LIFT: Economics again

It has been a busy week as well as a tiring week. I've been wanting to update my blog but a combination of work and fatigue prevented me from doing so. What's more, I logged in to the virtual learning space yesterday only to receive a bombshell: the BSP3001 forum is active! I hastily read the postings and contributed some comments. Phew... I do like to participate in forum discussions but not not when it's 2 in the morning.

Anyway, it's kinda surprising that there are many LIFT this week. Perhaps I'm jumping the gun here. Below is not a LIFT but a reply from Symantec to one of the LIFT I featured earlier.










If you read the reply, you will see that Symantec is basically saying this: "We can and will set different prices for different people. You paid more? Tough luck." Not so different from my reply, actually.

Now, here's a LIFT that complains about price differences again. Seriously, they really need to revamp the education system to incorporate basic economics into early education. If not, we'll have clueless people writing to complain about things which are perfectly OK in the eyes of economics.










My reply:

Dear Mr Chee,

Apparently, you perception of NTUC Fairprice as selling cheap stuff is marred and destroyed. But that's OK, because is Fairprice obliged to offer a fair price to you? The answer is the same as the answer to this question: Can light escape a black hole?

In fact, nothing escapes the black hole, due to the extreme gravity and the incredible density. In a strange, bizzare way, your logic of writing to the papers to complain is similar to that of the black hole - it is really dense. For that, it goes straight into my LIFT list.

And I guess you can await a nice, politically correct reply from NTUC Fairprice to tell you why they charge differently. Frankly, I don't see the need for them to entertain a letter that has roughly the same value as a worthless piece of crud.

herzberg

The next letter comes from a single, I presume, for she advocates the construction of smaller apartments for singles. Either that or she is a grass widow.










My reply:

Dear Ms Lin,

Wouldn't your suggestion encourage increased singlehood, ultimately condemning Singapore to fewer babies and by extreme extrapolation, extinction? Besides, the government is encouraging people to have more kids and your suggestion seem to contradict this doctrine in a direct and blunt manner; not too smart a move, I'd say.

Of course, you did carefully pad your letter by implying that this may benefit "singles who can't afford to purchase private property and who have no family to live with". I think these singles should then sign up with SDU and get a mate, instead of living in solitude.

You also said you "know that more singles are being tossed back into society each day". Any evidence or statistics to substantiate your claim? Or are you simply just using those around you as a convenient, albeit highly inaccurate and bias, sample? I find it appalling to see such statements being made without any attempts to qualify them. For that, your letter automatically makes it into my LIFT list.

That said, I'd love to see the replies you will be getting in time to come, if there are any, that is.

herzberg