How can I say that protectionism sponsors a welfare state? Power is in the hands of a few. You have telecommunications only had Globe and PLDT. You have monopolies of electricity like Meralco. The supply and demand gap is so wide. This creates the image that the oligarchy "cares" for Filipinos when they don't. They only care about their image instead of truly caring about Filipinos. The Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office or PCSO is also run by the oligarchy. The 1987 constitution government which also has the oligarchy running it. Having the protectionist state means that people can get budgets for free housing, the 4Ps or the Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program by Stinky Soliman or any more "benefits" that's only rewarding the lazy and punishing the diligent.
On the other hand, economic liberalization means those "benefits" given by the oligarchy are no longer relevant. The government would tell people, "Look, we've opened up the economy. The economy is getting better but you need to work your lazy ass off! Either you work or you remain poor!" It means no more taxpayers' money to liberate the poor from their poverty. Instead, the poor must take the job opportunities provided by both foreign investors and/or local businessmen (since some foreign investors love establishing joint ventures around the world) or leave it. That means it becomes your responsibility instead of the government's responsibility to provide for your needs. It demands a no work no pay policy and only the disabled and elderly can receive certain benefits while those who aren't should work.
One huge difference why protectionism destroys the economy and why free trade with reasonable boundaries helps the economy is how people behave in them. People under economic liberalization don't have their needs provided. Instead, they must provide for their needs with whatever opportunities are given to them. In short, you need to have a give and take where you have to have something to give so you will have something to take. The small-time self-employed population should find ways to survive like finding new customers and service providers as well as innovate one's business. On the other hand, people under protectionist states becomes lazy. They take and take and the givers run out of something to give. It's all about dividing wealth where wealth can't be truly multiplied. When only few work then it decreases revenues and labor force contributing to lesser and lesser taxes collected for the government.
It's not exactly true. All developed countries have social welfare systems. The diffrencies are others.
ReplyDeleteIn general, in a western system a poor family may get governmental support but will remain poor. They are able to rent a home (no need to squat) buy healthy food, clothing and hygiene and sent their kids to a public school. Not more and not less. If you work you have the chance to get into the middle class. These systems don't reward the lazy but encourages them to look for work.