correction

[James Devine <jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Louis says: >There are all sorts of mitigating
> circumstances that have to be taken into account when judging Singapore,
> for example. Jim Devine pointed out that a lot of Singapore's success is
> related to the exploitation of Malaysia.

Antonio replies: >I can't let this one go. I don't know where Jim D is
getting his info. on Singapore.<

I can't let _this_ go. I never said that Singapore exploited Malaysia.
Rather my point is that one can't really compare the "success" of a
city-state like Singapore to the "failure" of a country like, say, Algeria
without taking into account the fact that Singapore as a unit excludes the
countryside, which is often left behind in the development process.
(Singapore's countryside is in Malaysia.)

City-states like Singapore should be compared to other city-states. BTW, I
understand that Singapore was a a commercial center for more than a century,
an important link in the British Empire, able to skim off some of the BE's
winnings. If so, we should judge Singapore's success now compared to its
relative success 50 years ago (relative meaning compared to other "third
world" countries).
Jim Devine
jdevine@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://clawww.lmu.edu/1997F/ECON/jdevine.html
"Peace will come to the world when L.A. has a professional football team
again."
-- Sports for the Millenium.