CDC Vouchers

[Tianmo]

7 hours ago, Lala81 said:

Hopefully interest rates stay middling to high for years to come. I think that's the only way to slow down this disastrous cycle (note that I don't say reverse). 

Cos surely when the next financial crisis comes, rates will go to zero in USA. Real estate, asset prices sky rocket again. 

For a normal Joe, without significant leverage (and hence significant risk), there's no way the middle or lower class can keep up with the upper 10-20%.

I'm not very optimistic of any other scenario coming out. 

Personally I am not optimistic of interest rate will stay high for too long. Fed is likely to tighten their rate another 0.5 to 0.75% ( I am for 2 x 0.25%), with the next one coming on 1 Feb. After that likely to hold still and slowly lower it back down. 

On the ground, US inflation would not have gone up so fast.  This price increase is partly due to the covid lockdown in china,  the war that started in Feb 2022, and money flowing into US financial markets from China. But the main issue is the debts owe by Fed and the printing of more greenbacks.

I don't have the numbers off hand, but I read that in the past months, the Fed, with its increase interest rate has collected enough money to pay its debts. This inflation is really not about the economy,  is about the Fed, its debts and the printing of more money. 

Economic data, which I don't believe totally, are showing that the economy is still strong, but housing is slowing down, cpi is slowing down, hourly rates are down, core PCE is down. But news already reporting that many housing defaults are showing up, which I believe to be true after one full year of interest rate increase. 

The retrenchments reported by big tech companies late last year and early this year, will likely be felt in the next few months, and these are just the big boys showing Fed that they are giving in after one year of fighting the Fed. So now the Fed finally gets its way. 

The Fed is bloody the biggest market maker in the world, and Wall Street is basically the world's biggest casino. US economy lives on borrowed money and low interest rate is key. The past one year of so call high inflation and bear market created by Fed is already seeing blood flowing. 

With the big boys doing what the Fed wanted now, helping to flow even the printed monies, cutting jobs and creating unemployment to fit the so call "soft landing", interest rates will have to start coming down before this gets out of hand and a real recession hits. 

And with China now stopping PRCs from buying US financial products from China effective middle of this month, a big part of money is going missing in wall streets, and cheap money need to flow in to replace this lose fund.

I can go on, but it's going to become a boring wall of text. 

So I think, interest rate won't hold high for too long, but the good news is we might siam a recession.

 

 

[Wind30]

5 hours ago, Benarsenal said:

They do give cash ah. The dunno what payout or something.

The CDC vouchers as I understand, the purpose is actually to benefit the businesses. The original rationale was to encourage Singaporeans to spend on local businesses when they were struggling during COVID. That's why it is limited use only and not everywhere can use.

This reason I feel is logical.

Like you mentioned, these CDC vouchers was really designed during covid when local businesses were suffering from a special event covid. The question I have for you now is do you feel this reason still apply now? Do we still have to support those businesses?

For me, it is a flat no. Do we really want our small businesses to be reliant on support measures even when we are out of Covid? I really don't see any special circumstances now that warrant such support measures. That is one of my primary objections to the CDC voucher scheme now. 

The other reason mentioned by others of trying to restrict people spending habits into to necessities does not fly as in reality people can very easily by other stuff with the money they saved.

[Wind30]

10 hours ago, Stratovarius said:

I think the main point of your post is one, it drives up inflation. Which probably isn't true as the vouchers are targeted for necessities. Sellers are not going to sell a pack of rice at the higher price coz of CDC, not directly at least. 2nd, u mentioned why not cash which many others here already explained. 

I din read all the post but I think there are not much comments on the broad base implementation.

Ok, I think your point is that the inflation it drives up is insignificant, which is what some people like Lala is trying to say. I can't present a case that on how much inflation it will cause but I showed an IMF article detailing the general relationship with broad based support and inflation. It is also logical. You give people money, prices will go up right? Even for necessities. Sellers will sell at a higher price when there are more money around to buy a limited set of goods. 

I don't think it is fair to say there is zero inflation through the act of giving out money to EVERYONE. The gov can always save the money and run a budget with a smaller deficit (or surplus). 

As long as we can agree that there is inflation, however small, then the question really lies in the pros and cons of the two paths, giving money to everyone and giving money to only the people who really need it. To me, the targeted assistances channels are already there and there is literally no overhead in doing targeted assistance. but I think you are one of the very few who agrees with targeted assistance so no need to convince you.

My thinking is that the inflation is a huge problem and every little bit helps. If we agree that a certain spending isn't necessary, we should not do it and not argue about how much inflation it actually cause.

[Wind30]

7 minutes ago, Calinlin said:

Not economist, but common sense tells me the worst way to fight inflation is to inject money. CDC is more gimmicky to show they are trying to help peasants. I will take it happily, knowing I will pay back 5x next year.

The actual impact, it is like injecting 650milion into the economy only. Government probably spend 2x that installing lift at overhead bridge. Issue is that this is 650milion injected into peasants who will really spend it at peasant businesses which will really recirculate it. There will be strong multipler effect. How strong, can find out if I am paid their salary.

And, when you control major supermarket, utilities, public transport, private transport, private and public housing, petrol cartel, etc etc, it is very easy to shelter peasants from inflation without pumping in more money...problem is, you pump money, that is a one time help. You cut some conservancy tax or petrol tax, next year is sibei hard to put back...so, nothing wrong with making more money, if you can keep the peasants' votes, which is like 95% of your vote base.

thanks. Maybe people will be more receptive coming from another person 🙂 

Although people say I don't read what other people writes, but I REALLY do. It is just most of the time, I have thought of some of those reasons before hand and dismissed them myself already. 

My conclusion is like you, it is really just a political thing. I am ok with doing stuff to stay in power, assuming it is not obviously bad for Singapore. That is where I draw the line. The stuff you do cannot be BAD for singapore. 

Another example, is the elected president saga example a few years back. I think that was wrong too.

Edited January 27, 2023 by Wind30

[RadX]

@Calinlin u nailed it on the political part, I dun disagree

[Wind30]

11 hours ago, Theoldjaffa said:

i replied to Radx.. not u.

 

and this msg.. yes i'm replying to u.

 

there is a difference.

 

no wonder you don't understand or miscontrue a fair bit of things.

 

My point actually was to allude to WHY did you ,and a few others like radx , even reply to this thread if u are not willing to discuss the issue? Nothing to do with who u reply to….

Seriously just spend sometime thinking about it. U and Tianmo I am ok actually, but for moderators I don’t think it’s right actually. Ok to be fair, I do see radx trying his very best to be polite but still his irritation shows… 🙂 

Btw, I ignore many threads in mcf which I personally feel disgusted about or don’t agree with over many years here… 

 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Wind30

[Lala81]

3 hours ago, Calinlin said:

Not economist, but common sense tells me the worst way to fight inflation is to inject money. CDC is more gimmicky to show they are trying to help peasants. I will take it happily, knowing I will pay back 5x next year.

The actual impact, it is like injecting 650milion into the economy only. Government probably spend 2x that installing lift at overhead bridge. Issue is that this is 650milion injected into peasants who will really spend it at peasant businesses which will really recirculate it. There will be strong multipler effect. How strong, can find out if I am paid their salary.

And, when you control major supermarket, utilities, public transport, private transport, private and public housing, petrol cartel, etc etc, it is very easy to shelter peasants from inflation without pumping in more money...problem is, you pump money, that is a one time help. You cut some conservancy tax or petrol tax, next year is sibei hard to put back...so, nothing wrong with making more money, if you can keep the peasants' votes, which is like 95% of your vote base.

A one time cash/voucher grant can be rescinded or reduced. Like if next year u get cdc voucher 50 dollars instead. Issit really you going to bitch about it?

But if u say reduce petrol tax to 15% instead of 20%. And have to increase it up later, there will be a fall out. 

Its simply the human mindset towards any sort of subsidy. 

Loss avoidance vs gain seeking. 

Look at how much problems they have raising petroleum prices in our neighbours. 

The govt (for better or worse), is smart enough not to do it. You would too if you were in power. Cos it saves a lot of headaches and political capital. 

 

Yes there is a re circulation effect like what everyone mentioned. Certainly I have noticed friends and family trying to use the vouchers instead of just buying everything off redmart or ntuc online. My sis only does online delivery. So while she used her small retailers vouchers. She can't use the supermarket one. 

Edited January 28, 2023 by Lala81

[Fcw75]

Don’t think needed then just share the link lor. 

More than willing to use. 🤣

[Enye]

wah you all debate debate so much ah 

i peasant take my cdc vouchers spend first… at least can help with expenses for the month

for peasants like me …already cannot cari makan liao…every little bit from ah gong counts you know

😓

[Benarsenal]

16 hours ago, Wind30 said:

This reason I feel is logical.

Like you mentioned, these CDC vouchers was really designed during covid when local businesses were suffering from a special event covid. The question I have for you now is do you feel this reason still apply now? Do we still have to support those businesses?

For me, it is a flat no. Do we really want our small businesses to be reliant on support measures even when we are out of Covid? I really don't see any special circumstances now that warrant such support measures. That is one of my primary objections to the CDC voucher scheme now. 

The other reason mentioned by others of trying to restrict people spending habits into to necessities does not fly as in reality people can very easily by other stuff with the money they saved.

My answer is yes. Not everybody has recovered from Covid yet.

Honestly, take a walk around a neighbourhood, maybe a less popular/accessible one like e.g. Ghim Moh. A lot of hawker stalls, neighbourhood shops are still struggling for business.

[t0y0ta]

15 hours ago, Benarsenal said:

My answer is yes. Not everybody has recovered from Covid yet.

Honestly, take a walk around a neighbourhood, maybe a less popular/accessible one like e.g. Ghim Moh. A lot of hawker stalls, neighbourhood shops are still struggling for business.

errr Ghim Moh doing very well leh

[Fitvip]

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/hawker-who-mocked-customer-for-using-cdc-vouchers-missed-the-point-entirely

[Soya]

On 1/28/2023 at 6:17 AM, Wind30 said:

This reason I feel is logical.

Like you mentioned, these CDC vouchers was really designed during covid when local businesses were suffering from a special event covid. The question I have for you now is do you feel this reason still apply now? Do we still have to support those businesses?

For me, it is a flat no. Do we really want our small businesses to be reliant on support measures even when we are out of Covid? I really don't see any special circumstances now that warrant such support measures. That is one of my primary objections to the CDC voucher scheme now. 

The other reason mentioned by others of trying to restrict people spending habits into to necessities does not fly as in reality people can very easily by other stuff with the money they saved.

Ain't abt covid anymore. It's abt giving u some crumbs to sweeten the ground so that they can raise ur income tax on 14 Feb. Watch this space....

 

[inlinesix]

17 hours ago, Fitvip said:

https://www.straitstimes.com/opinion/hawker-who-mocked-customer-for-using-cdc-vouchers-missed-the-point-entirely

 

[Fcw75]

5 minutes ago, Soya said:

Ain't abt covid anymore. It's abt giving u some crumbs to sweeten the ground so that they can raise ur income tax on 14 Feb. Watch this space....

 

I thought got V day present?

 

Wong, who is Minister for Finance, quipped that Budget 2023 will be his "Valentine's Day present to all" to help them cope with rising costs, as he acknowledged the concerns many have regarding the issues surrounding the cost of living.

Edited January 30, 2023 by Fcw75

[inlinesix]

Just now, Fcw75 said:

I thought got V day present?

 

Wong, who is Minister for Finance, quipped that Budget 2023 will be his "Valentine's Day present to all" to help them cope with rising costs, as he acknowledged the concerns many have regarding the issues surrounding the cost of living.

He is never a ROMANTIC person.

 

[mersaylee]

40 minutes ago, inlinesix said:

He is never a ROMANTIC person.

 

Yah...he's the got rice eat rice, got porridge eat porridge kind...similar to that no chicken eat fish...ikan bilis also fish corright? 😅

[inlinesix]

35 minutes ago, mersaylee said:

Yah...he's the got rice eat rice, got porridge eat porridge kind...similar to that no chicken eat fish...ikan bilis also fish corright? 😅

I know his personality through a friend.