4 ms·

Your hypothesis that Singapore's done so well because of its location is certainly a common one and puts you in good company. It doesn't strike me as very pers

Your hypothesis that Singapore's done so well because of its location is certainly a common one and puts you in good company. It doesn't strike me as very persuasive though. For instance, here's a map[1] of ports and harbors in Malaysia. There are a lot of them. How come Singapore has almost the GDP (239 billion) of all of Malaysia put together (278 billion)? [1] http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php http://www.worldportsource.com/ports/MYS.php

yummyfajitas 14y ago
Lets ask a different question. Why does NYC have a GDP of $544B [1], which is nearly as large as that of the rest of NY State ($611B)? Another comparison: the GDP of the NYC metro area is $1.28T [2]. The GDP of Texas is $1.3T, Florida is $0.754 and CA is $1.9T. You are probably right that location doesn't explain Singapore's wealth. But education probably doesn't either - I don't see any reason to believe NYC has a better education system than NY - NYC, CA, TX or FL. The simplest explanation is that when a city becomes a regional hub, it generates disproportionate amounts of wealth. In the case of Singapore, the city also just happened to be a country. [1] http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia12.pdf http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia1... [2] The metro area is NYC + commuter suburbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City [edit: B -> T for NYC metro GDP]
- seagreen 14y ago
  I think you mean trillion instead of billion for the NYC metro area GDP. We really need words that sound more different for the two concepts, because they're way too easy to confuse despite how different they are. Good comparison between the SE Asia situation and New York. I think it paints an accurate picture of what's going on. My beef with the parent is this line, "Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wold today." Personally, I think a more accurate way to put that would be "because of their strategic place in the world and merit." Singaporeans had something to do with Singapore becoming a regional hub (the second time, at least) and they should get credit for it. I definitely don't think education alone explains Singapore's wealth. Just because I disagreed with one of the parent's points doesn't mean I disagree with everything he said.

yummyfajitas 14y ago

Lets ask a different question. Why does NYC have a GDP of $544B [1], which is nearly as large as that of the rest of NY State ($611B)? Another comparison: the GDP of the NYC metro area is $1.28T [2]. The GDP of Texas is $1.3T, Florida is $0.754 and CA is $1.9T. You are probably right that location doesn't explain Singapore's wealth. But education probably doesn't either - I don't see any reason to believe NYC has a better education system than NY - NYC, CA, TX or FL. The simplest explanation is that when a city becomes a regional hub, it generates disproportionate amounts of wealth. In the case of Singapore, the city also just happened to be a country. [1] http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia12.pdf http://www.housingnyc.com/downloads/research/pdf_reports/ia1... [2] The metro area is NYC + commuter suburbs: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_metropolitan_area https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_New_York_City [edit: B -> T for NYC metro GDP]

seagreen 14y ago
I think you mean trillion instead of billion for the NYC metro area GDP. We really need words that sound more different for the two concepts, because they're way too easy to confuse despite how different they are. Good comparison between the SE Asia situation and New York. I think it paints an accurate picture of what's going on. My beef with the parent is this line, "Singapore is what it is because of their strategic placing in the wold today." Personally, I think a more accurate way to put that would be "because of their strategic place in the world and merit." Singaporeans had something to do with Singapore becoming a regional hub (the second time, at least) and they should get credit for it. I definitely don't think education alone explains Singapore's wealth. Just because I disagreed with one of the parent's points doesn't mean I disagree with everything he said.