Originally posted by rwingettYou prove my point. America hates both parties. The only way for them to gain support is to convince you that the other is worse. However, what exactly is different between Obama and "W"? When we begin to ask these kinds of questions it becomes clear that there are very few differences, if any.
I only hate one party, although I have nothing but disgust for the other.
Originally posted by whodeyYes, so hard to tell them apart. Wasn't "W" a bit more of a redneck?
You prove my point. America hates both parties. The only way for them to gain support is to convince you that the other is worse. However, what exactly is different between Obama and "W"? When we begin to ask these kinds of questions it becomes clear that there are very few differences, if any.
Attempting to re-rail this thread: the issue of accountability vs. long-term thinking is an interesting one, and it is a delicate balance. I'm not sure where the ideal balance between the two is (although it is not necessarily a zero-sum issue). However, putting the 19% figure in perspective I agree with Palynka that the figure is somewhat distorted by Singapore being a major trade and corporate HQ hub, which increases its GDP but does not increase their health care or education costs.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraThat's not exactly what I said, though. Having many HQs also leads to very well paid managers being there, brings tax revenues, etc. I would said that this does tend to increase the price of non-tradables and therefore also increase the cost of health care and education.
but does not increase their health care or education costs.
What I meant is that this business model needs to attract a lot of HQs relative to its population size so it's not replicable as a model of development for, say, the US where there's no way you can get such a high concentration of HQs per capita even if taxes were as low as in Singapore. Also, it might be leeching them away from other countries, taking advantage of the ability to have that high concentration by virtue of being a relatively small country.
Originally posted by PalynkaHmm yes okay, but the increase in cost is lower than the relative increase in GDP, presumably.
That's not exactly what I said, though. Having many HQs also leads to very well paid managers being there, brings tax revenues, etc. I would said that this does tend to increase the price of non-tradables and therefore also increase the cost of health care and education.
What I meant is that this business model needs to attract a lot of HQs relative to i ...[text shortened]... of the ability to have that high concentration by virtue of being a relatively small country.
1 edit
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSorry, now I see what you mean. Yeah, I agree with the general point.
Hmm yes okay, but the increase in cost is lower than the relative increase in GDP, presumably.
I think we can safely say we don't have the numbers to gives us some indication regarding which reason might be the most important one. Whether that one, or the lack of social safety nets or even, indeed, efficiency.