Three score and six years ago, the greatest president of the 20th century gave one of his greatest speeches. On Jan. 11, 1944, in a State of the Union address that deserves to be ranked with Lincoln's "Gettysburg Address" and King's "I Have a Dream" speech, President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for recognition of a "Second Bill of Rights."
According to FDR:
"This Republic had its beginning, and grew to its present strength, under the protection of certain inalienable political rights -- among them the right of free speech, free press, free worship, trial by jury, freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures. They were our rights to life and liberty. As our nation has grown in size and stature, however -- as our industrial economy expanded -- these political rights proved inadequate to assure us equality in the pursuit of happiness."
"We have come to a clear realization of the fact that true individual freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. 'Necessitous men are not free men.' People who are hungry and out of a job are the stuff of which dictatorships are made.
In our day these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all -- regardless of station, race, or creed."
President Roosevelt was not promoting economic rights that were necessarily enforceable in court, but rather economic benefits and opportunities that every American should expect to enjoy by virtue of citizenship in our democratic republic.
Many of the rights he identified have been secured by programs with bipartisan support. These include "the right to a good education" (the G.I. Bill, student loans, Pell Grants, Head Start, federal aid to K-12 schools) and "the right of every family to a decent home" (federally subsidized home loans and tax breaks for home ownership). But even before the global economic crisis, the U.S. fell short when it came to full employment -- "the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation" -- and a living wage -- "the right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation."
Tuesday, January 12, 2010
Utopia of welfare corporatism
Dear Mr. Tan,
I believe this article has strong relevance to our situation in Singapore: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights/index.html.
Some of the things that Mr. Lind mentions are occuring here.
"In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck."
I also agree with this:
"The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit."
Balbindar
I believe this article has strong relevance to our situation in Singapore: http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/01/11/second_bill_of_rights/index.html.
Some of the things that Mr. Lind mentions are occuring here.
"In the utopia of welfare corporatism, today's public benefits -- Social Security, Medicare, unemployment insurance and, in a few states, public family leave programs -- would be abolished and replaced by harebrained schemes dreamed up by libertarian ideologues at corporate-funded think tanks like the Cato Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Tax subsidies would be funneled to insurance companies, brokers and banks. Social Security would be replaced by a bewildering miscellany of tax-favored personal savings accounts. Medicare would be replaced by a dog's breakfast of tax subsidies for purchasing health insurance and personal medical savings accounts. Unemployment insurance would give way to yet another Rube Goldberg scheme of tax-favored unemployment insurance accounts. As for family leave -- well, if you're not wealthy enough to pay out of pocket for a nanny for your child or a nurse for your parent, you're out of luck."
I also agree with this:
"The strongest case for economic citizenship instead of welfare corporatism is economic. Economic citizenship is more efficient and cheaper in the long run, because the government need only meet costs, while subsidized private providers must make a profit."
Balbindar
Prices of HDB Flats
Some comments in the survey
1. HDB Flat used to be financed by one breadwinner with 20 years loan period in the past, but now it is financed by double-income family yet stretched to 30 years, this is a reflection of un-affordability in price.
2. Most young (<30 years old) are willing to spend more on repayment because they think that their salaries will increase and with more income in future, the repayment % will go down> They are not aware that the 23% that goes into the cpf OA when they are fresh out of school will be reduced to 19% when they are 35 and even lesser as they grow older. Even under a 5% yearly salary increment without hitting the 4k cpf cap, the 5% increment cannot cover the drop in 4% to the cpf OA.
3. I hope that HDB does not act like a private company like Capitland. If so, then it should be listed like a REIT in SGX.
4. I think prices should reflect the national income level and should not be subject to speculation or COV. Because HDB monopolises the public housing market, their priority should be to ensure prices remain within the means of the average Singaporean. HDB housing should also only be made available to Singapore citizens and not permanent residents. It is highly unfair for permanent residents to be entitled to buy a HDB flat and later on sell for a profit when there is no 100% guarantee that they intend to live in the country until the day they croak. If the government sincerely believe that Singaporeans are their priority - this is the key area they need to seriously look into or make proper adjustments before it's too late.
1. HDB Flat used to be financed by one breadwinner with 20 years loan period in the past, but now it is financed by double-income family yet stretched to 30 years, this is a reflection of un-affordability in price.
2. Most young (<30 years old) are willing to spend more on repayment because they think that their salaries will increase and with more income in future, the repayment % will go down> They are not aware that the 23% that goes into the cpf OA when they are fresh out of school will be reduced to 19% when they are 35 and even lesser as they grow older. Even under a 5% yearly salary increment without hitting the 4k cpf cap, the 5% increment cannot cover the drop in 4% to the cpf OA.
3. I hope that HDB does not act like a private company like Capitland. If so, then it should be listed like a REIT in SGX.
4. I think prices should reflect the national income level and should not be subject to speculation or COV. Because HDB monopolises the public housing market, their priority should be to ensure prices remain within the means of the average Singaporean. HDB housing should also only be made available to Singapore citizens and not permanent residents. It is highly unfair for permanent residents to be entitled to buy a HDB flat and later on sell for a profit when there is no 100% guarantee that they intend to live in the country until the day they croak. If the government sincerely believe that Singaporeans are their priority - this is the key area they need to seriously look into or make proper adjustments before it's too late.
Sports Hub to be ready by 2015
The Sports Hub was supposed to have been completed earlier. Now it will be ready by 2015, a few years behind schedule. The delay was due to financing problems faced by the developer.They were not able to raise the funds during the financial crisis and had to stop work.
I have always considered that public infrastructure and facilities should be owned by the state. The funding of these assets should not be privatized, as this would bring along a host of problems, such as the rate of return to be allowed to the investors on the monopoly. In this particular case, the financiers, i.e. the banks, had to deal with the problem of the viability of the project and the financial standing of the asset owner and hub operator.
If the state owns the assets, they will also have to deal with these issues. But, there is now a culture in Singapore to avoid taking the responsibility to make the hard decisions and to pass the them to the private sector and the market and let them find a solution.
A problem does not get solved when it is made by complicated or passed to people who have less resources to handle them. The private sector has to deal with all of the viability and operational issues, and also have to worry about raising the funds and, unlike the state, it does not have a AAA credit rating.
A better approach is for the state to own the Sports Hub and to lease it to the operator at an annual fee. I hope that the lesson of the Sports Hub will be learned and that the funding of mega-projects are not outsourced to the private sector in the future.
Tan Kin Lian
I have always considered that public infrastructure and facilities should be owned by the state. The funding of these assets should not be privatized, as this would bring along a host of problems, such as the rate of return to be allowed to the investors on the monopoly. In this particular case, the financiers, i.e. the banks, had to deal with the problem of the viability of the project and the financial standing of the asset owner and hub operator.
If the state owns the assets, they will also have to deal with these issues. But, there is now a culture in Singapore to avoid taking the responsibility to make the hard decisions and to pass the them to the private sector and the market and let them find a solution.
A problem does not get solved when it is made by complicated or passed to people who have less resources to handle them. The private sector has to deal with all of the viability and operational issues, and also have to worry about raising the funds and, unlike the state, it does not have a AAA credit rating.
A better approach is for the state to own the Sports Hub and to lease it to the operator at an annual fee. I hope that the lesson of the Sports Hub will be learned and that the funding of mega-projects are not outsourced to the private sector in the future.
Tan Kin Lian
US Congress inquiry into the Financial Crisis
The US Congress is conducting an inquiry into the cause of the financial crisis. Here are some questions to be asked.
Authorities act on money lenders
Parliament has passed the Money lender's Amendment Bill. Singaporeans can now celebrate. With this new law, the Police can now take action on this menace - the vandalism committed by loan sharks against the properties of the borrowers, and against innocent neighbors whose flats were vandalized by mistake.
It appears that in this law abiding country, there was no law against vandalism in the past - that the Police were powerless to act against the loan sharks and vandals under the existing law. Surely, this cannot be the situation in Singapore?
More worrisome is my feeling that the Police did not act, because they were waiting for a decision at the top level, that this problem needs to be tackled. It seems that we have now developed a culture in Singapore to avoid responsibility and initiative, and to wait for the "boss" to decide for us.
Tan Kin Lian
It appears that in this law abiding country, there was no law against vandalism in the past - that the Police were powerless to act against the loan sharks and vandals under the existing law. Surely, this cannot be the situation in Singapore?
More worrisome is my feeling that the Police did not act, because they were waiting for a decision at the top level, that this problem needs to be tackled. It seems that we have now developed a culture in Singapore to avoid responsibility and initiative, and to wait for the "boss" to decide for us.
Tan Kin Lian
Magic of the Shape Quiz
View this powerpoint to learn how the shape quiz can give you hours of fun, keep dementia away and train a flexible mind. You can buy the Shape Quiz at www.easysearch.sg (Internet Shop)
Rechargeable torchlight for use in hotels
I sent this brochure to a hotel owner. They are interested to try it.
Investment principles for 2010 and beyond
Read this article in Market Watch.
Principles
1. The markets are a dangerous place. They are little more than legalised casinos.
2. Fear and greed drives the markets.
3. Technical analysis does not work.
4. Stay liquid and diversify
Advice
a) Never invest with money that you may need in an emergency
b) Money that you may need should be in a saving account, to be used in an emergency
c) Investments are always priced at watch they are worth
d) Actively management funds rarely beat the benchmark
The 4th principle is useful and has to be read many times.
Principles
1. The markets are a dangerous place. They are little more than legalised casinos.
2. Fear and greed drives the markets.
3. Technical analysis does not work.
4. Stay liquid and diversify
Advice
a) Never invest with money that you may need in an emergency
b) Money that you may need should be in a saving account, to be used in an emergency
c) Investments are always priced at watch they are worth
d) Actively management funds rarely beat the benchmark
The 4th principle is useful and has to be read many times.
Adapting to the competitive school environment
Dear Mr. Tan,
My son attended an Elementary School in America when he was in First Grade and Second Grade. He enjoyed school very much and was very participative in class as the teachers would encourage the pupils to speak up even though they may not give the right answers at times.
We returned to Singapore when he was in Primary 3 and he continued to enjoy schooling and did very well in school. He was then posted to the best class in primary 5 and 6. It was a very competitive class and the students are rather conscious with their marks and grades for everything they did. My son was under a lot of stress and began to lose confidence in himself. He constantly feels that he is not good enough and started to worry too much about examinations. We have always assured him that we would be proud of him no matter what grade he gets. Learning to him is no longer fun but a competition for higher marks.
Fortunately, he did reasonably well in PSLE and is now in Secondary One. He is making new friends and is adapting well to the new environment. We can see that he is gaining his self confidence slowly and we are glad that he is enjoying school again.
My son attended an Elementary School in America when he was in First Grade and Second Grade. He enjoyed school very much and was very participative in class as the teachers would encourage the pupils to speak up even though they may not give the right answers at times.
We returned to Singapore when he was in Primary 3 and he continued to enjoy schooling and did very well in school. He was then posted to the best class in primary 5 and 6. It was a very competitive class and the students are rather conscious with their marks and grades for everything they did. My son was under a lot of stress and began to lose confidence in himself. He constantly feels that he is not good enough and started to worry too much about examinations. We have always assured him that we would be proud of him no matter what grade he gets. Learning to him is no longer fun but a competition for higher marks.
Fortunately, he did reasonably well in PSLE and is now in Secondary One. He is making new friends and is adapting well to the new environment. We can see that he is gaining his self confidence slowly and we are glad that he is enjoying school again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)