Liberal Forum

tharock220 » 23 Jul 2014 7:26 pm » wrote:
The minister of finance cannot make changes to the company on a whim. There's a protocol to follow just like any other company. I've already agreed that it's socialism, but your attempt to compare it to the Federal Government taking over GM is beyond stupid. It basically stops with government holding a stake in a corporation.

Are you ever going to explain your 30% calculation???

I went ahead and grabbed some quick numbers off Temasek's website and Singapore's website, producing this post in another thread:

Singapore's GDP was 287 billion US in 2013. Of that 287 billion, Temasek grossed 83.8 billion - 29% of the entire nation's gdp, posting a respectable 27.8 billion in gross profits, and netting 13,3 billion - 25% of their 53.4 billion in government expenditures that year. They also paid 1.9 billion in income taxes, generating ANOTHER 3.5% of the nation's 2013 expenditures. http://www.temasek.com.sg/investorrelat ... financials

Within fairly tight margins, it's reasonable to posit that Temasek controls ROUGHLY 29% of the means of wealth production in Singapore - unless they have some advantage - say, government muscle, for example, - which would allow them to capture far more than their rightful share of profits, with a smaller share of the means of wealth production. But THAT would be soshalizum, and we are assured by the conjobs that no such things exists in the eternal and spotless sunshine of a country where every back is straight and every shoulder is cheerfully to the wheel.

Here is a link to grab a pdf of Singapore's "Budget in Brief," http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2013/budget_in_brief.html which outlines how the nation's progressive tax scheme is being used to help low income workers with government-funded wage adjustments, to help retirees with cost of living adjustments, to help disadvantaged students with special programs - you get the gist. It's an American liberal progressive's dream menu, with every predictable dish in the left hand column, and the nation's flag in the right hand column: It's all on Uncle Chang.

Seriously, I found it offensive. And the conjobs are slapping us over the head with this progressive slave pit, just because it has low corporate income taxes? And all because Heritage owns their pathetic little minds? My god, these people would be funny if they were not so sad. They live in a world of make believe, where they are all economic whiz kids and self made internet millionaires. But they operate at a level of credulity that makes rupert murdoch pinch himself every day, to be sure he isn't dreaming.

RichClem » 23 Jul 2014 8:50 pm » wrote:

Oh, gosh! I had intended to cherry pick the most free market aspects to prove my case.

Dadgum it!

Yes, it is relative - and it is also fallible. You treat it like the word of god, and it is the word of man, dullard.

If I can take their "second free-est" and demonstrate, as I have, that citizens have very limited civil rights and are subject to corporal punishment in the public square for offenses as small as LITTERING; that they have a progressive tax scheme which redistributes the nation's wealth to the poor, the elderly and the "disadvantaged;" that the government owns upwards of 30% of the nations means of wealth production; that the nation has compulsory state education with FAR fewer and stricter waivers for home or religious schooling (presumably, only available to folks with serious connections); that they have cradle to grave government-run universal health care - if I can demonstrate and document all of that and more in short order, then one of two things is true, Glory Hole:

1.. Heritage is over-focused on low corporate taxes to the exclusion of all else, putting individual rights WAY behind tax breaks for the wealthy, or
2. Your political philosophy is so horribly and freakishly out of whack that your second best nation-friend on earth thinks you are an ignorant, backwards *** hole.

You choose - I'm cool either way.

Hey Cannonpointer? Can you tell us why economists consider Singapore to be a capitalist nation? Why heritage ranks it as the 2nd freest economy in the world?????



CAPITALISM BOO!!!!

Cannonpointer » 24 Jul 2014 1:23 am » wrote:I went ahead and grabbed some quick numbers off Temasek's website

The usual, snicker, "balanced appraisal" from a psychotic lying troll.

Temasek, Temasek, Temasek, Temasek

TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, Temasek

TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, Temasek

TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, Temasek

TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, TemasekTemasek, Temasek, Temasek, Temasek

Hey, there's a balanced look at Singapore's economy.

How about this?

Singapore’s economic freedom score is 89.4, making its economy the 2nd freest in the 2014 Index. Its score is 1.4 points better than last year, reflecting improvements in investment freedom and labor freedom that outweigh small declines in monetary freedom and business freedom. Singapore is ranked 2nd out of 42 countries in the Asia–Pacific region.

Over the 20-year history of the Index, Singapore’s economic freedom has advanced by nearly 3 points. The areas of market openness and limited government have advanced by double digits. High levels of trade freedom and regulatory efficiency continue to underpin Singapore’s competitiveness in global commerce and ensure resilient economic growth. Recording four consecutive years of score improvements since 2010, Singapore has achieved its highest economic freedom score ever in the 2014 Index.

A strong tradition of minimum tolerance for corruption is institutionalized in an efficient judicial framework, sustaining the rule of law in the dynamic economy. Openness to global investment has facilitated the emergence of a more competitive financial sector and continues to ensure economic growth and development. However, state ownership or involvement in key sectors remains considerable, hampering achievement of Singapore’s full economic potential.

Rule of Law

Singapore has traditionally been lauded for its lack of corruption, though transparency remains a concern. The government’s overwhelming success in court cases raises concerns about judicial independence. Lawsuits against opposition politicians and parties can bankrupt them. Contracts are secure, there is no expropriation, and commercial courts function well. Singapore has one of Asia’s best intellectual property rights regimes.

Regulatory Efficiency

Launching a business takes three days and three procedures, and no minimum capital is required. There is no statutory minimum wage, but wage adjustments are guided by the National Wage Council. Inflation is under control despite the challenging external environment. The government funds generous housing and health care subsidy programs and influences other prices through regulation and state-linked enterprises.

Open Markets

Singapore’s average tariff rate is 0 percent, and there are few non-tariff barriers. Foreign investment in several economic sectors is restricted by the government. As a leading global financial center, the highly competitive financial sector offers a wide range of financing options. The government has been opening the domestic market to foreign banks; over 115 of 122 commercial banks are now foreign.
http://www.heritage.org/index/country/singapore

Cannonpointer » 24 Jul 2014 1:35 am » wrote: Yes, it is relative - and it is also fallible. You treat it like the word of god, and it is the word of man, dullard.

If I can take their "second free-est" and demonstrate, as I have, that citizens have very limited civil rights and are subject to corporal punishment in the public square for offenses as small as LITTERING; that they have a progressive tax scheme which redistributes the nation's wealth to the poor

WTH are you babbling about littering and corporal punishment, moonbat?

Here's your "progressive tax scheme." I'm sure we can take your claims at face value, right?

Individual tax rate - 0 to 20%
http://www.edb.gov.sg/content/edb/en/wh ... ation.html

Their top rate is half the US's, so it's half as progressive.

Further:

Dividends - Exempt
Interest - 15%
Royalties from Patents, Know-How, etc - 10%

Both of which are less socialistic than the US.

Come on, you con artist. You can do better than this.

Cannonpointer » 24 Jul 2014 1:35 am » wrote: Yes, it is relative - and it is also fallible. You treat it like the word of god, and it is the word of man, dullard. ...

1.. Heritage is over-focused on low corporate taxes to the exclusion of all else, putting individual rights WAY behind tax breaks for the wealthy, or
2. Your political philosophy is so horribly and freakishly out of whack that your second best nation-friend on earth thinks you are an ignorant, backwards *** hole.

You choose - I'm cool either way.

Typical psychotic moonbat babbling.

.

More ways Singapore is less Socialistic than the US.

Corporate - 17%
Capital gains tax rate - Exempt

Its top corporate tax rate is less than half the US's.

There are actually several social democracies that Richclem thinks are socialist, which have lower corporateor no corp taxes. Ergo, they aren't socialist

Clemmylogic.

Technocrat » 24 Jul 2014 11:39 am » wrote:There are actually several social democracies that Richclem thinks are socialist, which have lower corporateor no corp taxes. Ergo, they aren't socialist

Clemmylogic.

Social democracy=voted for entitlement welfare all fueled by capitalist market systems because economic socialism sucks Shintao's moms balls.

RichClem » 24 Jul 2014 9:27 am » wrote:
Typical psychotic moonbat babbling.

.

More ways Singapore is less Socialistic than the US.


Its top corporate tax rate is less than half the US's.

That isn't "more," retard. It's just more of the SAME.

Heritage recommends this slave pit as "free" because it has low taxes and not much regulation of corporate behavior - no other reason.

The people themselves have as many rights as a chicken at a Purdue factory farm, the government owns just about EVERYTHING, the media is tightly controlled and almost entirely owned by government linked companies (but but but a government appointee runs Temasek), and there are public beatings for littering. And YOU recommended this, you grinning retard, as an IMPROVEMENT on America's political system.

I no longer care to argue whether this slave pit is socialist or fascist or -as you claim - a good example of what capitalism really looks like.

In fact, let me formally concede, monkey. SINGAPORE IS CAPITALIST - TRULY CAPITALIST, RIGHT DOWN TO THE BONE. Thank you for winning this round, Glory Hole. You were right all along. Singapore is - as you originally claimed - the very FACE of capitalism.

Second free-est on EARTH, bub! GO CAPITALISM!

Cannonpointer » 24 Jul 2014 1:23 am » wrote:
I went ahead and grabbed some quick numbers off Temasek's website and Singapore's website, producing this post in another thread:

Singapore's GDP was 287 billion US in 2013. Of that 287 billion, Temasek grossed 83.8 billion - 29% of the entire nation's gdp, posting a respectable 27.8 billion in gross profits, and netting 13,3 billion - 25% of their 53.4 billion in government expenditures that year. They also paid 1.9 billion in income taxes, generating ANOTHER 3.5% of the nation's 2013 expenditures. http://www.temasek.com.sg/investorrelat ... financials

Within fairly tight margins, it's reasonable to posit that Temasek controls ROUGHLY 29% of the means of wealth production in Singapore - unless they have some advantage - say, government muscle, for example, - which would allow them to capture far more than their rightful share of profits, with a smaller share of the means of wealth production. But THAT would be soshalizum, and we are assured by the conjobs that no such things exists in the eternal and spotless sunshine of a country where every back is straight and every shoulder is cheerfully to the wheel.

Here is a link to grab a pdf of Singapore's "Budget in Brief," http://www.mof.gov.sg/budget_2013/budget_in_brief.html which outlines how the nation's progressive tax scheme is being used to help low income workers with government-funded wage adjustments, to help retirees with cost of living adjustments, to help disadvantaged students with special programs - you get the gist. It's an American liberal progressive's dream menu, with every predictable dish in the left hand column, and the nation's flag in the right hand column: It's all on Uncle Chang.

Seriously, I found it offensive. And the conjobs are slapping us over the head with this progressive slave pit, just because it has low corporate income taxes? And all because Heritage owns their pathetic little minds? My god, these people would be funny if they were not so sad. They live in a world of make believe, where they are all economic whiz kids and self made internet millionaires. But they operate at a level of credulity that makes rupert murdoch pinch himself every day, to be sure he isn't dreaming.

So you ignored any value added by their customers in future sales and just decided to double count??? I'll give you an example. Shell sells a barrel of oil to refiner for $50 and that refiner sells the gas for $80. There are $130 worth of revenue there, but there's only $80 in value added to the economy.

You've still won this thread by the way. I'm just pointing out a potential flaw in your calculations.

And Temasek is not a toy for the government to play with. They can't bankrupt it then give it to their buddies through their own courts like Washington did with GM.

Cannonpointer » 24 Jul 2014 11:33 pm » wrote: That isn't "more," retard. It's just more of the SAME.

Heritage recommends this slave pit as "free" because it has low taxes and not much regulation of corporate behavior - no other reason.

Singapore is a "slave pit?"

It is one of the most prosperous countries on the planet, moonbat. How is that slavery?

So you must mean that its citizens are enslaved! So explain how the practice of slavery works there.

I'm absolutely sure you'll do that!

And it doesn't have much economic regulation on its citizens either, moonbat, which is hugely important to their prosperity and of the highest importance to me. Is that what you call "no other reason?"

Psychotic freaking liar.

The people themselves have as many rights as a chicken at a Purdue factory farm, the government owns just about EVERYTHING, the media is tightly controlled and almost entirely owned by government linked companies (but but but a government appointee runs Temasek), and there are public beatings for littering. And YOU recommended this, you grinning retard, as an IMPROVEMENT on America's political system.

I no longer care to argue whether this slave pit is socialist or fascist or -as you claim - a good example of what capitalism really looks like.

In fact, let me formally concede, monkey. SINGAPORE IS CAPITALIST - TRULY CAPITALIST, RIGHT DOWN TO THE BONE. Thank you for winning this round, Glory Hole. You were right all along. Singapore is - as you originally claimed - the very FACE of capitalism.

Second free-est on EARTH, bub! GO CAPITALISM!

Not to interfere with your endless psychotic ranting, Heritage's ranking is of "economic freedom," not social freedoms. If you asked the individuals who do the index or if you asked me, we would both strongly oppose its social authoritarianism, which has nothing to do with Free Market policy.

Second, its citizens have as many economic rights as its corporations.

So in your typical bumbling, raving, moonbat manner, you've taken distinctly separate issues, mixed them into a confused jumble and pathetically attempted to smear me and Heritage.

Just another day's work for a psychotic like you.

tharock220 » 24 Jul 2014 11:40 pm » wrote:
So you ignored any value added by their customers in future sales and just decided to double count??? I'll give you an example. Shell sells a barrel of oil to refiner for $50 and that refiner sells the gas for $80. There are $130 worth of revenue there, but there's only $80 in value added to the economy.

You've still won this thread by the way. I'm just pointing out a potential flaw in your calculations.

And Temasek is not a toy for the government to play with. They can't bankrupt it then give it to their buddies through their own courts like Washington did with GM.

I used their gross product, because I was comparing it to the nation's gross product. But I also used their gross profits in another calculation - and their net profits, when comparison to total government expenditures required it.

I used their own reported figures for their gross product, their gross profits and their net profits. In each case, I picked the one that seemed to represent apple to apples for the particular comparison being made. If I erred, I suspect the error did not cause an over-statement of Temasek's market share - though even if it did, the principle of my argument is not affected by that error.

Thank you for that acknowledgement. Imagine those hacks putting a slave pit above their own country this way - might as well endorse Nazi Germany. After all, National Socialism was such an effective economic model that it turned a bankrupt nation on its knees into a world super-power in a single decade, making it possible for a nation the size of Oregon, with very few natural resources, to hold the entire capitalist world AND the Soviet Union at bay for years.

National Socialism, both in Germany and in Italy, was extremely business friendly, with low taxes, easy credit, low interest rates and very light regulations (you could even murder your workers - a handy option and good for discipline, if not morale). And National Socialism spawned a great many inventions and innovations - including jet planes and the V2 rocket - even made Italy's trains run on time, where free market capitalism had failed miserably. The National Socialists also invented the atom bomb, though we managed to grab their scientists and complete the work before they had it off paper and in production. So clearly, if it's a dynamic business environment and predictable markets you want, along with low taxes, low regulations and ease of doing business, Nazi Germany is better than Singapore, hands down. Heritage would have LOVED them (well, if they were paying them to).

Yes, if you're willing to toss the things out the window that they (and Heritage) have, then National Socialism is clearly the best economic model. Capitalism can't touch it.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 8:06 am » wrote: National Socialism is clearly the best economic model. Capitalism can't touch it.

A truly psychotic outlook on reality.

Cherry picking only the most socialist aspects of Singapore isn't a balanced look at the country, because you ignore all the parts it's not.

On balance Singapore's system is the 2nd least Socialist on the entire planet.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 8:06 am » wrote:Imagine those hacks putting a slave pit above their own country this way - might as well endorse Nazi Germany.

Gosh, Singapore committed genocide?

Started a world war?

When did that happen, psycho?

And where are these "slaves" you keep referring to?

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:09 am » wrote:
A truly psychotic outlook on reality.

Cherry picking only the most socialist aspects of Singapore isn't a balanced look at the country, because you ignore all the parts it's not.

On balance Singapore's system is the 2nd least Socialist on the entire planet.

Yes, let us balance the plight of Singapore's citizens with the wonderfully low taxes their privations afford corporations. We simply MUST be "balanced" - like the fine folks over at Heritage are paid to be,

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:11 am » wrote: Gosh, Singapore committed genocide?

Ah. We have found your sticking point.

So, if Singapore had committed genocide, you would NOT have compared them favorably to your own nation - and your own nation disfavorably to them?

You would NOT have recommended we be more like Singapore?

So, the miserable government healthcare, the fact that 88% of them live in government housing, the endemic human trafficking problems and human rights abuses - these did not quite make that bar - but we can all rest assured that Glory Hole Clem has standards, and at genocide - he DRAWS THE LINE.

Good on ya, sport. Well done. You aren't as bad a fellow as I had suspected.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 8:12 am » wrote: Yes, let us balance the plight of Singapore's citizens with the wonderfully low taxes their privations afford corporations. We simply MUST be "balanced" - like the fine folks over at Heritage are paid to be,

"Plight?" It's one of the richest countries on the planet.

And not just its corporations, but its citizens pay low taxes. Funny how you always try to cherry pick details.

Are you ever going to correct the many lies you've told?

Neither I nor Heritage endorses Singapore's repressive social laws.

And where are these "slaves" you keep referring to? Help us out with that.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 8:16 am » wrote: Ah. We have found your sticking point. ....

Yes, my sticking point is reality.

You bleated:

Imagine those hacks putting a slave pit above their own country this way - might as well endorse Nazi Germany. -

Yet another dishonest smear from a psychotic leftist liar.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:18 am » wrote: "Plight?" It's one of the richest countries on the planet.

Really? A nation where 88% live in government housing, that measures only 276 square miles?

Do you mean PER CAPITA? If you do, you might want to take into account all that "economic freedom" enjoyed by the elites, son. You should investigate how deceptive "averages" can be, as related to actual conditions on the ground.

You see - and pay attention, this gets technical - If I have 10 million dollars, and you, your wife and two kids live in a field and have nothing, then we are worth an average of two million dollars each. See how deceptive that can be? The averaging out made it look like we were all rich - but only one of us was.

Study on it - it's very elucidating, once you wrap your head around it.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:18 am » wrote:And not just its corporations, but its citizens pay low taxes. Funny how you always try to cherry pick details.

That's nice to hear. Those regular citizens probably have money hidden in every corner of their public housing units - it's generous of the government to let them keep all that extra loot they make, from their portion of the high tide created by all that "economic freedom" the elites enjoy.

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:18 am » wrote:
Neither I nor Heritage endorses Singapore's repressive social laws.

I'm sure that Heritage very deeply laments them privately, as you no doubt did before we began our unfair campaign against people who extol the virtues of brutal police states. I imagine Heritage wishes very much the victims of that repression had enough money to hire them, so they could give VOICE to those lamentations.

But you are confusing me. What possible "repressive social laws" can you be speaking of, in a nation where the poor are taxed very little more than the very wealthiest, and where wise and benevolent government causes every citizen to retire a millionaire?

RichClem » 25 Jul 2014 8:18 am » wrote: And where are these "slaves" you keep referring to? Help us out with that.

So sorry - I have a policy of not repeating golden words. You've asked that thrice, but I shall continue in my policy of only answering it once. But please - do feel free to ask again. Just know in advance that it's been asked and answered.

And one more favor, if I may impose: When you post laughy faces and mock my use of the word "plight" in reference to the conditions of ordinary Singaporeans, PLEASE refrain in future from IMMEDIATELY, in the same post, admitting that they are at the effect of "repressive social laws" which neither you nor Heritage "endorses." You see, being subject to "repressive social laws" seems like what one might call a "plight" - yet immediately before ADMITTING there were conditions that would constitute a "plight," you laughed and mocked my use of the word.

Can you see how that might make you seem effeminate, or unmanly, to a more steady, less flaky poster? I sure hope so, and that you'll do me that little favor - just try to talk out of only one side of your mouth per post. I don't mind the constant fight clubbing - just not in the same post. Okay? Thanks in advance.

Cannonpointer » 25 Jul 2014 11:17 am » wrote: Really? A nation where 88% live in government housing, that measures only 276 square miles?

Are you claiming that because the country is small and the government runs housing, it cannot be prosperous?

Because you're wearing a plaid shirt, you cannot be intelligent.

Where are all the slaves, troll?

You see - and pay attention, this gets technical - If I have 10 million dollars, and you, your wife and two kids live in a field and have nothing, then we are worth an average of two million dollars each. See how deceptive that can be? The averaging out made it look like we were all rich - but only one of us was

Which is utterly meaningless unless you have actual data showing they're not prosperous.

Got any? No?

Never thought you did.

I'm sure that Heritage very deeply laments them privately, as you no doubt did before we began our unfair campaign against people who extol the virtues of brutal police states. I imagine Heritage wishes very much the victims of that repression had enough money to hire them, so they could give VOICE to those lamentations.

They have, moonbat, as I have in general many, many, many, many times.

But that won't stop you from dishonestly smearing us.

You're a troll. Trolls lie.