Welsea: If that were the case, then why can't legitimate trade
unions representing every trade imaginable exist be free from
political influence? I'm sure tonnes of people will be more than
happy to pay for such union subscriptions to enjoy the protection
they offer...
I am not sure how unionism is linked to the topic
Anyway, I
disagree with trade unions primarily because I am convinced that
free-market provides the fairest value to the labor. My opinion is
that there are just too many disadvantages in unionizing the labor
to justify it
Welsea: What constitutes the real world? Criminals paying
themselves 4 times above the market rate for top leaders (and they
can't even justify their worth as being the best in the business)
in their industry is reflective of how the real world
works?
You are not answering the issue. We were discussing the role of
government in shielding its citizen against economic depressions.
Now you brought in the issue of pay. I havent formed my opinion on
the ministers pay. Frankly, I dont know what pay is fair. But you
seem to be rather sure that the pay is unfair, because you are
already labeling them as criminals.
(Maurizio)You don't see too much nepotism and
inefficiencies???
No, really, I dont.
(Maurizio) I suppose you got hoodwinked by the non lineage
succession devised by the puppet master? How do you explain other
family members getting into prominent position in politics and
other government businesses?
Lets put it this way, if they are capable people, should you
disqualify them just because of family ties? To me, nepotism is
when the person is incompetent, and yet put into a position of
power because of family ties, and then he/she screws up big time
because of being incompetent.
(Maurizio) Inefficiencies is when you have 84 MPs for a population
of 4.3 million, which is a ratio of 1 MP to 51,000 citizens.
Whereas in other countries like the U.K., South Korea, Hong Kong
and Taiwan, the ratio is 1 MP to 100,000 citizens. The rationale?
To maintain a large pool of MPs so that the possibility of being
out voted by opposition MPs is non existent. We used to have 55-56
MPs in the past.
Inefficiencies is when the job could be perform by someone with a
salary of S$1 million a year, but instead the person wishes to be
paid S$3 million.
I really cant comment on what you say. Im ambivalent on the
ministers pay increase, and I take a wait-and-see stance on that
issue. You seem to be pretty sure that because of these two
reasons, the government is inefficient. Well, the prevailing view
in the world is that Singapore has an efficient government. In
fact, Singapore government has been so successful, it is being
observed and emulated by many countries in the world.
(Maurizio) Motivating yourself relies alot on the environment too,
if you're environment is quicksand, all your struggles are
futile.
The environment you refer to is the societal environment. You
can put the blame on the society. You can even blame the government
for that. You are probably right too
Fine, now that you know that
you live in an environment that is difficult to motivate yourself,
what are you going to do about it? Are you going to shake your
head, admit your fate, stand down and blame it on others?
(Maurizio) When you vote in a CEO of a large multinational
corporation (MNC), you would expect that CEO to outperform all the
other MNCs in the competitive arena. Hence protect your investments
from just getting an average return. Year after year, you hear your
CEO tell you, that the profits are mediocre because of competition
from globalisation. But you see other MNCs who are outperforming
the market average. Something must really be wrong with your group
of shareholders. A good CEO does not come up with lame excuses for
his failure, a good CEO should be able to outperform the market
average whatever the market conditions.
The last time I looked at Singapores historical economic
growth, unemployment rate, GDP, standard of living etc., it was
doing well. Well, I just dont know how you come to a conclusion
that Singapores growth is anything short of spectacular
I will reply to Robert next time...