Today is International Human Rights Day and I think I'm going to write another simple post. This time, I'm going to discuss how the protectionist policy violates their rights towards basic provisions. There's always the boogeymen saying that only foreigners will get rich and that they're a threat to Philippine sovereignty. Such boogeymen would be very commonly used. There are those who promote them believing them. Others simply lie for their convenience in the guise of nationalism. It would be a good thing to talk about how the 60/40 policy is VIOLATING the rights to basic provisions of the citizens.
You can talk about how economic protectionism "blessed" the citizens of Venezuela, North Korea, or the times of Mao Zedong. The Philippines may be nearing that state thanks to adhering to Carlos P. Garcia's Filipino First policy and the crony capitalism of Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. Both of them deserved to be buried next near to each other. Now, how has it "blessed" Filipinos the other way around? The only Filipinos blessed by it are the oligarchy. However, the average Filipino who has no capacity to become a businessman is doomed because of the 60/40 provision. His or her human rights will forever be violated thanks to economic protectionism.
Every person has the right to have their basic needs such as food, water, clothing, and shelter met. However, to earn these rights, they must first accept their right and duty to be employed. However, the dilemma is that there are TOO MANY Filipinos needing jobs and TOO FEW Filipino businessmen? If ever, some Filipino businessmen have their growth stunted because of protectionism. They could have expanded into greater heights but protectionism gives them too little alternatives for customers and service providers. The result is that their growth is stunted. The population of the Philippines booms and booms but the Filipino-owned businesses couldn't accommodate them all. The oligarchy is empowered which allows them to bully customers.
How can the oligarchy become bullies? The answer is that if there's very little competition then competitiveness is hardly needed. The recent water crisis in Imperial Manila is because there are only TWO water service providers. Internet slow is even slower than usual because of a duopoly in the telecommunications company. The limited amount of alternatives pushes customers around one incompetent service after the other. This also, in turn, deprives Filipinos of their right to employment and basic needs. How can they meet their basic needs if they can be bullied around by oligarchs who overwork and underpay them? How can Filipinos have better services to work their homes and businesses if utility companies give them overpriced and undervalued services? Now, aren't those supposedly human rights violations?
How would a free market run things better? It would be better because free markets that allow foreign direct investors will give alternatives. Do you think basic utilities would be so expensive if it wasn't for a lack of service providers? It's because of the rule of SUPPLY and DEMAND. If demand is HIGH (too many Filipinos) and supply is LOW (too little Filipino businesses) then it's only natural that the prices will go up. It's the basic law of economics taught in high school so why are leftist economic professors still thinking about protectionism as good for the economy? It's not as if foreign investors aren't submitted to the rules of the country they do business in. On the contrary, they have to pay taxes, rent, etc. even if they own 100% of intangible assets. In turn, it would provide Filipinos the right to access to human basic needs such as better services with lower costs. However, that's not what the oligarchy wants, right? So they butt in and seldom team up with activists because of their power-hungry tendencies.
At this point, I'd like to say what's the use of celebrating human rights' day if Filipinos can't have the rights to access quality services at lower costs? That right has been long violated by the oligarchs. The solution isn't to overthrow oligarchs and go to communism. Rather, it's for democratic capitalism with reasonable restrictions. Give a free market while giving reasonable rules and regulations on how all players should compete. Let capitalism flourish while setting up ethical standards on how to be a capitalist - not a consumerist. That's how one can fulfill the basic needs of citizens.
Comments
Post a Comment