Talk:Economy of Singapore: Difference between revisions
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
I'm uncertain of the terminology but wouldn't it make more sense to say that the "economy of Singapore is OF a developed country" or the "economy of Singapore qualifies it as a developed country" rather than the "economy of Singapore is a developed country"? |
I'm uncertain of the terminology but wouldn't it make more sense to say that the "economy of Singapore is OF a developed country" or the "economy of Singapore qualifies it as a developed country" rather than the "economy of Singapore is a developed country"? |
||
Also I don't think many people here understand the concept of State Capitalism very well. They don't heavily regulate industries in such a way as to stifle entrepreneurship, rather they invest taxpayer money in a sensible manner in key industries. They don't control the market, the |
Also I don't think many people here understand the concept of State Capitalism very well. They don't heavily regulate industries in such a way as to stifle entrepreneurship, rather they invest taxpayer money in a sensible manner in key industries. They don't control the market, the State merely acts as the largest participant within the market economy, for better or worse. (In this case, for the better largely as a result of Lee Kuan Yew's phenomenal leadership) And because the only real assets the elected officials have is THEIR WORKFORCE, they have a great deal of motivation to treat their working class well. |
||
Revision as of 19:29, 4 November 2010
Vandalism
There is nothing about the Total Factor Productivity debate started by Paul Krugman, Alwyn Young and others. That's pretty crucial to This article doesn't seem to contain anything about the Singapore Exchange (SGX)...I really find this quite appalling. Are we so deficient in so many articles? *puts one more item down on million item long to-do list* - this I feel is the deficient issues:hehehe
Get at the gist - what is the main foundation of Singapore's economy? The port, and from that, a lot of other things. Don't just gnaw at the surface area of transparency and all, those are important details, but something as analysing what the economy comes down to is even more important. This I will try to work on. -- Natalinasmpf 00:41, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"The state has a minimal role in the economy" yet the government owns half the economy through Temasek. Something's fishy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.165.95.5 (talk) 20:37, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Paul Krugman is a joke and the government does own much of the economy through an agency but is very laissez faire in the way it handles the economy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabaton10 (talk • contribs) 15:55, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
I'm uncertain of the terminology but wouldn't it make more sense to say that the "economy of Singapore is OF a developed country" or the "economy of Singapore qualifies it as a developed country" rather than the "economy of Singapore is a developed country"?
Also I don't think many people here understand the concept of State Capitalism very well. They don't heavily regulate industries in such a way as to stifle entrepreneurship, rather they invest taxpayer money in a sensible manner in key industries. They don't control the market, the State merely acts as the largest participant within the market economy, for better or worse. (In this case, for the better largely as a result of Lee Kuan Yew's phenomenal leadership) And because the only real assets the elected officials have is THEIR WORKFORCE, they have a great deal of motivation to treat their working class well.