From: csn88@seq1.keele.ac.uk (K.M. Tay)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.asean
Subject: Re: Hongkong and Singapore compared, an economic report 60's-80's
Date: 6 Nov 92 11:44:21 GMT
Organization: Keele University, England

From article <1992Nov3.193058.17325@galileo.cc.rochester.edu>, by lteo_ss@troi.cc.rochester.edu (Leslie Teo):
> Hi,
> 
> Disclaimer: I assume we are having a discussion about the subject. I'm
> not critizing anyone or Singapore-bashing. It seems that people have
> read Young's paper as a critique of Singapore. That's not true. He was
> trying to explain a phenomena. It's positive. 

  I'm not a DISCLAIMER. You seem to be very angry with me. If I have
hurt your feelings, I apologise. By the way I'm Malaysian so it got
nothing to do with me critising Singapore. I'm just stating the facts.

> I don't understand what you mean. I shall try to explain what I was
> saying. Though you seem to distrust models, I unfortunately have to refer
 (Stuff deleted)
     I didn't say I don't trust these models, I'm saying that SOMETIMES
it doesn't work in real life.

> Of course. But in the context of what I was saying it does. Efficiency
> here is defined as a pareto optimal solution. It is admitted a weak
> critirea but that's the most that can be said. If there's too much
> savings, then one could be dynamically inefficient. Reducing capital
> stock would increase current and future consumption (everyone is better
> off) and so it's pareto improving.                
  You haven't answer the "TECHNOLOGY" I have asked you. By the I'm very
happy that you discuss in a very scientific manner with me . But you got
me wrong. What I don't understand is Why the original author say  HK is
effecient in using TECHNOLOGY. In my previous articles, I have strongly
agree that HK economic is better than Singapore.

> In the growth model that was used, this kind of technology is actually
> capital. A crude and simple definition of technology (in these models)
> is how capital and labor are combined to produce output. This is not the
> same thing. If you have better capital (better computers, for example)
> and the same labor force we would expect the country with the more
> advanced capital to produce more. But what if the country with worse
> capital (or less of it) and the same labor force produces more output.
> Then in these models, that country has higher 'technology'. I know that
> confusing, a better name would be total factor productivity.
> Again, don't think anyone is making normative judgements here. After
> all, does it really matter? Singapore's economy chugs along no matter
> what we say or decide upon.
   Have you ever HEARD of PAST affect the PRESENT and PRESENT affects
the FUTURE? Who say time is not important?
>>This I agree but sometimes theory doesn't apply in real life because
>>theory is like a "model" tool for us. Obviously it has errors and bugs.

> I don't disagree with you. But remember we all have models in our heads
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> of how the world works. To be a good economist, or physicist, or engineer,
> for example, we use models because they provide a framework for
> rigourous thought. They may be wrong, and we can certainly apply them in
                     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> the wrong way but that's without a doubt better than just making
> statements based on what we feel or see.
 Look the underline words. You agree that models do fail SOMETIMES so
why you say you don't agree!!!  Anyway nice to know you. And you have
any more on ECONOMICS THEORY why don't we open a new topic dicussing
CENTRAL BANKING or WORLD RECESSION? I would very happy to discuss with
you.