…Their [China's] feudal system was highly developed into organized communities with a certain degree of sophistication. They had already achieved the aspect of food surplus production as evidenced by their capacity to grow their population. – J_ag

…a description which incidentally fits the Philippines, don’t you think?

After his disastrous great leap forward and the cultural revolution they went to Adam Smith. They allowed the small communities of farmers alone to keep most of their surplus production. That surplus is what was converted into disposable income. They started the creation of their own mass market. – J_ag

Nothwidthstanding your use of the phrase ‘went to Adam Smith’, i agree. I said the same thing last year.

Silent Waters, the communists won in 1949 because of the support of the peasants. That’s why Chiang Kai Shek and his nationalist army was driven from the mainland into Taiwan. The latter, learning his lesson, then implemented land reform in Taiwan so that the peasants on that island will not do the same to them.

After that, Mao and his party went overboard with communist dogma and implemented hare-brained schemes like the backyard industrialization of the ‘Great Leap Forward’ (which is similar to Benign0’s advocacy) and the ‘Cultural Revolution’ (which is why i don’t agree with those who subscribe to James Fallows’ ‘Damaged Culture’ analysis).

So in 1978, Deng restored sanity in the system by moving away from collectivization and introducing market-oriented reforms. When he finally declared ‘to get rich is glorious’, there were no more oligarchs to get in the way of the masses. – cvj on Tue, 4th Mar 2008 11:41 am

Our positions are not that far apart.

Wrong again. China’s did not start their industrial process only recently. Mao succeeded in destroying the feudal system. Their feudal system was highly developed into organized communities with a certain degree of sophistication. They had already achieved the aspect of food surplus production as evidenced by their capacity to grow their population.

After his disastrous great leap forward and the cultural revolution they went to Adam Smith. They allowed the small communities of farmers alone to keep most of their surplus production. That surplus is what was converted into disposable income. They started the creation of their own mass market.

Adam Smith is about the agricultural revolution. Marx is about industrial capitalism and the societal framework built around it. . Keynes offered up a temporary solution to the basic flaw in capitalism – overproduction through a national fiscal and monetary system.

You cannot mix up the evolutionary process of economic evolution that is the basic building bloc of societal evolution.

Keynes is about macro economics. Adam Smith existed when there was no macro economy. He disdained the feudal system. Feudal societies also have governments. They also intervened in their economies.

The process of natural economic evolution was changed by human intervention.

The main issue is not government per se but governance.

Even the use of words like capitalist and capitalism are not understood by most.

Capitalism is a stage of societal development. It is marked by the mechanization and the use of technologies combined with the productive forces and unproductive forces to create value.

A capitalist is the owner of the mechanized means of production. It could be private individuals or the state.

Singapore is not a capitalist economy. They are simply a trading and banking enclave. They are also contractors for capitalist economies.

Saudi Arabia is not a capitalist economy. They are resource exporters of a strategic resource that is necessary to run machines.

On the surface you have the infrastructure of modern cities but the culture and societal framework are of a feudal tribal society. They simply traded their resource base for modern living but are still primitive relative to modern societies.

It is no wonder most Pinoys are dumb. They do not know where they are.

On SSS and Pag-ibig, yeah i know that since i worked in the Philippines for the majority of my professional life. That’s why i can compare it with Singapore where the CPF [aka Social Security] contributions is on par, or even bigger than the personal income tax, hence my proposal.

Kasi if you go around kahit sa Benguet madaming pinababayaan na lang mabulok ang mga gulay nila, dahil di nila nabebenta.(siguro dahil sa mga gulay na galing china)
And when you go sa Southern luzon naman pare pareho makikita mo ang daming nagbebenta ng iisang klaseng prutas like dalandan for instance. Nabubulok lang dahil di lahat mabebenta.

Sa SSS, ang napapakinanabangan ng mga workers ay ang mga salary loans na ilan milyon o bilyon din ang nawawala sa pondo dahil sa mga di makabayad.

sa housing yung pag-ibig naman ang inaasahan kahit ng ibang mga middle class na pang finance sa binibili nilang mga bahay.

sige,you know all this stuff already.

On Social Security, here in Singapore, the CPF (their equivalent to SSS contributions) can be used by the contributors to pay for their housing so it’s not just the retirees who benefit.

I have looked at your framework and I want to comment on something.

On having enough to feed everyone:
I think you know that even if not everyone is fed, there are still lots of fruits and vegetables just rotting around,because they could not be sold.
This can be from Baguio or anywhere in the country.
I know this is a supply chain problem,where goods from Mindanao is more expensive than those imported from other countries.

On more social security taken out of your payslip than with holding tax.
The common gripe of the workers are that those who will immediately benefit from any increases would not be them but those who will retire or those who have already retired.
May sound selfish,but that is what is happening.

That is all, I hope you get to read this.

Reduce government as wealth will have to be created first.

Forget Marx as he is not in play in the Philippine context. Forget Keynes too. We are in a world more suitable for Adam Smith.

Government must be broken down to the smallest and affordable unit. – Ja_g

You are assuming that reducing government paves the way for Adam Smith. The experience of other countries show that this is not the case. In Somalia where there is no government, except for the pirates, people are generally poor. In Afghanistan, where the central government is weak, the Taliban has taken over the countryside and earns hundred and millions of dollars from th Opium trade. These are extreme examples but i hope you get the drift.

By contrast, our countries that have thriving economies have governments who actively participated in economic activities. These apply to both the Communist (China, Vietnam), Capitalist (Japan, South Korea, Taiwan) and mixed economies (like India). In more ways than one, Marx and Keynes complement Adam Smith.