Most efficient/ inefficient government?

[Stuart]

Who's that speaking, Benito Mussolini?

Any American politician, any party, any time. Not that American politicans are unique in that respect.

[Ariphaos]

Who's that speaking, Benito Mussolini? :?

"The business of America is business." - Calvin Coolidge

[PainRack]

Better than a inefficient government anyway. I do not want singapore to be like malaysia's central government.

Come to think of it, how can singapore be that well off if the government is more like the USA or other western country?

We have so many western nation complaining about our government, and if singapore was to adopt the style of most western government, can it work for a city state?

There are however, limits to how much the trust of the citizen can be abused, and the anger over the recent announcements over the changes to the CPF has been building up.

Ignoring Ray idiocy, methink you over-exaggerating the CPF issue. People are still more pissed at the rise in coffee and transport prices than the annunity issue, even though the annunity promises to be a stunning setback.

Expect this to become another political issue of whether the CPF fund has enough money in a few years time. However, this may be one of those issues where a "tweak" is done rather than a steady defence of the issue, so, wait and see I guess.

As for whether a western style government can function in Singapore, the question is moot isn't it? The day that happened, is as good as the day the PAP suddenly changed over a new leaf.

Personally, I see no reason why that sort of Government cannot function in Singapore. But as it is, the more conservative elements of the country do not fancy western style "chaotic" politics.

It is relatively westernised. Just look at America and the dominance of the Republicans:D

[ray245]

The real question is why we are asking about efficiency when we should be asking about effectiveness.

Short Answer: ray245 is a Fucking Moron™.

Lol...I thought the right word should be an idiot?

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Ignoring Ray idiocy, methink you over-exaggerating the CPF issue. People are still more pissed at the rise in coffee and transport prices than the annunity issue, even though the annunity promises to be a stunning setback.

Expect this to become another political issue of whether the CPF fund has enough money in a few years time. However, this may be one of those issues where a "tweak" is done rather than a steady defence of the issue, so, wait and see I guess.

Humbug. The PAP will never allow even questions about whether the CPF Fund to be ever fielded. Expect your questions to be ignored, just as they stopped replying to someone's cheeky assertion that the HDB was making a bloody 100% profit from the sale of flats in the ST Forum.

As for the annuities nonsense, quite frankly, the patronising attitudes of the government is getting on everyone's nerves.

It is relatively westernised. Just look at America and the dominance of the Republicans:D

Er, what ? Have you been even reading the newspapers?

[PainRack]

Humbug. The PAP will never allow even questions about whether the CPF Fund to be ever fielded. Expect your questions to be ignored, just as they stopped replying to someone's cheeky assertion that the HDB was making a bloody 100% profit from the sale of flats in the ST Forum.

And bollocks. We seen politicians raise the CPF and social security as issues for decades now. Even if Chiam won't touch it, expect Chee to. Its a good rabble rousing topic.

Er, what ? Have you been even reading the newspapers?

Obviously, you haven't been surfing this forum for very long, have you?:D

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

And bollocks. We seen politicians raise the CPF and social security as issues for decades now. Even if Chiam won't touch it, expect Chee to. Its a good rabble rousing topic.

Obviously you haven't been watching parliamentary debates on videos.

Obviously, you haven't been surfing this forum for very long, have you?:D

Obviously haven't taken notice of the bruising at the last Congressional elections. If by anything, it's a 50/50.

[Darth Wong]

Efficiency is a simple mathematical equation: efficiency = output divided by input.

Interesting thought. We would now have to define output and input for a given government

Output could be defined as

Quality of armed forces
Quality of police and law enforcement
Quality of social services
Quality of environment

Rate each of those on a one-to-ten basis and multipy those together for an output rating

Input could be derived from

Tax rates
Impact on personal freedom
Impact on economic freedom
Impact on political freedom

Multiply those four together for an input rating.

Apply the formula and we have a rating for government efficiency (although, like Mike, I suspect efficiency is the wrong word here).

Unfortunately, it would be difficult and complex to numerically assess those factors.

However, there is another way. Since inefficiency in a mechanical system is converted to waste heat, output = (input - heat). Therefore, it is possible to reformulate the equation as efficiency = (input - heat) divided by (input). In the case of politics, the equation would be:

efficiency = (input - hot air) / (input)

Unfortunately, since politicians appear to produce unlimited amounts of hot air, this would imply that efficiency is zero

[Straha]

Hong Kong '45->Chinese Take over.

[Stuart]

[Unfortunately, it would be difficult and complex to numerically assess those factors.

Let's think about this. I suggest we call this process the Stardestroyer Universal Government Analytical Rating or SUGAR for short.

We can work from budget data for a lot of this. We could start by getting the annual budgets and calculating the total tax revenues as a percentage of annual GDP. If we can then get enough of those results, we can put thems onto a 1 - 10 scale that will deliver the tax rate figure.

If we can get the expenditure on policing, social services and environmental issues from the budget, we can then use expenditure per head of the population, consolidate the data and put it onto our 1 - 10 scale. It assumes that all governments are equally effective at turning expenditure per head into real things but we can come back to that later.

The impacts on personal, economic and political freedom are going to be pretty subjective anyway so what we can do is create an arbitrary 1 - 5 ranking wherein 3 is average, 2 is below average, 4 is above average, 1 is abysmal and 5 is excellent with a presumption that 1 and 5s will be very rare. Add the three up and double the result and we're in. Its a rectal extraction but for this sort of analysis, its as accurate as anything else is likely to be.

Defense force efficiency we can work two ways. One is defense budget per head of the population, the other is a thing called the TELMO rating (TELMO being Training Equipment Leadership Morale and Operational felxibility). Again rate each of those five criteria on our 1 - 5 scale, add the numbers up, divide by 2.5 and we have a 1- 10 rating for a countryu's armed forces. Compare that with defense spending per head and see how it fits.

That gives us a first-iteration SUGAR rating. We then go back to the expenditure per head figures, multiply the result by or first generation SUGAR rating and then recalculate to give us a second-Generation and definitive SUGAR rating.

This is actually a pretty interesting project. I'll try and crack some numbers, see what comes out.

However, there is another way. Since inefficiency in a mechanical system is converted to waste heat, output = (input - heat). Therefore, it is possible to reformulate the equation as efficiency = (input - heat) divided by (input). In the case of politics, the equation would be:

efficiency = (input - hot air) / (input)

Unfortunately, since politicians appear to produce unlimited amounts of hot air, this would imply that efficiency is zero

Sadly, that analysis would appear to be consistent with both the historical record (from the time Pharaoh was a raw recruit) right up to the present.

When I get a chance, I'll do a couple of experimental SUGAR ratings though. see what the answers look like.