There is neither a need to agree, nor disagree when posting up information. I will say that I am unable to proivde you with the rationale simply because I am not a worm living in the author's stomach to know what he was thinking or what his basis or train of thought was before he penned that article.
Whether I am the only one who responds or otherwise is irrelevant - and that doesn't change the fact that I was only responding to your point on comparison.
It is not selective vision - how about you respiond to each and every point here in this thread then, if not, is it now not selective vision by your own reckoning?
A man can be happy without comparison, and unhappy with comparison. There is no such thing as truly happy, or fakely happy. A man is happy at any point or stage in his life, and such happines can change with circumstances changing, one of which, may be comparison.
Comparisons are irrelevant simply because you have not compared all aspects but only one. The patch of grass may be greener there, but the man's original patch could have a pet worm that he has which the other doesn't . Same for your Tube comparison.
Since you try to refrain from such discussions, I do not know why you wish to continue it. Taking the "this is my last post here" way out, is merely an attempt to get the last word in edgewise.
How about I say this is my last post here and then lock the thread after I give my last post, thereby denying the chance to rebutt?
Traffic Congestions = Burn more fuel = Pay $$$ more fuel = Fuel $ goes high
Economic models are simplified tools used to explain human behaviours and its implication on the economic. The most basic Supply and Demand model uses two straight lines to explain the market. What is your concern with linearity and economic regression? Even the GPD and money supply curves use straight lines.
1) Petrol prices is going up and we are still keeping the 3/4 tank rule.
2) We banned chewing gum but still selling cigarette.
3) The penalty for drug trafficking is death and we still have drug in Singapore.
Use your economic theory to explain the above points and show us how deep is your understanding before you say people is just scratching the surface.
Last edited by Silence Sky; 18th November 2007 at 01:32 PM.
there's no need for a bitchfight and point fingers...
a few things
reasons for owning a car are varied, ERP alone won't stop people from driving.
In the first place we all know that it's more expensive to drive a car in the first place than take public transport.
Public transport increases have been pretty minimal when viewed from the perspective of someone who owns a car.
That theory you posted up seems to ignore this (chances are the person writing it doesn't own a car...heh)
I don't own a car and I don't even care about the public transport increases (3 cents?4 cents?) what makes you think that it'll bother a person who already owns a heavily depreciating asset like a car?
You want people to take more public transport, then make deterrents like extremely expensive parking and ERP that are heavy enough for people to consider taking the effort to walk to the bus stop and wait for a bus and battle it out with all the other people on the bus
Last edited by mattlock; 18th November 2007 at 03:39 PM.
I think the writer is trying to tell us that in the transport industry, the demand is inelastic, no matter what is the price, people still have to travel. The supplier or provider always have the upper hand or the final say when it comes to determining the market price. It is especially so when it is a controlled market and the barrier to entry is extremely high.
Let's hear from the guru.
i am not sure what your 3 examples are talking about, but still, to be fair, the most BASIC, and i stress BASIC supply and demand model uses 2 straight lines. if you go into slightly more depth, you have stuff like indifference CURVES, and much much more than just straight lines. the reason why i compared the guy's argument to a linear model was that it was overly simplistic, do you not agree? he insists that a begets b, b begets c, c begets d, blah blah blah, so a and b are not good. but this sort of argument is easy to defeat - you disprove one link on the chain, and this chain is extremely weak, as others have pointed out, and the entire chain fails.
you'd see that in more in-depth studies, the demand and supply straight line thing is but rudimentary, anyone who has done economics at a higher level could easily tell you that. the fact is that economists do have to make a lot a lot of presumptions to construct their models, it is not easy, and to me, sometimes good economists who make good predictions could just be lucky, unless they attain consistency.
1) petrol prices going up, 3/4 rule, are you talking about the causeway restrictions? this is but protectionism in some form, to me there are so many ways to explain this from the government's viewpoint. have you heard of the fairtrade initiative? it is apparently a very big thing here. you can google about it. does it work economically? no. but does it benefit parties in one way or another, perhaps. i think you'd agree with me that life isn't all about economics, and in some sense economics has its limitations in explaining human behaviour.
2) we banned chewing gum but still sell cigarette. HUH? WHAT DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH ECONOMICS?
3) this is extremely simple to explain. when you are talking about drugs, you are talking about a particular slot of "demand behaviour", due to two factors in different instances - addiction and risk factor. hence despite the death penalty, while it is certainly not viable per se (after all, you literally give up everything in your life, facing the death penalty) in economic terms, the people who traffick drugs do so because they BELIEVE that there is a chance of a high payoff with regards to their effort. to this particular group of people, the potential risk taken is by far shadowed by the potential utility stood to be gained.
why do people speculate and dabble in risky stocks which are volatile? same result. this is sadly why there are people who jump off buildings i guess. sama sama, as one would say.
also, one is certainly assured that he would not be left with drugs that no one would consume. whenever one is addicted, the behaviour in his demand would naturally shift to priotising irrationally, to spending most of his income of the "addiction" factor.
i am not entirely sure why one wishes to pose such a challenge over the internet, i could claim to be anything i want to, that is my point. expression of my point of view,is merely something i like to do, and as so many people here have proved, there is not even a need to back up what they say. do note that i am refusing to do this as of now, but seriously though, your 1, 2 and 3 examples, i'm not trying to be funny, but from what little i have learnt of economics, i sincerely doubt you even have a basic understanding of "economic theory".
i must say that while you have at least, shown a basic courtesy in terms of good discussion, which i really appreciate, do note that what i said initially, about people ganging up to just make personal attacks to feel good about themselves, has already come true. hence, if you wish to discuss this further, should you disagree, you may take it to PM. i will not reply here any further. there is really no point, since there exist people who do not really believe in logical, open discussion, but proclaim themselves to be practioners and advocates of this very cause. hypocritical in the shallowest sense of the word, i guess. i hope you understand.
Last edited by night86mare; 19th November 2007 at 12:55 AM.
once again, examining the guy's rubbish argument:
why i think this is a rubbish argument:1. erp discourages people from going to congested areas
2. people will then use public transport
3. public transport becomes more used, and public transport operators have to raise costs due to number of vehicles required
4. public transport operators pass on costs to people
5. erp becomes less effective to curb traffic congestion and people start driving again, which defeats purpose of 1, loop infinitum
1. is definitely a valid point, this is after all an official reason given, and is intuitive.
2. is NOT a given. of course there will be some who will choose to just absorb the erp. in economics you will learn that people have inelastic demand at times, especially when the erp is a small portion of their salary. by logical deduction, would you agree with me that the majority of people who can afford cars in the first place, will not have any trouble absorbing an additional cost of say, $3? add cbd $5 for a month (hey, i don't drive yet, so don't kill me if it's too much, because it's even better; if it's less, my apologies), becomes $240, a month? i would thus be as bold to make a statement that right now the erp would probably not aid in congestion too much, nor will it persuade a lot of people to switch to public transport. why? you are purely thinking in monetary terms. whereas people will think in terms of utility. there are so many reasons why public transport is going to be a lesser choice, like convenience, accessibility, time, personal space. what do you think?
besides that, note that erp is not in operation all the time. hence, it does not dissuade people from going to congested areas only, it does so for SPECIFIC PERIODS of time. which is why you have all the cute cute drivers waiting at the side until the erp gantry turns off. am i not right? so 2. is even more so not a given, since people are willing to carry out such actions to reduce their expenditure, and they have a choice as well.
3. and 4. even funnier. the passed on costs, assuming that public transport companies raise prices fairly, and do not take advantage of the situation to go beyond maximised profits - to me the raise in prices thus far is fair enough, due to petrol price increment.
firstly - now, tell me, if the bloody $240 a month does not dissuade most people from switching to public transport (obvious fact, look at the demand for automobiles only increasing and increasing).. how is 3 cents x 120 (assuming 4 trips per day) = $3.60 a month going to make people start driving cars? 5. is therefore the most ridiculous point here. even if we give him points 1. to 4. , following that very same line of thought in pure monetary terms, this would mean that PUBLIC TRANSPORT has become MORE EXPENSIVE than PRIVATE TRANSPORT. now tell me, IS THIS POSSIBLE?
we must not also forget the economies of scale fact of life. public transport companies are going to purchase in bulk, whatever they purchase. i would maintain that a transport company would roughly carry out equivalent or even less of what a private transport owner would do, i.e. costs. but they can do this at a lower rate. therefore, when you're talking about increased strain on the whole group of individuals versus a company, it would naturally apply LESS to the latter than the former.
thirdly - INCREASED DEMAND, means MORE PROFITS. MORE PROFITS means MORE CAPITAL TO PROVIDE MORE SUPPLY. the effect is not as drastic as he paints it out to be, do you get my idea here?
he says, it loops? more like his argument is LOOPHOLE INFINITUM
you want more points? i could probably think of more.
as for erp prices and public transport prices going up, come on, welcome to the real world, and let me introduce you to the concept of INFLATION. if you do not know what it means.. GOOGLE is your best friend.
Last edited by night86mare; 19th November 2007 at 01:21 AM.
life will always have its good and bad, ups and downs. the optimist who sees the half full glass is wrong. so is the pessimist who sees the half empty glass. the realist who sees the glass is half empty and half full, acknowledges the flaws AND strengths of what he has in life, and tries to fill the glass up further, while remaining relatively content with what he has..
is the person who succeeds in life, no matter how far or not far he goes
I see an implied admission
anyways, stop trying to invade my personal space
this is horrible, why are you trying to stalk me
i'm scared, are you going to come over and knock on my door
if you want bg, ask nicely
i was formed out of a rock on this mountain.. after being nourished by the elements and rain
it just split apart and i was born
oh drat, that isn't me. must be one of them funny chinese mythical stories