Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.16 $; site inmet.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!bbnccv!inmet!janw
From: janw@inmet.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: Point of Information: Economy of Sin
Message-ID: <28200204@inmet.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-Oct-85 19:58:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: inmet.28200204
Posted: Tue Oct 22 19:58:00 1985
Date-Received: Fri, 25-Oct-85 07:43:15 EDT
References: <1475@teddy.UUCP>
Lines: 39
Nf-ID: #R:teddy:-147500:inmet:28200204:000:1637
Nf-From: inmet!janw    Oct 22 19:58:00 1985


/* 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 */