Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore • Hacker News Board

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#81

Post by ValentineC » Tue, May 28, 2013, 9:28 PM UTC

EliRivers wrote: post #75

Zoepfli wrote: post #55

Any Singaporeans here? What's preventing you from chatting up the government and ask for free elections? They don't seem that evil to me..? You know, tell them "thanks, you did a great job developing this country, but we would like to take it from here and control our own future...". What would happen? Is there any way to do this that would be successful?

It's gradually happening. The PAP hold fewer seats now than at any time in Singaporean history.

I should add that Singapore politics is somewhat complex, and it takes months, if not years, of following Singapore news to have a grasp of what the sentiment on the ground is. Some of the points that I think are relevant to this thread:

(1) Much of the older generation and many newly naturalised immigrants feel that the incumbent government brought them to where they are today, and are willing to give up some liberties for economic success.

(2) Many of Singapore's constituencies are banded into groups for election and town management purposes. [1] The party in power has the advantage in that Cabinet ministers are members of the majority party appointed by the leader, enjoy a much higher media profile by virtue of their jobs, and are more often than not the heavyweight in a group electoral contest. This makes it difficult for opposing parties to win in a positive publicity contest, since they enjoy far fewer opportunities for positive media coverage.

(3) The perception of opposition quality in Singapore is still very negative. While there were opposition candidates with stellar educational and professional backgrounds in the previous election, much of the talent willing to enter politics tend to be courted by the leading party. Also, no opposition party thus far has spoken out against this policy.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_Representation_Constituen...

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#82

Post by tptacek » Tue, May 28, 2013, 9:30 PM UTC

javert wrote: post #34

rayiner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore and China are proof of two things: 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); 2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems. I nearly puked on Metro North the other…

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

China is not remotely as economically free as the US. More than half of Chinese workers are employed by state-owned businesses. State-owned businesses generate something like 40% of all Chinese business profits, often by wielding monopolies.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#83

Post by javert » Tue, May 28, 2013, 9:36 PM UTC

joonix wrote: post #71

javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

How can you say China is "economically free" with a straight face? Surely people can't believe this. Try to import something into China. Try to take RMB out of it. etc etc. It's one of the most centrally planned economies out there with much of its wealth generated by state-owned companies.

I said it was _more_ economically free than the US. That's setting a very low bar. The US is a quagmire of mostly (not entirely) pointless regulatory agencies, lawyers, and high taxes. I've heard from businessmen that it's _much, much_ easier to start a business in China.

Of course, if you're a huge multinational business, you can just devote .001% of your income to lawyers in the US to make those problems somewhat go away. But that situation is not relevant to me, personally.

Of course, you are going to be able to find particular issues where the US is better. For all I know, it may be harder to move RMB in and out of China than it is to move dollars in and out of the USA.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#84

Post by jisaacstone » Tue, May 28, 2013, 9:36 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #40

javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom." I can't look at a map and conceive of livi…

`Free` means `able to do X`

`Vote in national elections` is the most common value of X when comparing OECDs to China, but it is not a very useful one.

The more important political freedoms (free speech, freedom of assembly, free press) are all restricted in China, but the general trend is toward less restriction, albeit with more monitoring. (The insightful will point out we are restricted and monitored in every country, but I respond there is an order of magnitude difference)

Economic freedoms are being relinquished at a much faster pace, and since that is what most people encounter in the day-to-day the average Chinese citizen will think you are pretty silly for saying he or she is not 'free'.

But the big issue for quality of life of the citizens of every country is transparency and the rule of law. And while China has been making major strides forward in the rule of law it still has abysmal transparency.

And that is a much more worrying thing than any voting metric.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#85

Post by SiVal » Tue, May 28, 2013, 9:54 PM UTC

Symmetry wrote: post #67

javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

Between various sorts of capital controls, the huge amount of state owned business, and endemic corruptions I don't see any way you could talk about China being more economically free than the us, unless it's maybe in that many regulations are only sometimes enforced. I disagree with some of Heritage's methodology in their rankings, but they're consistent and there's no measure by which China is ahead of the US in th…

I have friends and relatives running businesses in China, and I've seen the strange way that corruption makes them more economically free, in important ways, than business owners in the US. These freedoms aren't measurable by ordinary means, but they are very real.

It's difficult to know for sure, but my impression is that the number of regulations on businesses are about the same in China and the US. The difference is that, while Americans have to spend their days doing paperwork to comply with all of the regulations, the Chinese can sweep most of them out of their path by making a single payment to their local, corrupt Communist official. Best of all, no paperwork is involved!

The reduction in economic friction of letting business owners just spend their time running the business for profits instead of for regulatory compliance is enormous, and it's available for a quick "tax" payment.

As the business grows, they need to move up the Communist Party food chain and pay bigger guys more money. The bigger guys then order their subordinates to stay out of the way of the business. I've been driven down long stretches of beautiful, almost empty highway in China in a black luxury car at 150 km/h (~93mph), passing dozens of police cars along the way, and been assured that they (the cops) wouldn't bother us, because "they know who we are". That required regional authority, not local.

Of course, part of this "freedom" is the agreement to not do the unforgivable: criticize the government. Your bribes cover most issues but can't cover that one. Fortunately, that's not an issue for most businesses, because they don't make money by criticizing the government.

It's amazing how much more economic value a business can create if it gets to spend all of its time doing business instead of doing paperwork. It's also scary how easy it is for those to pay the bribes to harm those who don't (pollution, dangerous working conditions, etc.) Eliminating all regulation would be a bad idea, but there should be some measurement of how much friction loss is caused by government regulation.

Some regulations (enforced, of course) are generally helpful to an economy. Some are harmful to everyone except the regulators (worth money and power to them). The Chinese corruption way is the wrong way to go, but I'd like to see our regulators having to live within a "regulatory budget", which prevented them from adding regulatory friction every time they saw an opportunity.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#86

Post by rwmj » Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:13 PM UTC

danielweber wrote: post #35

javert wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years) That is demonstrably false. Everywhere you look, throughout history, the more free a country is, the more economically prosperous it becomes. In fact, _every single example_ fits this pattern. There is not a single exception. China and Singapore are much more economically free than the US…

I'm going to ask for some more explanation of how China is more economically free than the US. What are my property rights like?

Why are property rights (ie. a government granted monopoly) an indication of freedom?

Edit: I literally mean property rights, not "IP".

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#87

Post by patrickaljord » Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:19 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #30

revelation wrote: post #7

Oops, the cool, tax-saving getaway is a fascist dictatorship. Who could have known.

Singapore and China are proof of two things: 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); 2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems. I nearly puked on Metro North the other…

> 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years);

As explained in another comment, this is not what the American rhetoric claims. It's rather the other way around, economic freedom is a requirement for political freedom and indeed, China has improved politically since it's opened economically though they still have a long way.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5782450

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#88

Post by rayiner » Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:28 PM UTC

patrickaljord wrote: post #87

rayiner wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Singapore and China are proof of two things: 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); 2) The global business community doesn't give a shit about democracy, as demonstrated by its rush to embrace China, the Middle East, etc, and the corresponding apologizing about their political systems. I nearly puked on Metro North the other…

> 1) Freedom is not a necessary condition for economic prosperity (which undermines a lot of American rhetoric of the last 50 years); As explained in another comment, this is not what the American rhetoric claims. It's rather the other way around, economic freedom is a requirement for political freedom and indeed, China has improved politically since it's opened economically though they still have a long way. https:/…

The American narrative has always been more George W. Bush than Milton Friedman.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#89

Post by rayiner » Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:34 PM UTC

jisaacstone wrote: post #84

rayiner wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're playing fast and loose with the word "free." Sure, no country in history has ever been a utopia of freedom, but I don't consider any country "free" in any sense of the word (even "1% free") that doesn't have meaningful democracy. Indeed, that's what "freedom" has meant for the better part of the last 300-400 years: political self-determination, not "economic freedom." I can't look at a map and conceive of livi…

`Free` means `able to do X` `Vote in national elections` is the most common value of X when comparing OECDs to China, but it is not a very useful one. The more important political freedoms (free speech, freedom of assembly, free press) are all restricted in China, but the general trend is toward less restriction, albeit with more monitoring. (The insightful will point out we are restricted and monitored in every coun…

Since when is it not a useful value of X? Maybe it's not a flattering value of X...

Since the Enlightenment, freedom has meant political freedom. That's why the Bill of Rights has explicit guarantees about the freedom of the press and nothing, textually, about starting a business.

Yes, this is an ethnocentric way of looking at things, but my comment was made as an American criticizing American businessmen.

Re: Singapore to regulate high traffic websites that report on Singapore

#90

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 28, 2013, 10:44 PM UTC

SiVal wrote: post #85

Symmetry wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Between various sorts of capital controls, the huge amount of state owned business, and endemic corruptions I don't see any way you could talk about China being more economically free than the us, unless it's maybe in that many regulations are only sometimes enforced. I disagree with some of Heritage's methodology in their rankings, but they're consistent and there's no measure by which China is ahead of the US in th…

I have friends and relatives running businesses in China, and I've seen the strange way that corruption makes them more economically free, in important ways, than business owners in the US. These freedoms aren't measurable by ordinary means, but they are very real. It's difficult to know for sure, but my impression is that the number of regulations on businesses are about the same in China and the US. The difference…

[deleted]