In one of your earlier posts, you suggested to the SDP that it should have an economist in the party to understand issues better. Notwithstanding whether SDP has economists in its midst, my assertion was that even economists had failed to foresee the present economic mess that Singapore has gotten itself into.

Nowhere did I say that “economists are the cause of the mess”.

Of course, greedy PAP with its over reliance on the US has brought about the present disaster, the worst in the history of independent Singapore. What we need is a sustainable economic model to benefit the people of this country.

A budget has to be broadly based on one of the three — a deficit, surplus or balanced. But in Singapore, the PAP government has made it a policy to always go for a surplus, even in severe periods of recession and economic downturn. Excess tax/revenue collection has been the hallmark of the authoritarian, feudalistic PAP government.

MNCs were wooed into Singapore in the late 1960s and 70s to provide jobs for our citizens. But they are still being given red carpet welcome with tax breaks and other incentives to provide jobs that go mainly to foreign cheap labour from Third World countries. This attempt on the part of the PAP to bend over backwards to keep and attract MNCs is detrimental to the long term interest of our workers and the country. It’s only good for the rich, the powerful and the PAP to continue amassing wealth for themselves, their cronies and hangers-on.

Continue to rely on the type of MNCs that we attract would only lead us to compete with giants like China, India and other Third World countries.

A budget has to be broadly based on one of the three — a deficit, surplus or balanced. But in Singapore, the PAP government has made it a policy to always go for a surplus, even in severe periods of recession and economic downturn. Excess tax/revenue collection has been the hallmark of the authoritarian, feudalistic PAP government.

MNCs were wooed into Singapore in the late 1960s and 70s to provide jobs for our citizens. But they are still being given red carpet welcome with tax breaks and other incentives to provide jobs that go mainly to foreign cheap labour from Third World countries. This attempt on the part of the PAP to bend over backwards to keep and attract MNCs is detrimental to the long term interest of our workers and the country. It’s only good for the rich, the powerful and the PAP to continue amassing wealth for themselves, their cronies and hangers-on.

Continue to rely on the type of MNCs that we attract would only lead us to compete with giants like China, India and other Third World countries.

A budget proposal is highly correlated to the macroeconomics foundation of a country because it is fiscal policy. I think you might have some confusion on that. There is nothing in a standard macroeconomic textbook that said that deficit or surplus is the correct and best way to conduct the fiscal policy. The opposition to deficit spending is my own personal view. In fact, economics suggests that deficit spending is common during recessionary periods and surplus is common during growth periods.

As I said earlier, the accountability and transparency of the national reserves is another issue. Personal opinion though is that the GIC should be more transparent with their finances since they are dealing with public money. The reason that they are afraid of free riders on their investment choices is a poor one to resist further disclosure.

Budget is to mainly address the requirements of development and recurrent expenditures in a particular year and it is not a tool to amass wealth through direct and indirect taxation policy to burden the people.

I believe that the budget should be taken with a longer-term view as well. I would think that one plan their personal monthly budget while considering how much they might need in the following month. And they don’t just plan to spend solely based on their monthly paycheque, and save the remainder if any.

Regarding your comment on the dependency on foreign MNC, I would argue that the first consideration of the government is to provide adequate jobs. I would think that local companies need to have a level playing field without the government hand-holding them all the way. That would be protectionism, not entrepreneurship.

However the government having too many hands in the pie leave much questioning to be done.

In conclusion, I’m not deliberately defending the ruling party if my views happen to coincide with theirs. Risking to sound like a broken record, I would repeat that I’m basing my views on economic principles and theories, adjusting to local conditions when I have the relevant information, because I’m an economic student.

Perhaps if you want to discuss about how PAP is based in ’secrecy’ and ‘concealment’ or why ‘depotism’ exists in GIC and Temasek Holdings, wayangparty.com might be more appropriate.

Lastly, thank you for your elaborate comment. I enjoyed the discussion :) and I’m still waiting for your reply to what “type” of people is needed to figure things out.

I believe you misunderstood my citing of the two individuals. I\’m merely giving you examples as your sentence \’If economists are that good, how come the world is going through this current mess?\’ insinuate economists are the cause of the current financial mess by the incompetency of their profession. Therefore, I gave you two economists who warned of the crisis. Following your assertion that the greedy capitalist economy has been heading in the direction of economic destruction, this claim disputed your comment that \’poor\’ economists are the cause of the mess.

In addition, I am also not a supporter of either political parties or their manifesto. It probably just happens that the economics leanings that I worked into my crude evaluations mirrors a little to the PAP\’s policies.

Frankly, I am only concerned with sound economic policies, that as you also hoped, lead to sustain economic growth. I don\’t really care who is in power as long as they do their job, be transparent about public issues and allow the market to more or less correct the inequilibrium.