It's Free Market Enterprises And NOT Cash Transfer Programs That Will Truly Help Lessen Poverty Gaps

The only idea of #OtsoDiretso seems to be based on the obsession with 4Ps. As a 4Ps-obsessed stupid (but thinks he's so smart due to his Math degree) old man loves to say repetitively, "4Ps aggregates demand, it has a 3x return and 5.88 multiplier effect." which is BOGUS. You don't need a degree in economics to understand that 4Ps won't generate jobs, it won't help the Philippines in fighting inflation and it ends up as a program that only makes poor Filipinos wait for a shower of gold coins. The idea of 4Ps becomes a welfare state because more often than not -- you see how conditions aren't met yet recipients of 4Ps will get their handouts anyway. It's only a conditional cash transfer in name only. Worse, same stupid old man believes that Mar Roxas' plan to include farmers into 4Ps is a good thing and that a nation can do without foreign investors but not 4Ps. He even opposes Manny Pinol's plan to convert 4Ps into an agricultural livelihood program -- never mind that the budget for 4Ps could have benefited the Philippines better with the agricultural sector.

But what does 4Ps do in actuality? The whole idea of trying to eradicate poverty through 4Ps is stupid. Even if 4Ps is implemented correctly as a livelihood program but what about it if the children turn 18 years old? What jobs will be there if there's no jobs available thanks to 60/40. Yet that same stupid old man who thinks he's so smart (and his equally senile wife) would rather endorse the stupidity of Neri Colmenares and say that 60/40 isn't a big issue. He even goes as far as to say that foreign investors aren't supposedly concerned about 60/40 and that 4Ps will help increase the demand for basic needs. Again, how sure is that stupid old man that Filipinos who receive 4Ps will buy their basic needs? I remembered giving alms to beggars years ago and had to pay a PHP 500.00 fine for it. I was told by the police officer that these beggars usually don't beg for their needs -- they beg for their wants and that one of these involve buying rugby and cheaper forms of dangerous drugs or for street gambling. With that in mind how sure is that stupid old man that those who receive 4Ps will buy it on their necessities?

Now, it's time to tackle the real issue of what creates jobs. I remembered writing about the late Henry Sy's success story. I love how to mention that rags to riches story prove that 4Ps is garbage. Some big time businessmen started with nothing. Others who were once squatters have a success story to share such as Florin Hilbay who sadly joined the wrong crowd. The stupid old man says, "4Ps wasn't designed to make everyone billionaires." and I agree. However, did those middle class to rich who were once dirt poor receive 4Ps to establish their well-employed to self-employed life? They were working on their own. You can think of how poor people who became middle class or rich spent their time as working students. They were not recipients of the cash transfer program. Instead, they either led others to finish school and get a decent job or became businessmen that helped their once fellow poor get out of poverty. In short, it's businesses that create jobs.

So how is a free market superior to cash transfer programs in alleviating poverty gaps? It's because businesses provide badly needed employment and not cash transfer programs. People line up every end of the month but they aren't even employed. A free market has both locally-owned businesses and foreign investors playing in the same field. Foreign investors may either have the option of finding a local partner (which they may get at least 50% share to form a joint venture), allow their businesses to become a worldwide franchise to invest 100% in terms of ownership. When there are Filipino investors and foreign investors -- there are not only threats but also opportunities for small and medium scale businesses. These businesses not only have to compete but also get foreign investors as their possible new customers -- which in turn helps innovation and evolution.

The result of the free market is that it's not really anti-poor but it helps the poor. Richard Gordon said that he's not pro-poor because he doesn't want Filipinos to remain poor. Both Deng Xiao Ping and Lee Kuan Yew didn't use cash transfer programs. Instead, they invested their time and effort to open up the economy to foreign investors. In return, they generated badly needed jobs for their impoverished citizens. The creation of free markets for both China and Singapore caused both once-impoverished countries that were once poorer than the Philippines to become first-world countries. If the ideology that first world countries progressed not through free markets but protectionism are underdeveloped islands still underdeveloped? It's because their isolationism gave them no chance to progress one bit. However, the influx of foreign investors employing locals and local businesses having new suppliers and customers caused free-market countries to become first world countries.

So why are some politicians still insisting to implement 4Ps? The solution is to get rid of the nonsense 60-40 policy or any form of protectionism for good! A country can do without 4Ps but they can never do without free-market enterprises.