Lee Kuan Yew said that in 1980.

With the hair pulling and forelock tugging and the Australian think tank anus scratching now in process over manufacturing decline, the predicition is as valid as it was in 1980.

Singapore opened its economy while Australia is considering closing it by the weight of comments by prospective white trash of Asia on Ozpolitic.

The problem with Australia is unrestrained capitalism causing the boom - bust cycles. Australian governments do not manage the economy. The eyes of the leaders light up when capital comes flowing in but they don't see the consequences of the following bust.

http://www.afr.com/news/politics/the-poor-white-trash-of-asia-a-phrase-that-changed-an-economy-20150323-1m5mzm




Quote:

They were words that stung Bob Hawke into action and helped transform the Australian economy. Former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who died on Monday, famously warned in 1980 that Australia was destined to become the "poor white trash" of Asia if it didn't open up its economy. The words were perhaps portentous in their own way, like former prime minister Paul Keating's 1986 remark about the dangers of Australia living beyond its means and becoming a "banana republic", which shook sharemarkets ahead of the global recession in 1987.  The comment from Lee, a constant critic of Australia, who was then transforming Singapore into an advanced manufacturing and services economy – from a mudflat to a city state – was taken on board by then Labor opposition shadow minister and former ACTU leader Bob Hawke, who would oust Malcolm Fraser in 1983. "Lee Kuan Yew was a great friend of Australia, if at times an outspoken one," Hawke writes in The Australian Financial Review today. "I thought he was right, and his harsh but fair comment helped galvanise my determination to undertake the reforms  that would save us from that fate and set us on a better path." Hawke called together political, industry and academic leaders for his much vaunted economic summit in 1983 in an effort to address Australia's economic woes. Out of this grew the prices and wages accord with the ACTU to rein in a wages blowout. Hawke would accelerate the task of opening up the economy to competition by bringing down automotive and textile, clothing and footwear tariffs, embarking on asset sales, deregulating banking and floating the dollar. Former Hawke government economic adviser Barry Hughes said of the Lee Kuan Yew comment that few in the political and economic world were "unaware of it". "It was very widely circulated and it added piquancy to what we all knew had to happen," he said. "At the time the Australian economy was unsustainable, and it was only going to become more so, until the reforms were implemented," he said. "But ultimately the reforms would have come whether he made those comments or not. "Of course, Singapore itself was undergoing an enormous development thrust at the time." Lee would soften as he moved into his senior years, praising the Hawke-Keating-era economic reforms and Australian entrepreneurship, and even conceding he might have been a bit harsh with his "poor white trash" comment. "There are words said sometimes in the heat of an argument which perhaps at the time was warranted; you have changed," he said on a visit to Australia in 2007.

Quote:

The problem with Australia is.................

Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D

Swagman wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D

damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect.

rhino wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect.

Swagman probably fell sober by mistake and is blubbering incoherently.

I've offered you the GAIA concept in the Pilbara.. now to be re-labeled The GAIA Free State.. an independent duchy neither part of Australia nor anyone else.

That includes the opportunity to park capital for a fee and evade tax to the likes of Singapore etc, and also legalised and properly controlled gambling...

What more do you want?

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:30pm:

I've offered you the GAIA concept in the Pilbara.. now to be re-labeled The GAIA Free State.. an independent duchy neither part of Australia nor anyone else. That includes the opportunity to park capital for a fee and evade tax to the likes of Singapore etc, and also legalised and properly controlled gambling... What more do you want?

Is that another genocide opportunity?

rhino wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:25pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect.

Sorry, but I just have to disagree with you and Yew....

Swagman wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:37pm:

rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:25pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect. Sorry, but I just have to disagree with you and Yew....

of course you disagree, anything else would require independent thought on your part.

Svengali wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:16pm:

Lee Kuan Yew said that in 1980. With the hair pulling and forelock tugging and the Australian think tank anus scratching now in process over manufacturing decline, the predicition is as valid as it was in 1980. Singapore opened its economy while Australia is considering closing it by the weight of comments by prospective white trash of Asia on Ozpolitic. The problem with Australia is unrestrained capitalism causing the boom - bust cycles. Australian governments do not manage the economy. The eyes of the leaders light up when capital comes flowing in but they don't see the consequences of the following bust. http://www.afr.com/news/politics/the-poor-white-trash-of-asia-a-phrase-that-changed-an-economy-20150323-1m5mzm Quote: They were words that stung Bob Hawke into action and helped transform the Australian economy. Former Singapore prime minister Lee Kuan Yew, who died on Monday, famously warned in 1980 that Australia was destined to become the "poor white trash" of Asia if it didn't open up its economy. The words were perhaps portentous in their own way, like former prime minister Paul Keating's 1986 remark about the dangers of Australia living beyond its means and becoming a "banana republic", which shook sharemarkets ahead of the global recession in 1987.  The comment from Lee, a constant critic of Australia, who was then transforming Singapore into an advanced manufacturing and services economy – from a mudflat to a city state – was taken on board by then Labor opposition shadow minister and former ACTU leader Bob Hawke, who would oust Malcolm Fraser in 1983. "Lee Kuan Yew was a great friend of Australia, if at times an outspoken one," Hawke writes in The Australian Financial Review today. "I thought he was right, and his harsh but fair comment helped galvanise my determination to undertake the reforms  that would save us from that fate and set us on a better path." Hawke called together political, industry and academic leaders for his much vaunted economic summit in 1983 in an effort to address Australia's economic woes. Out of this grew the prices and wages accord with the ACTU to rein in a wages blowout. Hawke would accelerate the task of opening up the economy to competition by bringing down automotive and textile, clothing and footwear tariffs, embarking on asset sales, deregulating banking and floating the dollar. Former Hawke government economic adviser Barry Hughes said of the Lee Kuan Yew comment that few in the political and economic world were "unaware of it". "It was very widely circulated and it added piquancy to what we all knew had to happen," he said. "At the time the Australian economy was unsustainable, and it was only going to become more so, until the reforms were implemented," he said. "But ultimately the reforms would have come whether he made those comments or not. "Of course, Singapore itself was undergoing an enormous development thrust at the time." Lee would soften as he moved into his senior years, praising the Hawke-Keating-era economic reforms and Australian entrepreneurship, and even conceding he might have been a bit harsh with his "poor white trash" comment. "There are words said sometimes in the heat of an argument which perhaps at the time was warranted; you have changed," he said on a visit to Australia in 2007.

Hold on..Singapore is more capitalist than Australia!, so why did it work so sell for Singapore and so badly for Australia? thats should be the question.

The problem is in a Free market Capitalist system the Free market has to be regulated, something Both Labor and the liberals failed to do and something Singapore did really well.

After all capitalism preaches an open economy, this is why most capitalist favour free trade agreements as it opens the economy even further, the famous book, "wealth of nations" is a testimony of it.

Singapore was a managed and controlled economy. They planned and implemented according to plan.

Australia is a mismanaged economy. No planning. Ad hoc development. Booms and busts in cycles and waves. Totally a laissez faire investment environment. That causes manufacturing death during mining investment and commodity booms.

Svengali wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 11:12pm:

Singapore was a managed and controlled economy. They planned and implemented according to plan. Australia is a mismanaged economy. No planning. Ad hoc development. Booms and busts in cycles and waves. Totally a laissez faire investment environment. That causes manufacturing death during mining investment and commodity booms.

Well friend, y'all sure like coming here and living here which is real nice friend. Jus don't drive yer cars through the CBD friend, I like crossing the streets as it is.

It don't matter. We know y'all have them crazy thoughts in yer heads and all, thinking y'all are superior and such as y'all love jerking off to them big ole White Lady Tittays, eating them white man foods, and drinking them white man beers, going to them white man hospitals and flying on them giant white man bird jetplanes, flown by white man pilots who don't bend them planes nearly as good or frequent as them pilots from the Wilds of Asia, and driving white man automobiles as y'all dial yer white man electricity phones while y'all and y'all ladies all blanch yer hee haws white with them bleaches and such. Then y'all get on the white man Internets as y'all type in the white man letters on white man inventions called computers (thanks fer makin em fer us for three dollars and fifty nine cents a day friend, I would love to plant my seeds in some fine assembly lady all prim and proper in her computer assembly factory clothings and such making four dollars and thirty three cents a week).

It must be hard friend.

And friend, take a lookee at the map of the Earth. Australia is in Oceania, and Asia is in Asia. Mr Kew seems to forget that Asia is 99% in the Northern Hemisphere, and there aint no Asia but that one.

So much fer them Yellow Man educations friend.

And I guess Singapore wouldn't be Singapore if it weren't fer them white man armies and such with their white man magic voodoo machines pushing out them invaders and such back in 44/45.

It makes me sad friend.

Svengali wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 11:12pm:

Singapore was a managed and controlled economy. They planned and implemented according to plan. Australia is a mismanaged economy. No planning. Ad hoc development. Booms and busts in cycles and waves. Totally a laissez faire investment environment. That causes manufacturing death during mining investment and commodity booms.

Singapore has developed a highly developed trade-oriented market economy (a free market economy in another words) with Singapore attracting some of the world's most powerful corporations through business friendly legislation and through the encouragement of western style corporatism. Singapore is very much capitalist.

By definition Australia cant be a laissez faire system as the government has a heavy hand intervening within the economy, its more a Free market economy poorly regulated.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Singapore

Pantheon wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 10:40pm:

Hold on..Singapore is more capitalist than Australia!, so why did it work so sell for Singapore and so badly for Australia? thats should be the question.

No, Singapore is Socialist and always has been. And thats exactly why it works so well.

Svengali wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 11:12pm:

Singapore was a managed and controlled economy. They planned and implemented according to plan. Australia is a mismanaged economy. No planning. Ad hoc development. Booms and busts in cycles and waves. Totally a laissez faire investment environment. That causes manufacturing death during mining investment and commodity booms.

Correct, Singapore as a Socialist economy was always planning  for the long term, Australia plans for the next election.

rhino wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 11:30pm:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 10:40pm: Hold on..Singapore is more capitalist than Australia!, so why did it work so sell for Singapore and so badly for Australia? thats should be the question.  No, Singapore is Socialist and always has been. And thats exactly why it works so well.

Okay well your going to ignore the fact, can i ask what makes it socialist?

Because its differently not planned, it has a large a strong private sector and works heavy with private companies, and a very low rate of tax's of the rich and private sector.

Hell look at the https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/sn.html

Singapore has a highly developed and successful free-market economy. It enjoys a remarkably open and corruption-free environment, stable prices, and a per capita GDP higher than that of most developed countries. The economy depends heavily on exports, particularly in consumer electronics, information technology products, pharmaceuticals, and on a growing financial services sector. The economy contracted 0.6% in 2009 as a result of the global financial crisis, but rebounded 15.1% in 2010, on the strength of renewed exports, before slowing to in 2011-13, largely a result of soft demand for exports during the second European recession. Over the longer term, the government hopes to establish a new growth path that focuses on raising productivity. Singapore has attracted major investments in pharmaceuticals and medical technology production and will continue efforts to establish Singapore as Southeast Asia's financial and high-tech hub.

They even describe themselves as capitalist.

The government controls 60 percent of the economy, plus public housing, socialised medicine , socialised education, etc etc.

Quote:

Singapore[edit] Main article: Economy of Singapore Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model of economic development.[108] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of Singapore's GDP.[109] Temasek Holdings operates like any other company in a market economy. Managers of the holding are rewarded according to profits with the explicit intention to cultivate an ownership mind-set.[110] The state also provides substantial public housing, free education, health and recreational services, as well as comprehensive public transportation.[111] Today Singapore is often characterized as having a state capitalist economy that combines economic planning with the free-market.[112] While government-linked companies generate a majority of Singapore's GDP, moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

rhino wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 11:50pm:

The government controls 60 percent of the economy, plus public housing, socialised medicine , socialised education, etc etc. Quote: Singapore[edit] Main article: Economy of Singapore Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model of economic development.[108] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of Singapore's GDP.[109] Temasek Holdings operates like any other company in a market economy. Managers of the holding are rewarded according to profits with the explicit intention to cultivate an ownership mind-set.[110] The state also provides substantial public housing, free education, health and recreational services, as well as comprehensive public transportation.[111] Today Singapore is often characterized as having a state capitalist economy that combines economic planning with the free-market.[112] While government-linked companies generate a majority of Singapore's GDP, moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics

Okay so from that link, its actually state Capitalism, it also adds that moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades,

Today Singapore is usually touted as the model student of free-market capitalism, given its free-trade policy and welcoming attitude towards multinational companies. Yet in other ways it is still very socialist. All land is owned by the government, 85% of housing is supplied by the government-owned housing corporation, however only 22% of national output is produced by state-owned enterprises.

Look at normal socialist state, they don't live much longer than 40 years with the USSR holding the record at 80 years, adding 60% capitalism and 40% socialist which equals state capitalism and you seems to be a strong balance, which is what Singapore something socialist economics wiki page says Singapore is.

Its STATE CAPITALISM.

Singapore is not a paradise and >50% of Singaporeans would leave if given the opportunity.

Singaporeans are trapped in long term mortgages buying high priced real estate (apartments). Rent is high.

rhino wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 10:23pm:

Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:37pm: rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:25pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect. Sorry, but I just have to disagree with you and Yew.... of course you disagree, anything else would require independent thought on your part.

I can see why you have Rhino as your nick with that big horn on your forehead.... ;D

Svengali wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 1:01am:

Singapore is not a paradise and >50% of Singaporeans would leave if given the opportunity. Singaporeans are trapped in long term mortgages buying high priced real estate (apartments). Rent is high.

Incorrect, the vast majority of Singaporeans live in Government supplied apartments.

Swagman wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 9:58am:

rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 10:23pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:37pm: rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:25pm: Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D damn you make some dumb comments, an article was just posted in which Lee Kuan Yew, as far right as you can go, quite correctly stated Hawke and Keating were the authors of our current economic prosperity. Your partisanship isnt doing much for your intellect. Sorry, but I just have to disagree with you and Yew.... of course you disagree, anything else would require independent thought on your part. I can see why you have Rhino as your nick with that big horn on your forehead.... ;D

ooh you got me. What a zinger. ::)

Pantheon wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 12:02am:

rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 11:50pm: The government controls 60 percent of the economy, plus public housing, socialised medicine , socialised education, etc etc. Quote: Singapore[edit] Main article: Economy of Singapore Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model of economic development.[108] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of Singapore's GDP.[109] Temasek Holdings operates like any other company in a market economy. Managers of the holding are rewarded according to profits with the explicit intention to cultivate an ownership mind-set.[110] The state also provides substantial public housing, free education, health and recreational services, as well as comprehensive public transportation.[111] Today Singapore is often characterized as having a state capitalist economy that combines economic planning with the free-market.[112] While government-linked companies generate a majority of Singapore's GDP, moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics Okay so from that link, its actually state Capitalism, it also adds that moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades, Today Singapore is usually touted as the model student of free-market capitalism, given its free-trade policy and welcoming attitude towards multinational companies. Yet in other ways it is still very socialist. All land is owned by the government, 85% of housing is supplied by the government-owned housing corporation, however only 22% of national output is produced by state-owned enterprises. Look at normal socialist state, they don't live much longer than 40 years with the USSR holding the record at 80 years, adding 60% capitalism and 40% socialist which equals state capitalism and you seems to be a strong balance, which is what Singapore something socialist economics wiki page says Singapore is. Its STATE CAPITALISM.

socialised medicine, socialised housing, socialised education, Government controls over 60 percent means of production. yep, sounds like capitalism doesnt it? Is there anyone on this forum who isnt an idiot?

Pantheon wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 12:02am:

rhino wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 11:50pm: The government controls 60 percent of the economy, plus public housing, socialised medicine , socialised education, etc etc. Quote: Singapore[edit] Main article: Economy of Singapore Singapore pursued a state-led model of economic development under the People's Action Party, which initially adopted a Leninist approach to politics and a broad socialist model of economic development.[108] The PAP was initially a member of the Socialist International. Singapore's economy is dominated by state-owned enterprises and government-linked companies through Temasek Holdings, which generate 60% of Singapore's GDP.[109] Temasek Holdings operates like any other company in a market economy. Managers of the holding are rewarded according to profits with the explicit intention to cultivate an ownership mind-set.[110] The state also provides substantial public housing, free education, health and recreational services, as well as comprehensive public transportation.[111] Today Singapore is often characterized as having a state capitalist economy that combines economic planning with the free-market.[112] While government-linked companies generate a majority of Singapore's GDP, moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_economics Okay so from that link, its actually state Capitalism, it also adds that moderate state planning in the economy has been reduced in recent decades, Today Singapore is usually touted as the model student of free-market capitalism, given its free-trade policy and welcoming attitude towards multinational companies. Yet in other ways it is still very socialist. All land is owned by the government, 85% of housing is supplied by the government-owned housing corporation, however only 22% of national output is produced by state-owned enterprises. Look at normal socialist state, they don't live much longer than 40 years with the USSR holding the record at 80 years, adding 60% capitalism and 40% socialist which equals state capitalism and you seems to be a strong balance, which is what Singapore something socialist economics wiki page says Singapore is. Its STATE CAPITALISM.

It's actually not State Capitalism - it is capitalism engineered to suit the voracity of the warlords running the show, same as China - and backed by the police, military, judiciary, and legislature, and even including a Reign of terror with draconian punishments for minor infringements to keep the peasants in line - nothing new in Asia.

If it were indeed 'state capitalism' there would be significantly more benefit to the ordinary people and less to the fat cats.

THIS - as I've advised you on many occasions - is the position our political classes aspire to for themselves - to run the State for their own benefit.

Great man Lee. It's a pity many many more of the post-colonial states didn't have leaders like him . . .or alternatively independence weren't delayed for about 50 years.

bogarde73 wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 11:10am:

Great man Lee. It's a pity many many more of the post-colonial states didn't have leaders like him . . .or alternatively independence weren't delayed for about 50 years.

Pity he survived the Malayan campaign by the Communists and the Brits...

We are guaranteeing becoming the poor white trash of Asia through dumb Lib govts cutting education and stopping the NBN rollout.

We cannot compete on wage rates so we must compete with high end, high tech manufacturing, efficient agriculture (and farmers lucky enough to be on the NBN are using it for keeping track of soil moisture, crop ripeness and animal movement as well as tracking movements of produce past the farm gate.)

This govt hates science and so has cut the CSIRO savagely which has to be the biggest, dumbest mistake this dumb Abbott govt has made and they have made legions of mistakes!

What the right wont admit is that Singapore became successful through socialism.

FIT beats FAT.   ;D  C'est la vie.  ;D

Singapore does not have an economy. Its a bank.

issuevoter wrote on Mar 24^th, 2015 at 10:44pm:

Singapore does not have an economy. Its a bank.

The GAIA II Concept as espoused by the Inimitable Grappler I has a base in solid industrial infrastructure, 'renewable' energy, banking and capital lodgement for fee, tax havening, and organised legal gambling in casinos.

A win-win-win-win-win situation.... and miles ahead of Singapore, that poor shade of an economy.

Swagman wrote on Mar 23^rd, 2015 at 9:21pm:

Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D

Spot on.

SweetLambo wrote on Mar 25^th, 2015 at 12:02am:

Swagman wrote on Mar 23rd, 2015 at 9:21pm: Quote: The problem with Australia is................. Too many Labor governments since 1972... :D Spot on.

Manboobs, you are assigned to the Swagman beverage logistics department. Just keep saying yes boss.