I didn't say those in other rich countries take it more for granted that the currently rich Singaporeans. Kids today in Singapore have an entitled attitude similar to (probably not quite as extreme, but still...) that of kids in the USA. The current (rich) kid attitude in Singapore is not like the attitude of kids in poor countries today or Singapore in 1970.
Poverty in much of the world today means: people starving, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no clean water... Often those in rich countries (which I would imagine lots of those reading Hacker News are) don't appreciate the benefits of those things. We are not talking about poverty of not being able to get cable TV or a fancy coffee.
Malaysia and Singapore were 1 country for a short while after independence. This is also why the data can't start much earlier, Singapore wasn't its own country until 1965 (and wasn't "independent" - as part of independent Malaysia) until 1963.
People have a right to dislike some of Singapore's policies, I think. But denying that they have done a fantastic job economically I think is just contrary to the facts. They have one advantage - a good location for a port. They have very little else - no natural resources, no store of wealth to build up after WWII... Likely at least dozens of countries were in better shape to grow economically in 1970, than was Singapore. Singapore surpassed probably all of them. Even if Singapore didn't, they did about as well as any country. I can't imagine more than 10 countries could reasonably be argued had better economic performance from 1970 to 2010.
I do like what Germany took on and has accomplished.
Poverty in much of the world today means: people starving, no electricity, no indoor plumbing, no clean water... Often those in rich countries (which I would imagine lots of those reading Hacker News are) don't appreciate the benefits of those things. We are not talking about poverty of not being able to get cable TV or a fancy coffee.
Singapore was not rich, and had been occupied, brutally, by Japan during WWII. Here is data on how rich Singapore was http://www.singstat.gov.sg/stats/themes/economy/hist/gdp.htm...
__________ 1970___2010UK________ 2250___36300 USA_______ 5050___47100 France____ 2936___40600 Germany___ 2497___40500 Singapore_ 920___42650
Brazil____ 409___10500 Malaysia__ 412___7755 Mexico____ 900___9200 Panama____ 753___7700 Portugal__ 859___21000 South Africa_ 850___7100 Venezuela__ 1790___9773
Malaysia and Singapore were 1 country for a short while after independence. This is also why the data can't start much earlier, Singapore wasn't its own country until 1965 (and wasn't "independent" - as part of independent Malaysia) until 1963.
People have a right to dislike some of Singapore's policies, I think. But denying that they have done a fantastic job economically I think is just contrary to the facts. They have one advantage - a good location for a port. They have very little else - no natural resources, no store of wealth to build up after WWII... Likely at least dozens of countries were in better shape to grow economically in 1970, than was Singapore. Singapore surpassed probably all of them. Even if Singapore didn't, they did about as well as any country. I can't imagine more than 10 countries could reasonably be argued had better economic performance from 1970 to 2010.
I do like what Germany took on and has accomplished.