janw@inmet.UUCP (10/23/85)
/* Written 6:24 pm Oct 22, 1985 by janw@inmet.UUCP in inmet:net.politics */ > [lkk@teddy] > [Larry Kolodney's note on the economy of Singapore, in particular > a tax called Central Provident Fund, based on Wall Street Journal, > Oct 21, page 25]] What Larry tells about the WSJ article is a fair summary. Let me balance it a bit, though, with two quotes from there: ] Even so, everyone, including the government, agrees that it's time ] for the private sector to supplant the government as the engine ] of growth. ] A report by 12 prominent Singapore economists, submitted to the ] government earlier this year, urges a radical rethinking of the CPF. What I would call into question (not deny outright) is Larry's contention that Singapore is often quoted as a laissez-faire paradise. Reagan's flattery, in a diplomatic situation, is not really a fair example. My impression was that it is a thoroughly paternalistic place (though quite capitalist, too) and recognized as such ... Any economists or East Asia watchers to set us right ? Another lesson of this would be that a country with a high tax can achieve a sustained high growth rate. This is quite true, though the tax is a very special one: it is non-progressive and is used as a compulsory investment fund; Singaporeans, according to the same article, have a savings rate of 40% (forty per cent) ! It looks as though the Singapore experiment does not provide a ready-made argument for *any* side of American political discourse, but that it is still quite interesting, and should be studied. Jan Wasilewsky /* End of text from inmet:net.politics */
janw@inmet.UUCP (10/31/85)
[Adam Reed (ihnp4!mtuxo!npois!adam)]
>[Adam's response]
I stand corrected, in spirit, if not in the letter, of what I said.
Knowledgeable people, such as you, do consider Singapore a kind
of laissez-faire paradise. I know more than I did yesterday.
Jan Wasilewsky