MUGGED!

[huggybear]

actually i think since both are islands without any natural resources both are completely dependant ....

[sourisso]

i tought japan has more natural resources than singapore thats why i said that... but well i dont know much about Japan except Kitano's movies

[Superglide]

There is widespread wealth. You must stop looking at it thru European eyes. We are not European, we do not have the same infrastructure, we did not have the same time to develop.

I know what you mean cutiebutie. No need to defend Singapore, I wasn't attacking it.

Just that imho Singapore is not a rich country at all, the country may have developed itself as the main economy after Japan here in Asia, but the vast majority of people do not have access to this wealth here, as SMS rightfully put out with stats.

japan is not as dependant as singapore, can't compare.

widespread wealth here ? sure...
ain't no thing such as widespread wealth country out there anyway, anywhere..

Oh yes, there are countries with a far better balance in wealth. Often seen as socialist by the critics from mainly USA and Asia, but in a lot of especially the Northern European countries, the access to wealth is shared by a huge majority of the people living there.

GDP gives an indication of how rich a country may be on macro level, but when looking at the actual percentage of people having an income enough to be called "wealthy", the figures start to make sense.

And in countries like the Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands, the GDP is actually earned by a huge majority of its people.

Not so in Singapore.

That's the difference.

[Plavt]

i tought japan has more natural resources than singapore thats why i said that... but well i dont know much about Japan except Kitano's movies

Not so, Japan has to make massive imports of raw materials from Brazil and China. Raw materials from Brazil and two thirds of its foodstuffs from China.

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yeah, and upwards of 90% of its wood from Indonesia.

[cutiebutie]

I am not disagreeing with you on your whole response, Superglide, but when you say:

And in countries like the Scandinavian countries and The Netherlands, the GDP is actually earned by a huge majority of its people.

then that is not correct.

Simply out: what percentage of the population are employed or supported by the government . . . this is not wealth creation at all.

Also, Japan has almost no natural resources which is one of the reasons they got into the wars and took over Manchuria.

In Japan the economy supports the population, not the bureaucracy.

[Superglide]

Simply out: what percentage of the population are employed or supported by the government . . . this is not wealth creation at all.

Please elaborate, I don't get it.

[cutiebutie]

Government employees, people on all kinds of pensions, unemployed. In Holland one worker supports three people who are on one of the benefits, I believe.

It is a good system, it is socialism in a good way but it does not make people wan to achieve to pay so much tax. It is the same in Switzerland and many other countries. You mention Scandinavia, it is a perfect example of this.

It is a good system, but it does not create wealth. Companies settling there create wealth because of the good infrastructure the country has.

[Superglide]

I think you are exaggerating a bit there.

It is not one working person paying for three non-working, that'd be the start of a revolution I am afraid.

Yes, The Netherlands and Scandinavian countries have high income taxes to support the social democratic thought of taking care of those in need: meaning you pay almost half of your income in insurances for unemployment, disabledness, pension, sickness etc etc.

So in case you as a healthy person today could need the support when for example being disbaled when having an accident or such tomorrow.

But in essence, the unemployment rates are extremely low, the economy shows almost continuous sustainable growth, the wealth is being balanced in a much better way than here in Singapore, where a few make up for the GDP of the country.

I'd like to quote my professor back in Holland, saying: The care for the weakest in society reflects on the level of civilisation of any country.

Anyway, we are drifitng away from the topic, just wanted to say Singapore is all but a wealthy nation according to my professor and myself.

Oh, and Sacandinavia and The Netherlands are free market economies of course, far less government authorities like here in Singapore.

[cutiebutie]

I maybe said it incorrectly. For every Dutch tax payer there are two or three welfare recipients (of course this includes corporation tax)

I am not saying that this is a bad thing, I am saying that this does not contribute to creating wealth. It is a good thing.

Unemployment rates are low because they don't count the people on pensions and part-time work is considered as full-time for the statistics.

We had to have (boring) many classes on economics in Switzerland. But now it was good as I can use my knowledge here.

[Plavt]

Unemployment rates are low because they don't count the people on pensions

People on pensions are not unemployed; for the most part they are retired although they may choose to work if they are able to find any and are of course healthy enough.

part-time work is considered as full-time for the statistics.

Not true although this may depend on which country you are in.

[cutiebutie]

People on pensions, I mean like unemployed, retired people and so on, and I was talking about Holland about part-time being seen as full-time. But that is a very old trick by governments to lower the unemployment rate.

[Superglide]

Cutiebutie,

I am afraid they either tought you some untrue facts about The Netherlands, or your thoughts were elsewhere during classes: Parttime only is considered employed, when 20 hours per week or more.

I have to say, I have more confidence in the statistics in Holland than here in SIngapore, where the government tends to be quite creative in stating figures...

The other fact you're saying, about the taxpayers versus recipients, that is a myth, really.

As part of the overall social security system, nowadays only the insurance premiums for hospitalisation and medical treatment are a serious problem, with people consuming more than contributing.

In 2003, when I was back in Holland for one year, I saw my premium for medical insurance increased by more than 200%, when comparing it to 1999, the last year I worked and lived there.

But I do agree with you: It is a good thing, the social policies of those countries.

[cutiebutie]

I am afraid they either tought you some untrue facts about The Netherlands, or your thoughts were elsewhere during classes: Parttime only is considered employed, when 20 hours per week or more.

I have to say, I have more confidence in the statistics in Holland than here in SIngapore, where the government tends to be quite creative in stating figures...

The other fact you're saying, about the taxpayers versus recipients, that is a myth, really.

Hmm, I don't think so, and 21 hours is considered full time, so that is not a lot, but is good for the statistics.

But the taxpayers to recipients ratio is true, I wish I could find the statistucs book again.

Singapore needs to do more for the disadvantaged as our society is losing its closeness.

[Superglide]

No, 21 hours is not considered full time, but as of 20 hours per week, you are rated "employed", meaning you will also be able to get unemployment benefit, when losing the job.

Now go find that book of statistics, or is it called: "classic folk stories and fairy tales of Hans Christian Andersen"?