There is an article by a Gordon Lee on his recommendations to improve the public transport system. His title is ‘Why fares should double and other ideas for a better transport system’. He also made a comment, ‘As many people noted, the main issue that commuters have with public transport is not price, but levels of service. Nevertheless, I will propose ways to keep public transport affordable.’ Okay, I think he thinks differently from many people, and price is important. I just don’t like it when he used the word affordable. Affordable is a four letter word. Affordable to A may not be affordable to B and C.
If he sticks to his title, then fares should be double and many problems will be solved. That I agree. More problems will be solved if fares is tripled or quadruple. Everyone or many people are only interested in the quality of service.
Sinkies are mostly cash rich if one is to read the front page headline of the Today paper yesterday. COEs of big cars hit or nearing the highs of 1994 when the stock market was having the once in 50 years bull run. Actually it was more a once in a life time bull run as the confluence of all the favourable factors is unlikely to be repeated.
COEs of big cars, ie 2000cc and above and the Open category went pass the $80,000 mark. And COE is only a certificate of entitlement to buy a car. This amount is more than enough to buy several cars in other first world countries. Here, you need to cough out another $100k or more before one can buy a 2000cc car. The COE for cars below 1,600cc is $56,000.
Singaporeans are stuffed with cash, cash rich. Big cars are really affordable, more affordable than smaller cars. When the alternative to own and drive around in private cars is so cheap, the price of public transport is definitely a steal and people can afford to pay more. I think many people would not mind paying $6 to $10 daily for public transport when ERP charges could be more than that to drive a car. And taxi fares are now getting nearer to London and New York, but still very cheap. This could be good reason for the cab companies to think of raising fares more often. Just do it every six months or a year and people will get use to it.
They can learn from the pricing of public flats, from $7,000 in the late 60s for a 3 rm flat to $300,000 today. Overtime people will get use to it and would not mind paying more and more.
Everything is still relative cheap to cash rich Singaporeans. And everything is affordable.
3/23/2012
3/22/2012
Child snatching is here
PRC couple attempts to abduct local children in Ang Mo Kio Hub
inSing.com, 21 Mar 2012
A woman has complained on the internet that a Chinese national couple tried to abduct her child at Ang Mo Kio Hub.
Ms 'Allison Goon' shared her experience on her Facebook page, explaining that she was at the AMK Hub Fiesta on Sunday (18 Mar).
She had just fed her son and walked away to throw some rubbish when she turned back and found another woman taking her son away by his hand.
She shouted after her son and asked the woman why she was holding her son's hand.
The woman, who spoke with a China accent, replied that she had "the wrong child", then walked away with another man while pretending that nothing had happened.
All Singaporeans must raise this alarm to alert the daft to be more aware of the dangers around them. Child snatching is common in China and it is coming. Be aware and be very careful with your children. The public and the police must be more alert to prevent such incidents from happening.
Spread the word around. Better be safe than be sorry.
inSing.com, 21 Mar 2012
A woman has complained on the internet that a Chinese national couple tried to abduct her child at Ang Mo Kio Hub.
Ms 'Allison Goon' shared her experience on her Facebook page, explaining that she was at the AMK Hub Fiesta on Sunday (18 Mar).
She had just fed her son and walked away to throw some rubbish when she turned back and found another woman taking her son away by his hand.
She shouted after her son and asked the woman why she was holding her son's hand.
The woman, who spoke with a China accent, replied that she had "the wrong child", then walked away with another man while pretending that nothing had happened.
All Singaporeans must raise this alarm to alert the daft to be more aware of the dangers around them. Child snatching is common in China and it is coming. Be aware and be very careful with your children. The public and the police must be more alert to prevent such incidents from happening.
Spread the word around. Better be safe than be sorry.
Complicated or dangerous products
A Loke Siew Keong had written to the ST forum raising her concerns at the new requirement from MAS for remisiers and futures brokers to take and pass a Capital Markets and Financial Advisory Services Module 6A. The complexities of financial products especially derivatives and ‘other embedded terms and features’ are difficult to understand by retail investors and even financial advisers, including remisiers and future brokers. The problems do not lie in just understanding the products and derivatives but the high risk involved in wrongfully selling such products to clients who did not know what they were into. Serious consequences can result like the Lehman Bond and toxic notes incidents.
Attending and passing the module is one thing, understanding the complex products and risk is another on the part of the advisor and the buyer. Many of these high risks and complex products are simply not suitable to the ordinary retail investors and should not even be in the market.
The main issues thus is for the authority to first identify the risks of the products and their suitability for the local investors, retail or sophisticate investors. The latter can be further divided into highly intelligent or highly stupid investors but both are highly qualified to trade in such products as they are considered highly sophisticated. Goldman Sach and other big funds have plenty of such investors. And also they have highly trained and highly sophisticated advisors who specialized in such products.
It is necessary and simply being responsible to set these highly risky products aside and tagged them with warning labels like those on cigarettes, that they are not suitable for consumption by the ordinary guys. Only good for the sophisticated investors.
The second part is to allow the remisiers and future brokers to choose if they want to be in the party to advise and sell such high risk products. Many responsible remisiers and future brokers know how risky, treacherous and flawed are such products that they would not want to touch them with a thousand metre pole. They must be given the option to stay away from such dangerous products and need not try to be clever to pass an exam that would even floor CPA trained graduates. And passing a module is not going to make them any wiser.
There are many skill levels and professional training required to handle more difficult products and procedures in various profession. And those who are not up to it or who choose not to engage in dangerous games are only exercising their right and moral responsibility not to get involved or get their clients involved. They cannot be forced to take poison. It should be voluntary. Let the brave and clever take the plunge.
The best alternative is for them to go through an appreciation course if understanding of the financial market is important, without examination, unless they want to deal with such products. There are things that are good to know but not to be consumed. And the authority has to clearly redefine what is dangerous and what is not dangerous and not simply lump them together in one basket.
Many overseas products listed in foreign markets like stocks and shares are not dangerous, or at least the blue chips. As we open up our investors to the world, we are exposing them to more risks and uncertainties. The right to say no to high risks and complex products must lie not only with the investors but also the remisiers and future traders.
The whole concept of the requirement to pass Module 6A and the introduction of high risk products must be rethink through carefully. Many people do not have the appetite and the intellect to play with unknown dangers. Who is responsible to protect the ordinary investors from being exposed to poison and snake oil if they are not filtered out at the first pass? Is it a responsible thing to do to allow dangerous and high risk products into the market? Shall we sell poison by educating the buyers and sellers that it is poison and claim it is their fault if they are hurt?
Attending and passing the module is one thing, understanding the complex products and risk is another on the part of the advisor and the buyer. Many of these high risks and complex products are simply not suitable to the ordinary retail investors and should not even be in the market.
The main issues thus is for the authority to first identify the risks of the products and their suitability for the local investors, retail or sophisticate investors. The latter can be further divided into highly intelligent or highly stupid investors but both are highly qualified to trade in such products as they are considered highly sophisticated. Goldman Sach and other big funds have plenty of such investors. And also they have highly trained and highly sophisticated advisors who specialized in such products.
It is necessary and simply being responsible to set these highly risky products aside and tagged them with warning labels like those on cigarettes, that they are not suitable for consumption by the ordinary guys. Only good for the sophisticated investors.
The second part is to allow the remisiers and future brokers to choose if they want to be in the party to advise and sell such high risk products. Many responsible remisiers and future brokers know how risky, treacherous and flawed are such products that they would not want to touch them with a thousand metre pole. They must be given the option to stay away from such dangerous products and need not try to be clever to pass an exam that would even floor CPA trained graduates. And passing a module is not going to make them any wiser.
There are many skill levels and professional training required to handle more difficult products and procedures in various profession. And those who are not up to it or who choose not to engage in dangerous games are only exercising their right and moral responsibility not to get involved or get their clients involved. They cannot be forced to take poison. It should be voluntary. Let the brave and clever take the plunge.
The best alternative is for them to go through an appreciation course if understanding of the financial market is important, without examination, unless they want to deal with such products. There are things that are good to know but not to be consumed. And the authority has to clearly redefine what is dangerous and what is not dangerous and not simply lump them together in one basket.
Many overseas products listed in foreign markets like stocks and shares are not dangerous, or at least the blue chips. As we open up our investors to the world, we are exposing them to more risks and uncertainties. The right to say no to high risks and complex products must lie not only with the investors but also the remisiers and future traders.
The whole concept of the requirement to pass Module 6A and the introduction of high risk products must be rethink through carefully. Many people do not have the appetite and the intellect to play with unknown dangers. Who is responsible to protect the ordinary investors from being exposed to poison and snake oil if they are not filtered out at the first pass? Is it a responsible thing to do to allow dangerous and high risk products into the market? Shall we sell poison by educating the buyers and sellers that it is poison and claim it is their fault if they are hurt?
Gemini Cheat Fund
Many of the older generations would remember the fame Gemini Chit Fund of the 1970s when depositors were promised high returns for their savings. Like all cheat funds, once an institution goes down the road of cheating, its days are numbered. No cheat funds can last for long.
The cheat funds operate on a very simple business formula. Get in as many depositors as possible like the Ponzi game. The fictitious payout can continue from getting more new depositors even if the investments of the collected money are not making good returns. Making lesser returns than the payout is making a loss. And some may wonder if the collected money were actually invested. There is no need to if more new money is flowing in. And in those days the cost of rental and payroll were minimal unlike today.
Cheat funds are limited in what they can do. If they can as they please, cheat funds can really go on in perpetuity as long as the conditions for more funds to flow in is non stopped. Cheat funds would be very pleased if they could keep on increasing their contributing members from 1m to 2m to 5m to 10m and ever increasing. This is the first part of the equation.
Cheat funds could also stop or delay their payouts by encouraging depositors to reinvest their profits ala bucket shop. One sound product is housing. Cheat funds can sell housing in short leases of 30 years or 60 years. The shorter the better as the money invested in these leases will eventually come to zero at the end of the lease even if the property prices could peak at several millions in between. There is an end game in property leases.
Other products that cheat funds can sell to their depositors include insurance for life and medical. In the case of life insurance, they must attempt to convince their customers that their lifespan is forever, or the longer the better. The trick is to keep the money in. And innocent laymen would love to hear that they can live forever, undead, and would need to park more money for their days of being undead.
Medical insurance is also a good product when medical bills are getting more expensive. The cheat funds could even set up their own hospitals and sell their own insurance. It is kind of ‘pau ka liau’ business. And the effect is the same. Every cent collected will be kept inside the vault.
Today, cheat funds could actually operate more effectively and efficiently with more products and schemes to entice and trap the depositors. It is a good and very profitable business as long as there is no run on the fund and the number of depositors keeps on increasing.
Time to revive the Gemini Cheat Fund and calling it any other name will do. A rose is a rose whatever you call it.
The cheat funds operate on a very simple business formula. Get in as many depositors as possible like the Ponzi game. The fictitious payout can continue from getting more new depositors even if the investments of the collected money are not making good returns. Making lesser returns than the payout is making a loss. And some may wonder if the collected money were actually invested. There is no need to if more new money is flowing in. And in those days the cost of rental and payroll were minimal unlike today.
Cheat funds are limited in what they can do. If they can as they please, cheat funds can really go on in perpetuity as long as the conditions for more funds to flow in is non stopped. Cheat funds would be very pleased if they could keep on increasing their contributing members from 1m to 2m to 5m to 10m and ever increasing. This is the first part of the equation.
Cheat funds could also stop or delay their payouts by encouraging depositors to reinvest their profits ala bucket shop. One sound product is housing. Cheat funds can sell housing in short leases of 30 years or 60 years. The shorter the better as the money invested in these leases will eventually come to zero at the end of the lease even if the property prices could peak at several millions in between. There is an end game in property leases.
Other products that cheat funds can sell to their depositors include insurance for life and medical. In the case of life insurance, they must attempt to convince their customers that their lifespan is forever, or the longer the better. The trick is to keep the money in. And innocent laymen would love to hear that they can live forever, undead, and would need to park more money for their days of being undead.
Medical insurance is also a good product when medical bills are getting more expensive. The cheat funds could even set up their own hospitals and sell their own insurance. It is kind of ‘pau ka liau’ business. And the effect is the same. Every cent collected will be kept inside the vault.
Today, cheat funds could actually operate more effectively and efficiently with more products and schemes to entice and trap the depositors. It is a good and very profitable business as long as there is no run on the fund and the number of depositors keeps on increasing.
Time to revive the Gemini Cheat Fund and calling it any other name will do. A rose is a rose whatever you call it.
3/21/2012
How to justify or defend a mass murderer?
Robert Bales is a good man. He is a wholesome family man who loves children. He is also the man who massacred 16 Afghan civilians, including children, in a killing spree. And the American public was shocked. They could not see it coming, just like they could not see the American soldiers killing hundreds of thousands of Arabs and Afghans in the two wars, including civilians, old folks and children. And they are still killing them today and tomorrow and until they stop the massascre. They only think that it is a war and the casualties on the other side, they called it collateral, a term the bankers used, inanimate.
America is country of murderers, committing murders everyday in the name of their national interests. And killing their tagged enemies is a way of life. The whole nation has been taught and fed with the doctrine that war is the right of the Americans, and killing other people is only a natural thing. But killing Americans is abnormal, unacceptable. Robert Bales will not kill American children. He will carry them and kiss them. As for aliens who are branded as enemies, it is fair game.
According to an article in mypaper today, David Brooks of The New York
Times, I quoted, ‘The monstrosities of the world are caused by the few people (like Hitler or Idi Amin) who are fundamentally warped and evil.’ How blind can he be? No, he is not blind. He is just American. He could not see the real monsters that were killing the Iraqis and the Afghans were George Bush and Obama and their colleagues.
Maybe they were in Iraq and Afghanistan hunting for bears. Who are the warp and fundamentally evil people today?
America is country of murderers, committing murders everyday in the name of their national interests. And killing their tagged enemies is a way of life. The whole nation has been taught and fed with the doctrine that war is the right of the Americans, and killing other people is only a natural thing. But killing Americans is abnormal, unacceptable. Robert Bales will not kill American children. He will carry them and kiss them. As for aliens who are branded as enemies, it is fair game.
According to an article in mypaper today, David Brooks of The New York
Times, I quoted, ‘The monstrosities of the world are caused by the few people (like Hitler or Idi Amin) who are fundamentally warped and evil.’ How blind can he be? No, he is not blind. He is just American. He could not see the real monsters that were killing the Iraqis and the Afghans were George Bush and Obama and their colleagues.
Maybe they were in Iraq and Afghanistan hunting for bears. Who are the warp and fundamentally evil people today?
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)