BushBaby said:
FAIR competition in business (less corruption)
In principle I agree on that one, but only as far as corruption goes. As for 'fair', well... let just say that even if there was less corruption, 'fair competition' would not exist since fair can mean:
A) Every entrepreneur being treated as if all have the same ability to run a business.
or
B) Everyone should have an equal opportunity in starting a business.
Frankly, neither of the two is realistically possible, not even in the most effective economies in the world today.
Competition with little corruption is good and I support, but this 'fair competition' can mean something else that goes contrary to a natural capitalistic system.
BushBaby said:
Greater support (less bureaucracy) in start-up ventures & expanding businesses
Agree.
BushBaby said:
Incentive schemes to promote entrepreneurs
Of course, more is always better, but lets not forget that there are some incentive schemes already in place meant to promote entrepreneurship and/or supports businesses.
BushBaby said:
More experienced/trained teachers for the schooling of the next two generations of businessmen/women
With more investment in education, which is already being increased (see post #8), the quality of the teachers will inevitably increase. Good things takes time.
BushBaby said:
Stable (& sensible) electricity prices with facilities to organise one's own where necessary
This is currently in the agenda and some positive results are already being witnessing. On highly localized level there are places that no longer suffer power outages, except during maintenance; and on a more national level the number and length of power outages has improved considerably compared to how the situation was not too long ago.
Further attention towards resolving this issue and increasing numbers of customers that agree to pay their bills will result in more stable prices. Again, this is a problem that was decades in the making and its being tackled with seriousness for the first time in the last few years with promising results.
Give it some time, because not only is there a light at the end of the tunnel, but that light appears to be on 24/7.
BushBaby said:
Less (MUCH less) skimming off the top of contracts by politicians that are hell bent in lining their own pockets only
I don't agree of painting all politicians with the same brush. Just because there is a sizable number of politicians that are highly corrupt and many others that are "partially" corrupt or less corrupt; doesn't mean that all of them are and its unfair to those who are working hard with the public's interest at hand to be relegated as something that they are not!
Having said that, I agree with you statement.
BushBaby said:
Less (like ZERO) money being spent on stupid contracts like 'The Metro' which will only benefit a few & not the majority of the populace
This has to be the most idiotic statement and I don't blame you since you didn't came up with it, you're simply repeating what the opposition was chanting and journalists and other people wrote over and over in various media platforms.
But, what exactly are you saying? A further analysis of such statement that incorporates terms such as "only benefit a few and not the majority" reveals, then, that according to you government should not invest at all.
And no, this is no stretch of what you are saying, take a look at these examples using your basic premise:
1. The government should had never expanded, or even built the Duarte Highway because that project only benefits Santiagueros, capitale?os, and everyone that lives inbetween; while being a sizable portion of the population, its not the majority.
2. The government should had never built the autopista del Este since it only benefits a minority and not the majority.
3. The government should had never repaired the collapsed portion of the Luperon Highway because that highway only benefits Puerto Plata and Santiago, hardly the majority of the population.
4. The government should had never built the Luperon Airport since that airport only benefits Puerto Plata, hardly the majority.
5. The government should not build the Samana highway, since that only benefits capitale?os on the way to Samana and vice versa, hardly the majority.
6. The government should had never improved the 27 de Febrero, Kennedy, and Las Americas avenues in Santo Domingo since it only benefits a minority.
7. The government should had never built the Metropolitan Hospital in Santiago since it will only benefit Santiagueros and Cibae?os, hardly the majority.
Get the picture?
Acting as if a part of the country doesn't affect the whole is absurd at its most basic level.
The metro will benefit the most capitale?os, yes that's true; but it will also bring benefits to the entire country as well.
40% of the GDP of the DR is produced in Santo Domingo, that's almost half the country's economy concentrated in ONE URBAN AREA, that is becoming so congested that, particularly during rush hours, transiting from one end to the other is becoming not a headache, but a major migraine. That has a negative effect on the economy of the city and such city being home to almost half of the economy, the importance of implementing a public transport system that will bring the greatest benefit and efficiency are tremendous.
Anyone that says that a project that will benefit a region where 40% of the economy is produced will not benefit the country either is not attuned as to how much economic weight the capital has or is simply letting political ideologies dictate his/her ability to use common sense.
"The improvement of towns leads to the improvement of the country", those words were first said by Adams Smith well over 200 years ago and its just as true today as it was back then, more so when a country's economy is so heavily dependent in a particular region!
BushBaby said:
Less politically appointed 'botellas' who just reduce the amount of money available for distribution to businesses
On that we all agree.
BushBaby said:
......... The list is extensive & does not include ONE element of Socialism in it!! On the contrary - it is all solid Conservative principles which most governmants in the world try to forget so as to benefit only themselves & their supporters!!
Wanting to discuss things so as to work in the manner suitable to the majority is NOT Socialism Nal's ...... it is COMMON SENSE!! ~ Grahame.
If what you claim is true, then this must be the first time I come across with a person whose political inclinations are not influenced by that of his spouse. :ermm:
-NALs