3 ms·

This is a red herring. It is a conscious decision of the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state. Because of limited space owning a car will

This is a red herring. It is a conscious decision of the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state. Because of limited space owning a car will be expensive in any casem

boeingUH60 3y ago
> It is a conscious decision if the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state. Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO.
- jeswin 3y ago
  > Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO. Some of them make sense. But executing people for drug crimes can be called barbarism.
- gottorf 3y ago
  > Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO. Singapore is a one-party state, probably as close to a perfect implementation of a benevolent dictatorship as there ever could be. It's a great place to live if you don't care about political freedoms and aren't a dissident of any kind. It's only had three prime ministers since self-governance began in 1959 (64 years ago), and the third and current prime minister, who has been in office for nearly 20 years, is the eldest son of the first prime minister, who was in office for over 30 years. The same party, the People's Action Party, has had over three-quarters of the seats in parliament throughout the country's whole history. There are many things to be admired about Singapore, a "good balance between freedom and responsibility" is not one of them. And endemic to all governments of this type, it remains to be seen whether it can be maintained for another few generations of Singaporeans. https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2023 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
  - karmakurtisaani 3y ago
    Just to add to you comment, the fundamental problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it stays a dictatorship even after the benevolent part ends.
chimpanzee 3y ago
Without the fee, the cost will take time to rise. During this period of rising costs, cars will be overbought (in relation to the parking and driving space available). As car numbers increase, traffic congestion increases. (This is a time cost) As congestion increases, cars will be sold or parked in favor of public transportation. Selling a car in such conditions will be difficult and probably result in net loss. This means more cars will be kept parked and unused. (This is a space cost) All the while, traffic will still be bad. And now there are more cars in the city than can be driven or sold. A fee can prevent these time and space costs, effectively turning them into upfront monetary costs.
- mytailorisrich 3y ago
  If there is no parking space overall car ownership cost will adjust very quickly, especially in a city where I am sure police does not take lightly to illegal parking... (and you probably need some form of official authorisation to build more parking spaces...) I think some places regulate car numbers by requiring proof of parking space in order to buy a car (some towns in China?). This is not a criticism. They decided to limit cars and to limit them through tax.
  - chimpanzee 3y ago
    Good point. Since cars aren’t driven 24-7, every purchase likely already has a known space available, limiting the negative effects of parked cars. This doesn’t take into account shared spaces (where one car is parked while another drives), which might be more common in such a space-limited area? Just a guess. Either way, a parked car is still a waste of space. A fee can help make more space available for humans rather than metal. (Assuming the fee rises above the natural cost of parking)

This is a red herring. It is a conscious decision of the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state. Because of limited space owning a car will be expensive in any casem

boeingUH60 3y ago

> It is a conscious decision if the government rather than a consequence of being a city-state. Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO.

jeswin 3y ago
> Sometimes, drastic solutions like these are needed. Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO. Some of them make sense. But executing people for drug crimes can be called barbarism.
gottorf 3y ago
> Singapore strikes a good balance between freedom and responsibility IMHO. Singapore is a one-party state, probably as close to a perfect implementation of a benevolent dictatorship as there ever could be. It's a great place to live if you don't care about political freedoms and aren't a dissident of any kind. It's only had three prime ministers since self-governance began in 1959 (64 years ago), and the third and current prime minister, who has been in office for nearly 20 years, is the eldest son of the first prime minister, who was in office for over 30 years. The same party, the People's Action Party, has had over three-quarters of the seats in parliament throughout the country's whole history. There are many things to be admired about Singapore, a "good balance between freedom and responsibility" is not one of them. And endemic to all governments of this type, it remains to be seen whether it can be maintained for another few generations of Singaporeans. https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/2023 https://freedomhouse.org/country/singapore/freedom-world/202...
- karmakurtisaani 3y ago
  Just to add to you comment, the fundamental problem with a benevolent dictatorship is that it stays a dictatorship even after the benevolent part ends.

chimpanzee 3y ago

Without the fee, the cost will take time to rise. During this period of rising costs, cars will be overbought (in relation to the parking and driving space available). As car numbers increase, traffic congestion increases. (This is a time cost) As congestion increases, cars will be sold or parked in favor of public transportation. Selling a car in such conditions will be difficult and probably result in net loss. This means more cars will be kept parked and unused. (This is a space cost) All the while, traffic will still be bad. And now there are more cars in the city than can be driven or sold. A fee can prevent these time and space costs, effectively turning them into upfront monetary costs.

mytailorisrich 3y ago
If there is no parking space overall car ownership cost will adjust very quickly, especially in a city where I am sure police does not take lightly to illegal parking... (and you probably need some form of official authorisation to build more parking spaces...) I think some places regulate car numbers by requiring proof of parking space in order to buy a car (some towns in China?). This is not a criticism. They decided to limit cars and to limit them through tax.
- chimpanzee 3y ago
  Good point. Since cars aren’t driven 24-7, every purchase likely already has a known space available, limiting the negative effects of parked cars. This doesn’t take into account shared spaces (where one car is parked while another drives), which might be more common in such a space-limited area? Just a guess. Either way, a parked car is still a waste of space. A fee can help make more space available for humans rather than metal. (Assuming the fee rises above the natural cost of parking)