Jay,
Can you tell me how "the determination of their governments to involve ALL of it´s people to develop their nation" can make money appear out of thin air? That would have been a hell of a development project proposal. In the finance section, they could have written, "We'll determine our way towards growth so don't worry about it."
The question is WHO FUNDED these countries and WHY? If you know how determination can somehow make cash appear out of thin air, let me know. I'll be right next to you "determining" my way to millions.
The fact that the Chinese along with MANY other countries are investing in Cambodia is no secret. You seem to know that they stand to benefit. HOW do you think they stand to benefit? Are you going to tell me that they are investing in Cambodia so they can visit Angkor Wat and oursource their garmet factories there? Why didn't they invest in Indonesia and Phillipines with such vigor? Don't tell me . . .because they don't have Angkor Wat? Or they already had enough blue jean factories elsewhere?
You're obviously not in the finance/investment/development industry so I gave you a simple question. I just thought you travel in and out of Singapore often. Forget those crazy picture book generalizations of "prosperous states" and "tourism" money crap you read in photo travel magazines. When you look out the window of a airplane that's ready to land in Singapore, what you can EASILY see are HUNDREDS of ships preparing to load and unload. Which country has the busiest shipping harbor in the World? . . . WHO does it benefit? Yeah, Singapore collects a lot of fees but who really benefits?
Maybe you're singaporean or maybe you have some personal ties to the place but jeesh, EVERY developed Asian country has these dreamy high thoughts of themselves. Many really do seem to think that they somehow used their brains and "nation power" to build from scratch. Sure, labor has A LOT do to with it. Money HAS to come from somewhere. I happen to know the history of POSCO and how they were funded. Read their website and it's a joke. . .it says something like, "Our founder Chairman Park built POSCO without benefit of technology, resources, and money." That's about has full of shit as you saying that it was the "the determination of their governments to involve ALL of it´s people to develop their nation". Holy shit . . . ha ha ha. . . if only real life was a Walt Disney movie.
By the way, the French didn't build their mansions in kep and Kampot so they could simply set up nice resorts as a retired TOURIST would. They were in Cambodia for a reason. They chose an area where they could at any given notice go see their money flow in and out but far enough from the action so that they didn't have to see the lowly laborers on a daily basis.
Also . . .if you don't mind me asking . . .how old are you?
Where does all the aid money go?
Jay is obviously Singaporean, most of them seem to be so obsessed with their country. Let's face it, Singapore is nothing without the shipping ports, it has virtually zero manufacturing or resources, has to import all it's food and relies on the financial industry for it's economic well being. Singapore relies on other countries success, if they fail it's screwed.
It would seem most here don't understand what money actually is to begin with, once you understand it, how it is created and who creates it your eyes will be opened to some disturbing truths. All economic prosperity is smoke and a perceived reality, it can be here today, gone tomorrow. As Wasabi said, money is primarily energy and labour. Money itself is worthless and every government is inflating your wealth away on a daily basis. Virtually all aid money comes with strings attached, that includes China's aid despite the generalization that they have "no strings attached" - get real, nothing could be further from the truth.
Back on topic, I agree with the point that a lot of the aid money goes straight back out of Cambodia, if NGO's were businesses there would be much more results and returns on capital invested. On the other hand it is important to recognise the efforts of some smaller NGO's that do some marvelous work. Personally I worked as a volunteer for two years in Cambodia for an NGO, it cost me serious money to do it and if I take into account lost earnings for the period the sum is quite sizable indeed. I helped set up an orphanage for children whose parents had died of AIDS and started free medical clinics for villagers. I would do it all again too, especially now that the first lot of orphans are nearing university age and have got enough education so they can escape their past and poverty.
It would seem most here don't understand what money actually is to begin with, once you understand it, how it is created and who creates it your eyes will be opened to some disturbing truths. All economic prosperity is smoke and a perceived reality, it can be here today, gone tomorrow. As Wasabi said, money is primarily energy and labour. Money itself is worthless and every government is inflating your wealth away on a daily basis. Virtually all aid money comes with strings attached, that includes China's aid despite the generalization that they have "no strings attached" - get real, nothing could be further from the truth.
Back on topic, I agree with the point that a lot of the aid money goes straight back out of Cambodia, if NGO's were businesses there would be much more results and returns on capital invested. On the other hand it is important to recognise the efforts of some smaller NGO's that do some marvelous work. Personally I worked as a volunteer for two years in Cambodia for an NGO, it cost me serious money to do it and if I take into account lost earnings for the period the sum is quite sizable indeed. I helped set up an orphanage for children whose parents had died of AIDS and started free medical clinics for villagers. I would do it all again too, especially now that the first lot of orphans are nearing university age and have got enough education so they can escape their past and poverty.
- hanky
- I have attained enlightenment
- Reactions: 7
- Posts: 9826
- Joined: Fri Oct 29, 2004 3:38 am
- Location: Living in a shotgun shack.
You obviously dont know much about history. Cambodia wasn't a colony for a start, it was a protectorate. Kep became popular in the 1960's, after the French administration had left. You are another person who blames all the damage to this country on the KR, when it was plainly destroyed before they took power. How much does it cost for 2.5 million tons of bombs?Cambodia before the KR was a French colony that made Kep and Kampot their private resorts. Now it´s degraded.
If Singapore, along with China, and the US, hadnt supported the KR after they had been routed, this country could have rebuilt far quicker.
I don't know, I only took that route once, maybe 8 years ago, and it wasnt a big deal. Meanwhile, it has become a major discussion point for tourists.Btw, the road from Poipet to Siem Reap is still filled with gigantic potholes, isn´t it?
Who Gives a Fuck?
I'm far from Singaporean and not obsessed with Singapore. I don't even like a society like Singapore is.Me Again wrote:Jay is obviously Singaporean, most of them seem to be so obsessed with their country.
You obviously have no clue whatsoever. Singapore is rapidly evolving in a knowledge economy and is still relying heavily on the manufacturing industry. Before that it was, besides it's port, primarily a manufacturing economy. Don't you remember the chips in your PC and your sneekers were once made in Singapore? Of course it has to import it's water and food, but what's wrong with that?Let's face it, Singapore is nothing without the shipping ports, it has virtually zero manufacturing or resources, has to import all it's food and relies on the financial industry for it's economic well being. Singapore relies on other countries success, if they fail it's screwed.
Of course it's doesn't appear from thin air. Some countries and it's people just are more succesful than others in that they smart anough to see money DOESN'T appear from thin air.wasabi wrote:Jay,
Can you tell me how "the determination of their governments to involve ALL of it´s people to develop their nation" can make money appear out of thin air? That would have been a hell of a development project proposal. In the finance section, they could have written, "We'll determine our way towards growth so don't worry about it.The question is WHO FUNDED these countries and WHY? If you know how determination can somehow make cash appear out of thin air, let me know. I'll be right next to you "determining" my way to millions."
Yes, when you look outside of a window from an airplane that's ready to land in Singapore, HUNDREDS of ships preparing to load and unload, but if you start to look a little farther than yor nose, you'll see that Singapore has a very deversified economy.The fact that the Chinese along with MANY other countries are investing in Cambodia is no secret. You seem to know that they stand to benefit. HOW do you think they stand to benefit? Are you going to tell me that they are investing in Cambodia so they can visit Angkor Wat and oursource their garmet factories there? Why didn't they invest in Indonesia and Phillipines with such vigor? Don't tell me . . .because they don't have Angkor Wat? Or they already had enough blue jean factories elsewhere?
You're obviously not in the finance/investment/development industry so I gave you a simple question. I just thought you travel in and out of Singapore often. Forget those crazy picture book generalizations of "prosperous states" and "tourism" money crap you read in photo travel magazines. When you look out the window of a airplane that's ready to land in Singapore, what you can EASILY see are HUNDREDS of ships preparing to load and unload. Which country has the busiest shipping harbor in the World? . . . WHO does it benefit? Yeah, Singapore collects a lot of fees but who really benefits?
Just because I'm stating facts about Singapore doesn't mean I'm a Singaporean.Maybe you're singaporean or maybe you have some personal ties to the place but jeesh, EVERY developed Asian country has these dreamy high thoughts of themselves. Many really do seem to think that they somehow used their brains and "nation power" to build from scratch. Sure, labor has A LOT do to with it. Money HAS to come from somewhere. I happen to know the history of POSCO and how they were funded. Read their website and it's a joke. . .it says something like, "Our founder Chairman Park built POSCO without benefit of technology, resources, and money." That's about has full of shit as you saying that it was the "the determination of their governments to involve ALL of it´s people to develop their nation". Holy shit . . . ha ha ha. . . if only real life was a Walt Disney movie.
By the way, the French didn't build their mansions in kep and Kampot so they could simply set up nice resorts as a retired TOURIST would. They were in Cambodia for a reason. They chose an area where they could at any given notice go see their money flow in and out but far enough from the action so that they didn't have to see the lowly laborers on a daily basis.
Also . . .if you don't mind me asking . . .how old are you?
POSCO is South Korean, right?
I'm old anough to admit when I'm wrong. Sure, I don't have all the facts about Cambodia's history in my head, but distinguished economists seem to support my view on Singapore. And that's not a fairy tale. Are you one of those distinguished economists? Didn't think so.
Jay,
Take it easy and just read up a little more if you're so interested in enough in global economics to go on a forum and to make the statements as you have. You haven't been able to back up your general statements. "Economists" can't agree or disagree with your view because your statements don't have much to do with economics. All you've written thus far is that Singapore pulled together as a country and they worked together. Nobody disagrees with that.
You keep saying Cambodia won't grown because all they have is Angkor Wat and that is an ignorant statement. If you think all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat and garmet factories, you DO NOT KNOW enough to make an informed decision. The Chinese ARE NOT putting that type of money into Angkor Wat. And for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat. You're the one who wrote that all Singapore once had were fishing villages.
I just started you off with the "shipping" example because all you've stated thus far are general statements that would make airline magazine writers blush. Yes, Sinagpore is diversified. Yes Cambodia has Angkor Wat.
I keep asking you who funded Singapore's growth? And you keep telling me Singapore worked its ass off. if you have no money(as was the case with Singapore) and you want to startup a lawn cutting service what do you do? You write up a little plan. You figure out how much it will cost to buy a mower, fuel, equipment, supplies. Then you figure out how much you can earn in a certain amount of time. You take these numbers and take them to your mother, uncle, friends, banks, etc. . . and you tell them, "I NEED FUNDING."
Whether you're running a lawn mowing service, a Phnom Penh bar, a garmet factory, or a country, these principles pretty much remain the same. You have a head contractor(this would be you), you have investor(s) - then you have sub-contractors.(You may hire your little bro if he wants in on the action)
You'll laugh if you ever get to see some of the plans behind multi-million dollar building projects because essentially, it's the same as any little business plan you've ever seen.
As you say, Singapore was "smart enough" to figure this out so WHO FUNDED THEM? You do know that SOMEBODY HAD to FUND them . . .right? Many benefit from Singapore's current economic model. They don't benefit for free . . .
Take it easy and just read up a little more if you're so interested in enough in global economics to go on a forum and to make the statements as you have. You haven't been able to back up your general statements. "Economists" can't agree or disagree with your view because your statements don't have much to do with economics. All you've written thus far is that Singapore pulled together as a country and they worked together. Nobody disagrees with that.
You keep saying Cambodia won't grown because all they have is Angkor Wat and that is an ignorant statement. If you think all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat and garmet factories, you DO NOT KNOW enough to make an informed decision. The Chinese ARE NOT putting that type of money into Angkor Wat. And for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat. You're the one who wrote that all Singapore once had were fishing villages.
I just started you off with the "shipping" example because all you've stated thus far are general statements that would make airline magazine writers blush. Yes, Sinagpore is diversified. Yes Cambodia has Angkor Wat.
I keep asking you who funded Singapore's growth? And you keep telling me Singapore worked its ass off. if you have no money(as was the case with Singapore) and you want to startup a lawn cutting service what do you do? You write up a little plan. You figure out how much it will cost to buy a mower, fuel, equipment, supplies. Then you figure out how much you can earn in a certain amount of time. You take these numbers and take them to your mother, uncle, friends, banks, etc. . . and you tell them, "I NEED FUNDING."
Whether you're running a lawn mowing service, a Phnom Penh bar, a garmet factory, or a country, these principles pretty much remain the same. You have a head contractor(this would be you), you have investor(s) - then you have sub-contractors.(You may hire your little bro if he wants in on the action)
You'll laugh if you ever get to see some of the plans behind multi-million dollar building projects because essentially, it's the same as any little business plan you've ever seen.
As you say, Singapore was "smart enough" to figure this out so WHO FUNDED THEM? You do know that SOMEBODY HAD to FUND them . . .right? Many benefit from Singapore's current economic model. They don't benefit for free . . .
Wasabi, my initial statement was that Singapore is one of the least corrupt nations in the world. That´s recognized and declared by experts on corruption. Furthermore, I stated that Singapore has made great development, not only because of international investment, but also by recognizing that it could do a lot themselves to improve their economy. To me at least, it´s clear that they´ve done just that.wasabi wrote:Jay,
Take it easy and just read up a little more if you're so interested in enough in global economics to go on a forum and to make the statements as you have. You haven't been able to back up your general statements.
I merely was trying to contradict statements in this thread that I felt were unjust."Economists" can't agree or disagree with your view because your statements don't have much to do with economics. All you've written thus far is that Singapore pulled together as a country and they worked together. Nobody disagrees with that.
I didn´t say Cambodia´s economy won´t grow. It will grow, but I think not as fast as in the previous decade, since Cambodia hasn´t got potential industries besides tourism. The garment industry is threatened to be taken over by other countries and in decline.You keep saying Cambodia won't grown because all they have is Angkor Wat and that is an ignorant statement. If you think all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat and garmet factories, you DO NOT KNOW enough to make an informed decision. The Chinese ARE NOT putting that type of money into Angkor Wat. And for the sake of this discussion, let's just say that all Cambodia has is Angkor Wat. You're the one who wrote that all Singapore once had were fishing villages.
I said that China is giving aid to Cambodia, which is essentially investment. It wants something in return, which is not uncommon.
Yes, the west funded Singapore, since it was recognized as a strategic port. It could´ve still been just a port, but it isn´t, because they recognized their own potential and acted on it.As you say, Singapore was "smart enough" to figure this out so WHO FUNDED THEM? You do know that SOMEBODY HAD to FUND them . . .right? Many benefit from Singapore's current economic model. They don't benefit for free . . .
I want to make it clear that this is my opinion. I´m not an economist, so it might turn out that my perception of Cambodia has been too negative. I sure hope so.
Last edited by jay on Fri Jun 22, 2007 9:17 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jay,
There is no such thing as "just a port" . . . If you have the most active port in the World, there MUST BE other economic growth. All this was planned from the very beginning and the fishermen and their famillies who ran the country at the time had very little to do with this. I am not knocking Singapore or its efforts. . . this is simply the way ALL the smaller economic power house countries in Asia grew.
Think of all the major industries from the smaller Asian countries and their "founders". Do you believe that thos old militant "politicians" somehow built these industries using their MBA skills?
There's much more to Cambodia than the garmet industry and tourism. . . Institutional and large scale investors aren't flocking to Cambodia to only invest in Angkor wat . . .although that is a big factor. There will be more "visual" growth in Cambodia in the next five years than the previous 10.
There is no such thing as "just a port" . . . If you have the most active port in the World, there MUST BE other economic growth. All this was planned from the very beginning and the fishermen and their famillies who ran the country at the time had very little to do with this. I am not knocking Singapore or its efforts. . . this is simply the way ALL the smaller economic power house countries in Asia grew.
Think of all the major industries from the smaller Asian countries and their "founders". Do you believe that thos old militant "politicians" somehow built these industries using their MBA skills?
There's much more to Cambodia than the garmet industry and tourism. . . Institutional and large scale investors aren't flocking to Cambodia to only invest in Angkor wat . . .although that is a big factor. There will be more "visual" growth in Cambodia in the next five years than the previous 10.
Wasabi, point taken. But what do you mean by "there MUST BE other economic growth"? Surely Singapore has developed industries that have no link to it´s port, like it´s biomedical industry.wasabi wrote:Jay,
There is no such thing as "just a port" . . . If you have the most active port in the World, there MUST BE other economic growth. All this was planned from the very beginning and the fishermen and their famillies who ran the country at the time had very little to do with this. I am not knocking Singapore or its efforts. . . this is simply the way ALL the smaller economic power house countries in Asia grew.
What other industries does Cambodia have and what exactly do you mean by "visual" growth? More hotels, apartment blocks and playgrounds for the rich?There's much more to Cambodia than the garmet industry and tourism. . . Institutional and large scale investors aren't flocking to Cambodia to only invest in Angkor wat . . .although that is a big factor. There will be more "visual" growth in Cambodia in the next five years than the previous 10.
Visual growth: Yes, the things the tourists see when they go to a country like singapore and say, "Wow, this place is really cool." This is actually a decent marker for economic growth but I mentioned it in refrence to your previous posts. Everything you claimed Cambodia is or is not is based on some factories or temples you can visually see.
Asking about what industries Cambodia has now is like asking what industries Singapore had back in their fishing days. Still. . . just take a good look at a map. I just don't understand how this wouldn't be common sense to most people. I do have the benefit of seeing some large scale project plans but just take a look at where Cambodia is located. . . think about what the neighboring countries do . . .isn't it damn obvious?
The US didn't bomb the hell out of this area for the betterment of mankind and democracy, nor did the Chinese backed reds fight tooth and nail for this REAL ESTATE so that they could spread their kind words of "socialism" to the World. What they were after is obvious. It will be obvious to even to the average tourist within 5 years time. You only need to look beyond the glossy magazine articles . . .
Asking about what industries Cambodia has now is like asking what industries Singapore had back in their fishing days. Still. . . just take a good look at a map. I just don't understand how this wouldn't be common sense to most people. I do have the benefit of seeing some large scale project plans but just take a look at where Cambodia is located. . . think about what the neighboring countries do . . .isn't it damn obvious?
The US didn't bomb the hell out of this area for the betterment of mankind and democracy, nor did the Chinese backed reds fight tooth and nail for this REAL ESTATE so that they could spread their kind words of "socialism" to the World. What they were after is obvious. It will be obvious to even to the average tourist within 5 years time. You only need to look beyond the glossy magazine articles . . .
-
- Similar Topics
- Replies
- Views
- Last post
-
- 18 Replies
- 4995 Views
-
Last post by electrolime
Mon Jul 29, 2019 12:10 pm
-
- 20 Replies
- 4733 Views
-
Last post by Lucky Lucan
Mon Dec 27, 2021 11:59 pm
-
-
MFI's do (outward) international money transfers??
by wolfcreek » Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:51 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 1 Replies
- 603 Views
-
Last post by Spigzy
Wed Jul 01, 2020 4:55 pm
-
-
-
Time to pull money out of Prasac MFI??
by wolfcreek » Wed Sep 30, 2020 1:56 pm » in Cambodia Speakeasy - 7 Replies
- 2250 Views
-
Last post by upstage2
Fri Oct 02, 2020 9:53 pm
-
-
-
transfer money thailand to cambodia
by Whoknows » Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:36 pm » in Money, Banking and Insurance - 0 Replies
- 1062 Views
-
Last post by Whoknows
Sat Sep 11, 2021 4:36 pm
-