions of us as well as revenues as we conquer the world with the patents to supply necessary safe drinking water to dry or soon to dry up regions due to increase solar cycles. This is only one example of tech created by us. How much more new tech we can create, if only we try? Rather than to support and grow our SMEs and local MNCs competing headon with China on the same products and same wages?

Obviously, the X-rated intellect know little about changing seawater into potable water as seen in the simplistic statements made ?

How many million Singaporeans do the X-rated intellect want to employ to stand around and man each push-button and control each lever ?

The technology for converting seawater into potable water has been around since the 1960s, and the desalination process require so much energy that for such plants to be economically viable, it must exist alongside other plants that has much waste energy to be recycled to the desalination process.

As matters stand, Hyflux has to find partners and cannot go alone with such a gigantic investment.

What did Hyflux create that is unique and belonged to Singapore ?

Was it so fantastic, or was it not simply reinventing the wheel with some new feature added to make it unique enough to be patented and claimed to be Singaporean ?

If only the X-rated intellect will anchor itself down to earth, instead of attempting to blow its trumpet that shamelessly reveal its ignorance in such insufferable loudness - one would have find the X-rated intellect more tolerable.

Atobe SG

Thanks for your reply. I sincerly appreciate your thoughts and efforts.

Just a few quick points:-

1. Yes, China has a domestic market, BUT NOT yet. Selling pots and pans would have greater demand than cars today but not high price items like cars.

The ignorance of a X-rated intellect is more intolerable when it pretend to speak with such shameless authority from a basis of hollow knowledge.

One can only wonder where does the X-rated intellect gets its background briefing and will give him the stupendous bravado in making repeated claims that only shoot its own foot most of the time.

In a report titled - ‘China car boom could last a few years: analyst – 9 July 2009’ (*1) -

"China is at the start of another boom in car sales that is being propelled by rising incomes in third-tier cities and could continue for a few years, JP Morgan said on Wednesday.

A 21% surge in car sales this year has caught Chinese car makers, which had curbed production on expectations the country's sharp economic slowdown late last year would depress demand for big-ticket items, off guard.

Car ownership is just 2.9 percent of the population - one of the lowest rates in the world - says Credit Suisse, which expects ownership to surge fivefold in the next decade to reach 148 cars per 1,000 residents by 2020."

Why will the X-rated intellect call for a minimum wage for the workers in China, but will deny Singaporean workers from having a minimum wage to protect Singapore workers from the threat of rising numbers of cheap foreign workers ?

It is amazing that the X-rated intellect will cross-out its own arguments made in the following statement in the other thread:-

‘Capitalism abhors wage controls and will leave for cheaper shores. We dont need wage controls or minimum wages. Bosses are entittled to their large bonuses for they provide the capital and take the risks. Our govt only tax them 18% and uses such monies as revenue for social spending or saving.’ (*3)

With the X-rated intelligence working in stupendous overtime, it is amazing that it will not see China's realisation that it must also be an importing country, and not merely be the cheapest manufacturer of the World.

Can "humans eventually seek for a better market share of profits between employers and govt taxes" - or is this another one more wishy-washy chameleon changing position of a X-rated intellect when it will deny Singaporeans from having a protected better wages ?

What is an "anamoly" ?

Did the X-rated intellect intend to mean "anomaly" ?

Why would lower wages be an anomaly for China today, considering that the supply and demand mechanism is working in a perfect condition, where workers supply outstrip demand ?

Compare the China situation to Singapore, Singapore low wage condition is an anomaly when the Government introduce a third element to disrupt the perfect market condition of supply and demand - by introducing cheap foreign labor to undercut the high wages called by Singaporeans.

The Singapore situation is an anomaly - if the X-rated intellect needs a lesson in supply and demand determining wages.

Eureka!!!!

This must be a stupendous feat by an X-rated intellect - considering his loud boastful statements in the previous post:-

" We must embrace science and tech, grow our own brains for research and developement, buy if we must, to carve out our niche, so that we and our young will have a better future if we are to sacrifice our todays to compete for food on our table."

Why would the X-rated intellect pursue the embrace of science and tech, and then abandon it just as quickly in the next post ?

Does the "X" indicate the consistency in criss-crossing of its stupendous intellect ?

Cheers.

Can food be found on our table with foolish thoughts in cheaper, better and faster ?

How much "better" can "cheaper" be, and how much "cheaper" can "faster" get us ?

What food will we get on our table when we become "cheaper, better and faster" ?

Even if Singapore gets a fraction of the money that China needs, does any money from that fraction filter into every Singaporean, or will it remain in Government hands - both in the Treasury and in the pockets of the Ministers as part of the million dollar wages ?

What kind of savings do Singaporeans have, or is the X-rated intellect deluded to the extent of not seeing that our hard-earned CPF is spent entirely on over inflated HDB units sold to Singaporeans, even when these units are built with money borrowed from our CPF at 2 per cent per annum ?

xtreyier SG

I've gotta rest early tonight so I will make this quick as well.

Thank you once again for your measured response. I would like to debate further with you on your hypothesis, to better illuminate the darkness of confusion in your mind and your dependence on statistical errors to prove your points.

However, this site is not the conducieve arena for serious discussion, as proven by the monkeys hovering around here with their limited intellect coupled with their inflated self worth and ego pretending to offer insights but absolutely nothing except contridictions and tripping over their own words, even as they sought to twist mine.

Thus i would have to leave you here to your assumptions and your trust in statistics. I only want to comment that statistics in not science. Use a different data and you get another set of figures. Stats are but guides, and it is dependent on how you use it to twist it to support hypothesises.

My faith is on science, which is irrefutable, no matter how many times different methods are employed, you get the same answer. History is also where my faith lies, for no matter how one hides evidences, no one can shut up thousand others' mouth on what actually happened.

All I have written here is not a response to your post to boolster my earlier perceptions or push down your beliefs, as explained that i cant do it here in this arena. I stand by my earlier posts and as mentioned, time and your subsequent maturity will give you better clarity of thoughts.

Ultimately, you and I have one aim, and that is to prosper ourselves and our fellow citizens, on how to get out of the rut we are in. I support the CBF way, which is not based on cheaper wages for citizens, but basic sustenable moderate wages for us with cheap foriegn labour to produce cheaper, better and faster products to face up to the current low wage chinamen peasant economic revolution, which will recede within a historical and political time frame.

Your proposal is just a belief that higher wages would be possible with higher quality, efficiency and innovation. But for simplicity sake and to keep this thread alive so that more may understanding the issues somewhat in a lighter fashion here, what products is there then that China is not capable of, with today's current tech and their disdian and disrespect for intellectual property rights, are you suggesting?

Atobe SG

This must be a pathetic parody from a plagiarized Shakespearan work albeit in some pitiful modern settings.

In its true characteristic form, the X-rat rides again in another display of presumptious self-importance to attempt to debate with a "Shotgun" and "to better illuminate the darkness of confusion seen in the mind" of one who is a 'Moderator' !!!

It is about time that the X-rat be knocked off its high horse that is no higher than mole that a rat can probably ride on.

How can this site be the conducive arena for serious discussion when the X-rat has only the proven X-rated abilities to cross-out its own intelligence with the X-rated intellect that it depends for its arguments ?

Is it not surprising that the X-rated intellect of a rat has no capacity to even counter with any worthwhile substance all the counter-arguments that have punctured its words filled with the hot gas of unsubstantiated statements plagiarized without any efforts at being circumspect to the appropriateness of the contents ?

If Statistics is not Science, it is obvious that the X-rated intellect of a rat will believe "Hot Gas" to be true science ?

This must be a very profound discovery from the view point of a X-rated intellect.

How many ways can Statistics be manipulated to have different answers from a given set of circumstances ?

Only the X-rated intellect will be able to find new statistical numbers from a given set of fixed attributes and determinants to come up with its own voodoo science that it will only accept.

After the boastful statements made with such bravado at the opening paragraph, in attempting "to better illuminate the darkness of confusion seen in the mind" of the resident Shotgun - what have we left after so many useless paragraphs ?

Was there any illumination thrown into the supposed darkness in the mind of the Shotgun - or has this not been an exercise to have the last useless say in the usual bankrupt ways of an X-rated rat ?

In the characteristic cross-tongued verbage of a X-rated rat - that contradicts its first statement that "CBF is not based on cheaper wages for citizens" - but will in the next statement immediately shamelessly obfuscate with a bland statement that CBF is to be "basic sustenable moderate wages for us".

What is "basic sustenable moderate wages" but no more then wages that are sustenable to the employer's ability - which can only translate to cheaper wages for Singaporeans to match the lower waged foreign laborers ?

Has the X-rated intellect double-cross its other response in the other thread that the Singaporean workers should COMPLEMENT the production juggernaut in China, and is now stating that we are "to face up to the current low wage chinamen peasant economic revolution" ?

Can anyone understand any issues put forth in any lighter fashion here when it is convulted in its pretentious high fallutin structure that the X-rated intellect is incapable of even plagiarizing the style even with its best childish efforts to emulate the higher skills of others with higher intellect ?

At the end of this repose, it will seem that the X-rated attempt "to better illuminate the darkness of confusion seen in the mind" of the resident Shotgun - has now ended with an invitation for the Shotgun to blow a few holes in the X-rated intellect to allow some light to fall into its brain that is shrouded in its own hot gas.

Shotgun SG

You are mistaken. My views are not shaped by statistics alone. They are shaped by my training in political economy. I look at political, economic arrangements, and often refer to statistics to see if they match my hypothesis. My views are not my own, but views of various papers written by very established economists and political economists. If you think my views are flawed, then so are the views of many professors from Cambridge, Stanford, Oxford and the likes.

And your view of science needs to be updated as well. Study of advance sciences are not as deterministic as you claim, "My faith is on science, which is irrefutable, no matter how many times different methods are employed, you get the same answer." In areas such as quantum physics, that literally goes out the window. For example, refer to the area of particle physics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_statistics The composition of our universe seems to be more probabilistic than you think it to be.

You also mis-interpret me. 1. I do not claim that higher wages will lead to higher efficiency and innovation. I draw no such correlation. I simply oppose to the "cheaper labor" medicine for every economic problem. There are times to do so, but not every time. What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand.

You seem to have a very strong belief that others are wrong in their analyses and that you are right. Maybe you can start substantiating your beliefs.

xtreyier SG

You seem to have a very strong belief that others are wrong in their analyses and that you are right. Maybe you can start substantiating your beliefs.

Thanks again for your forthright reply.

No. I never claimed I am right here or anyway else. If it gives you that perception, then it is only your perception and not of my doing or any enforcement.

I will not use illustrious namesakes to bolster as substantiation of my claims. Anyone can be who they claim to be on the net. I am only an insignificant nobody, with no intention to impress or to press anyone down with my knowledge. It will only be in an open forum or seminar which you and my credentials can be seen. I offer only insights, free to be considered or discarded at will by my fellow citizens here, some whom are intellectuals, and some yet to be.

I would agree with you on the points raised upon quantum physics if that is how you viewed science. But dont you think we, humanity, have still very much to comprehend this subject which is still under research and opened for discussion to seek for better quantative tangible results?

But more critical is the point you made -

Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

Now you claim a misinterpretation and came out with:-

What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand.

I will allow you to make that clarification for discussion sake, but dont you think that our domestic demand is too small to support our population base of only 3.2million? Only a few lucky ones may become rich, but what about the rest? The middle class will cease to exist, and its back to the 50s again, living in the 21st century.

Worse, who will pay for the imports as we have no resources, and high wage demands driving away capitalists and foriegn investments in this current era of facing up to bad boy cheap chinamen?

Is this your strategy and solution?

Please focus on a solution, for it is more important than you and my ego, for it concerns the livehood of our fellow citizens.

Atobe SG

Thanks again for your forthright reply.

No. I never claimed I am right here or anyway else. If it gives you that perception, then it is only your perception and not of my doing or any enforcement.

But more critical is the point you made -

Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

Now you claim a misinterpretation and came out with:-

What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand.

Worse, who will pay for the imports as we have no resources, and high wage demands driving away capitalists and foriegn investments in this current era of facing up to bad boy cheap chinamen?

Is this your strategy and solution?

Please focus on a solution, for it is more important than you and my ego, for it concerns the livehood of our fellow citizens.

Can the X-rated intellect contribute anything of substance that can benefit anyone it claims to be its fellow citizens ?

Can the X-rat produce anything that will have any consequence to the "livehood" of itself without affecting the "livelihood" of the citizens, whom it claims no one owes anything to the Citizens and that include the Government ?

Why will the X-rat want to be concerned with the "livehood" of those whom it claim to be its fellow citizens, when it does not owe anything to its fellow citizens ?

The idiocy in the X-rated language skills have already shown its true colors in the other thread when it claims "civil obedience" is against the law.

‘Only the complete idiocy of a X-rated intelligence can produce the word "outlawlery" that will surely "incite naive others to perform civil obedience". Is there a crime in performing civil obedience ?’ (*2)

Can the X-rated intellect be depended to understand the simple English that the Shotgun had been indulging with in the replies made to the X-rated rat ?

Yet, the X-rated intellect will want its own limited understanding of simple English to be further simplified, as it will arrogantly find fault with the simply structured sentences made by the Shotgun.

This clearly shows the pretentious X-rated intellect that indulges in prose that it knows nothing about, as it attempt to plagiarize ideas that it delivers with the style that is no more then pure imitation without even the skills in comprehension nor in timing.

The X-rated intellect of the imbecile rat is made worst in its undisguised pretentions as it attempt to be intellectual with its own limited understanding of simple issues that it is determined to make more complicated with its own stupidity:-

But more critical is the point you made -

Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

Now you claim a misinterpretation and came out with:-

What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand.

I will allow you to make that clarification for discussion sake,

Was there any mistake on the part of the Shotgun, or was it not due to the stupendous efforts of the X-rated intellect to find fault when none existed ?

How did the brilliant intellect of the X-rat possibly have interpreted the Shotgun's view of science to be in the form of "quantum physics" - when Shotgun had clearly stated that - "In areas .. (of science).. such as quantum physics, that literally goes out the window " ?

These are the insufferable traits of the X-rated rat with all the pretentious efforts to be a pseudo-intellect - attempting to find its own relevance as it get itself lost in its deep set ignorance of its own existence and that of the world around it.

Is there any further value in its pathetic X-rated being ?

This must be the best X-rated joke to end a Sunday.

Shotgun SG

So lets examine the statements shall we beginning with mine.

S1: Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

I said that we should end the "cheaper labor" strategy. AND look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

Which is Different from M1: "end 'cheaper' labor strategy TO raise quality standards, efficiency and innovation."

Which is also different from M2: "end 'cheaper' labor strategy BY raising quality standards, efficients an innovation."

Lets look at your statement:

X1: Your proposal is just a belief that higher wages would be possible with higher quality, efficiency and innovation.

Firstly, that has been a misunderstanding between the "AND" , "TO" and "BY" operators. Secondly, X1 reflects the misunderstanding of statement M2. Which means you misunderstood S1 to be M2.

S1 is my opinion that we should not always look into the option of reducing wages just to cope with economic challenges, especially competition from China. So what I meant was that we need to compete not in terms of just cost alone, but look at raising our quality standards, efficiency and innovation. Basically things that value add instead of reducing our labor costs. So my apologies if I did not clarify that.

Finally, S2: "What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand."

S2 is a claim while S1 is my opinion or recommendation. S2 attempts to establish a piece of information, while S1 attempts to persuade the reader to a course of action. These two statements are fundamentally different in nature. It might have been confusing due to my lack of organization in a forum post I guess.

I don't meant to try to sound high and mighty. I was just trying to establish that my views originate from what I have learnt in my studies which incorporate many analytical approaches besides just looking at statistics which you might have been mislead to believe. What I hoped was that you could also tell me where you developed your views from, and perhaps understand the source of some of the rather "interesting" inaccuracies.

soul_rage SG

Thus i would have to leave you here to your assumptions and your trust in statistics. I only want to comment that statistics is not science. Use a different data and you get another set of figures. Stats are but guides, and it is dependent on how you use it to twist it to support hypothesises.

Sigh... Please answer this xtreyier.

"The Thai canal is still a pipe dream, wake up, kid!"

Is this what you said. Yes or No? Please don't keep beating round the bush. It seems like you are the monkey twisting your own words. The Thai Canal IS a reality.

If you do not admit your own mistake and blatant disregard of facts, you have 0% credibility, and no one here cares about what you say.

In the end, you, as a NOBODY, is of your own doing, not ours.

And you are really stupid, do you know that? Statistics IS a part of Mathematics, and Mathematics IS a form of Science. And scientific conclusions can be refuted, though I am too lazy to explain to you what this means.

I really give up on you, with no knowledge of things around you, and pretending like you know. You are worse than the pathetic guys who try to impress gals.

xtreyier SG

So lets examine the statements shall we beginning with mine.

S1: Hence, I say its ought to be the end of our entire "cheaper" labor strategy and look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

I said that we should end the "cheaper labor" strategy. AND look at raising quality standards, efficiency and innovation.

Which is Different from M1: "end 'cheaper' labor strategy TO raise quality standards, efficiency and innovation."

Which is also different from M2: "end 'cheaper' labor strategy BY raising quality standards, efficients an innovation."

Lets look at your statement:

X1: Your proposal is just a belief that higher wages would be possible with higher quality, efficiency and innovation.

Firstly, that has been a misunderstanding between the "AND" , "TO" and "BY" operators. Secondly, X1 reflects the misunderstanding of statement M2. Which means you misunderstood S1 to be M2.

Finally, S2: "What I do claim is that cheaper wages may suppress domestic demand."

Thanks for your clarifications.

As to answer your questions posed, I can only politely decline, for you have not answered my questions, which is your right which i will always respect. As such, I believe that your hypothesis is still in its theoratical form and hopefully one day perhaps you might make it into a reality, which hopefully can be of practical help for our citizens, of which rest assured, i will gladly forward the necessary information you require in your PM.

Cheers.

xtreyier SG

Sigh... Please answer this xtreyier.

"The Thai canal is still a pipe dream, wake up, kid!"

Is this what you said. Yes or No? Please don't keep beating round the bush. It seems like you are the monkey twisting your own words. The Thai Canal IS a reality.

If you do not admit your own mistake and blatant disregard of facts, you have 0% credibility, and no one here cares about what you say.

In the end, you, as a NOBODY, is of your own doing, not ours.

I really give up on you, with no knowledge of things around you, and pretending like you know. You are worse than the pathetic guys who try to impress gals.

Sorry bonzo. Your phrase The Thai Canal IS a reality. is enough to let me that I am dealing with a fool. Better you live in the comfort of your delusions than to let me tear it apart and deepened only your egoistical bitterness towards me and others who disagree with you.

What you think or dont think and your perceptions are none of my concerns. If you seek a discussion, drop that ego of yours and rest assured, I would gladly open to you, for i believe in freedom of speech for all, even the intellectually or pragmatically densed.

soul_rage SG

I am not interested in debating with a fool. You have not answered many questions, including your statement "The Thai Canal is a pipe dream", when in fact, it IS a reality as a huge risk for Singapore. If you even bothered to read Atobe's FACTUAL postings, you will know that it is a reality.

You have also not acknowledged your stupid statement "Statistics is not a science". Thus you are not fit to discuss about Science and what you believe in.

As I said, DON'T ever go into a domain which you DO NOT have expertise in. It makes you look just so darn stupid.

You have no belief in freedom of speech, or you will not make a comment about Shotgun as follows:

"Thank you once again for your measured response. I would like to debate further with you on your hypothesis, to better illuminate the darkness of confusion in your mind and your dependence on statistical errors to prove your points."

You have no right to make comments about people's expertise, therefore you are the worst of them all. A truly pathetic fool, worse than all the stupid males who attempt to impress gals when they know nothing. You are the worst of them all, PERCEIVING others expertise as darkness and confusion. Only a shameless person like you will make comments on other's perceptions, when you are referring mostly to yourself.

You are truly a Fool of Hagar's Offspring. I pity you with all your delusions.

xtreyier SG

You have also not acknowledged your stupid statement "Statistics is not a science". Thus you are not fit to discuss about Science and what you believe in.

As I said, DON'T ever go into a domain which you DO NOT have expertise in. It makes you look just so darn stupid.

You have no belief in freedom of speech, or you will not make a comment about Shotgun as follows:

You are truly a Fool of Hagar's Offspring. I pity you with all your delusions.

A marvellous display of your blind egoistical character traits and wannabe debater. Thank you. Have a nice day.

soul_rage SG

A marvellous display of your blind egoistical character traits and wannabe debater. Thank you. Have a nice day.

You still haven't answered the questions arising from your own self-limited knowledge (stupidity).

To date, it really says a lot about you. Continue humouring all of us with your monkey antics :D

I repeat a few of them here again just in case you feign dementia

Did you or did you not say the Thai Canal is a pipe dream when in fact, it's a real risk? Yes or No.

Did you or did you not say that Statistics is NOT a Science, when in fact, it's part of Mathematics which in turn is part of Science? Yes or No.

I gave you 2 SIMPLE questions to answer. Make it SO simple that even a fool can answer. If you STILL cannot acknowledge your errors, it speaks volumes about your graciousness and your blind ego. :D

Atobe SG

Thanks for your clarifications.

Cheers.

This is pathetic that the lonely X-rated rat is seeking company by prolonging its agony with imaginery situation that do not even exist.

Were there any "questions posed" in the last response from Shotgun ?

How did the self-delusionary X-rated intellect managed to see any questions being asked in any of the sentences that basically clarified the unique ability to misread a very simple and straight forward opinion piece orginally posted by Shotgun ?

It is even more amazing that it finds itself to be of any relevance to be of any help to any citizens, when it sees itself as a nobody - and when it dare claims that no one owes the Citizens anything, why does it bother to help the Citizens ?

The stupidity in a bozo with X-rated intellect never cease to provide amazingly light entertainment in this Speaker's Corner.

reyes SG

That's the view of the labour movement's chief Lim Swee Say who has called on workers and employers to play their part in making the economy and workforce cheaper, better and faster. He was speaking at the 3-day ordinary delegates conference.

that is what i call " want green, want cheap, want big boobs"( hokkien).

maybe i can tell them the minister the samething,

minister or top civil servants must be cheaper, better and more intelligent than the current crops to steer singapore to next level of growth!!!

« Previous Page Next Page »