Inflation in Singapore Hits 6.7% for Feb 2008!!!
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Is the tax rate of sub 20% in Singapore beneficial for the common man on the street?The loss of the 8% top tier tax bracket in Singapore resulted in an increase of 7% GST, it's more like a deranged Robin Hood robbing the poor
to give to the rich.
The rich benefited from the 8% reduction in taxes, while the poor contend with 7% GST.
While a goods tax hits the poor more, reporting it like this is just blatant twisting of facts. The rich pay as much in GST as the poor. Have you ever even calculated how much tax the rich pay to the gov? It's choking.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) Whether the REAL cost is above the global market price or not, is irrelevant to the discussion about the price of pork, because only one price clears the market
it's the global market price for pork. If the price of pork in the global market is $30 per kg, the pig farmer can only sell at $30 per kg to clear the market. If the
government removes the subsidies totally, the REAL cost of production of pork ends up being $100 per kg.
Do you think suppliers will pay $100 per kg to the pig farmer when they can source for cheaper alternatives in the world market at $30 per kg?
Subsidies is an act of protectionism, because the government deems that the particular industry is critical to it's future survival and self sustenance.
2) Whether it's curved or straight line, the basic principles of demand and supply is the same. Maybe you can tell us what purpose be it if the demand & supply is
not a straight line?
1) Basic knowledge. You assume on the part of the government. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return.
2) Erm. Demand and supply curves are only straight lines in the imaginary worlds existing in class rooms.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Do you have the figures to substantiate your point about transportation being a major cost component?
Or are you just pointing in every direction you can except the P4P?
a) Since you say that currencies from these countries have weaken against the Singapore dollar, shouldn't the price of our foods be cheaper too as we also
import food from these sources.
b) You mean there is no competition in the food & agricultural industry? I am flabbergasted.
c) I thought according to the P4P Ministers, they said that the growth for Singapore in 2008 is 4% to 6%.
Your statement also contradicts with your fellow P4P supporter elindra who said:
"And when those fashion houses come up with new designs and set a high price to it, people will still buy and because designs defer you can't really do an actual comparison."
I guess what all you guys are doing is just pointing the finger in all directions except the real cause of it all.
You guys are in denial.
a few points
a) Theoretically that is correct. Backorders will indeed be filled at a cheaper price. But we're not talking about a snapshot in time. In the same logic, forward orders will now take more margins to fill.
b) That's not what he said. I myself am flabbergasted at your comprehension skills.
c) now you're trusting the pap source, which is hilarious in itself. But you're missing his point. He's talking about the world market price, not the bubble you deal in. Local growth has practically no correlation with what will happen to global prices
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
The usual pro P4P propaganda from the government controlled media mouthpiece.I too was shocked to read such erroneous reporting.
But I am willing to apply occum's razor. You are obviously not.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
Temasek needs to show a good profit at the end of the year to make itself look good.With the losses in some of our overseas investment, where else can they look for to increase profits to cover the losses and still show healthy profits.
According to some pro P4P supporters, they say that Temasek don't even belong to Singaporeans.
So why would a profit motivated company bother about Singaporeans who has no connection with it.
Sometimes I wish Singaporeans would just wise up.
what exactly is your point?
Scenarios A and B:
A(Temasek is linked to the gov):
1) Your argument falls apart if you cannot prove Temasek INCREASED it's profits substantially via increasing prices. If any increase in profits come from extra usage/extra customers/stockpiled goods, your argument is moot. (It is, btw)
2) The paper loss in their current investments are massive, as you have repeatedly pointed out. Are you so delusional that you think it's so easy to cover with a few increases in utilities charges?
B(Temasek is independent of Singapore)
1) Then why are you bashing so hard a privately owned fund? That's ridiculous
2) If that were the case, it has no value in trying to make the government look good.
You obviously side on A when you want to prove Temasek is harming us, then B when you want to make the point that Temasek is selfish. WTF.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
1) increasing population->increase demand->increase prices.
2) no natural resources->everything imported->naturally higher prices
3) Biased reporting. Please post the countries that have HIGHER inflation rate than singapore as well.
4) reverse engineering of facts. You cannot quote inflation rates and then start looking for problems. Problems emerge as well when a country suffers from DEFLATION. But I don't think you'll be outraged when prices come down, would you? What is good for the common man is not always good for the society.
1) So you agree that the increase in prices was due to government's policy of importing immigrants from other countries?You always deny that any issues are the government's fault, it's always somebody else's fault.
Have you knock your head on something today?
2) No natural resources does not necessarily imply higher prices. If you have a country A with say crude oil and a country B without crude oil but with
processing capabilities. Country B imports crude oil from country A (with transportation cost), after refining the crude oil country B sells it's refined
crude oil to other countries (with transportation cost). Remember our natural resources is our skilled manpower, other countries lack skilled manpower.
Maybe you can also provide an explanation as to why our inflation rate was contained within 1% in the past, whereas it has sky rocketed to 6.6% at the
present. We still import resources as we do in the past.
3) Maybe you can provide another reporting by researching and giving us the figures for other similar countries not faced with economic uncertainty?
I welcome you to research and provide us with other data.
The countries I posted are either similar in GDP per capita or higher, there is some basis for comparison.
4) Reverse engineering of facts? It's more like root cause analysis. Obviously when a problem emerges, one has to do a root cause analysis to find the
cause of the problem. Surely a responsible person would not cast the problem aside without finding the true cause of the problem and committing further
similar problems in the future. I agree that there are problems both with recession and high inflation, I only expect that the government can target an
inflation of 2-3%, not recession or high inflation (like the current situation). If there are no common men, there won't be a society.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
While a goods tax hits the poor more, reporting it like this is just blatant twisting of facts. The rich pay as much in GST as the poor. Have you ever even calculated how much tax the rich pay to the gov? It's choking.
The rich pay GST as much as the poor, this I agree, but aren't you distorting the facts by not telling us that, the rich have also benefitted from the tax reductionof 13% from a pre-GST era high of 33% for the top tier tax bracket.
The poor not paying income tax in the past now has to contend with a 7% GST.
P4P goebbels are good at distorting facts.
-
thats terrrible......
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
1) Basic knowledge. You assume on the part of the government. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return.
2) Erm. Demand and supply curves are only straight lines in the imaginary worlds existing in class rooms.
1) Maybe I know what does the government demand from the farmers that's relevant to prices and inflation?2) Yes straight lines existing in the classrooms, but whether it's a curve or straight lines, the basic principles doesn't change.
When you study about lightning in a classroom, I suppose you can create all the discharges in a classroom.
Maybe you can change the principles of the theory of demand and supply of a normal good, low prices more suppliers willing to supply,
higher prices more consumers willing to buy.
Maybe you going to start proving me wrong by stating the theory of relativity or string theory?
You add an amusing logic and perspective to all mundane issues.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
what exactly is your point?
Scenarios A and B:
A(Temasek is linked to the gov):
1) Your argument falls apart if you cannot prove Temasek INCREASED it's profits substantially via increasing prices. If any increase in profits come from extra usage/extra customers/stockpiled goods, your argument is moot. (It is, btw)
2) The paper loss in their current investments are massive, as you have repeatedly pointed out. Are you so delusional that you think it's so easy to cover with a few increases in utilities charges?
B(Temasek is independent of Singapore)
1) Then why are you bashing so hard a privately owned fund? That's ridiculous
2) If that were the case, it has no value in trying to make the government look good.
You obviously side on A when you want to prove Temasek is harming us, then B when you want to make the point that Temasek is selfish. WTF.
Obviously you are too inept to understand quasi-independent company (fake), I have always stated my views that Temasek is government linked.It's just that you are too daft too understand it or too much in self denial mode to see it.
Obviously you have problems understanding the statement, I will make it bold for your failing eyesight and brain:
"According to some pro P4P supporters, they say that Temasek don't even belong to Singaporeans.
So why would a profit motivated company bother about Singaporeans who has no connection with it."
1) Ermmm....Have you read my earlier post about the cost of electricity in Australia?
Have you read my earlier post about the return on equity (ROE) for Singapore Power being higher than OCBC?
Have you read my earlier post about El Paso Electric Company in the US having an ROE of around 10%?
2) Glad to say that you have still abit of semblance of intelligence left in you to see that the paper losses in her investments is massive.
Nothing that an increase in electricity, rentals, transport, communications and food, can't correct.
I have never cited your example of B before, please sustain your accusations through evidence.
You trying to shove words into my mouth again?
I wish everything in the real world is as simple as your brain, only an ON and OFF bit to represent a situation.
-
deathbait,
Incidentally, about the debate in the other thread where you cowardly backed out from.
I posted a graph for you to ask your colleagues (since you claim you worked in a finance firm, so as to get a better understanding of what I was
referring to in my argument.
Have you found out what that graph represents?
Or
Have you found out about the truth and choose not to accord me with a reply reinforcing my factual claim?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) So you agree that the increase in prices was due to government's policy of importing immigrants from other countries?You always deny that any issues are the government's fault, it's always somebody else's fault.
Have you knock your head on something today?
2) No natural resources does not necessarily imply higher prices. If you have a country A with say crude oil and a country B without crude oil but with
processing capabilities. Country B imports crude oil from country A (with transportation cost), after refining the crude oil country B sells it's refined
crude oil to other countries (with transportation cost). Remember our natural resources is our skilled manpower, other countries lack skilled manpower.
Maybe you can also provide an explanation as to why our inflation rate was contained within 1% in the past, whereas it has sky rocketed to 6.6% at the
present. We still import resources as we do in the past.
3) Maybe you can provide another reporting by researching and giving us the figures for other similar countries not faced with economic uncertainty?
I welcome you to research and provide us with other data.
The countries I posted are either similar in GDP per capita or higher, there is some basis for comparison.
4) Reverse engineering of facts? It's more like root cause analysis. Obviously when a problem emerges, one has to do a root cause analysis to find the
cause of the problem. Surely a responsible person would not cast the problem aside without finding the true cause of the problem and committing further
similar problems in the future. I agree that there are problems both with recession and high inflation, I only expect that the government can target an
inflation of 2-3%, not recession or high inflation (like the current situation). If there are no common men, there won't be a society.
1) I have never denied it is gov policy to bring in immigrants. What are you talking about.
2) Pretty sure we haven't invented free instant teleportation yet. Correct me if i'm wrong.
3) You're right, i should provide it. Will work on it.
4) I'll show you why your reasoning is flawed here. Every government has a similar target, yet many fail year after year to hit it. There's a reason for this. Trying to control inflation is like trying to control the market. Sure, it can be done...but more often than not, it spins out of your control. If we were to want to blame the gov for letting it spin out of control, we would similarly need to praise it for keeping it in check. Yet I have yet to hear anyone express wonderment at how well the gov has fared in this aspect the last decade. Also not forgetting your parting statement, consider the fact that practically nothing that benefits the individual ant will end up benefitting the hive.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
deathbait,
Incidentally, about the debate in the other thread where you cowardly backed out from.
I posted a graph for you to ask your colleagues (since you claim you worked in a finance firm, so as to get a better understanding of what I was
referring to in my argument.
Have you found out what that graph represents?
Or
Have you found out about the truth and choose not to accord me with a reply reinforcing my factual claim?
link pls.
must have lost track of it.
I DO have other things in real life to keep track of.
-
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/311098?page=3
I understand your limit in mental abilities and won't hold you against it.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) Maybe I know what does the government demand from the farmers that's relevant to prices and inflation?2) Yes straight lines existing in the classrooms, but whether it's a curve or straight lines, the basic principles doesn't change.
When you study about lightning in a classroom, I suppose you can create all the discharges in a classroom.
Maybe you can change the principles of the theory of demand and supply of a normal good, low prices more suppliers willing to supply,
higher prices more consumers willing to buy.
Maybe you going to start proving me wrong by stating the theory of relativity or string theory?
You add an amusing logic and perspective to all mundane issues.
1) do share
2)that was not what you were saying. You defended that the curves had to be straight lines.
sidetrack thought> as per our previous argument. Is TV a luxury good? When was the last time you even thought of buying a 200 dollar tv set?
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
http://politics.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/311098?page=3
I understand your limit in mental abilities and won't hold you against it.
likewise
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
1) do share
2)that was not what you were saying. You defended that the curves had to be straight lines.
sidetrack thought> as per our previous argument. Is TV a luxury good? When was the last time you even thought of buying a 200 dollar tv set?
1) Huh? I thought you stake the claim at the top of this page? Now you want me to provide evidence of your claim?Have you lost your job at the comedy club, as a result of your lost of employment, provide a lame attempt at comedy in Speaker's Corner to try to
save your career in comedy.
deathbait's original post:
"Basic knowledge. You assume on the part of the government. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return."
2) Obviously your limitations in mental abilities is showing. Since when did I say that the demand and supply curves need to be straight lines?
PLEASE QUOTE ME!!!!
Geezus! Go take some English comprehension from a qualified teacher.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
likewise
I am not the one lacking in mental abilities to forget our previous discussion.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
1) Huh? I thought you stake the claim at the top of this page? Now you want me to provide evidence of your claim?Have you lost your job at the comedy club, as a result of your lost of employment, provide a lame attempt at comedy in Speaker's Corner to try to
save your career in comedy.
deathbait's original post:
"Basic knowledge. You assume on the part of the government. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return."
2) Obviously your limitations in mental abilities is showing. Since when did I say that the demand and supply curves need to be straight lines?
PLEASE QUOTE ME!!!!
Geezus! Go take some English comprehension from a qualified teacher.
lol ok!
1) quote : "Maybe I know what does the government demand from the farmers that's relevant to prices and inflation?" -maurizio
"do share" -deathbait
2) quote : "Whether it's curved or straight line, the basic principles of demand and supply is the same. Maybe you can tell us what purpose be it if the demand & supply is not a straight line?" -maurizio
3) quote :"I am not the one lacking in mental abilities to forget our previous discussion."
it was obvious i wasn't there when you posed your question and thus missed it. You hold THAT against me? I'm asking you a question verbally now. I challenge you to answer it without even knowing a question was asked.
-
Business bad for SME, so use this timimg to jack up price.
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
1) Basic knowledge. You assume on the part of the government. Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return.
2) Erm. Demand and supply curves are only straight lines in the imaginary worlds existing in class rooms.
erm...
for part 2, yes, straight lines curves are for the classroom. However, that's because it has to be simplified to explain basic economic theory. The resultant effects of any changes in the economy can still be seen from the curves; it is only the whether the changes are linear, which is most likely not.
So erm... just basic economic theory for someone in the previous page who is trying to portray yet again (3rd time that I remember) a lack of understanding of certain basic concepts before trying to put forward his point, and then defending the wrong concept by all means, to no avail.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
erm...
for part 2, yes, straight lines curves are for the classroom. However, that's because it has to be simplified to explain basic economic theory. The resultant effects of any changes in the economy can still be seen from the curves; it is only the whether the changes are linear, which is most likely not.
So erm... just basic economic theory for someone in the previous page who is trying to portray yet again (3rd time that I remember) a lack of understanding of certain basic concepts before trying to put forward his point, and then defending the wrong concept by all means, to no avail.
Originally posted by eagle:May I point out to you that subsidies merely meant that the farmers can afford to sell at a reduced price.
But buying price by consumers will have to include taxes to cover the subsidies.
Consumers will buy at price Pc, while farmers will afford to sell at price Pp while receiving the subsidy difference of Pc - Pp
Of course, this is a simplified explanation, because the quantities produced will then be higher than market demand, of which the surplus is being exported.
1) What it means is that the price of PORK in Gemany are selling below the farmer REAL cost and the reason why the farmers can afford do it is because they are getting subsidies from the government who is using the income tax revenue to pay for the subsidies.2) May I know what are you trying to tell us with that supply and demand curve because in the real world, it can never be a straight lines and since farm subsidy (which will affect the selling price) is regulated by government hence I cannot see how you can represented it such simply S&D chart.
-
Originally posted by TCH05:
1) What it means is that the price of PORK in Gemany are selling below the farmer REAL cost and the reason why the farmers can afford do it is because they are getting subsidies from the government who is using the income tax revenue to pay for the subsidies.2) May I know what are you trying to tell us with that supply and demand curve because in the real world, it can never be a straight lines and since farm subsidy (which will affect the selling price) is regulated by government hence I cannot see how you can represented it such simply S&D chart.
1) Farmers selling below REAL cost? You pull numbers from the air to prove some point again?
2) Please go and read up on an Economics Textbook if you cannot understand how it can be represented. Don't need to tell us you don't understand economics again. I've already explained number 2, and you have quoted it. You are going back to your habit of quoting answers, then asking for the answer. And I'm sure you do realise too that you are imitating Gazelle's habit in this post too.
-
Originally posted by eagle:
1) Farmers selling below REAL cost? You pull numbers from the air to prove some point again?
2) Please go and read up on an Economics Textbook if you cannot how it can be represented. Don't need to tell us you don't understand economics again. I've already explained number 2, and you have quoted it. You are going back to your habit of quoting answers, then asking for the answer. And I'm sure you do realise too that you are imitating Gazelle's habit in this post too.
1) I am not sure what you have studied in your university. From the way you are questioning me, it looks like you are someone who is only seeing things on the surface without asking why and how this can happen.You keep telling us that the price of pork in Germany is cheaper than Singapore, but did you ask yourself how this can happen when :
a) The cost of labour in Indonesia, Brazil or China is a tiny fraction of what the Germans are paid in Germany.
b) Singapore doesnt have import duties for pork
c) The cost of running a pig farm in tropical region is cheaper than Germany because they dont need heater to keep the pig warm.
2) I am not surprise that you are using the economic textbook like a Bible or Quran The only differende is, people do interpret the Bible or Quran differently and wrongly, and thats why we have so much violence in this world today.
Talking about economic textbook, you might want to look under the section which they explain about different type of supply and demand graph and look for one where price is regulated by the government.
Are we talking about pork or deer meat?
-
Originally posted by deathbait:
lol ok!
1) quote : "Maybe I know what does the government demand from the farmers that's relevant to prices and inflation?" -maurizio
"do share" -deathbait
2) quote : "Whether it's curved or straight line, the basic principles of demand and supply is the same. Maybe you can tell us what purpose be it if the demand & supply is not a straight line?" -maurizio
3) quote :"I am not the one lacking in mental abilities to forget our previous discussion."
it was obvious i wasn't there when you posed your question and thus missed it. You hold THAT against me? I'm asking you a question verbally now. I challenge you to answer it without even knowing a question was asked.
1) It was a typo my fault, it was too late in the night, I made an error when I type "I" instead of "you". If you read the previous statement, read my response,
if it was indeed "I" the statement sounds funny.
deathbait's original post:
Your entire argument is based on your assumption that the government give subsidies to the farmers expecting nothing in return.
my intended post:
Maybe you know what does the government demand from the farmers that's relevant to prices and inflation?
2) So from my question of, "Whether it's curved or straight line, the basic principles of demand and supply is the same. Maybe you can tell us what
purpose be it if thedemand & supply isnot a straight line?".
You interpreted it as, "You defended that the curves had to be straight lines.".
If you interpret it that way, I have nothing more to add about your level of comprehension.
3) You discussed the post in the thread aggressively, then all of a sudden when I pose the question to you, you just conveniently go MIA.