unlucky to be in sg, wish to be born in europe instead
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
Never see them picking the highest bidder for other things!
It's not that, you look at it from revenue and expense
Revenue -> Pick the highest bidder for incoming fees, etc
Expense -> When need to build something, invite the bidders and select the lowest bid
Now, doesn't that sound like a typical corporation? :D
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
It's not that, you look at it from revenue and expense
Revenue -> Pick the highest bidder for incoming fees, etc
Expense -> When need to build something, invite the bidders and select the lowest bid
Now, doesn't that sound like a typical corporation? :D
I don't neccessarily see a fault in thinking like a corporation most of the time....the other side of the coin is the USA that borrowed far, far more than it earned.The law of physics demands an equal price for the amount of effort, it does not make adjustments for the nobility of humanity nor for democracy and justice.
I get what you're driving at, but surely there must be limits set?
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I don't neccessarily see a fault in thinking like a corporation most of the time....the other side of the coin is the USA that borrowed far, far more than it earned.The law of physics demands an equal price for the amount of effort, it does not make adjustments for the nobility of humanity nor for democracy and justice.
I get what you're driving at, but surely there must be limits set?
good last question. So do we behave as a corporation ALL the time, or do we behave like a corporation most of the time?
Not sure about you, but in my view, it seems like its ALL the time. In which case, your question comes in, shouldn't there be a limit to how pragmatic we are as a society?
If you look at our KPIs set by our govt, its mostly related to economic progression. We seem to think that by achieving economic progression, everything can fall perfectly into place. By bringing in the $$$, automatically, the citizens will be happy.
But is this necessarily the case? Can a govt focus only on economic progression, and then ignore all other aspects of the society?
Not that I am saying we are completely wrong. Perhaps this formula was effective for the past 40 years. Is this formula going to be effective going forward? What has happened to SM Goh's (when he was PM) call for a kinder gentler society?
I see robotics all around me. We are becoming less and less like a human society...
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I don't neccessarily see a fault in thinking like a corporation most of the time....the other side of the coin is the USA that borrowed far, far more than it earned.The law of physics demands an equal price for the amount of effort, it does not make adjustments for the nobility of humanity nor for democracy and justice.
I get what you're driving at, but surely there must be limits set?
wait ah... that is not a law of physics hor...
-
Originally posted by eagle:
wait ah... that is not a law of physics hor...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
I'm...pretty sure it is, though i admit i'm negligent in going into details or explaining my stand better.
But the point is the laws of physics do not make allowance for the moral values of humans, that physical materials and energy do not give more when we put it towards doing morally good things.
i'm sure we can agree on this yes?
-
If I have a wish, I would not waste the wish that I born in europe.
I wish I can strike US $10million.
It is unlucky for me not to strike tat.
$$$ is more practical.
It is not where you are that is important. It is who you are that is important.
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_law_of_thermodynamics
I'm...pretty sure it is, though i admit i'm negligent in going into details or explaining my stand better.
But the point is the laws of physics do not make allowance for the moral values of humans, that physical materials and energy do not give more when we put it towards doing morally good things.
i'm sure we can agree on this yes?
No, it's still not the laws of physics
What you described was not the first law of thermodynamics too; there's totally no link at all to thermal physics.
Anyway forget it. Just want to point out that's all :)
I would rather label what you desribed as law of economics.
-
i just air my view
i recieved 4 negative remarks from diehard, domonkassyu, desirefan and angel 7030
i need constructive answer and concrete proof only - not need commotion
i just shake my head
our country standard of living very high
in future even higher
got money what time start work also can
-
what negative remarks, we are giving our voluntary views, and what constructive answer you want when all you can think of is money???
And what commotion are u having can be more than me being called a pros everytime for nothing?
And finally, if you really want to shake head, make sure you shake the correct head ya.
-
Originally posted by soul_rage:
good last question. So do we behave as a corporation ALL the time, or do we behave like a corporation most of the time?
Not sure about you, but in my view, it seems like its ALL the time. In which case, your question comes in, shouldn't there be a limit to how pragmatic we are as a society?
If you look at our KPIs set by our govt, its mostly related to economic progression. We seem to think that by achieving economic progression, everything can fall perfectly into place. By bringing in the $$$, automatically, the citizens will be happy.
But is this necessarily the case? Can a govt focus only on economic progression, and then ignore all other aspects of the society?
Not that I am saying we are completely wrong. Perhaps this formula was effective for the past 40 years. Is this formula going to be effective going forward? What has happened to SM Goh's (when he was PM) call for a kinder gentler society?
I see robotics all around me. We are becoming less and less like a human society...
I don't think you'd get any disagreements from me regarding what you've said.
Most here i think would agree the formula that the government is using to decide policies is extremely outdated and we need more opposition in parliament in order to stop them from pursuing a self destructive path.
But what exactly would be the better formula? And who would be the best to implement it? This requires a far bigger magnifying glass and much harder strutiny than that we used for the PAP.
LKY is correct that if we elected the wrong opposition up then Singapore is finished. Big emphasis on the "wrong".
I just don't buy that the solution is as simple as electing CSJ into power, or that we pursue a vague "more humane policy" we would solve our problems.
-
I want to be paid "peanuts"... not eat peanuts
-
Originally posted by Stevenson101:
I don't think you'd get any disagreements from me regarding what you've said.
Most here i think would agree the formula that the government is using to decide policies is extremely outdated and we need more opposition in parliament in order to stop them from pursuing a self destructive path.
But what exactly would be the better formula? And who would be the best to implement it? This requires a far bigger magnifying glass and much harder strutiny than that we used for the PAP.
LKY is correct that if we elected the wrong opposition up then Singapore is finished. Big emphasis on the "wrong".
I just don't buy that the solution is as simple as electing CSJ into power, or that we pursue a vague "more humane policy" we would solve our problems.
Agreed to your point on opposition. We would not want the wrong opposition to be elected into the parliament.
But who determines "wrong" opposition? Us, or the PAP and LKY?
For eg, what right does the presidential election committee have in putting so many boundaries and terms so that Nathan gets re-elected WITHOUT contest? Do they have the right to decide for us who is right or wrong? Is Singapore so pathetic (in terms of talent), that our presidential election only has ONE candidate each round? And are we Singaporeans so pathetic individuals that we cannot even discern between a good and bad candidate, that we need to be spoonfed time and again?
Good or "wrong" opposition going into the parliament the next round sometimes may not be so relevant at this stage, opposition serves to warn the PAP one thing. Listen to the people, and STOP behaving like arrogant elites in another realm, before you lose more votes.
Do you want another GST increase AFTER the next election, which from historical patterns, seem to indicate its a trend?