How many of your family and friends have been contaminated by the election virus?
How can you help them awaken to the hypnotic spell they have been placed under by the different pied pipers?
Instead of debating with them and have them dig deeper into their trenches, I suggest asking questions – and to let them listen to their answer till they hear how ridiculous they sound.
The awakening might not be abrupt – but, you have already planted a seed that questions their reality. Your questions will be the kernels of truth that will crack the veil of deception.
At any rate, as the 2016 PCOS rigged elections go full steam with the elaborate theatrics – each candidate ought to be questioned the following.
– How are you going to handle the oligarchy? Do you even know who they are?
– Will you continue the economic policy to restrict the Philippine economy to Filipino-owned businesses only?
– Do you think that protecting Filipino businesses from foreign competition – will lead to dismantling the oligarch chokehold in the economy?
– We have protected Filipino businesses from competition since the Republic was founded – what makes you think that continuing the protection of Filpino owned businesses will yield a diufferent result?
– What can you say about those countries – Singapore, Hong which allowed 100% foreign owned businesses to FULLY compete against Singaporean owned businesses – did this lead to the destruction of their economies?
– So how come these countries that allow 100% foreign owned businesses provide better paying jobs to Filipinos?
– Meanwhile, are you aware that the nationals from these countries are not allowed to get employment in the Philippines – while Filipinos are allowed to work in their countries? Do you think this is a good policy?
– What if these other countries adopted policies similar to the Philippines and prevent the employment of foreigners? Where do you think will they be today?
***
On the statement by a columnist, “Unless and until the government comes up with a measure that will provide true blooded Filipinos more than equal opportunities for investment, then the nagging problem of poverty and other related economic quandaries will perpetually be a part of our system.”
What measure do you think will provide equal opportunities to “true blooded Filipinos”.
Can you provide genetic studies that establish that the Homo sapiens who are in the Philippines are of a different species? Isn’t that rather racist? Should we be practising economic apartheid?
When you limit the producers in the economy to Filipinos only – what do you think will be the impact on supply? Will the supply increase or decrease?
What do you think happens to the price of goods, when there is limited supply in the face of huge demand. Prices increase or decrease?.
Is this good for the Filipino customer? Should Filipino customers be happy that they pay high prices to the Filipino business?
Is it wrong for Filipino customers to buy from foreign sources when the Filipino firms do not provide the value for the Filipino customer’s money? Yes or No?
Are Filipino customers second class citizens that their economic choices are restricted to Filipino owned firms only?
So, how exactly did the oligarchy capture the economy? Through the government.
And you expect, a captive institution, to have policies that work against its captors?
Are you willing to bet your paycheck?
***
Folks, let me break it to you – you have all been brainwashed by the Keynesians.
Let me provide you with something fresh – how about leaving people alone to make the choices they deem fit for themselves in an open economy.
Do you seriously believe the Filipino customers will keep on availing of the oligarch services if there are other options (currently not available due to the 60/40 constitutional provisions that protect the oligarchy)?
For instance, think about this. Under the current protected economy, Globe and PLDT can do whatever, if fined, they just pay penalty, but they still make their income.
Now picture this, foreign providers are available and Filipino customers can take their money elsewhere if Globe and PLDT does not satisfy them – do you think Globe and PLDT will do business as usual? Hell no, they will go bankrupt!
That’s how you provide equal opportunities – NO FAVORITISM, NO PROTECTIONS.
You need to study the phenomenon of Somalia’s telecomm industry – during the Siad barre government – and after the Siad Barre government was removed – and government was unestablished and the industry was unregulated – Somalia has more telecom providers than the Philippines!
Folks, I recommend you stop reading the Keynesian propaganda of more government intervention – and instead learn Austrian economics – the economics of liberty and freedom!
Frankly, an open market without these moronic government regulations is your ticket to economic development.
Wean yourself from being a government tax slave and be an awakened THINKING human being in control of your life and making choices for yourself – the individual.
Be more than a Filipino (that’s an artificial social construct, a label, a strawman, a cutout) – be YOURSELF!
***
Here’s a more technical discussion taken from Forbes:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterferrara/2013/04/14/progressive-keynesian-myths-debunked-the-coming-redistribution-of-political-and-economic-power-among-the-states/
The myth of Keynesian economics is based on a failure to take into account basic double entry bookkeeping. If the government spends more, where does the money for that increased spending come from? Either from increased borrowing, or increased taxes, which both take an equal amount of resources and spending out of the private economy as they finance in increased government spending. So not only can there not be a net increase in aggregate, or total, demand from these policies, the spending is in truth a net drag on growth, as the private economy spends money more productively and efficiently than the government. That is why this Keynesian nostrum never worked in the 1930s, as the recession of 1929 extended into the decade long Great Depression, and it hasn’t worked anywhere else since.
But most fundamentally, economic growth is not driven by increasing demand, which is insatiable, but by increased production or output (supply), which is driven by incentives for productive activity. In other words, just as an individual cannot spend himself rich, neither can a nation. Prosperity is determined by production, just as an individual increases his or her income by becoming more productive.
Demand can never be inadequate in a market economy. If the demand for any product or service is not strong enough, the price of the good or service will fall, until demand equals supply. The people can never spend more than they produce, and so increase “aggregate demand.” And they will never spend less than they produce, leaving demand inadequate, for they will either consume or save every dime that they earn or produce. The consumption goes into consumer spending, and the savings goes into capital spending (which is actually what makes us richer and more prosperous over the long run, as discussed further below).
Harvard Professor Alesina, A., along with Perotti, R. in “Fiscal Expansions and Adjustments in OECD Countries.” Economic Policy, n.21, 207-247 (1995) found based on a cross-country analysis of OECD studies that reducing the share of public spending in the economy would increase economic growth by increasing investment. Alesina A., Ardagna, S., Perotti, R., and Schiantarelli, F. (2002), “Fiscal Policy, Profits, and Investment,” American Economic Review, Vol. 92, no. 3, June 2002, 571-589 argue that government spending cuts are the most stimulative policy for economic growth in a recession.
The bottom line is that Keynesian economics has long been refuted by experience, empirical evidence, and logic, and the failed doctrine now needs to be put to bed, in American colleges and universities, and throughout the councils of government. Moreover, Obama should have known better, given that Keynesian economics has failed so badly every time it has been tried, from the 1930s to the 1970s, and all around the world since then. He had a responsibility to the American people to know better.
Another “progressive” myth debunked by Fruits and Pozdena is that raising tax rates will not harm the economy. Often cited is that tax rates were very high in the 1950s, yet the economy still grew. Perhaps if we bombed to smithereens all our economic competitors, as had recently been done in the 1950s, high tax rates would not be as harmful. But Kennedy did not think those high 1950s tax rates were harmless. He campaigned in 1960 against what he saw as the weak Eisenhower economy, and advocated an across the board 30% cut in tax rates. After that was mostly enacted after his death, the economy boomed, and revenues actually soared.
From the Washington Post:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/11/16/AR2006111601779.html
The dirty little secret is that there are few scientific truths in economics analogous to the laws of thermodynamics or genetics. Economics is a social science, not a physical one, in which people and systems are constantly adapting to changing conditions. The policies that may be good for one era may not be right for the next. And it is the truly great economists who spot the changing dynamics, acknowledge the inadequacy of the old prescriptions and are clever enough to come up with something better.
In this respect you can say that Milton Friedman, who died yesterday, was the greatest economist of our time. He was not simply the most influential economist since Keynes, but a worthy successor, building on Keynes’s insights even as he discredited key aspects of Keynesian economic management.
In the 1950s, as socialism was gaining credence around the world and Keynesian thinking dominated economics textbooks, Friedman’s skepticism about government management of the economy was viewed as nothing short of heresy. But by the mid-1970s, as the country was beset by stagnant growth and high inflation, it became clear the Keynesian model had played itself out. Suddenly, Friedman’s ideas didn’t look so kooky.
“I grew up in a Keynesian household,” recalls Larry Summers, the former Treasury secretary and Harvard president whose mother and two uncles were respected economists. “And as an undergraduate, I was taught an economics that had demand but no supply.” But in time, says Summers, it dawned on him and most others in the profession that Keynesian theory was not so much wrong as incomplete.
With his focus on the overall demand for goods and services in the economy, Keynes overlooked the importance of the supply of money in circulation. Friedman argued that controlling that supply was a better tool for managing the economy than taxation and spending policies.
Inflation, it turned out, wasn’t as benign an antidote to unemployment as Keynes had thought, nor was there necessarily a trade-off between the two, as he presumed.
And many Keynesian policies meant to correct for very real imperfections in the marketplace turned out to have big imperfections of their own.
Here’s another one from a metals trader – http://www.cmi-gold-silver.com/blog/keynesian-economics/
John Maynard Keynes believed that when the private sector economy was struggling, it could be spurred into growth by public sector deficit spending. In other words, by incurring a temporary deficit, private sector growth could be revitalized to the point where the additional tax revenue generated would eliminate the newly created public debt. Keynesian economics predicts a cyclical public deficit – one that rises temporarily, then returns to zero, over and over…
The good news is we no longer have to debate theory. We’ve done the experiment. Nearly 42 years ago the US government formally severed the last remaining link between the dollar and gold and turned over the US economy to the central planners. So how well did Keynesian economics work? The cyclical deficit tells the story: There is none. Our deficit is all structural.
What’s the point of all this?
Guys if you want to do the Filipinos a service, stop forcing people to become dependent on government.
Instead encourage people to learn to think for themselves and reclaim control of their lives – then can we say they are truly free, empowered, and fully engaged PERSONs.
http://antipinoy.com/questions-to-ask-from-politicians-and-their-supporters/
No comments:
Post a Comment