For advertisement

Sample

1/13/2006

singapore is a truly open society

this blog is the best example of singapore as an open society. i have written everything truthfully as they are. i have written about everything that can be written. is this not enough proof of our openness. must invite george soros to visit my blog.

9 comments:

Speedwing said...

Hi Redbean

I watched George Soros on TV last night. He is correct up to a point. What you consider the truth may not be so in the eyes of another. It is all a matter of interpretation. If you write something you consider is true, you can still be sued if someone in his opinion consider to be false

redbean said...

i was that interview too. it would be something if someone does what soros did to george bush with US$44 mil. and george bush could not do anything to soros.

the other thing on this is that he stood up and told george bush that it was wrong. and the edict that 'either with us or against us' is not acceptable. soros stood up to a bully and not be cowed. that is what money can do in the usa.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Screw the Open Society. What is desirable IMO is a Free Society. There are huge differences between the two.

I'm glad you brought up the example of Singapore. Yes, it is an Open Society, but it is not free.

Soros is a dissapointment. As a "positivist" and philosophial descendent of Karl Popper, he has, over the years gravitated toward more state control and even supports the UN - the wannabes who salivate at the mouth when pondering the idea of a global government.

Actually it was Karl Popper who initiated the idea of Open Society. (Karl Popper - philosopher etc from the Vienna Circle. Look it up. This period: end 1800's to early 1900's was a most interesting time, especially for the intellectuals. Vienna was the foremost happening place for "new ideas")

Popper was responsible for the idea of "falsification" (a truly wierd proposal as far as reasoning goes). Soros picks up on this and gets into all sorts of corners fraught with contradictions and logical fallacies.

What is more, he is just plain wrong in certain areas. One minute he is warm toward laissez faire, another minute he sees some need to "correct" it.

In fact, the more Open the society, the less free ith will be, because Soros's version of Open Society is one where the government is pro active in almost every area of life.

A free society (meaning "free from govt interference") OTOH, is where govt is minimal (a minarchy) or ideally completely non existent (an anarchy).

George's Open Society is a serious threat to laissez faire - but in his book "Open Society" which I read 4 years ago, he supports govt "interference" to take care of the "inefficiencies of the market".

It's starnge that he should say that - he made SQUILLIONS from betting on "market inefficiencies" - which were all caused by governmant interference for e.g. a plummetting currency is due to govt mismanagement of the economy, and central bank inflation to achieve political objectives - i.e. when the govt inflates the currency to "pump" the economy; stocks rise; property rises; more retail spending; more jobs; better pay but price of goods rising; nonetheless people feel "rich" and increase their support for the govt - who then calls an election.

Sound familiar? ;-)

I still admire Soros as a trader and speculator. When we have fiat currencies (paper as opposed to gold), govts can do all sorts of EVIL things - go to war, tinker with the social welfare, get into bed with the corporate crowd and become imperialistic etc.

They can only do this by increasing the money supply and it is so easy with FIAT paper - just print more paper. (US prints more than $6million a day just to keep the Built-on-debt US economy going).

Speculators like Soros do an important job by "assisting nature" to ensure that there is no such thihng as a free lunch, and to aid nature in keeping the spontaneous order in a state of chaos.

"Chaos beats order everytime, because chaos is more organised".

That is WHY the governments of the world HATE HIM. In some Asian cuntries, politicians have called for Soros to be charged as a criminal. (Thailand, Malaysia).

Now that he is flogging th idea of Open Society all over the world, many of the same politicians are seething again.

Soros was one of my heros as a free-wheeling market player. I can't understand for the life of me why he has turned into a statist.

Here's a great rebuttal by economist George Reisman of Soros's Open Society claims. Soros desecended philosophically from Karl Popper. Reisman comes from the philosophical lineage of Ayn Rand and Ludwig von Mises.

Reisman takes pains at dissecting the Soros's epistemological arguments. I have given some background on Popper, but Reisman gets more detailed.

http://www.mises.org/fullstory.aspx?Id=1651

Matilah_Singapura said...

Hope you don't mind the long post. I don't want to hog your blog :-)

redbean said...

hi matilah,

i must say this is heavy stuff. i was a ps student as well. but have not read popper or reisman. his version of open society as you have described is something that i think was sold to us and we embraced them as the new gospel. open up everything to the sense of being naked. and like you say, let everyone who has the muscle to screw us or goreng us whichever way they want.

the financial crisis of the 1990s was a prelude to what they want to do. they are in charge. they control with their money and muscle.

singapore is opening up everything, nearly everything except the political industry. otherwise they will be gang raped in parliament. i just can't imagine how long can we hold against this onslaught of free foreign competition in your own backyard before we lose our pants.

the image of soros as a very successful individual may be misleading. got this hunch that he is just the face of a huge powerful syndicate at work. he is different from li ka shing who is more a wheeler dealer in business. soros is more a speculator and market maker or sort. and with the money power, maybe his objective is an open society for him and his syndicate to dominate and be the banker of a big unlevel playing field akin to a syndicate speculating and controlling the stock market and money market.

the philosphical and theoretical thinking and reasoning is only one aspect. the other is of course marekt manipulation and domination.

is he a member of the socalled bohemia grove?

Matilah_Singapura said...

Don't know. Bohemian Grove is definitely Republican - right wing, Imperialistic, Soros is a statist, but he does lean toward democracy, and his views on laissez faire are pretty wierd. He is a complicated person, it's difficult to pigeon-hole him.

I think he acts alone. He was a poor immigrant boy who had a natural talent for the market, and understands fiat currencies and central banking like no one else - so well that he's managed to take advantage of many "mistakes" of the central banks. If there was still a gold standard in operation, it is doubtful (to me) whether Soros would be as successful as he is.

The problem for S'pore is not just political. Actually the local politics stem from the fact that we don't have a Constitution nor Bill of rights which is geared toward protecting the natural rights of individuals.

That being the case, the govt and the state can do whatever it likes, by whatever standard it chooses.

And yah, they goreng the people everyday. And the people continue to believe the bullshit.

So how?

redbean said...

for people like soros or li ka shing, not sure how much is talent and how much is luck. but we must accept it that they have done exceptionally well in what they are doing.

to be wealthy and successful in the industries, especially money making, got nothing to do with one's political thinking. the best minds in such areas are best left to the thinkers, who are mostly unsuccessful in money making.

whatever that has happened to singapore and whatever that will come next will come in full circle. the sin of yesterday will catch up sooner than you thought.

the law of nature, it is best that what one does is genuinely for the common good or at least the conscience is clear. i am not saying that one should just work for the common good and neglect self. i think it is possible to work for self and the common good. and it is also possible to work for self at the expense of the common good. what is important is honesty. if one is working for self, fine.

Matilah_Singapura said...

The only way to get rich and stay rich is to enrichen the lives of others.

Everyone has needs and everyone is selfish and seeks to satisfy those needs.

Every successful buisnessperson will understand that if he is truly selfish, he will appreciate that others are also selfish, and for him to "profit" he must satisfy other people's selfishness.

Keeping other people's pride and selfishness in mind, and behaving in a way that considers those facts will make anyone WEALTHY.

redbean said...

that i agree.