Brilliant! I don't know what it proves, but it's great. After all, although Singapore is 100% Anglophone middle class, the country is 88% Chinese. They may speak fluent English, but they think Chinese. Hong Kong's 100% Chinese. And these are the two countries that top the league. I don't think one could legitimately (and I'm sure you wouldn't, anyway) say anything about an overlay of Anglo values, because the Chinese enjoy immense commercial success wherever they are.

What this demonstrates, though, is, failure to burden commercial endeavours with overtaxation and petty regulation results in wealth creation which benefits everyone. The puzzle is, how can Blair and his gang of regulating thugs and preachers of a coercive ideology, not see this? Why can't the French and the Germans see it?

Hooray for Hong Kong and Singapore! Hooray for the liberty-loving Anglosphere which is motivated to fight the imposition of chains and shackles, be they physical or economic!

The whole link makes very interesting reading.

Of course one could also read this as: once the Chinese finally, eventually, get rid of their commie government, the anglosphere had better watch out! ;-)

Liberty Belle: ...because the Chinese enjoy immense commercial success wherever they are.

er... except the 98% of Chinese people who live in China, that is, so I think it does indeed show that having taken a chunk of Anglosphere values and organisation makes a huge difference. It also shows what a dark miracle it was that Marx wrought: to have successfully beggared such a vast number of industrious people is no small achievement.

Perry, I'm sorry, and certainly with no disrespect, I think your point is unfair. China's a communist dictatorship and like all such, the commercial breath is squeezed out of it with rules, laws and petty regulations. This will pass and then, as Julian Morrison notes above, watch out world! Even then, Guandong province is now Hong Kong in all but name. This will spread. It's probably already seeping out round the edges of Guandong.

I don't want to understate the importance of the Anglosphere and its adherence to, more or less, free trade - but the most commercially successful group in Indonesia - where we never had a presence - are the Chinese. They're also successful in the Philippines, where we also never had a prescenc. Wherever in the world there is a large Chinese presence, there is also money, so I don't think we should be so insular as to pat ourselves on the back and think it's all down to us. And if you look at the link, one of the least successful, given its level of education and democracy is India, where we were the colonial power for 250 years, trundling in at No. 73.

BTW, Malaysia wasn't mentioned, although it is also dynamic and thriving and enjoys a wealth creating business environment.

I live in Singapore and IMHO its unfairly maligned in mostly left wing circles. Its a society that mostly works very well. If I were to identify the main factors for Singapore's economic freedoms, it would be a history of being a lazzaire faire trading port under the British, a traditional desire by the Chinese for the government to leave them alone and let them get on with making money, and the influence of Lee Kwan Yu, who became a militant anti-communist. Add to that the ability to speak english as well as the average Londoner or New Yorker means they can access the mainstream of anglophone ideas.

And as for China as a future competitor, would you prefer a competitor who challeges you, or a one that tries to drag you down to their level?

Phil, I wouldn't quarrel with a word you wrote. Of course Singapore is maligned in socialist circles. It's rich - and it did it without a single natural resource - not even water! - except for its people. Education is highly regarded. It is successful socially. Worse - it is an orderly society with respect for the rule of law. For some reason, the socialists think the $200 on-the-spot fine for discarding a cigarette butt on the street is a breach of human rights. They disapprove of Singapore because the police enforce the law.

Lee Kwan Yew is one of the greatest political leaders of all times. Singapore is his vision. Yet there is not one LKY Bridge or LKY Hospital or LKY School or Lee Kwan Yew Highway in the whole country.

On Switzerland, my brother-in-law has lived there for years now, and hasn't learned virtually a word of Suisse-Deutsch (except the usual, "Kann Ich zwei bier haben, bitte").

Virtually everyone in Zurich canton he ever meets, speaks not just fluent English, but almost perfect English, often, he says, better than the Yeah-Nah-Street-English, back in our socialist swamp of a country.

And often the french speakers, the italian speakers, and the german speakers, tend to speak to each other, in ENGLISH! :-)

He's told me English may even become an official fifth language, of Switzerland, after Romansch, because in most Cantons, it is the 2nd language learned.

And if they do this, using their fantastic democracy they have there, that will make them, officially PART OF THE ANGLOSPHERE!!! 8-)

(Even the French bits)

Which is nice.

And the Dutch have a language, which is the closest to English anyway (except for Scots-English), only splitting from us, in around the 8th century AD. Even now, in the Friseian islands, of the original Angle-land, and on the way to Hamburg, they speak a Dutchified-Germanified tongue, which almost sounds English, in accent and structure, which really annoyed Hitler and his goons, BTW.

So this makes the Dutch (also descendants of the Anglo-Saxons), nearly English (or the English, nearly Dutch :), so if we bend the rules a bit, that brings them into the Anglosphere too! :-)

Hey Presto, the entire top ten is in the Anglosphere.

Interesting piece!

I'd love to think this ranking is correct, and anecdotally, with my experience of Dutch people, Aussies, North Americans, it sounds about right. I'm just wondering what critics would say.

One doubt might be how the index is drawn up. The devil being in the details, I seem to think I've seen several freedom rankings like this before. Are they all from this one body or are there competing "definitions of freedom"? I don't mean to nitpick - and I suspect other versions would look very similar. But I'm curious if others have seen competing free-society rankings?

Fascinating thought by Andy there, that 300,000 speakers in the Netherlands of Friesian [or Frysk], the closest living language to English, qualifies the Netherlands to be part of the 'Anglosphere'.

I've seen written Frysk - it does look quite a bit like Chaucer. Dutch is close too, though. It sounds a lot more like Liverpool or Swansea slang than you might expect.

Libert Belle

Lee Kwan Yew is one of the greatest political leaders of all times.

Interesting, I have been a huge fan of LKY for many years. He was one of my heros in my teens (when I was a militant anti-communist). You can drive by his very modest house here in Singapore.

A lot of the Anglosphere's liberal ideas came from the Netherlands in the first place, so perhaps it isn't really out of place. And Switzerland is a very atypical and strange place by most ways of measuring.

The other thing that hasn't been mentioned is that (with the exception of the Netherlands and Switzerland) these are all Common Law countries. Obviously this is tightly mixed in with the whole Anglosphere thing, but the question of how big a factor this is is one to think about.

On the Dutch, I'd also note they had their time on the great power stage at one point because they were a great TRADING nation. Everyone else in Europe seems to have done it with big armies...

Dale - very interesting point. And they were the colonial power in Indonesia.

Phil - LKY is also a hero of mine. I am trying to get hold of his book Third World to First World. Yes, you can drive by his house and it is quite endearing that his next door neighbour keeps chickens in her yard. It must be quite annoying to be awoken by a rooster crowing and hens shrieking in the morning, but he has never used his power to put himself above the law or get privileges above that of normal citizen.

I wonder how the Republic of Venice would fare on this list if Napoleon had not overthrown and destroyed its thousand-year-plus government by force [as he did with Holland] just before 1800?

Venetians introduced a lot of the financial-market innovations we now see as standard, were in early on double-entry bookkeeping, and developed a peculiar, multiply-randomised system for choosing the Doge so as to never have an overpowerful ruler. On the other hand they had some sinister judicial practices, so I shouldn't praise too much.

Sorry to keep popping up here in this annoying manner, but Michael Jennings' point just struck me about the Netherlands and Switzerland not being Common Law countries.

Both countries got invaded and 'restructured' by Napoleon, imposing French-style law on them. Does anyone know what NL and CH legal traditions were before the 1790s?

Germany, Italy and France score badly in this survey, and yet in terms of per capita GDP, they are doing better than most anglosphere countries - perhaps all, with the exception of the United States. Even taking into account the high euro, if you look at the accumulated figures over the past 15 years, the German, Italian and French economies have performed marginally better than the UK, Australian and NZ economies. The link between economic prosperity and economic regulation is a complicated one.

As for Hong Kong and Singapore, I'm dubious that their economic success has much to do with any anglospheric "overlay". It's more linked to the fact that they were designed from the outset as island trading posts, and they managed to hang on to this role in the post-colonial period. Is Macau's relative prosperity connected to a Portuguese overlay? I think not.

As for Lee Kwan Yew, he is certainly a bizarre hero for anyone who professes libertarian instincts. His rule was an exceedingly authoritarian one, including the imprisonment of political opponents and heavy regulation in all spheres of social existence.

It's such an irony that China opted for Communism, since the Chinese I've worked with have been the most cheerfully mercenary people I've ever known. And I mean that in an entirely admiring way.

Definitely, a capitalist China would be a terrifying force. And I mean 'terrifying' in an admiring way, too.

Some shrewd points from Becky just case we all start to get too self-congratulatory and smug.

Of course, her "accumulated figures" is a bit vague and naughty [though I pointed out the pro-Anglo rankings might be a little dodgy too]. I'm not sure what figures she has in mind, since unemployment has been unhealthily high and growth unhealthily low in both France and Germany since they started willing the euro into existence with as much interest-rate throttling as it took in the 80s. So she leaves me puzzled there - further back in the 50s and 60s she might have more of a case, maybe.

But the point about Macao not being in the Portusphere so much as being part of a neighbouring zone [Hong Kong] just as Hong Kong is/was really an outlet for China is a sharp one.

Becky might have some interesting different ideas about the link between regulation and prosperity. I hope we encourage her to share them.

My own hunch is that France and Germany - having twice the farmland x one-and-a-half the annual hours of sunshine per citizen than Britain [resource-rich Australia and underpopulated NZ are more complex cases] - are in some sense "naturally" wealthier.

By that I mean they can endure more inefficiencies and still be on the same level as us. If we were as agriculturally determinist as some of the Continental thinkers are, we might be asking why France is ever less than twice or thrice as rich as Britain.

Becky

The UKs entry into the EU was hugely disruptive to the Australian and especially the New Zealand economy. Then the UK went through its Thatcher revolution. But if you look at the stats for the last 10 years all three have clearly been pulling ahead of their continental competitors and its looks like it is accelerating.

As for Lee Kwan Yew, he is certainly a bizarre hero for anyone who professes libertarian instincts. His rule was an exceedingly authoritarian one, including the imprisonment of political opponents and heavy regulation in all spheres of social existence.

This is left wing claptrap. LKY did imprison without trial a hundred or so people, but this was at the time of a communist insurgency and threatened war by its neighbour Indonesia. The heavy social regulation part is just untrue. And finally LKY being exceedingly authoritarian is just phantasy.

Well, much as I hate to find myself agreeing with Becky about anything, she is correct when she notes that both Singapore and Hong Kong were island trading posts and she is right to ascribe importance to this fact. But we shouldn't forget, there are lots of island trading posts in the world, but these two in particular were Chinese, which I believe accounts for their sustained success. And to be fair, Britain did allow laissez-faire trade, which rewarded the Chinese for their industry and acute commercial instincts.

Here again, we part company. LKY was authoritarian, no question, but he was by no stretch of the imagination "exceedingly authoritarian". Stalin was "exceedingly authoritarian". Mao was "exceedingly authoritarian".

Lee's political enemies were communist and I just can't get my civil liberties dander up about throwing a communist in prison. He never had anyone killed and, so far as we know, never ordered anyone tortured. He never even sent anyone to a re-education camp.

When he was building Singapore (from scratch), he was intolerant of opposition parties, I agree. He had to safeguard the vision that turned into today's Singapore. I am not saying Singapore is a libertarian's delight, but I am saying it is a highly successful economy that has provided well for its citizenry through enlightened laws. The Central Provident Fund would be the envy of the world if more people knew about it. And LKY's trading instincts are laissez-faire. Consider: there is no Singaporean diaspora. Singaporeans are very happy being Singaporeans.

And although there is a minority Malay and Indian presence, since the creation of Singapore around 40 years ago, everyone has been equal under the law, everyone has had identical educational opportunities and the police and armed services have always recruited from across the board.

I'm not clear on what you mean by "heavy regulation in all spheres of social existence". He set out rules for dating? What spheres are you talking about?

So. I'm a libertarian, yet LKY is one of my great heroes. Nobody's perfect.

Phil, you may or may not have a point about NZ, but the Australian economy was well on its feet and hardly reliant on the UK by the mid 70s when the UK joined the EEC. I don't think you can drag that up to explain why Australia, in terms of per capita GDP, has not performed as well as the large European countries over the last decade or two.

Mark, I don't believe that the fact that France has more land or sunshine is really very economically important. Neither the UK nor France are primarily agriculturally driven economies. Benelux countries, by that argument, should be gigantically disadvantaged. France and the UK are far more similar than they are different - both mid-ranking European countries with colonial pasts and similar socio-industrial infrastructures. My guess is that the extra regulations imposed on French businesses do not radically impact on the overall size of the economy - they are more to do with the money flows within the economy.

I don't know, Becky. France is self-sufficient in food, Britain isn't. They're not that similar.

Being able to grow three times as much food as your neighbour with the same population does raise the question of why you are not consistently richer, no?

Mark, I'm no economist but I don't see much evidence in modern Europe of a real correlation between the amount of land farmed, hours of sunshine, and size of the overall economy. Agriculture is an ever-diminishing proportion of all European economies. And as I said before, if it really was significant, where would that leave the Danish, Dutch, Belgians, etc. I think it would be more reasonable to wonder why the UK is not much richer than Germany or France, given that London is the undisputed financial centre of Europe.

Becky: Australia has performed extremely well compared to the rest of the developed world over the last decade. A lot of people attribute this (accurately I think) to the program of free market reforms and deregulation of the Hawke/Keating governments of the 1980s. The big story is how much better Australia did in the 1990s than in the couple of decades before, in which Australia was indeed sluggish.

As for the Hong Kong question, I think the British legal system was unbelievably important. In Hong Kong contracts were enforceable, judges were not corrupt, and laissez faire was in place. This allowed the mercenary tendencies of the Chinese to really achieve something spectacular. I credit both factors.

Liberty Belle, Lee Kwan Yu obviously got a lot right in managing the Singaporese economy. Nonetheless, what he instigated was an authoritarian form of capitalism which relied (and still relies) on political repression, control of the media, book banning and an unhealthy degree of nanny-statism.

Michael, yes Australia performed well in the 1990s and neatly sidestepped the Asian meltdown. But its economy, in terms of per capita GDP, remains about the same or a bit less than those of Germany, France and Italy, despite the fact that these countries haven't undergone the same level of deregulation. And what about New Zealand? It also radically deregulated in the 1980s and 1990s, but has done poorly. All I'm saying is that I'm sceptical of a direct link between deregulation and overall economical improvement.

Food:

Food matters less than you'd think, now.

However it mattered a LOT in a middle ages, and the relative wealth of France, once they kicked the (anglo) Normans out of Normandy and Aquitaine, was enormously greater than England's.

Amusingly enough, the Anglo-Norman Empire/Kingdom enjoyed a similar much greater wealth than the French in the previous period.

In both cases it made the other side green with envy.

Today it doesn;lt matter much. Food is pretty cheap, relatively speaking.

On the other hand, having fuel sources in your country can make a *really* big difference, EVERYTHING including food is dependent on energy availability & cost.

If you have to import all your energy you are either poor as dirt, or perforce, a great trading nation per capita.

Fred

Becky, Nanny state-wise Singapore is not much different from Britain or France and, as the nation becomes more mature, many old attitudes are being allowed to fall into disuse. You constantly overstate your case. LKY was not "exceedingly authoritarian". I'm not going to let that ridiculous statement slip out of the limelight while you wheel yet more unsupported, agenda-driven factoids out onto the stage. It tells me you are unable to differentiate between monsters like Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao and someone being a hard man while wresting a nation from communism. Singapore's 40 years old, for god's sake!

You have also failed to explain your charge that LKY enforced "heavy regulation in all spheres of social existence". What spheres of social existence? Again, you make silly, agenda-driven charges in the hope that readers won't know enough to pull you up. Well, I'm pulling you up: Explain exactly what are "all spheres of social existence" and what "heavy regulation" was forced on them.

Authoritarian form of capitalism? What the hell is authoritarian capitalism? He brought in a one million dollar a year minimum wage law? He's forcing yachts on people? What are you talking about?

Yes, the broadcast media is controlled to about the same degree as France's broadcast media. French television is as much a voice of the French government and is charged with carrying out the government of the day's propaganda agenda. I don't approve of either, but it's not unique in the world. At least Singapore TV carries a lot of outspoken American and British TV shows. And LKY's favourite TV show, when he was still PM, was "Yes, Minister".

The only books I have heard of being banned were books that glorified communism (and socialism, if LKY had as much sense as I credit him with). He was dealing with communist insurgents. Read your history. There was blood in the streets.

Before you post another word about Singapore, please explain why you think "exceedingly authoritarian" applies to LKY. Also explain all those social spheres where he exerted all this heavy influence.

You don't know what you're talking about. You're parrotting your lefty professors.

Liberty Belle,
"Lee's political enemies were communist and I just can't get my civil liberties dander up about throwing a communist in prison."

... & you have the nerve to put "liberty" in your name? What is it then, "selective liberty for those who don't disagree with me too severely"?

No thanks, don't think i'll be following you down that road any time soon.

A_t - If you were familiar with SE Asian history, you'd know that when I referred to Lee's political enemies, I wasn't talking about people who disagreed with him. I was talking about people trying to take over the country by force of arms against the will of the then-peasant populace. Malaysia - Malaya as it then was - had the same fight on its hands. It is called jungle warfare. Communist insurgents are not dainty people.

Don't think you'll be following me down that road anytime soon? I don't recall inviting you.

Liberty Belle,

"Authoritarian capitalism" means that the state in effect controls the capitalist process in the country through the state-owned holding company Temesek, which has a controlling share in 20 of the biggest Singaporese companies and many smaller ones besides. It's impossible for any Singaporese company to act independently.

"Exceedingly authoritarian" means the same party has been in control for the last 46 years, and currently holds 82 of the 84 seats in parliament. One associates such a political set-up with African banana republics, not mature democracies.

As for crushing dissent, this is what the crypto-communist Economist has to say in its country briefing:

"The ruling PAP has been successful in demolishing alternative focuses of opposition activity. Labour unions were brought to heel in the 1960s through tough legislation. Professional groupings also follow the party line, which helps to deter lawyers and others from entering politics on the side of the opposition. A disciplinarian approach by university authorities has likewise deterred academics from becoming too closely involved in the political process.

PAP members have shown themselves prepared to take out court actions, usually in the form of defamation cases, to hurt the opposition. This tactic has resulted in the award of significant damages against opposition figures, which has caused either the self-imposed exile of these individuals, or bankruptcy. A law barring those declared bankrupt from serving as MPs has removed these figures from the immediate political arena.

The opposition MPs often put up a creditable performance in parliament but their ability to force changes to government plans is nil. The opportunities for extra-parliamentary protest are limited. The SDP secretary-general, Chee Soon Juan, returned to Singapore in late 1998 from Australia. Mr Chee gave two public speeches, but was prosecuted for not obtaining permits to do so."

etc., etc.

As for heavy regulation in the social sphere, there are all sorts of laws against spitting, smoking, not flushing toilets, death penalty for all drugs including cannabis, caning for graffiti; caning for underage offenders, huge fines for littering, jaywalking, banning of books critical of the government, etc. etc.

Singaporese TV? Jesus, have you ever watched it? The only good programmes on it are foreign ones. The news programmes never criticise the government. I've been to Singapore several times, I like it, but it's certainly no paradise.

" Communist insurgents are not dainty people"

nor are most insurgents who wish to overthrow legitimate governments by force. Whether they were fascist or communist, i couldn't care less... if they want to impose their will on an unwilling people by force, put 'em in jail, that's fine. Just don't start judging people on what side of the political spectrum they come from, which was what you appeared to do. I apologise if that wasn't the case, but it certainly sounded that way.

Could Australia have successfully ducked the Asian crisis without lowered trade barriers, a floating currency, and deregulated capital markets? I really doubt it. Of course, you do not know what would have happened if policy was different. That's what makes setting policy so hard.

And yes, Australia's GDP per capita is about on a par with France or Germany, but it has definitely caught up with them over the last decade. (If you looked at it in exchange rate terms, this isn't so obvious in the statistics, but it's very obvious in PPP terms, and it is also much more obvious now than it was six months ago in exchange rate terms, due to the recent appreciation of the Australian dollar).

Goodness, hasn't this thread got vigorous in the last hour or so while I was crossing from Buda to Pest by bus and metro?

If food is not important to the economy of France, then why is ten per cent of the whole EU budget (a tenth of all of it, not ten per cent of CAP) paid to French farmers? I think the French by their actions show they think farming is a big part of their economic system - or at least their get-our-politicians-into-their-marginal-seats-with-someone-else's-money system.

Of course Becky is right to point to the City of London - there are the trawler fleets and fishing grounds Britain used to have - being early into carbuilding and early out - there are dozens of factors - I was oversimplifying to highlight food. Though it is noteworthy that France and Germany don't have to import food but Britain does, especially when Becky is saying France and Germany did much better on the "accumulated figures" than Britain over the last fifteen years.

Given that growth and unemployment were much worse in France and Germany than in Britain over this period, I'm still hoping Becky will explain the rest of her accumulated figures. There are a lot of figures to choose from - I don't mean to mock - I can well imagine F and G managed a better inflation performance over this period, for example. Perhaps one of the many quality-of-life indices on which both countries often score highly, often higher than Britain?

I'd just like to hear it from Becky, rather than talk about what I think she meant.

I have heard an acquaintance refer to Singapore as "Disneyland with the death penalty".

Becky, the kind of petty restrictions you dislike, such as heavy punishments for spitting, etc, while they may be irksome, don't quite equate to life under Pol Pot or many of the Communist nations of SE Asia in times gone past. One doesn't have to be blind to such limitations of places like Singapore to grasp that fact.

What of course means is that when we construct "league tables of freedom" it is a good idea to look as freedom as a whole, rather than slice it up into separate economic, social, or political bits. By all accounts, places like Hong Kong - well, under British rule anyway - were incredibly free on just about every measure imaginable.

I don't think there can be much quarrel with that.

Michael, you may be right that deregulation helped Australia to duck the Asian crisis. But I think deregulation is something that it's impossible to be ideological about. Statistics don't necessarily support the fact that deregulated economies do best. There are too many other factors at play. Weak economies sometimes collapse or stagnate under the strain of deregulation (vide Argentina or Russia). After all, most first-world economies were initially developed through ferocious tariff protection (Australia being one of the worst offenders) as well the artifical markets of colonial dependencies or client states. Once strong, these economies then reaped the benefits of deregulated free markets, while maintaining protective regimes when necessary (agriculture in the EU or the US, for example).

A_t I assumed a knowledge on the part of the readers that I had no right to assume, so I also have to apologise. Yes, the communist insurgency was awful; there really was blood running in the streets and bodies lying in the streets outside Raffles Hotel and along Middle Road. It was a horrifying part of the history of a very young and very tiny island that was basically on its own. LKY could not have done what he did without the support of the Singaporeans. He wasn't a "strong man" with a thuggish military behind him. He governed with the consent of the Singapore citizenry. He did what he had to do. That meant throwing people who were dangerous to the state in prison. It meant banning communist propaganda. How serious was it and how much was at stake? Even six or seven years ago, not all maps in Malaysia were accurate. Many of them, after 40 years, contain deliberate errors. (This can be infuriating, but the thought was always to lead the insurgents away from populated areas into thick jungle areas.) Folk memories in this part of the world run deep. Had it not been for the charismatic Oxford lawyer, Singapore would not be the capitalistic powerhouse it is today. He did it on strength of character and willpower. And he has never allowed anything to be named after him, and nor has he allowed any statues of himself to be cast.

Johnathan - no of course Singapore is nothing like Pol Pot's Cambodia and I never claimed it was. Nonetheless, compared with other first world countries, it doesn't have a very good record for civil liberties and its government is authoritarian.

Mark, having just surfed the net I can't find statistics for accumulated GDPs over the past 15 years, so I'll concede the point. I'll simply say that I'd be surprised to find that Australia, the UK or NZ had higher per capita GDPs than France, Germany and Italy over that period.

You write: "If food is not important to the economy of France, then why is ten per cent of the whole EU budget (a tenth of all of it, not ten per cent of CAP) paid to French farmers? I think the French by their actions show they think farming is a big part of their economic system"

45% of the entire EU budget is consumed by CAP. But this is precisely to do with the fact that the EU budget is so small - about 15 times smaller than the US federal budget for example. The U.S. subsidises agriculture more heavily than the EU.

And yes, agriculture is important to France, but for political rather than economic reasons. Politically, the farmers have a lot of sway and a fair amount of public support.

From Becky earlier: "Even taking into account the high euro, if you look at the accumulated figures over the past 15 years, the German, Italian and French economies have performed marginally better than the UK, Australian and NZ economies."

I'm still hoping to hear more about the figures.

Sorry Becky - our two posts just crossed.

Becky's been busy on the internet. Yes, the Singapore government, sensibly, has shares in the big successful companies. Gosh, Becky, doesn't that make sense to you? That the government would invest in money making companies within its own economy? But "having been to Singapore several times" does not qualify you to comment on the capital markets. I don't know whether the British government invests in successful British publicly listed companies or whether that is against Brown's rigid, judgemental socialist inclinations. But definitely the British government is a huge investor - the largest in the world after America, I believe - in the United States. Does this mean the British government controls the top US corporations? Please. Be my guest. Step into the real world.

I can't be bothered to answer all your socialist propaganda because it is to-o-o-o- dated and you are too much of a communist to get the point. Spitting spreads typhoid and tuberculosis, especially in a humid, equatorial climate. That is why it is forbidden, Becky. Capeche? It is not an aesthetic thing. It is a health thing.

Singapore television is as bad as French television, but at least it has British and American comedies which are actually funny, as opposed to French state television. Also, the Singapore presenters are way, way better looking. So you can turn down the sound and watch the eye candy.

Who cares how many times you've been to Singapore? You are not qualified to rant transliterate its ethos through your socialist/CND British Socialist prism. But yes, for selling drugs, it's the death penalty. Oddly enough, this leads to practically no drugs trafficking in Singapore. Most Singaporeans seem to feel, without reference to your good self, that this is a good thing.

Finally, please try and get your spelling right. There are no such people as "Singaporese". (Are you sure you've been to Singapore "several times" - or did you just pass through Changi Airport on the way to Oz or Chang Mai?) And in the Roman alphabet, LKY's name is spelled Lee Kwan Yew. Thank you.

Becky - I'm not sure it makes any sense to talk about the "EU" budget v. the US budget without including the budgets of the EU member nations. I cannot believe that the combined budgets of the EU member nations are 1/15 that of the US federal budget, especially since the EU member nations combined have more people, a larger economy, and each of these nations take a larger share of taxes.

As much as I hesitate to introduce facts into political discussions, this is a link to per capita GDP in 2001: http://www.worldfactsandfigures.com/gdp_country_asc.php

A few notes:

US - $36,200
France - $24,400
Netherlands - $24,400
Germany - $23,400
Australia - $23,200
UK - $22,800

Make of it what you will. Given the disparities in growth rates over the last two years, I would expect that today the US has somewhat extended its lead, Australia has closed with or passed Germany, and the UK has caught up somewhat.

"Yes, the Singapore government, sensibly, has shares in the big successful companies. Gosh, Becky, doesn't that make sense to you?"

I don't know about Becky,but I find government investment in private companies to be absolutely appalling. First, it is a recipe for corruption. Second, investment decisions are likely to be made for political, not economic, reasons, leading to a distortion of the economy. Third, the government has no business overtaxing the people to accumulate the kind of cash surpluses that it must have in order to invest.

Liberty Belle -

You're supporting the Singapore government for having controlling interests in all its top companies - and I'm the socialist?

From the Economist, bastion of pinko propaganda:

"Mr Lee made sure that the government owned Singapore's biggest companies. In this respect, Singapore was different from Asia's other “tigers”. Hong Kong grew rich as a bastion of laisser faire; in Taiwan and South Korea, government may have guided, but rarely owned." [...] "Temasek is a government holding company that is the most concrete expression of Singapore Inc. Temasek owns (in effect) controlling stakes in 20 of Singapore's biggest companies and many smaller ones."

Thanks T. Hartin! I find it refreshing to see some numbers sometimes, however tricky we know statistics can be.

Becky certainly looks vindicated on one part of her claim - DP per head for the year 2001. France and Germany ahead of Australia and Britain, by over a thousand dollars a head in the France-Britain case.

T Hartin. I can't be bothered to explain the CPF to you. But the investment money doesn't come from taxes. Again, you are looking at this from an ethnocentric point of view, not realising that there can be a way other than your own to have a robust capitalistic society. But where to begin? This isn't meant to be perjorative, but the world's a big place and there is more than one route to successful capitalism.

And "corruption" is a very, very dirty word in Singapore. Phil Bradley, where are you? Why am I fighting this battle all by myself? OK, it's one in the morning there, but I hope you'll have ploughed in by tomorrow morning! It's your thread, after all!

T. Hardin, nice list. I just wonder what accounts for the extra $12K for the U.S. over the other countries listed. That's basically a 50% premium for being an American. And it's not like the U.S. is static in its population (see Japan). The U.S. has a quota of 800,000 legal immigrants PER YEAR!! (This is in addition to the 8 - 12 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.)

I believe that part of the answer lies in that fact that, when it comes to business, the U.S. is actually more like 50 smaller countries (i.e., the States). A state has a lot more say in how easy a business is formed, the level at which it is taxed and regulated, etc., than the federal government does (in most cases). In addition, let one state get too onerous in its taxation or regulation and you will see plenty of other states offering inducements.

Just a theory of mine.

T. Hardin, nice list. I just wonder what accounts for the extra $12K for the U.S. over the other countries listed. That's basically a 50% premium for being an American. And it's not like the U.S. is static in its population (see Japan). The U.S. has a quota of 800,000 legal immigrants PER YEAR!! (This is in addition to the 8 - 12 million illegal immigrants already in the U.S.)

I believe that part of the answer lies in that fact that, when it comes to business, the U.S. is actually more like 50 smaller countries (i.e., the States). A state has a lot more say in how easy a business is formed, the level at which it is taxed and regulated, etc., than the federal government does (in most cases). In addition, let one state get too onerous in its taxation or regulation and you will see plenty of other states offering inducements.

Just a theory of mine.

Liberty Belle: "I can't be bothered to explain the CPF to you. But the investment money doesn't come from taxes."

Thanks for contributing to my understanding. Where does the money come from? Of course, by this point, they are probably reinvesting their earnings to some extent, but nonetheless, where did the original seed money come from?

My objection was in principle to government investment in private companies. That may be ethnocentric; I regard it as being the fruit of experience and historical observation. Maybe in Singapore they have solved all these problems.

I don't doubt there is more than one route to successful capitalism. I just am very skeptical of government, as opposed to private, investment as a means of creating a market economy based on consensual allocation of capital. Old LKY may have been a veritable secular saint capable of running such a system, but I doubt that a system that contains a significant element of direct government investment will remain viable in the longterm due to the inevitable temptations and frailties of the people in charge.

T Hartin, I said I can't be bothered to explain it to you because I am sick to death of using my time to explain Singapore to people who are regarding it -- as we all, inevitably do -- from the standpoint of their own experience. You say, "Thanks for contributing to my understanding." Where's my obligation to contribute to your understanding?

Phil Bradley, who started this thread, will be up before most of us tomorrow morning and will jump back in, I hope.

Singapore is Asia. It is not the United States. Not Britain. It has a completely different history with ancient peoples coming from totally different perspectives. It has become the second free-est, after Hong Hong, economy in the world. This didn't happen because you and Becky weren't on watch that night.

T. Hartin--

I can't imagine why investment based on political purposes "distorts" an economy, whatever that means. If I boycott someone because of their stance on some issue, I wouldn't say that the result is a distortion of the economy. The beauty of a free market is that, as long as it is truly free, there's no such thing as a proper or improper result.

If I make a huge investment in garbage for political reasons, I'll just lose all my investment capital, that's all. Same with the government. If the government makes a bad investment, it doesn't really matter whether the investment was politically motivated or not--it's still a bad investment and, if anything, the nature of liberal markets is to punish any investment made in site of (rather than because of) economic reality.

There may be other reasons to discourage government investment in the private sector, but the notion that it will result in some kind of "incorrect" economic result seems to be based on a false impression of the entire premise of a liberal market.

Maybe one of the more economically literate hosts of this site can correct me, but that's how I see it.

In the 70's I visited HK many times on business. During one of those trips I had reason to ask for a copy of their banking regulations. It was 15 pages long.

I think that illustrates one reason why HK is such a commercial success and will continue to be if the PRC will leave it alone.

I read elsewhere that only six countries in the entire world survived the 20th century with the same government with which they entered. Specifically: U.S., U.K., Canada, Australia, New Zealand, and Switzerland. All others either experienced revolution and/or invasion/occupation. One can draw many different conclusions from this. The obvious one, at least to me, is that economic freedom cannot prosper in the absence of military strength and security. As an aside, this is why the Marshall plan required NATO's bulwark to succeed in rebuilding Europe's economies after WW II.

Very interesting point, Tsenf, and one I've often tried to make--with little success--to my libertarian friends. Sadly, liberty hounds are always in the minority, and I think history shows that force of arms has played the pivotal role in ensuring economic freedom--which is, after all, the real precursor to political freedom.

Calling Lee "authoritarian" is brass-bound understatement; calling Mao "extremely authoritarian" is like calling SARS a common cold.

The degree to which dissent and free speech are forbidden in Singapore is stunning, yet commonly ignored (and certainly trivialized in this thread). This makes Singapore extremely dangerous: it serves as a hothouse example of economic success achieved in a country that lacks political liberty. If Singapore can do it, why can't Burma, North Korea, mainland China? So think the dictators. Thanks to old man Lee, who actually still calls the shots in a nation whose government mocks democracy, those murderers and lunatics running other Asian dictatorships feel very comfortable thinking they, too, can work some economic miracles. Lee disputes the philosophical claim that liberty is indivisible, and that hurts everyone, everywhere.

Too, one must put Singapore's achievements in context: the nation is surrounded by larger, poorer nations that supply cheap labor and ready markets for the few things manufactured in Singapore. Like labor unions, which exploit the non-union labor force, Singapore exploits its neighbors shamelessly. Singapore is unique, and if its island status were not both literal and cultural, it would be just another port in a large nation, going nowhere fast.

The best idea that old despot Lee ever had was finding ways to limit the endemic corruption that ties the hands of so many SE Asian nations; give the devil his due. But don't praise the guy -- he's a smug, power-hungry bully who depends on his thought cops to keep his tiny country from getting out of line. Hero? Yeah, and so is Castro!!

liberty belle,
the chinese are terrible managers of their economy. i don't fear them at all. they have gotten this far because the west has pumped massive amounts of capitial into their ecomomy. they are just in the right place at the right time. as their economy starts to get complicated.. i predict is will collapse. currently, their top 4 banks are insolvent AND they are not doing anything about it. they are continuing to write bad loans as if the direct foriegn investment will never dry up.

David Crawford - Your're absolutely right, to a small extent :)

States compete with each other all the time for labor and capital. They understand that if they can attract good companies, they will also attract good people spend a lot on their homes and increase land value (more on that in a moment).

However, their influence is limited. Although several major companies are based in states such as South Dakota (who lives there, anyway?) and Delaware for advantageous tax reasons, a lot of companies aren't. The benefits aren't that great or different. The Federal Govt. taxes income about 20x as much as the State governments do, so the States don't have a lot of leverage. Most states get their revenues from property taxes (which the Fed can't touch), and corporations aren't too concerned about them.

However, your theory does hold some weight. Recently Boeing announced they were leaving Seattle for a more geographicly central location in the country. Several states got into a bidding war offering special tax breaks. Illinois won, and Boeing moved to Chicago. It's also not an accident that 60% of all professional athletes live in Texas (no State income tax), and another big chunk live in Florida (same reason).

I don't know crap about Singapore, so I don't want to say anything and piss off miss Belle :) I admire what they have achieved though, especially given what they had to work with.

I can say this about deregulated economies: they adapt. Planned economies don't. Deregulated and free economies, where people can start any business to meet any need are very, very versatile. That's why Aus wasn't crushed with the rest of ASEAN by the financial crisis. They had a deep, and robust economy. When the crisis came certain sectors were hit, but others picked up the slack. The key to this was at-home consumerism. Most of ASEAN was (and still is, to a lesser degree) dependant on exports. When they couldn't do that anymore, they had nothing left. Countries like Aus are coming around to the USA model of getting your consumer base in order before you develop dependance on exports. That's mission critical.

As for China, there is so much potential there, it isn't even funny. The Chinese govt. studies Singapore furiously, and is trying to figure out how to do the same thing (without reliquishing control), which is of course impossible. They are making progress though. There are also more students of English in China then in the entire US public school system (or so I have heard), so there will be no problem of "Anglosphere" ideas making their way in. Look to Hong Kong and Taiwan as to what will happen, only 100x as large.

And A_t, lighten up. When the comment was made about putting Communists in jail, it was because they were violent insurgents, not because they had an opinion. They were enemies of the state, just as al Quaeda is to the USA today. Notice that there aren't too many Americans really upset about the prisoners in Guantanamo. Same story.

What some are missing, I think, in emphasizing the Chinese of Hong Kong and Singapore (and everyplace else the Chinese have migrated to) is that the "Anglosphere" concept is not a racial one. It's based on political philosophy and ideas.

Hong Kong and Singapore certainly show that Chinese people can be as successful as anyone. But no one disputes that.

Indeed, I don't think many people dispute the fact that French people could be, too, if they operated under a similar set of rules: Hong Kong's and Singapore's are based on Anglosphere values (which transcend racial and ethnic categories); indeed, the fact that Chinese people often succeed wherever they are found are really proofs rather than disproofs of that, since the spread of the Chinese was fostered by the British Empire and (and America).

But back to the French as an example: look at the place. It is, IMO, a testimony of the spirit of the French people that they are able to manage as well as they do under the political economy they have set over themselves.

The problem is political culture.

The distinction here isn't Anglo ethnicity, or Chinese ethnicity, as the keys to success. It is understanding and trying to cleave to certain principles, principles that are associated commonly with the "Scottish Enlightenment" (and thus the Anglosphere it influenced) and successive thought, but principles that are general and will work wherever they are tried.

As for the point that "Singapore is successful because it is surrounded by poverty" - that's risible.

Lots of places are surrounded by poor areas, and they are usually poor themselves. Being surrounded by poverty is not a benefit.

In any case, the main point is that IDEAS (not ethnicity or race) MATTER MOST.

According to the World Fact Book: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

Australia: $27,000 per capita GDP

Germany: $26,600 per capita GDP

France: $25,700 per capita GDP

GDP growth in 2002 was:

Australia: 3.6%

France: 1.1%

Germany: 0.4%

The difference in growth rates will leave Australia twice as wealthy as France or Germany in about 25 years. In a century, Australia will be 10-20 times wealthier.

Tsenf makes a brilliant point.

Sage – Nothing wrong with political investments, so long as its non-voting stock. Once the govt. wants to make business decisions though, that's usually bad. You could make arguments that they could only use their votes to encourage legal behavior, but I would argue against that and just let the crime enforcement agencies do their job. Which in Singapore, they appear to do well. So, in short: Non-voting stock = Ok.

Tsenf – The lesson I take from your little list is this: Federalism and strong defense are good, but being on the opposite side of the world from Germany is great.

Or living in an impregnable mountain fortress, of course.

Liberty Belle wrote:

"[The Chinese are] also successful in the Philippines, where we also never had a prescenc."

I think the point you are making about Chinese industriousness when they are given freedom is a good one. But the Philippines was an American colony from about 1900 until 1946.

Since I am old fashioned, I sometimes clip articles out of the paper when they seem especially interesting, and then usually tuck them away somewhere to be forgotten. Anyway, I saved an article from April 10, '03, from the Minneapolis StarTribune business section by a University of Minn. economist who was being awarded the Nemmers Prize (for really good economizing, I guess).

Since I am too unskilled to provide links, the operative part for this discussion reads:

"Why do some countries remain poor while others prosper? Governments that intervene frequently and inconsistently in economic decisions, that fail to enforce property rights or impose regulations that stifle free markets, consign their populations to the fate of economic have-nots, according to Prescott's research."

There is much more to the article if anyone wants to get the whole thing. On the same subject, I recall an anecdotal article from several years ago about the differences in countries. An economist from Peru ( I think it was) did an experiment of trying to start a small business of some kind in his home country and then doing the same thing in a Southwestern state in the US.

It took 2 or 3 days to get the required permits, with no bribes requested, in the US, but over 3 months, with several bribes required, to get permission to open the doors in Lima. This is not ideological opposition, in general, but the burden of relentless beurocratic maze building and the corruption which is the true villian in many societies, regardless of what the official economic policy of the government is supposed to be.

I recall that in the old Soviet system in Romania, the unofficial currency was Kent cigarettes. Nothing was done, from a business deal to a Dr's appointment, unless a certain number of cartons of Kents were also included in the deal. A similar system operated in Russia, and does today in China, India, Cuba, etc., in which liquor, American or other hard currency, cigarettes, and other valuables independent of the (usually worthless) official money is most desired, and often required, in order to get anything done.

Regardless of the pimples on Singapore's or HK's behind, the fact that the system was fairly free and transparent may very well be the foundation for all the rest. Ireland seems to be proving those principles in the current economy, or at least was until the computer slowdown.

How do you gushing "libertarian" admirers of Singapore's Senior Minister Lee reconcile yourselves to the country's apparent need to censor its media with a heavy hand? A benign fascist is still a fascist...

Singapore censors try to keep up with cutting edge

BY JERRY NORTON

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Keeping up with proliferating multi-media technology is tough for anyone, including censors, but Singapore is
trying its best.

In recent weeks, the government has taken steps to help the censors keep pace with the fast-changing world of media technology,
including widening its definition of ``publication'' and streamlining its various censorship bodies.

Singapore's government has never made any bones about its view that censorship in such areas as pornography and certain political material is necessary to protect moral values and maintain internal security.

On that basis it has long banned some foreign books, magazines and films, censored videos imported for personal use, and imposed restrictions on domestic publications.

And Singapore's leadership has said it does not want to exempt the media of the IT (information technology) age.

In the past few weeks, it has:

-- Announced it was pulling various media censorship and licensing
bodies into one unit to make life easier for importers and others,
partly ``in response to the advances in technology.''

-- Expanded provisions of its act regulating obscene films to include
new technologies like CDs, digital video discs (DVDs), and electronic
mail, and stiffened penalties.

-- Made similar changes in its publication act, expanding the definition
of ``publication'' to CD-ROMs, sound recordings, pictures and
drawings generated by computer graphics.

-- Put into law a ban on political parties making films or videos.

While regulation should not be overdone, controls on information
were needed in the IT age because ``just as cars can knock down
people, ideas can also be dangerous,'' Teo Chee Hean, now
education minister, said in 1995.

``Ideas can kill,'' he was quoted as saying. While it was critical for
Singapore's progress to be open to IT, he said: ``As with many things
in this world, a sense of balance is required, and some control is
required to ensure that we can reap the benefits and shut out or
minimise the dangers.''

As Teo's remarks suggested, Singapore wants to be open to IT. With
few natural resources and a well-paid labor force, Singapore looks to
being a multi-media center on the cutting edge of technology as one
way of staying prosperous.

A multi-billion-dollar drive aims to hook every home into a
state-of-the-art multi-media fibre optics web by the year 2000.

In addition to its IT program, the government wants to encourage
more independent thinking.

Singaporean students perform at or near the top in international
academic testing, but critics say in the work force Singaporeans often
lack the entrepreneurial, innovative talents seen in places like the
United States.

Some say the efforts to be an innovative multi-media center while
maintaining censorship and limits on political activity are a bit like
trying to square the circle.

Asked how the recent shift in rules meshes with the ``intelligent island''
idea, veteran opposition leader Joshua Jeyaretnam said: ``It doesn't,
does it? The answer is obvious.''

``I know they talk about wanting to think creatively. The only way
one can think creatively is to ... have access to different philosophies,
different ideas, and if you don't allow that how can you expect
someone to think creatively?,'' Jeyaretnam told Reuters on Sunday.

Discussing the bill to ban political films and videos, which the
government said was necessary to keep debate from turning into an
advertising contest, one appointed member of parliament said the law
was trying to ``shield Singaporeans like children.''

But government defenders say rhetoric on censorship's dangers often
exaggerates the reality -- and pragmatism -- of practice.

For example, although Singapore blocks access to certain Internet
Websites, it is a tiny handful of what is available and Websurfers
looking for prurience or politics still have much to choose from.
Moreover, business user access is not blocked.

Nor is the government seeking to snoop through electronic mail, said
Information and the Arts Minister George Yeo on Friday, discussing
the inclusion of e-mail in film act revisions.

The move was to enable police to act when people complain of
receiving obscene films via e-mail, and Singapore had ``no intention to
intrude into private communications,'' he said.

``It is not our objective to increase the level of censorship in
Singapore. Just maintaining the existing level of censorship is difficult
enough,'' Yeo said.

The Peruvian economist mentioned by veryretired is Hernando De Soto, who is well worth reading.

Scott -

You seem to be suffering from the "If it ain't perfect, it sucks" meme. No one here has praised Singapore's Free Speech history. If you hadn't noticed, this thread is about economic freedom, which Singaport has a lot of. If you want to discuss economic freedoms, go right ahead. This is not the censorship thread.

Well, Liberty Belle, if you don't participate in these discussions to increase the understanding of others and help bridge cultural divides, why are you here?

I think Porphyrogenitus hit the nail on the head, above. Even those Asian countries that enjoy economic success seem to do so because Anglosphere values have been successfully transplanted to some degree. I would be interested to learn others thoughts on what went wrong in the British African colonies.

I remain very skeptical that the aSingapore model of government-centered capitalism will prove successful in the long run. It simply seems impossible to me that the combination of economic and political control can be combined in the hands of one family and their elite cadre of essentially unelected bureaucrats indefinitely without the wheels coming off. It has never worked that way anywhere else. Maybe Yew family has a magic formula, but the fact that, as the man said about monarchies, "virtue isn't hereditary," indicates to me that either their brand of authoritarian capitalism will ossify, turn into a kleptocracy, or be radically transformed by a democratic revolution.

I must say that I find Liberty Belle's refusal to let us in on the magic secret of Singapore disappointing. Apparently its an "ethnic" thing, since I am "ethnocentric" for not grasping it instinctively.

Still wondering where all that money came from that is now managed so benignly by the Singapore Ministry of Finance, as well.

Brock--

Of course you're right. Thanks for making the distinction clear. (I usually need a little nudge like that on the nuts-and-bolts issues in economics.)

Sage - I think investments made for political reasons distort the economy because, by definition, they are not made for economic reasons (that is, they are made for some purpose other than putting capital to its most productive economic use). They are distorting for the same reason that tax "incentives" are distorting, if that helps.

A dollar that is invested in today's feel-good fad is a dollar that is not invested more productively somewhere else, and an opportunity cost/drag on the economy is the inevitable result.

For a primer in political investment management, see, e.g, the history of the Soviet Union.

The Chinese people who live in "Communist" China are enjoying tremendous commercial success and have for over twenty years. I don't know if the reported 9% yearly growth rate is accurate, but I have seen how people (my wife's relatives) live. The Chinese are far richer than they were two decades ago.

I put "Communist" in quotes because the only thing Communist about China is the name of the ruling party. When I was there last November the Party Congress was enacting laws defining and safeguarding private property. Probably every major university campus is more left-wing than mainland China.

Related to the comments on the sucesses of the British colonies. I am unsure of the release date of Singapore, however India, Pakistan and the African Colonies were de-colonied prior to the spread of economic power from post WW2 America.

I would think that the States got a burst of growth owing to the shambles that was continental Europe. As you will notice all the top 10 with the exception of the Netherlands were spared the wholesale destruction of WW2, thus having an open field where the inherent strength of their systems could expand.

First visit - I MAY COME BACK! I would like to point out on the lingo thingy however, that although English may be spoken as an excellent second language just about everywhere on this globe, it is losing the battle in the USA. Over a 3rd of the population of the state of California is composed of immigrants. Now they may be willing to move to gringospeak, but my experience has been they belittle the English tongue. 'They' are not the only ones, nor is CA the only place this is occurring. I could give you numbers, but I support statpigs who can do magical things with numbers, and that really isn't the point. I'm damned tired of getting calls from 'IT support staff' that can't handle English, much less GrEEK'. It's become PC to tolerate bastardized and butchered English, and I don't think it's fair. I came from a bilingual home and learned French before English. However, when I got to school, I was taught English EXCLUSIVELY. Both of my parents are dead now, and although I can still read and speak a 'little' French, I am articulate with a distinctly Montana tongue. Anyone else feel the same???

To Becky, mark, and other people looking for statistics:

You can find some numbers on historical GDP-per-capita here. It's an internet debater's dream...

Porphyrogenitus wrote:

"The distinction here isn't Anglo ethnicity, or Chinese ethnicity, as the keys to success. It is understanding and trying to cleave to certain principles, principles that are associated commonly with the "Scottish Enlightenment" (and thus the Anglosphere it influenced) and successive thought, but principles that are general and will work wherever they are tried."

The early members of the Scottish Enlightenment were educated at Leiden in Holland. The founder of Edinburgh University Medical Faculty (1726) and four of its professors had studied there. Many Enlightenment-era Scots lawyers had also studied in Holland. This brings us back full circle to the Netherlands being in the top 10 and honorary members of the Anglosphere.

Brock is spot on, with one clarification. No one should judge his friends by one set of standards and his enemies by another set of (generally utopian) standards. When you add it all up, would you rather have been born in Singapore or Beijing 30 years ago?

The magic formula for success of Singapore:
You wouldn't understand. It's a Sing thing.

As far as governments investing in private companies, they shouldn't. Governments pretty much suck, as they are very susceptible to corruption and, even more so, inefficiency, and they operate in the name of every individual in the country, backed up with the threat of force, the legitimate use of which they monopolize. Thus, the actions and interference of governments should be kept to a minimum, and investing in private companies is not a necessary function. In particular, if the point of the government investing is to earn it more revenue, why not just let the engine of capitalism run, let private companies more efficiently make money, and then just tax it?

It was Neuromancer author William Gibson who described Singapore as "Disneyland with the death penalty". The article in which he did this was published in Wired magazine in 1993, and can be found here.

I am largely in agreement with the first part of what Lawrence said. I find the lack of democracy, the lack of freedom of speech and the level of censorship in Singapore deeply troubling. I really wouldn't ever want to live there. I find the prospect that other countries in Asia or elsewhere look at Singapore and conclude that a lack of civil liberties was a fundamental part of the what made Singapore successful and will feel the need to deny liberties to their own citizens also very troubling. (In actual fact, what is more common is for governments that deny these rights to their citizens already to point at Singapore's lack of liberties and democracy and its prosperity, and claim that "we are trying to make our country like Singapore" and therefore continue to deny people liberties and democracy).

An even worse example of this kind of thing is to hear despots in various places say that "needs a General Pinochet". The Chilean example of a regime that was extremely brutal but at the same time got its economic policies essentially right has been used as an justification for brutal regimes that wanted to stay in power in lots of places, and this is much worse than using Singapore as a justification.

That is not to take anything away from Singapore's economic achievements. Building an advanced economy from where Singapore started 40 years ago was an immense achievement. I disagree pretty much completely with the second part of Lawrence's post. Singapore's prosperity is entirely its own doing. Yes, they have taken advantage of some cheap labour from nearby countries, but virtually any country can do that if it wants to. (The countries of the Middle East have imported lots of cheap labour from around the world, but it hasn't helped them develop advanced economies). All the evidence supports the conclusion that it is much easier to become rich if you are surrounded by other rich countries, and not the other way round.

Dave Dubé -

I live in California. In my experience, it's not so much the case that immigrants refuse to learn English, most seem quite eager, especially when it comes to their children's education. The problem, I think, lies much more in the educational system here, and in particular, with the guilty white liberals who run it. It's not that immigrant parents don't want their children to learn English, it's that, at a California public school, it's nearly impossible to do so. Regardless of the actual law, which is constantly changing on this issue, states, allegedly bilingual (meaning, in practice, monolingual Spanish) education is very prevelent here. Obviously, I also regard this as a serious concern, but I don't think the problem is with the immigrants per se.

Insert rant about the need for vouchers and the like here.

Laura

PS
The immigrants I know tend to be from Mexico or China, and live in or around San Francisco, so this may not be quite representative of the entire immigrant population.

Dave -

please stick around!! I wouldn't worry about the Mexicans and other hispanic immigrants. The first major waves rarely learn the English tongue, but their children do. The only problem is the ****** CA education system that doesn't want to teach English to them because it might be too hard. In other words, they are not getting the great benefit of English you did in your younger years.

Godlesscapitalist - That site is awsesome!! Thanks!!

On Investing: Generally, T. Hartin is r