For advertisement

Sample

12/09/2007

Competing for living space, with the dogs

Space is a crucial item in the life of Singaporeans. The more people we pack into this little tin can, the more suffocating it will be. We are pushing the population to 6 or 7 million and we must expect the quality of our life be affected. Do not believe any donkey who tells you that your quality of life will improve with more people being squeezed here. They do not know what they are talking. We are competing for space with foreigners. And this is the biggest shit. Then if we are not careful, the gays will want their own space, the nudist will want their little corner in Sentosa as well. But all these can never beat the ambition of animal lovers if they have their ways. They want running tracks and parks for their love ones, they mean the four legged ones that need to run to keep trim and healthy. They will also want a corner of Sentosa and a portion of the sea cordoned off for them and their dogs to frolic and have a good time. If things will go liberally, we will soon be known as a dog's paradise where it is better to be a dog, with its own restaurants and specially prepared meals, dog parks, dog sea, dog tracks, and of course dog hospitals. Soon some will become specialists and consultants to take care of the whims and fancies of doggies. This is one thing which we can promote to bring in more visitors to our shores, plus their pet dogs.

9 comments:

Anonymous said...

Very soon you may hear pet owners shouting - "Four legs good, two legs bad". And thereon, you may even find four legged humans running the street of Singapore.

We are indeed going to the dogs. 'A dog's paradise' you say, and does that mean also attracting dogs with special talents to come in like our FTs.

George Orwell must be laughing in his grave.

Anonymous said...

Wow, I never realised that they want so many things for their loved ones. If this goes on, someone may even want to include a dog in a GRC, because, as you say, a dog is better than a human being.

Move aside humans!

Matilah_Singapura said...

> We are competing for space with foreigners. <

This is spectacular nonsense.

Height restrictions are lifted, so you can build as high as you like now.

I'm not a billboard advertiser, but giving credit where credit is due—S'pore is home to many GREAT (local) PRIVATE property development companies, like Far East Org. who are doing EXCELLENT WORK in bring new developments on-line.

And e thankful for the fact that private developers are prevailing in S'pore. Can you imagine the govt's HDB building in Orchard Road? How boring will that be, d'ya reckon? Can you imagine the kind of fucked-up, socialist, cheap-skate 3rd world cuntry city-scape that will be the result from such a failed govt policy?

When you read redbean's extremely ANTI DIVERSITY post here, you'd think that S'pore is some sort of a slum with all sorts of "groups" battling each other, like a sort of perpetual war. Next thing you know S'pore has degenerated to Mogadishu status, with war lords (and dogs) controlling various districts. ;-)

> Do not believe any donkey who tells you that your quality of life will improve with more people being squeezed here. <

I'm afraid that it is redbean and his belly aching negativity that requires the scrutiny for truth.

Having more people on the island poses challenges to create living and working spaces. The word "challenge" is a synonym for "opportunity". I have already mentioned the (generally speaking) good work done by private developers. By doing so, there is true hope in eventually PRIVATIZING THE ENTIRE ISLAND, which IMO is the only long-term solution if S'pore is to survive.

Elfred said...

Yo~ Reddie and people,
Does anyone's got problem going to YP forum today? 9/12/07 Got an error for the whole day trying to go there. And the PAP site also got this acess problem.

One day no talk cock, feels like very funny. Sianz~

redbean said...

matilah,

height restriction may be lifted. but the space on the ground is limited. with the increasing population, you need a huge network of roads and rails to keep things and people moving. building a road level is cheap. building underground and in the air is not going to be.

perhaps when we develop anti gravity vehicles and float around like those sci fi movies.

today we are congested, our mrt and buses are packed. add another 2 million and see what goes?

Matilah_Singapura said...

redbean, I am aware that actual ground space is limited. Thanfully by that time a lot of the ground space will be privately owned.

To solve problems of overuse and congestion, it is best to begin with a framework of private ownership. The reason is simple: if the asset is publically owned that means no one's view counts. Only the guy in-charge in the govt counts.

With private ownership you have voluntary cooperation. Because the land-assets are privately owned, owners may charge MARKET PRICES for the use of their property. Bear in mind there are several owners and therefore price competition is present. No owner will charge so much that people avoid using his property. No owner will charge too little so that he loses money and cannot maintain or upgrade his asset.

With market prices and profitability, it would be possible to UPGRADE the transport assets by building larger capacity Mass Rapid Tramsit systems, maybe light rail, multi tiered expressways like they have in places like Shanghai. Whatever is profitable to both consumers and asset owners can be done.

The fact that market prices are being paid ALL THE WAY means no one can be a lazy stingy bum—everyone has to trade, owners increase their wealth and are able to provide better services as time goes on (for more profit of course)

Aiyah redbean, the way you write a lot of the time is so damn negative lah. *Everything* to you is some unsolvable problem.

I'm all in favour of S'pore being 6 to 10 million. Imagine the size of the local market, and the amount of "networking" that may be done.

Bring it on.

redbean said...

the value of an asset at the moment is determined by market value. but a piece of land is a piece of land. allow a free market, like what is happening to all the foodcourts/properties in singapore, the rich businessmen will outbid everyone and then transfer the new cost to the consumers. the prices will keep going up. that is your free market.

there are some properties and hawker centres in the heart of town, eg golden shoe, fook hai near hong lim, amoy street, when you can get a good bowl of noodels at $2! in any other upgraded foodcourts, it is $3.50 or more. one of the best fried kway teow, the tiong bahru kway teow, is still selling at $2 a plate in fook hai!

some shops in the arcade that were owner occupied, bought long long ago, could still sell things reasonably prices because they don't built in the new market price of the shop.

the hawker centres that were state owned, without passing the land value to the consumers, can still sell at very reasonably prices to the consumers.

now some would say it is silly not to realise the full value of the land and the rental returns.

Matilah_Singapura said...

Time to correct some commonly held economic myths, by applying irrefutable natural laws:

> the value of an asset at the moment is determined by market value. <

Totally wrong.

The value of an asset at the moment is expressed as a market price.

You are making the cardinal and very common mistake of confusing value and price. They are not the same. Value what you "get" (psychologically, therefore subjective—different experience among different individuals) and price is what you "pay" (objective, expressed in money).

> but a piece of land is a piece of land. <

Again, wrong. A piece of land is an asset, if and only if individuals VALUE it as such—because it can be used (with other factors of production) to generate "wealth" which is of greater "value" than the land itself considered alone. for e.g. A piece of land in the middle of the desert, with no water for thousands of miles, is for all intents and purposes USELESS (and thus of very LOW value) when considered in the the contexts of using land for transport and housing.

> the rich businessmen will outbid everyone and then transfer the new cost to the consumers. <

Third time, wrong.

Firstly, being able to play in the market is an honourific. i.e.

i) no one forces you to play in the market—you decide.

ii) Resources are required to play in the market, although not having resources doesn't "forbid" you to enter.

iii) No one owes you any obligation to provided the necessary "resources" for you to play in the market.

iv) No one is responsible for you losing in the market, and no one else is entitled to credit if you win in the market — unless you and some other party are bound by voluntary contract.

The businessman has an upper limit to how much he will bid. After that limit, he figures he will lose money.

You can pass on the "cost" to consumers, but NEVER without increasing consumer VALUE (psychological). So the businessman installs aircon, nice furniture, ensures a higher level of cleanliness. etc.

Prices won't go up (unless there's money inflation) because there is more than one businessman playing in the market. They compete with each other to offer better VALUE (psychological) to customers who express that expected VALUE (psychological) in the PRICE they are willing to pay. (the amount of private property—MONEY—they VALUE less, and therefore are willing to exchange for something they value HIGHER).

e.g. 1st Class Foodcourt sells ko-loh mee for $4. The foodcourt is in Orchard Rd, has aircon, nice decor, spacious seating, high level of cleanliness. The toilets are clean too.

Fucked-Up Govt Owned Foodcourt sells ko-loh mee for $2. The place is dingy, you can slip on the greasy floor. Stray cats abound. People are clearing their throats and spitting. The hand of the hawkers look dirty, and overall level of hygiene is LOW. And the toilets..., well, that's a story for another day.

The expensive food courts stay in business because clearly there are many people who don't mind paying the premium for VALUE ADDED (psychological) products and services.

However if cleanliness, spitting and stray cats don't bug you, and you VALUES (psychological) rely on "not paying more than $2", then you are free to spend your money at a food court of lower standard.

The businessman has to work hard to earn his premium.

The govt doesn't have to do jack shit. It has monopoly ownership and territorial supremacy (i.e. it can ban any privately competing food courts in the vicinity)

Matilah_Singapura said...

P.S.

I missed something:

> now some would say it is silly not to realise the full value of the land and the rental returns. <

It is not only "silly" it is irresponsible, and one could even argue: "immoral".

Many anti-capitalists condemn capitalists for being greedy when they, the capitalists charge as much as the market can bear. The same anti-capitalists consider profit itself to be "immoral", and even charging interest on loans is some sort of "evil".

"Profit" is essentially a result of "uncertainty", and "interest" is essentially a result of "waiting" (time) i.e. forgoing what you can have now for sometime in the future.

To "charge as high as the market will bear" is to attempt to MAXIMISE returns on an asset or an enterprise. Why is this good?

Because it generates resources for maintaining the asset things break down) and enhancing its "usefullness" (can produce more for less, can produce more variety...) and its longevity (perhaps the next generation can benefit). "Good stewardship" is enhancing the asset value and keeping the asset valuable over the LONG TERM. (anti capitalists hate this idea of inter-generational LONG TERM WEALTH and thus try to divide up assets upon the death or passing of each generation)

Of course no market price can be infinitely high, because there are other suppliers in the market AND there is an upper limit to what consumers will pay, before they withdraw from the trade, and keep their money or spend it on alternatives.

Large assets (land and other types) owned by one single individual are very RARE. Most assets are collectively owned either by individuals or organised groups like firms, funds, consortiums etc.

Thus it is quite easy to see the MORAL side of the argument of charging as much as the market will bear. If you are an asset manager, it is your MORAL OBLIGATION (to the owners of the asset) to increase the value of that asset and preserve the asset over the long term.