not at all. i only meant that if a change benefits some people, leaving most unchanged, that there is no reason to gainsay the change.

for example, if the world had only u and i in it, and say further i was richer.

any change that makes me richer, but leaves your position unchanged is OK right? the rich person is still a person right?

about your first point, i was thinking about what you meant by “common”. common, as in lahat? or common as in majority.

i’ve confirmed you meant majority.

so i’m not sure what you mean by when you say “the rich are benefitted…thats a great reason for charter change.” is your tongue in cheek? i hope so.

by common good, you mean the poor? anyone who’s not rich?

you need to write down a stronger statement — it hurts the non-rich (insert definition of rich here), while giving money to the rich (who will then not invest, but take the capital outside the country) — or something like that.

your statement implies that the non-rich aren’t affected, but the rich are benefitted. if thats what happens, thats a great reason for charter change — at least someone gets better off eh?

if changing the economic provisions won’t do anything, why not change it? at worst, nothing will happen. at best, we’d have economic activity in previously protected sectors.

And the Global Competitiveness report indicates all reasons are political – corruption, lack of infrastructure and bad governance.