I just never agree with him or his reasoning on virtually anything.
'America never would or should copy Singapore’s less-than-free politics.' Wrong, probably should long ago have moved in that direction, sadly.
'But Singapore has something to teach us about “attitude...” wrong word.
— about taking governing seriously and thinking strategically. Wrongly put, in so many ways, but a right direction nonetheless.
(This is really, beyond Friedman's superficial treatment, about radical political reform here, not merely about an attitude, or taking something seriously, for a minute or two. But Friedman cannot broach that kind of level for the subject; off limits, prohibido.)
We used to do that... wrong, we never did.
and must again..., wrong, we never did it.
because our little brick house... completely wrong metaphor.
with central heating is not going to be resistant to the storms much longer.' Wrong: no central heat; wrong tense
Every sentence and phrase here is nonsense really.
Singapore is not a system based on a 'radical free market', but rather yet another developmental state feeding on loose open consumer markets everywhere.
His term for the welfare state aspect is nanny state, not very appealing image.
He also quotes Mahbubani, icing on the cake.
He really won't back off his radical globalist pander stance, persisting in calling Singapore a radical free market system; even in the face of overwhelming evidence that this has not been the kind of 'global free trade' system he has portrayed it to be, has not achieved the kinds of results; but rather one of developmental state feeding off more open advanced suggestible societies.
No comments:
Post a Comment