Singapore- "Intelligent Cities", Industry-specific Ecosystems,

Economics
1

I was reading my issue of TIME magazine earlier today and came across an interesting article on Singapore and its jump to become a major economic power, particularly in the areas of money and media. Apparently Singapore has teamed up with MIT for a large project called SMART with over 600 researchers, on working out how to build “intelligent” cities, this includes everything from basic design and industry-specific city zones i.e. “ecosystems” all the way to developing smart apps for your phone and other electronic devices to fully benefit from the advantages of things like Singapore’s high-tech road system. For those that don’t know, Singapore was the first city in the world to implement an electronic road toll collection system for purposes of congestion pricing, among other things. Can read more on that here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_in_Singapore

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electronic_Road_Pricing

Anyways, here is the actual article:

http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2026474_2026675_2057124,00.html

2

I don’t know how to feel about that. On one hand it is nice that governments are adopting business models to make their place better, on the other it is statist, even if it is in a generally benevolent way.

3

I don’t know how to feel about that. On one hand it is nice that governments are adopting business models to make their place better, on the other it is statist, even if it is in a generally benevolent way.

Completely agree, and yet I found it interesting enough to share here.

4

Completely agree, and yet I found it interesting enough to share here.

Having lived in Singapore, I see it is an example of a benevolent dictator, although not completely benevolent. . for it is an oppressive environment where man’s mind cannot thrive. No real capitalist society could ever exist under those conditions.

I think it is unhealthy to promote state controlled “capitalism” of any kind because to me “state capitalism” is an oxymoron.

Capitalism is not only an economic system, it is a moral social system where all men have the freedom to think and produce unfettered by the ideas of an elitist regime who have the power to impose their few ideas on the rest. Instead we should have the benefit of millions of minds.

I have often thought we should have a fun discussion of imagining how lassaize faire capitalism would manifest itself if it were to begin tomorrow. What would our world begin to look like? Infrastructure? Schools (maybe cyber schools run by parents?) Health care? etc.

I think it would begin to bare no resemblance to our world today.

5

Having lived in Singapore, I see it is an example of a benevolent dictator, although not completely benevolent. . for it is an oppressive environment where man’s mind cannot thrive. No real capitalist society could ever exist under those conditions.

I think it is unhealthy to promote state controlled “capitalism” of any kind because to me “state capitalism” is an oxymoron.

Capitalism is not only an economic system, it is a moral social system where all men have the freedom to think and produce unfettered by the ideas of an elitist regime who have the power to impose their few ideas on the rest. Instead we should have the benefit of millions of minds.

I have often thought we should have a fun discussion of imagining how lassaize faire capitalism would manifest itself if it were to begin tomorrow. What would our world begin to look like? Infrastructure? Schools (maybe cyber schools run by parents?) Health care? etc.

I think it would begin to bare no resemblance to our world today.

An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies.

Democracy just doesn’t seem to work. There isn’t any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash happen while I am out the door).

6

An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies.

Democracy just doesn’t seem to work. There isn’t any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash happen while I am out the door).

and indeed a democracy is what singapore is not. singapore, a city state i’m rather fascinated with, is the best example of pure unfettered fascism in its traditional sense.

unlike hong kong which ethnically almost homogeneous and has never been fully sovereign, singapore is the surviving offshoot of british fascism, coupled with chinese master race complex. I am not being provocative here, singapore’s ruling family, i mean party, the people’s action party, was inspired by the british union of fascists.

that said, what is so terribly wrong about it, other than the hypocrisy. singapore is an chinese island of wealth and efficient exploitation in a malay sea of hardship and inefficient exploitation. if it werent for its nationalism and even racism, singapore would be just another part of johor. in that sense, a bit of nationalism is justified for matters of self preservation as in another country I like to compare singapore with, israel.

when i look to the four competing chinese national governments, PRc, Taiwan, singapore and hong kong, I see that they are either communists calling themselves democratic in their official names, or fascists appearing democratic oriented to the western world. the only democracy of the four has never been independent and it’s certainly less so now.

it surely puts things in perspective.

here some provocative symbolism obsession http://rexcurry.net/peoples-action-party-pap-singapore-socialism.html

7

An elite group probably has a better set of incentives to keep a low taxed, slightly regulated economy (a pretty good thing in comparison today). So the rulers of Hong Kong pretty much do that there, capitalism is exploitable, there for they keep their cow fat and happy, they get to keep milking it. Sadly this only applies enlightened people though. Inevitably a dumbass gets in power and the decay sets in. The cow gets abused, and dies.

Democracy just doesn’t seem to work. There isn’t any incentive for presidents to maintains a tax base longer than eight years (let the economic crash happen while I am out the door).

“Democracy” doesn’t work because it provides no individual rights - particularly property rights, the necessary base for Capitalism. Democracy refers to the majority (a group) rule over the minority (another group)… but neither the _ majority _ nor the _ minority _ provide any rights for the individual.

A group is not a living entity… it is merely a collection of individuals.

Sidebar: The Founding Fathers tried to escape the tyranny of a “Democacy”. Individual Rights was at the core of their philosophy. So in their noble attempt they formed a Republic instead of a Democracy or Monarchy or Oligarchy. America is not a “Democracy” but a Republic.

If you are talking about a compromise on Capitalism, I think you mean a “mixed economy” of some sort whether it be Fascism, Communism or Socialism. Some would call Singapore an example of Fascism.

To quote Ayn Rand..

“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms."

I am not happy with any compromise on Capitalism for that means some form of tyranny (force at the point of a gun). Yes, I’m a purist. I think we need to openly reject all toxicity, no matter how diluted the arsenic in the big glass of water. . . the drink is still poisonous. We need to advocate the complete separation of the economy and the state.

8

“Democracy” doesn’t work because it provides no individual rights - particularly property rights, the necessary base for Capitalism. Democracy refers to the majority (a group) rule over the minority (another group)… but neither the _ majority _ nor the _ minority _ provide any rights for the individual.

A group is not a living entity… it is merely a collection of individuals.

Sidebar: The Founding Fathers tried to escape the tyranny of a “Democacy”. Individual Rights was at the core of their philosophy. So in their noble attempt they formed a Republic instead of a Democracy or Monarchy or Oligarchy. America is not a “Democracy” but a Republic.

If you are talking about a compromise on Capitalism, I think you mean a “mixed economy” of some sort whether it be Fascism, Communism or Socialism. Some would call Singapore an example of Fascism.

To quote Ayn Rand..

“Free competition enforced by law” is a grotesque contradiction in terms."

I am not happy with any compromise on Capitalism for that means some form of tyranny (force at the point of a gun). Yes, I’m a purist. I think we need to openly reject all toxicity, no matter how diluted the arsenic in the big glass of water. . . the drink is still poisonous. We need to advocate the complete separation of the economy and the state.

Even with rights, democracy still suffers from other problems like the Rational Ignorance problem, or the Technocratic problem. Republics are not exempt from this.

Rational Ignorance - My vote is worth one vote, and every time their are more votes my vote is worth less. since my vote is worth less, then my incentive to spend it well goes down. (That is, it is easier for people to spend one dollar frivolously than 1 million).

Technocracy - We need technocrats. People who know what they are doing when they do their job. How is it I, someone who knows nothing about the military, can decide who can control the military? I could spend hours reading books about the military, and investigate potential leader’s records, and I am still not sure weather or not I could come a well informed decision about who should control the entire military. Considering our presidents’ abilities to miss which countries we should be invading (Iraq and Afghanistan?) I am not entirely sure some IV league graduate, even if he is well intentioned and supporting of capitalism, is capable of controlling such a power.

9

and indeed a democracy is what singapore is not. singapore, a city state i’m rather fascinated with, is the best example of pure unfettered fascism in its traditional sense.

unlike hong kong which ethnically almost homogeneous and has never been fully sovereign, singapore is the surviving offshoot of british fascism, coupled with chinese master race complex. I am not being provocative here, singapore’s ruling family, i mean party, the people’s action party, was inspired by the british union of fascists.

that said, what is so terribly wrong about it, other than the hypocrisy. singapore is an chinese island of wealth and efficient exploitation in a malay sea of hardship and inefficient exploitation. if it werent for its nationalism and even racism, singapore would be just another part of johor. in that sense, a bit of nationalism is justified for matters of self preservation as in another country I like to compare singapore with, israel.

when i look to the four competing chinese national governments, PRc, Taiwan, singapore and hong kong, I see that they are either communists calling themselves democratic in their official names, or fascists appearing democratic oriented to the western world. the only democracy of the four has never been independent and it’s certainly less so now.

it surely puts things in perspective.

here some provocative symbolism obsession http://rexcurry.net/peoples-action-party-pap-singapore-socialism.html

You really think they are fascist? I don’t think people know how crazy Mussolini’s and Hitlers system was. Hong Kong and Singapore rate really high in the economic freedom index. I would call them “Right Wing Nationalists”, (As in right wing economically). I would never associate them with those insane Europeans though.

Even if they started out as fascists or socialists, its clear that they actually wanted their nation to be great (its weird when they mean it) and they embraced capitalism.