pero cympre di naman masama kung magsusulat tayo sa ingles…

Thanks I did a bit of cosmetic “re-engineering” on it to make it more intuitive. That “debate” with Abinales was a classic for me (a guy with lots of jargon at his disposal but ultimately possessing no substance), but I don’t recall any extensive debate with anyone named “Pedro” on the PCIJ though…

I had a bit of trouble opening your blog at work. But presumably the three points you wrote in your MLQ3 comment captures the essence of your essay (which i will check out from home later).

I am inclined to make a sweeping summary of the ten conditions you outlined based on your interpretation of Rostow in a two-word phrase:

CAPITAL EXPANSION.

The disposal of OFW remittances exemplifies the current dysfunction and unsustainability of the way Pinoys manage these windfalls (and it mirrors the way we employed our natural resources in the past — our forests, our agriculture, our minerals, etc.). Rather than invest the billions worth of forex remitted by OFW’s in fixed capital goods, we are squandering them on karaokes, celphone trinkets, cheap Chinese-made RTW’s, Starbucks lattes, and — you guessed it — ocho-ocho CDs and DVDs.

First it was abundant timber, then it was abundant rice, now it is abundant labour we are exporting RAW — spending the principal/capital instead of employing said principal/capital to generate sustainable INCOME. Kung baga instead of living modestly off the INTEREST we use the ORIGINAL DEPOSIT itself to strut around like royalty.

I agree that all societies have the equivalent economic elites that monopolised wealth. The difference between basket cases like the Philippines and achievers like the U.S., however is that whilst these elites thrived and enriched themselves, the wealth somehow trickled down to the masses as well and slowly — but surely — resulted in perceptible improvements in quality of life for them too.

Why can’t that happen in the Philippines despite monoliths like San Miguel, SM, and countless other MNCs employing millions of Pinoys (not to mention millions of others employed overseas and propping up the economy to the tune of 10%)?

It goes back to our lack of inclination to use capital properly (for enterprise RATHER THAN consumerism). 10% of the economy is propped up by OFW remittances. But beyond pathetic jeepneys (the proverbial ‘katas ng Saudi’s) we haven’t really seen any OFW-remittance-capitalised major enterprises, have we?

Chaebols and robber-barons infested Korea and the U.S. back when they were emerging economies. But what small proportion of the phenomenal wealth (think the late Standard Oil, the Hyundais, Petronas, Microsoft) trickled to the masses was prudently SAVED and wisely USED.

I don’t think Pinoys possess the characteristics that enabled the average turn-of-the-century American or the average Korean of the 60’s to 70’s to CREATE so much with so little at the start.

Mayroon yatang pakiwari si Manong Benigs na ang ekonomiks ay hiwalay sa pulitika. – sparks

It may be pakiwari (perception) as to Benigs, but to Ate Glo it looks more like pag-kukunwari (deception).

Consider these sound bytes by courtesy of SONA 2005 and my response:

GMA: Here’s the divide: One is Philippines whose economy, after long years of cumulative national endeavor, is now poised for take off. The other is the Philippines whose political system, after equally long years of degeneration, has become a hindrance to progress.

ABE: Where there should be talk about dealing with the broader issue of “political economy” (whose two-fold objectives I suppose are: to provide subsistence for the people and produce revenue for the state), there’s hairsplitting for some deceitful, albeit dramatic, effects.

. . . As usual the politicos are made the whipping boys and girls again (although many of them deserve the whip), but she, being a “US-schooled economist” and certainly a politica herself, now “kinder, gentler,” gets credit for half of her supposed being.

Meanwhile, in GMA’s blaming environment . . . whereas the political system is getting the heavy axe, escaping unscathed is the longstanding incompetence and/or laggardness of the economic elites who seem simply content with driving productive and available Pinoy human capital overseas; and as “paper” entrepreneurs, are the most to gain through their banks from the money remitted by heroic OFWs who risk being raped, held hostage, or murdered in the dessert to earn a living (Aren’t Pinoys really toughies? Think now of our supposed “damaged culture” or “indolence”).

No wonder these “rent-seeking” elites (meaning they rather rent their wealth by buying government treasuries at guaranteed interests or otherwise tending their “paper” industries) and taipans are not risking enough to build factories that create the all-too important value-added. They also play-all-too-safe by just building malls, investing in real estates and similar ventures, while the media they control (and that gives us bloggers a good reason for being) frets about declining foreign direct investments, not domestic direct investments, or plays blind about the gargantuan money safely salted away abroad.

GMA: I specially refer to our recent titanic struggle to enact the three laws that comprised the biggest fiscal package in our history, the biggest revenue increase in a generation that will break the vicious cycle of financing development by borrowing and having to borrow again just to service those loans. This is the one reform that will snap the chain that has bound our future to a profligate past and the debt-burdened present.

ABE: Titanic? When GMA (or the next leadership) starts dangling the debt-moratorium card in the face of the country’s creditors, or telling the domestic rentier regime to take up the slack in government spending and build this and that industry or else (bad “tips” for the messiahs in the barracks?), that’s when the “struggle” can be called titanic or fundamental or radical. But right now, it’s business as usual, meaning after debt service, still no monies would be left to serve the objectives of the political economy such as to pump prime and stimulate the economy in the Keynesian fashion when needed, or for human capital enhancement (not to speak of the minimum requirements for education, healthcare, welfare and similar initiatives) so that when the next batch of OFWs are dispatched (those “average Pinoys”), they get the better-paying jobs and remit home more.

That was 2005.

Your site is a lot more impressive now than it was during your debate with Jojo Abinales and Pedro at PCIJ (I really hope that Jojo and Pedro will continue to have some meaningful exchanges with us at least here at mlq3’s). I like your presentation too.

If you are also interested in what my thoughts are on the relevant issues we have covered in our debates, you may check my entry here. It is an essay I wrote last year on the 20th commemoration of EDSA 1.

There are at least three important questions raised in the essay:

1.On personal leadership: Who among the contending aspirants for national leadership has the singular qualification of the power of the will to break up the long-standing “unholy alliance” and “perverse symbiosis” of the wealthy and powerful without breaking the nation apart?

2. On the challenge to the governing elites: How to summon up the will and marshal the skills to overcome oppositions and disagreements through negotiations and compromises among the workers, private business and the government with a view to working out a national consensus, in a Bayanihan pact of sort, for some grand economic arrangement better than the alternative that either leads to the domestic wealth holders exporting their financial assets (the gargantuan value of which is estimated, at least anecdotally, to approximate the national debt today) or to their own financial crisis because of debt defaults, or both.

3. On the Filipino alternative: As the Filipino alternative to the Americans’ robber baron, the Japanese zaibatsu, the South Korean chaebol or the Taiwanese countryside industrialization model is: Whether the gateway to equitable accumulation and ultimately national development could also be accessed by way of the power of consensus of people power democracy that’s willing to learn from the best practices that work and, based on ongoing experience and rising above ideologies, eschew things that don’t, or change even established notions and practices when concrete realities and the complex necessities for change in the service of the common good require.

Conclusion: To build a strong republic, the entrepreneurial spirit must lead the pursuit of aggressive growth-oriented strategic goals by: aspiring not only for the short-run objective of a domestic market patronizing Filipino products but for such products with fewer export components to attain the competitive edge for the export market; taking the risk to explore the nation’s great potential for sustainable alternative sources of energy to produce those products without undue reliance upon imported sources; investing enough in our human capital, through quality training and education, as part of the goods of the future; or essentially, producing the right goods the right way doing the best with what we have or potentially should have so that the national vision informed by the consensus upon such societal aspirations as decent standard of living for the greatest number, supported by high-income employments that keep our “best and brightest” home, could come into fruition. These goals and visiondemand vigorous entrepreneurship with a sense of national purpose first and foremost.

More specifically, this would only mean that beyond some short-run government bureaucratic measures (such as new tax schemes), the wealth creators at the firm level must lead the march toward competitiveness and productivity growth, the intuition of the now famous “UP 11” that it would be “no more than whistling in the dark” notwithstanding. Therefore, rather than despair, Filipinos must take the course that remains wide open for them — build and produce to earn enough to pay debts, provide basic needs, keep an efficient bureaucracy and build even more. When government capital expenditures are at a minimum, the private sector must take up the slack in investment to boost employment and enable the citizens to pull through a sense of confidence in the future.

Specific model for economic takeoff: I have recommended Walt W. Rostow’s model for economic takeoff in the following discussion:

Many parts of the country still retain the basic features of the so-called traditional society. A traditional society is one whose structure has limited production functions because of its incapacity to manipulate the environment through science and technology. To break from the conditions of a traditional society that put a ceiling on its attainable output, new types of enterprising men willing to take risks in pursuit of profit or modernization must come forward. The risk-taking must happen in conjunction with the appearance of institutions for mobilizing capital like banks, the investment in transport, communications, and in raw materials in which other societies may have an economic interest, and the setting up of manufacturing enterprises using modern methods. These are the “preconditions for take-off,” the stage that the Philippines notwithstanding has already reached.

Takeoff however may not occur if the transition is proceeding at a limited stride in an economy still primarily typified by “traditional low-productivity methods,” by dated societal institutions and values, and by parochial political institutions.

The key to economic progress is somehow attitudinal too and this happens when economic men and political animals judge such progress to be good not only for the material comfort it brings forth for their pioneering spirit but also for national identity and dignity, the welfare of the next generation and the common good.

Historically, the decisive ingredient during the transition is the building of an “effective centralized national state” imbued with a “new nationalism” versus regional interests, the colonial power (if any), or both. When growth becomes steady and normal and institutionalized into habits and social structure and dominates the society, takeoff is said to occur.

Takeoff is spurred not only by the investment in “social overhead capital” (such as in railways, ports, roads and education) and the expansion of technological development in industry and agriculture, but also by the rise to political power of a group dedicated to the proposition that the modernization of the economy is a national goal of paramount order. Guided by the wisdom and knowledge of this group who trust each other, takeoff happens (parsing or interpreting Rostow) when:

1) Heavy investment in “social overhead capital” takes place;
2) The rate of investment and savings rises to about 10% of the national income;
3) Imports of capital goods form a high proportion of total investment;
4) There is rapid expansion in new industries, generating profits a sizeable proportion of which are reinvested in new plants;
5) The new industries, in turn, spur (through their rapidly expanding requirement for workers, support personnel, and for other value-added goods and services) a further expansion in urban areas and in other modern industrial plants;
6) Expansion in the advance sector yields returns in the hands of those not content with rent-seeking but who place their savings at the disposal of those engaged in modern sector activities;
7) The new breed of entrepreneurs emerges and expands; and it places and directs the increasing flows of investment in the private sector;
The economy exploits untapped natural resources and discovers new methods of production;
9) Agriculture is commercialized, and more farmers are educated to accept and apply the new methods and the transformative changes brought forth;
10) The economic, social and political structures of the society are transformed to allow for a steady and sustainable growth.

Actually I find that you and I don’t differ in our views.

You mention that the elite…

“[...]own the means of “conditioning” – principally the print (newspapers and magazines) and the electronic (radio and television) media and therefore are mainly responsible in the formation of our “collective character.” ”

This is the FIRST part of the equation that could comprise the fundamental solution to Pinoy dysfunction. The SECOND part is what you said below:

“[...]to develop the average Pinoy’s capacity to put up a countervailing force potent enough to direct the powers that be along the path of what Bencard calls “PERSONAL [as well as, I think, “public”] RESPONSIBILITY.” ”

.
Regarding the first, I’ve cited this many times and is evident in my attacks on Wowowee, Tito Sotto (and his track record of contributing to the propagation of national stupidity), etc.

A contributor of mine wrote extensively about how the Elite is the SOURCE of (and therefore largely responsible for) thought leadership in Pinoy society:

http://www.geocities.com/benign0/3-00_Makati/enlighten1.html

I also wrote in my book that:

“Philippine cinema has an immense influence over Filipino minds and is, bizarrely, the single biggest factor to consider – primarily because it may be the easiest to change. As shown in the section on Technology, a huge proportion – 61 percent – of on-line discussions in PinoyExchange.com is accounted for by topics on Philippine cinema and television. It is a number that dwarfs all the rest, which is not a surprise because watching movies and television are disproportionately affordable forms of leisure activity in the Philippines”

Note in bold that, as one of my “template” analyses asserts, the solutions are obvious. In fact i go further to say that:

“However, the fact remains that between the Filipino masses and the captains of the entertainment industry, it is the latter – the producers, studio owners, and artists – who are in a position to be agents of change.”

Which demonstrates that I do acknowledge that the impetus best comes from those who have control of the most resources. This why it is such a disgrace to be seeing in the Pinoy blogosphere (a hangout presumably populated largely by the Pinoy elite) content and discussion that is ONLY MARGINALLY better than talk on the mounds of the Payatas and on the bleachers of the Wowowee.

As to the second part of the equation, my entire Solution Framework is precisley about this; i.e. equipping the currently vacuous mind of the Filipino to regard the mind games of the elite with a critical eye.

Foremost among these is espousing use of ENGLISH to impart and articulate ideas so that Pinoys are more efficiently able to tap the wealth of advanced thinking (all articulated in English, AND the languages of societies with EXTENSIVE TRACK RECORDS of contributing to the COLLECTIVE INTELLECT OF HUMANITY). There are others beyond language but apparently, just on the question of language alone, there is already a lot of foolish nostalgia woven into the counter-arguments.

How can we expect the masses to put up a shield against the stupidity fed to them by the elite-controlled media if they do not have the tools to evaluate ALTERNATIVE information and are instead imprisoned by a language that limits them to Tito-Vic-and-Joey humour and the “insights” provided by shows like Wowowee?

No offense taken. Isa lamang ang pamahalaan sa marami ko na’ng napuna sa ating lipunan.

Reklamador ba tayo, ayon kay Manong Benign0? Haysus. Pano’ng di ka magrereklamo, ultimo pagkuha ng lisensya sa pagmamaneho inaabot ng 1 araw.

Ang mukha ng gobyerno ay ang byurukrasya. Mula tayo ipanganak hanggang mamatay, wala tayong kawala. Kung ang kapalit ay isang byurukrasyang mananagot sa akin bilang mamamayan, hala sige reklamo!

Mayroon yatang pakiwari si Manong Benigs na ang ekonomiks ay hiwalay sa pulitika. Na katawa-tawa, dahil dito sa Australia ngayong panahon ng halalan, ang palaging pinag-uusapan ng mga pulitiko, maliban sa tubig (dahil tagtuyot) ay Industrial Relations – ang relasyon ng mga kapitalista, manggagawa at pamahalaan.

I normally don’t blame the government (although I consider myself as an average Pinoy). However, I agree with your claim that the Filipinos have been “conditioned to think that government is to blame for our inability to prosper (as such it is the dominant line of reasoning taken by most Pinoys . . .)” EXCEPT that, that to me, the process of conditioning that has produced this “dominant line of reasoning” is not self-imposed.

Let me explain.

Our state of affairs today is such where the government is too weak it only plays second fiddle to a greater power – concentrated in about 60 families who dominate the Philippine political economy. These families, aside from controlling a wide range of economic activities including manufacturing, retail, infrastructure supply, petrochemicals, aviation, agri-business, constructions, telecommunications, real estate, banking and services AND owning about half of the national debt, also own the means of “conditioning” – principally the print (newspapers and magazines) and the electronic (radio and television) media and therefore are mainly responsible in the formation of our “collective character.” It has taken foreigners like Paul D. Hutchcroft and Joe Studwell to speak loud of this societal flaw, i.e., of “booty capitalism” in the Philippines and the “Asian Godfathers,” respectively. The media bias against Muslim Filipinos is another dimension of this conditioning.

The common tao, the government, the politicians, and even the science of politics itself get the thumping all the time as convenient scapegoats for the simple reason that they don’t own and control the media that allows these handful of families the ability to frame the issues and the national agendas on their own terms to protect their image, position and interests. Hence we don’t hear and read commentaries critical of their laggardness, inefficiency and lack of competitiveness vis-à-vis their regional counterpart as frequently as we do when it comes to the “average Pinoy,” the politicians and the government. And because of the subtlety of the conditioning, even sparks who appears to share the views being expressed here has gotten used to saying in terms of kalayaang batikusin ang pamahalaan as a matter of course (no offense intended , sparks).

The crisis of the Philippine Oligarchy, if you recall, was one of the main reasons Marcos placed the country under martial law. It’s also been the same band of oligarchs Erap disparaged as the “Makati rich” and Arroyo herself lashed out at as the “powerful, selfish interests (who) are able to exploit poverty and ignorance to maintain the status quo or impede open, progressive development.” The national scourge once prompted Ninoy to call the Philippines an “entrenched plutocracy”; whereas, FVR has cited the “unholy alliance” and “perverse symbiosis” between these “greedy rent-seeking” families and certain politicians to whom the latter are beholden, as the “mother of our problems” throughout our history. All these unfortunate plaints however are no less confirmation that even a succession of strong political leaders and presidents have been no match to the powers of the powers that be.

The economic elites and those with whom they form this “unholy alliance” have determinedly built on their capacity to preserve the system of “perverse symbiosis” under which they protect their powers and privileges regardless of the immense privation of the rest of the society.

BenignO, this is the “UNFORTUNATE hand” that you will have to play hardball with because to protect the system in place under which the powers that be enjoy their position, they will hang tough and ignore or reject any “strategy” for reform unless they realize, when the little drops threaten to make an ocean, that the stalemate may end up in the loss of their grip on power.

You seem to be an assiduous hound, Benigs, but I think you are sniffing out the trail of another game.

To be back on track, I guess the first big step is to “clearly understand and ACCEPT this hand,” using your own metaphor. The next big step is to develop the average Pinoy’s capacity to put up a countervailing force potent enough to direct the powers that be along the path of what Bencard calls “PERSONAL [as well as, I think, “public”] RESPONSIBILITY.”

UPn asked this question before: . . . how do you inspire the “self-sacrifice” of forbearance . . . of the same group being derided, not because they can create wealth, but because of “lack of… this” or lack of that?

My answer was:

It could be one or a combination of any of the following motivations:

1. Not to act is to put all that they have or built for themselves at risk.
2. “There’s something (more than meets the eye) in it for me,” if it succeeds.
3. Injured elite pride (or national pride, if they have “a sense of country”). “If the Thais or the Malaysians can, why can’t we?”
4. Agape (a mission of love for others). “These 35 million poor Filipinos are also my brothers.”

In the meanwhile, and this where I agree with you, Benigs, the “average Pinoys” must seek higher standards of public duty for themselves, probably through exchanges like this. The Malu Fernandez controversy could be a good case study for this exercise.

Salamat po sa papuri. Katawa-tawa nga, na tayo mismong mga Pinoy, minamaliit ang People Power. Kasi nga naman, parang hindi dumating ang pagbabagong inaasam-asam natin, kahit 2 dekada na ang lumipas.

Pero kung iispin mo, ibang-iba na ang Pilipinas ngayon. Nitong nakaraang linggo lang, nakahalu-bilo ko ang ilang iskolar mula sa iba’t-ibang bansa sa Asya-Pasipiko. Kagulat-gulat na karamihan sa kanila, ang inaasam-asam pa rin ay isa autokratikong pamumuno.

Napag-isipan ko’ng mahirap ang ginawa nating mga Pilipino. Kung ano man ang mangyari sa hinaharap, dapat nating pakaingatan ang atin na’ng naitaguyod. Alam ko ang iba, matapos ang 2 dekada ng demokrasya, handa na’ng isuko ang ilang kalayaan para mag-”move on.” Ngunit dapat siguro nating tanungin ang ating sarili kung kanino at kung bakit isusuko ang mga kalayaang tinatamasa ngayon – ang kalayaang batikusin ang pamahalaan, ang kalayaang magpahayag ng saliwat na kuro-kuro, ang bukas na balitak-takang tulad nito sa blogosphere.

Those four items you mentioned highlight the very point I’ve been making since time immemorial (or at least since 2000). As a matter of fact they form, as cvj put it, my “template” analysis of Pinoy dysfunction.

Regardless of how or why the Chinese got that way or how or why Pinoys got the way we did, the REALITY is that’s our collective character TODAY. We did not have the history of Chinese therefore we are not like them. We did not have the history of the Japanese, that’s why we are not like them. We do not have the history of the British, that’s why we’re not like them.

Kung baga, we are an unfortunate product of OUR OWN history.

My challenge is to come up with a strategy to play the UNFORTUNATE hand we were dealt by OUR history. But you have to clearly understand and ACCEPT this hand before you can forumlate such a strategy.