night86mare said:
You obviously have not read any of what I have written clearly. I, on the other hand, take whatever you write seriously, though I'm beginning to doubt whether I should, since the mutual respect is not there - it's a one way traffic street..)
I DON'T ask any from you, I DON'T have any for you. It's an internet forum, It's the kopitiam, I don't take it all too seriously.
night86mare said:
Yeah yeah, and Salman Rushdie's still alive. But that's a null issue, it's like saying that a cancer patient finds out that he's got cancer in 1988, and then he goes for treatment in 2005! Perfect logic there, you know. I mean, perhaps the guy has a extremely delayed reaction that extends to 17 years, but shouldn't we give him the benefit of the doubt seeing how his works are at least remotely thought-provoking?
Anybody's work can be "thought provoking" if it involves blasphemy, even cartoons. When I read into the quote, common sense will suggest that he is providing an excuse to shift the focus from himself to his work. He goes into hiding at the initial years, now he comes out from hiding and offers reasons to stay alive. It's a lousy quote to use when you consider the context in which it was made. A correction to your analogy, it is like a cancer patient has got cancer, and he is still undergoing treatment many years later. May I be evil enough to add, the difference between him and a cancer patient is that he probably deserves it.
night86mare said:
1) There are almost zero links, and they are few and far between. A rough relationship MAY be established in select cases, but even such relationships are not a direct proportion type - ie. there is a time lag between the economic situation IMPROVING and one's personal pay actually increasing at all. Then what, ST Index go up --> your personal pay go up isit? No right, not unless you're a speculator.?
When you bring up the stock market into the discussion, it becomes painfully obvious that you have no clue about economics. i.e. you choose to use the STI as in instrument to illustrate your point. Maybe you should use the GDP inplace of the STI. STI is an index to represent the price movements of the certain shares, it may provide an indication of the direction of the economy because the economy and the main index is more often than not correlated, but it is definitely no means to measure the economy.
night86mare said:
2) I have mentioned that you are taking my argument out of context to serve your own means. Look at the very first statement I quoted. Now look at what you're saying now. It's simple. And in fact, if you put it back into context, your argument above regarding PM announcing this or that (amusing, one moment you seem to be on the side that the economic situation is not as glorious as it's painted out to be, and we should not believe the government; and the next you are quoting the government! GO DOUBLE STANDARDS!).. Simply refutes the very first post that our dear errant forumer made which sparked off this whole load of discussion, ie. he's saying that he doesn't see his pay increasing even though the economic situation is improving based on announcements.
I have never referenced anything about the econimic situation to the government nor that we should not believe the government. I merely said that the cycle will be turning down towards a recession soon, these are economic cycles. Quote me to prove your point, that is if you can find any.
night86mare said:
Enough said. There will be no more from me regarding this matter; if I ever emigrate it will NOT be because of any governance issues per se, but rather the climate that Singaporeans themselves are generating - an extremely, extremely negative one which seeks misery, not happiness in life.
Now you are generalising Singaporeans as negative. Maybe you are not aware about this, that the effect of using yourself as an example to illustrate your view only serves to diminish your intention. Very few people actually know you, so it does not matter when you leave Singapore.
night86mare said:
Out, for now. (Incidentally, you keep mentioning qualifications despite my imploration not to do so. So you have read Economics in university? From what you write here, my dear forumer, I sincerely doubt so.)
Yes.
Look around you and gauge the economy's real performance for yourself.
