COVID-19: Retrenchments

[Jamesc]

Yewheng and I are starting our own new political party - The Australian Free Market Party.

We will save all your hard earn tax money by not spending any of it on you.

We stop building HDB and save billions.

We will close all public hospitals and polyclinics and save billions.

We will close all gov schools and save billions.

We will stop all Covid income subsidy and save 93 billion.

You see we don't waste even 1 cent of your hard earn money on you.

We are very responsible. You money is safe with us. Every cent.

Please vote for us and support us.

The Australian Femdom Party

Edited July 21, 2020 by Jamesc

[Jamesc]

Full disclosure.

Free Market will mean the rich becoming richer and the poor getting poorer.

And you sick cannot afford to go private doctor you will just die.

You cannot afford to send your kids to private school then they will be like me - boh tak chek.

And we will take back your HDB and sell the land to a private developer.

[Yewheng]

  On 7/21/2020 at 2:07 AM, Jamesc said:

Full disclosure.

Free Market will mean the rich becoming richer and the poor getting poorer.

And you sick cannot afford to go private doctor you will just die.

You cannot afford to send your kids to private school then they will be like me - boh tak chek.

And we will take back your HDB and sell the land to a private developer.

Expand  

That's not how free market works. 

 

Free market works because of individuals want the best for themselves. Like bosses want to earn the best for themselves too. However to do that, bosses can't do it alone. So have to hire workers to work from him right? Say for example, this small town only have 1 such company on the market. So this company exploit workers by paying as low salary as much as possible. So boss earn big money, workers earn very low salary. Then when other competitors saw this opportunity to come in to this small town to start up business over there due to seeing this company earn big profit. So now that bosses have competition. Other companies also need to hire good quality workers quickly in order to keep business going.

 

So maybe these companies may say look, we could pouch some employees from that 1st company over there to join us. So what they would most likely to do? Offer higher salary to attract these workers to join their company right? Do these bosses care for the workers? Maybe yes, maybe not, but most certainly is that, they care for themselves, they want big profit, but at same time need quality workers to do the job too right?

 

So with competition those workers that get paid super low salaries end up get bid up until a point where it reach market equilibrium. All these government no need step in. If government step in say like got what licensing law, don't know what additional compliance cost and etc.. Then end up it become not so attractive for businesses to come in even though low wages are attractive, but because of additional cost of due to compliance cost, businesses end up decide not to come in. Then like that this solo company end up still being a monopoly. 

 

So in free market society, in order to get rich, bosses also need to empower people to get paid reasonable amount of salary if not workers have a choice to join competitors, and then they lose valuable workers to work from this bosses. So in actual fact everyone move together be it this bosses want it or not. 

 

This also remind me of being an insurance agent. Often time the director in charge of these insurance agent below would want them to do well. Coz they do well, means the director do well too. Why? Coz director also get a cut of commission from the insurance agent below him that sell all the insurance product right? So everyone move together be it this insurance director care for himself or not right? Even if he only care for himself, without the insurance agent below him doing the hard work selling insurance policies, this director would not have earn big money. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Yewheng

[Voodooman]

  On 7/21/2020 at 1:55 AM, yishunite said:

The very fact that we have reserves tells u we are keynesian...

Usa is free market. They dont believe in reserves. They believe in going into debt 😂😂

Expand  

The world is their reserve. Truly. 

When it benefits them, they believe in the free market, when they are not competitive, it is national security or some other excuses.  😂😂😂

Only naive people believe in total free market. Just compare the different medicine dispensed for AFC and GFC.

 

[Yewheng]

 

Just nice this quote come in handy.. "if you want to go fast, go alone. If you want to go far, go together“. Doing business is also the same like looking far ahead not just what it is now. It applies everywhere I suppose.. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Yewheng

[Windwaver]

  On 7/21/2020 at 1:00 AM, Turboflat4 said:

I know. No blame culture here works like : "You can't blame me for things I did wrong. But I can blame you for things I did wrong." 

Classic puppy playbook. 😂

 

Expand  

Yeah, encountered that many times.

Elitist fault = honest mistake, move on, most of the time doesn't recognize the mistake (don't even know what is the mistake).

Peasant fault = idiot, bad rating, can do better, etc, etc.

[Windwaver]

  On 7/21/2020 at 2:07 AM, Jamesc said:

Free Market will mean the rich becoming richer and the poor getting poorer.

You cannot afford to send your kids to private school then they will be like me - boh tak chek.

Expand  

Bro, don't like that la, all of us have at least 1 cert that can get us a job.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BIRTH CERT 

Don't forget to thank your parents for life.

 

[Jamesc]

  On 7/21/2020 at 2:32 AM, Yewheng said:

That's not how free market works. 

 

Free market works because of individuals want the best for themselves. Like bosses want to earn the best for themselves too. However to do that, bosses can't do it alone. So have to hire workers to work from him right? Say for example, this small town only have 1 such company on the market. So this company exploit workers by paying as low salary as much as possible. So boss earn big money, workers earn very low salary. Then when other competitors saw this opportunity to come in to this small town to start up business over there due to seeing this company earn big profit. So now that bosses have competition. Other companies also need to hire good quality workers quickly in order to keep business going.

 

So maybe these companies may say look, we could pouch some employees from that 1st company over there to join us. So what they would most likely to do? Offer higher salary to attract these workers to join their company right? Do these bosses care for the workers? Maybe yes, maybe not, but most certainly is that, they care for themselves, they want big profit, but at same time need quality workers to do the job too right?

 

So with competition those workers that get paid super low salaries end up get bid up until a point where it reach market equilibrium. All these government no need step in. If government step in say like got what licensing law, don't know what additional compliance cost and etc.. Then end up it become not so attractive for businesses to come in even though low wages are attractive, but because of additional cost of due to compliance cost, businesses end up decide not to come in. Then like that this solo company end up still being a monopoly. 

 

So in free market society, in order to get rich, bosses also need to empower people to get paid reasonable amount of salary if not workers have a choice to join competitors, and then they lose valuable workers to work from this bosses. So in actual fact everyone move together be it this bosses want it or not. 

 

This also remind me of being an insurance agent. Often time the director in charge of these insurance agent below would want them to do well. Coz they do well, means the director do well too. Why? Coz director also get a cut of commission from the insurance agent below him that sell all the insurance product right? So everyone move together be it this insurance director care for himself or not right? Even if he only care for himself, without the insurance agent below him doing the hard work selling insurance policies, this director would not have earn big money. 

Expand  

Please support Yewheng as Financial Minister.

He knows how to run the economy better than anyone else.

The Australian Femdom Party

 

[Yewheng]

  On 7/21/2020 at 5:58 AM, Jamesc said:

Please support Yewheng as Financial Minister.

He knows how to run the economy better than anyone else.

The Australian Femdom Party

 

Expand  

I cannot la.. But then a lot of things is just based on logic on what other people will do based on the outcome. Government intervention, what people will do to counter the government intervention , what business will do to counter the government intervention. So all these will affect the outcome. 

 

Generally people are selfish. However free market, if people are selfish, they also need others help to help themselves to grow too. So that's the beauty of free market. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Yewheng

[Jamesc]

The reason so many people no job or badly paid or doing PHV or working as security guard is because there is no free market here.

My good fren Yewheng say one. And its true.

I went to Tiong Baru market and Ang Moh Kio market and Bedok market and I ask all the stall holders and they are say must pay rent one lah. No free one.

So you see no free market in Singapore.

 

  On 7/21/2020 at 2:32 AM, Yewheng said:

That's not how free market works. 

 

Free market works because of individuals want the best for themselves. Like bosses want to earn the best for themselves too. However to do that, bosses can't do it alone. So have to hire workers to work from him right? Say for example, this small town only have 1 such company on the market. So this company exploit workers by paying as low salary as much as possible. So boss earn big money, workers earn very low salary. Then when other competitors saw this opportunity to come in to this small town to start up business over there due to seeing this company earn big profit. So now that bosses have competition. Other companies also need to hire good quality workers quickly in order to keep business going.

 

So maybe these companies may say look, we could pouch some employees from that 1st company over there to join us. So what they would most likely to do? Offer higher salary to attract these workers to join their company right? Do these bosses care for the workers? Maybe yes, maybe not, but most certainly is that, they care for themselves, they want big profit, but at same time need quality workers to do the job too right?

 

So with competition those workers that get paid super low salaries end up get bid up until a point where it reach market equilibrium. All these government no need step in. If government step in say like got what licensing law, don't know what additional compliance cost and etc.. Then end up it become not so attractive for businesses to come in even though low wages are attractive, but because of additional cost of due to compliance cost, businesses end up decide not to come in. Then like that this solo company end up still being a monopoly. 

 

So in free market society, in order to get rich, bosses also need to empower people to get paid reasonable amount of salary if not workers have a choice to join competitors, and then they lose valuable workers to work from this bosses. So in actual fact everyone move together be it this bosses want it or not. 

 

This also remind me of being an insurance agent. Often time the director in charge of these insurance agent below would want them to do well. Coz they do well, means the director do well too. Why? Coz director also get a cut of commission from the insurance agent below him that sell all the insurance product right? So everyone move together be it this insurance director care for himself or not right? Even if he only care for himself, without the insurance agent below him doing the hard work selling insurance policies, this director would not have earn big money. 

Expand  

 

[Jamesc]

.

Edited July 21, 2020 by Jamesc

[Jamesc]

The Austrian theory is classical economics.

When classical economics was discredited it was rebranded as neo classical economics. The new improved classical economics.

When classical economics was discredited it was rebranded as Monetarism by Professor Milton Friedman of the University of Chicago.

When Monetarism was discredited it was rebranded as the Austrian model.

This theory was also used in Chile by the dictator General Pinochet but it was a failure and the dictator was removed by the people.

That is why no one calls it the Chile theory or Chile model at all.

  On 7/20/2020 at 12:38 PM, Yewheng said:

There are 2 types of economic study. Keynesian economic vs austrian economic. 

 

 

An example of keynesian economic is.. Government to introduce mimimum wage law, government to introduce licensing for barber and etc. 

 

An example of austrian economic is, let free market decide on what is the wages, let free market to decide on who the company should hire people and etc. 

 

A lot of problems with the economy is caused by keynesian economic, people want government to do more to help, people want government to introduce minimum wage law and etc.. These are keynesian economic approach. So that is the problem.. 

 

https://www.quora.com/Whats-the-difference-between-Keynesian-economics-and-Austrian-economics

Expand  

 

[Jamesc]

Classical economics is very simple. The market will always correct itself and the gov should just use interest rates to control the economy.

So in a recession with many people having no jobs the gov should just lower interest rates to 0.1% and thousands of businessmen because interest rates is so low will borrow billions and start making new factories and employing thousands of people.

We all know the next TV will be 8k so for example businessmen will borrow money and build these 8k TV factories now to take advantage of the low interest rates and sell 65" 8k TV for a low $1500. 

The problem with this theory is if people have no jobs and no money they will just buy necessities like food and not buy new 8k TV even if its really cheap like just $1500 for a 65".

So these really smart businessmen are NOT going to borrow billions to build new factories to make TV that people will NOT buy no matter how cheap and good value they are.

So what's the solution?

John Maynard Keynes who saw the failure of free market economics say the economy is like a car. When economic growth slows down like in a recession its the gov job to press the accelerator and pump more fuel to the engine.

The gov needs to inject money into the economy. So if the gov gave everyone in Singapore $20 a week for the next 6 months most people will just spend the money and that means say 5 million people spending an extra 100 million this week and another 100 million next week and 100 million every week for 6 months.

So what will the extra $20 spending do? I will take the kids to Mac and buy them all happy meals. Someone else will take his gf to the cinema. People that are hungry will go supermarket and buy bread or rice or instant noodles.

Someone else else might go for a hair cut so now the barber will see extra business and earn a bit more money and treat his wife to a nice candle light dinner. The restaurant owner seeing more business and making more money might buy his wife a new dress and the dress makers selling more will spend the extra income on some new gold clubs and the money will keep flowing through the economy.

 

 

[Jamesc]

So which theory works?

Well we all got $1200 right that's like everyone getting $46 a week for 6 months.

And up to 75% of our income is subsidized to stop people tio pok right?

Because if a lot of people lost their jobs they will stop spending in shops, restaurants, hair dressers and when these business get hit they will retrench their staff and the vicious cycle goes on.

In a free market no one will subsidize our income and if companies have to chop free market economist say chopping us is the best thing as we will just get jobs in other companies.

But in a recession how many companies will be hiring?

Even USA a free market country the gov pumps billions into banks to stop them going bust.

In a true free market the banks going bust is good because they were inefficient and new banks will be setup that are more efficient.

But in a recession as banks go bust how many new banks will be created that will be more efficient?

Its just fantasy economics.

[Yewheng]

  On 7/21/2020 at 11:41 AM, Jamesc said:

So which theory works?

Well we all got $1200 right that's like everyone getting $46 a week for 6 months.

And up to 75% of our income is subsidized to stop people tio pok right?

Because if a lot of people lost their jobs they will stop spending in shops, restaurants, hair dressers and when these business get hit they will retrench their staff and the vicious cycle goes on.

In a free market no one will subsidize our income and if companies have to chop free market economist say chopping us is the best thing as we will just get jobs in other companies.

But in a recession how many companies will be hiring?

Even USA a free market country the gov pumps billions into banks to stop them going bust.

In a true free market the banks going bust is good because they were inefficient and new banks will be setup that are more efficient.

But in a recession as banks go bust how many new banks will be created that will be more efficient?

Its just fantasy economics.

Expand  

The 75% of the money that is subsidze by the government will need to see where is the source from. If it is from the government savings from rainy days. Yes it would help a lot. However if it is coming from money printing or borrowed money, then it is only delaying the problem and or pushing the higher cost for future generations to bare though higher inflation or through direct and indirect taxes. 

Edited July 21, 2020 by Yewheng

[Jamesc]

  On 7/21/2020 at 6:44 PM, Yewheng said:

The 75% of the money that is subsidze by the government will need to see where is the source from. If it is from the government savings from rainy days. Yes it would help a lot. However if it is coming from money printing or borrowed money, then it is only delaying the problem and or pushing the higher cost for future generations to bare though higher inflation or through direct and indirect taxes. 

Expand  

But in our free market we CANNOT do this.

Free market NO subsidy.

You betrayed our Free Market Vision.

You say subsidy good you are one of those Keynesian lovers.

You cheated me badly you don't love Free Markets just pretend to make me happy only.

The Free Market is PERFECT the more people disturb it the less efficiently it works.

So you want the Free Market or the subsidy?

To me its very clear as I always say to every customer service officer.

Its not the principle its the MONEY that is IMPORTANT.

 

[Yewheng]

  On 7/22/2020 at 1:12 AM, Jamesc said:

But in our free market we CANNOT do this.

Free market NO subsidy.

You betrayed our Free Market Vision.

You say subsidy good you are one of those Keynesian lovers.

You cheated me badly you don't love Free Markets just pretend to make me happy only.

The Free Market is PERFECT the more people disturb it the less efficiently it works.

So you want the Free Market or the subsidy?

To me its very clear as I always say to every customer service officer.

Its not the principle its the MONEY that is IMPORTANT.

 

Expand  

Originally if businesses save for rainy days and no government intervention, then this will not happen. 

 

There is trade off ba. Like if we compare this covid-19 to Spanish flu. Herd immunity or not? If herd immunity = a lot more people would had died or no herd immunity a lot less people would had died but at economic cost. That brings the 2nd point of saving for rainy days. How levered up businesses is will also affect businesses to survive.

 

If businesses are levered up and not saving as much for rainy days. The question is why? Maybe it's businesses bad decision, or maybe it could also be government involvement that led to businesses unable to save as much as they wanted or maybe it is also sky rocketing rental that is the cost. Maybe it is all of the combination. If we could remove the one that can be easily done like remove as much need for government intervention as much as possible way before covid-19, perhaps now this covid-19 outbreak and government interfere due to it cost people life. Then perhaps many businesses might be in better position to survive this with some government support like reducing rental and etc? Rental cost is always a big issue. Why? Who set the target land price? Market or the government decide okay I am targeting this set price, if anything lower, we will not go ahead or sort of? 

An example.. Look at this article.. So who set the land price bidding? Bidder or government? Haiz.. 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/offer-price-too-low-bid-for-dementia-village-rejected

Edited July 22, 2020 by Yewheng

[Volvobrick]

  On 7/21/2020 at 11:41 AM, Jamesc said:

So which theory works?

Well we all got $1200 right that's like everyone getting $46 a week for 6 months.

And up to 75% of our income is subsidized to stop people tio pok right?

Because if a lot of people lost their jobs they will stop spending in shops, restaurants, hair dressers and when these business get hit they will retrench their staff and the vicious cycle goes on.

In a free market no one will subsidize our income and if companies have to chop free market economist say chopping us is the best thing as we will just get jobs in other companies.

But in a recession how many companies will be hiring?

Even USA a free market country the gov pumps billions into banks to stop them going bust.

In a true free market the banks going bust is good because they were inefficient and new banks will be setup that are more efficient.

But in a recession as banks go bust how many new banks will be created that will be more efficient?

Its just fantasy economics.

Expand  

Jamesc should be the finance minister - our gahmen got it all wrong all along! They cut ministars and civil service's salary and no bonus, now this group will feel poor and cut their spending, leading to more economic contractions. Jamesc would have increased their salaries and given lots of bonuses so they feel rich and spend more to save the rest of us. 

And receiving $46 per week won't make one feel rich and go out to spend the $46.  Jamesc probably would give all the 93 Bn to me, make me feel so rich I would spend 92 Bn in the local economy (can't go overseas, remember?), generating 92 bn GDP, instead of the miserly 23 bn the gahmen expects from it lousy actions. 

I think I would have to get fellow MCFers to help me spend too. So tough to spend so much to save Singapore.

Ps. No wonder the party vote share dropped so much. Wrong policies. 

 

 

Edited July 22, 2020 by Volvobrick