-
IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here. The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.
Chitchat Why Jamus Lim join Workers' Party ?
- Thread starter batman1
- Start date
Jamus congratulates Nobel prize winners. 
The Riksbank announced yesterday that Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and Jim Robinson (AJR) won the Nobel in economics for their work on the importance of institutions in economic development. As someone who has worked extensively on the political economy of development—and cited the work of AJR extensively in my own papers—it isn’t so much a surprise, as a sense that it was a long time coming, and thoroughly deserved.
To some, AJR’s work may seem self-evident. Surely quality institutions are necessary for economic success? But the question is more nuanced. After all, such institutions may result from prosperity, rather than be its source. AJR showed definitively that it was institutions that caused growth. It is also unclear how important institutions are, relative to other “deep” drivers of growth, like trade openness, geographic conditions, or social capital. It took a slew of papers by economists and political scientists to reveal that institutions were, indeed, of first-order importance.
To others, their work is disproven by the example of successes in more centralized countries, like China and Singapore. But AJR will be the first to point out that for every successful controlling state, there are a dozen more that remain mired in poverty. So we can’t just look at only good examples to decide whether an argument is credible. Besides, the claim is also considerably more nuanced: countries grow because their institutions are inclusive, with economic decisionmaking that encourages broad participation and diversity.
Such institutions include a reliable rule of law, respect for property rights, and freedom from internal and external conflict. Such institutions can exist even in countries where the political system is more top-down (to be clear, I believe that voice and accountability have merits of their own. It’s just that democratic norms need not be lumped with economic success, especially in the early stages of development).
For me, having been steeped in this stuff for more than two decades, I can only congratulate the trio for their contributions, and for advancing the field within our profession. And to hope that their insights—on how quality institutions are central to the success of a nation and society—will be not only celebrated, but internalized by policymakers worldwide, including those in Singapore.
Jamus Lim
1h ·The Riksbank announced yesterday that Daron Acemoglu, Simon Johnson, and Jim Robinson (AJR) won the Nobel in economics for their work on the importance of institutions in economic development. As someone who has worked extensively on the political economy of development—and cited the work of AJR extensively in my own papers—it isn’t so much a surprise, as a sense that it was a long time coming, and thoroughly deserved.
To some, AJR’s work may seem self-evident. Surely quality institutions are necessary for economic success? But the question is more nuanced. After all, such institutions may result from prosperity, rather than be its source. AJR showed definitively that it was institutions that caused growth. It is also unclear how important institutions are, relative to other “deep” drivers of growth, like trade openness, geographic conditions, or social capital. It took a slew of papers by economists and political scientists to reveal that institutions were, indeed, of first-order importance.
To others, their work is disproven by the example of successes in more centralized countries, like China and Singapore. But AJR will be the first to point out that for every successful controlling state, there are a dozen more that remain mired in poverty. So we can’t just look at only good examples to decide whether an argument is credible. Besides, the claim is also considerably more nuanced: countries grow because their institutions are inclusive, with economic decisionmaking that encourages broad participation and diversity.
Such institutions include a reliable rule of law, respect for property rights, and freedom from internal and external conflict. Such institutions can exist even in countries where the political system is more top-down (to be clear, I believe that voice and accountability have merits of their own. It’s just that democratic norms need not be lumped with economic success, especially in the early stages of development).
For me, having been steeped in this stuff for more than two decades, I can only congratulate the trio for their contributions, and for advancing the field within our profession. And to hope that their insights—on how quality institutions are central to the success of a nation and society—will be not only celebrated, but internalized by policymakers worldwide, including those in Singapore.
Jamus spoke on a number of amendments to CPF.
In the most recent Parliamentary sitting, I spoke on a number of amendments to CPF. Most of the focus of my speech was about the decision by the government to close to Special Account (SA), for those who go beyond the age of 55 years.
The practice of “shielding”—where one would temporarily move a bunch of holdings into other assets, which, upon expiry, would return to the SA—had gotten to the point where, I suspect, the Board would struggle to ensure high returns on such a liquid account (after 55, accessing SA funds also become a lot easier). Closing this loophole is the right thing to do, since it unfairly privileges those who are relatively more financially secure or sophisticated, while shifting the risk of assuring liquid high-return savings to other accountholders.
I also spoke about another change, which would require those who profited from the sales of their homes to prioritize repayment of subsidies received, in particular for Plus and Prime flats that qualify for higher subsidies. Again, doing so is the right thing, since those who have profited from the interim gains in house prices should reasonably be expected to pay back the higher subsidies enjoyed.
What I felt it was important to highlight, however, was that one reason why many CPF accountholders do what they do—pursue loopholes to squeeze more out of their SAs, or chase house price appreciation—is because they often feel that their retirement funds, especially under plain-vanilla Ordinary Account (OA) rates—are insufficient. If we are to tackle the root of the problem, we’ll need to work on how to better ensure that CPF returns are actually meeting retirement needs. #makingyourvotecount #theworkcontinues
Jamus Lim
7h ·In the most recent Parliamentary sitting, I spoke on a number of amendments to CPF. Most of the focus of my speech was about the decision by the government to close to Special Account (SA), for those who go beyond the age of 55 years.
The practice of “shielding”—where one would temporarily move a bunch of holdings into other assets, which, upon expiry, would return to the SA—had gotten to the point where, I suspect, the Board would struggle to ensure high returns on such a liquid account (after 55, accessing SA funds also become a lot easier). Closing this loophole is the right thing to do, since it unfairly privileges those who are relatively more financially secure or sophisticated, while shifting the risk of assuring liquid high-return savings to other accountholders.
I also spoke about another change, which would require those who profited from the sales of their homes to prioritize repayment of subsidies received, in particular for Plus and Prime flats that qualify for higher subsidies. Again, doing so is the right thing, since those who have profited from the interim gains in house prices should reasonably be expected to pay back the higher subsidies enjoyed.
What I felt it was important to highlight, however, was that one reason why many CPF accountholders do what they do—pursue loopholes to squeeze more out of their SAs, or chase house price appreciation—is because they often feel that their retirement funds, especially under plain-vanilla Ordinary Account (OA) rates—are insufficient. If we are to tackle the root of the problem, we’ll need to work on how to better ensure that CPF returns are actually meeting retirement needs. #makingyourvotecount #theworkcontinues
