The rise of President Bobong Marcos was something that I feared would happen. Personally, I defended his win for the vice presidency during the Duterte Administration. I felt Bobong should've run as senator last 2019 instead of ASSuming he would win the protest. It's funny (REALLY) that three times that Bobong lost and the same Supreme Court of the Philippines that cleared Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (this event may have worsened the late Noynoy Aquino's health) also declared Bobong's loss. If anything, Bobong won as president all thanks to Da Best Konstitusyon in Da World according to Hilarious Davide.
With Bobong as president - I guess it's time (AGAIN) for naysayers to use the Marcoses as a boogeyman. Never mind that Bobong became president by VOTES BASED ON THE 1987 CONSTITUTION OF THE PHILIPPINES. What's next? File an electoral protest for Atty. Leni Loud Robredo who could've been leading the opposition now IF the Philippines were parliamentary. Now, it's time to explore another myth. If the first myth was that the Marcos Sr. Years were a real parliamentary (and the late Ninoy Aquino had long DISPROVED IT). Now, there's this dubious myth I found from IBON Foundation. IBON Foundation is really laughable (which I dare believe is really a CPP-NPA legal front) whether we want to admit it or not. I think Sonny Africa (of the same organization) is very dishonest and arrogant. I'm NOT surprised the people at IBON Foundation want to make the readers believe the late Ferdinand E. Marcos Sr. is a NEOLIBERAL and pro-foreign direct investment (FDI). Here's the laughable claim from one of their "fact cards" which is LAUGHABLE...
 |
| Source |
First neoliberal president? I beg to disagree. We need to define neoliberalism. The Investopedia defines neoliberalism as follows:
Neoliberalism is a policy model that encompasses both politics and economics and seeks to transfer the control of economic factors from the public sector to the private sector. Many neoliberalism policies enhance the workings of free market capitalism and attempt to place limits on government spending, government regulation, and public ownership.
Neoliberalism is often associated with the leadership of Margaret Thatcher–the prime minister of the U.K. from 1979 to 1990 and leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990–and Ronald Reagan, the 40th president of the U.S. (from 1981 to 1989). More recently, neoliberalism has been associated with policies of austerity and attempts to cut government spending on social programs.
Understanding Neoliberalism
Neoliberalism is related to laissez-faire economics, a school of thought that prescribes a minimal amount of government interference into the economic issues of individuals and society. Laissez-faire economics proposes that continued economic growth will lead to technological innovation, expansion of the free market, and limited state interference.
Neoliberalism is sometimes confused with libertarianism. However, neoliberals typically advocate for more government intervention into the economy and society than libertarianism. For example, while neoliberals usually favor progressive taxation, libertarians often eschew this stance in favor of schemes like a flat tax rate for all taxpayers.
In addition, neoliberals often do not oppose measures such as bailouts of major industries, which are anathema to libertarians.
Liberalism vs. Neoliberalism
At its core, liberalism is a broad political philosophy; it holds liberty to a high standard and defines all social, economic, and political aspects of society, including–but not limited to–the role of government. The policies of neoliberalism, on the other hand, are more narrowly focused. They are primarily concerned with markets and the policies and measures that influence the economy.
On the contrary, Marcos Sr. was NO liberal nor neoliberal with economics. From Per Se, Emmanuel S. De Dios mentions the following about the Marcos Years were severely protectionist which debunks all the nonsense tweets of IBON or better yet BIRDBRAIN Foundation:
It is instructive that neither Thailand, Indonesia, Malaysia, nor any major Asian country catastrophically experienced negative growth in the early 1980s. The Philippines was the exception, following instead the example of protectionist and over-borrowed Latin American countries. This suggests that there was nothing unavoidable about the crisis the Philippines suffered, and that it was the result instead of failed policies. In 1977 the Philippines’ total debt was all of $8.2 billion. Only five years later, in 1982, this had risen to $24.4 billion. Thailand’s debt in 1982 was still only half that amount. Thailand and other countries of the region thus avoided a debt crisis and ultimately went on to attract foreign direct investments in export-oriented industries in the now-familiar East Asian pattern. But no such thing happened under Ferdinand E. Marcos, notwithstanding the arguments and exhortations of people like Gerardo P. Sicat (who would cease to be active in the regime by 1980). By the early 1980s, the pattern would be set where foreign direct investments in neighboring countries regularly outstripped those in the Philippines. (The intermittent coups d’etat post-Marcos did us no favors either.)
All this should correct the common misconception that the country’s troubles stemmed entirely from conjunctural “political factors,” notably that it was caused by ex-Senator Benigno “Ninoy” S. Aquino, Jr.’s assassination. One might not even entirely blame the mere fact of authoritarianism itself — after all Thailand, Indonesia, and Malaysia at the time were also ruled by despots of some sort or other, yet suffered no crisis. Rather the Philippine debacle was linked to the misguided policies that were structurally linked and specific to Marcos-style authoritarianism. For all its technocratic rhetoric and rationale, the Marcos regime never took economic reform, liberalization, and export-oriented industrialization seriously; it remained a heavily protectionist and preferential regime (think the cronies and the failed major industrial projects). The availability of easy loans was well suited to the priorities of a regime that thought it could stoke growth without deep reform and slake the greed of Marcos and his cronies at the same time. In the end a corrupt regime fell victim to its own hubris.
In contrast, a good reading of the late Lee Kuan Yew's book From Third World to First will reveal that other nations were no longer protectionist. China followed Singapore, Vietnam followed Singaore, Indonesia followed Singapore, and Japan was the first Asian economic miracle. However, the Philippines REMAINED PROTECTIONIST during the Marcos Sr. years. If there's one bigger reason (over corruption) that nations no longer want to invest is all about PROTECTIONISM. Marcos Sr. was protecting his oligarchs DIRECTLY. How did they benefit from it? Think it over again that Marcos Sr. NEVER TOOK ECONOMIC REFORM, LIBERALIZATION, AND EXPORTED-ORIENTED INDUSTRIALIZATION SERIOUSLY! Marcos Sr. even took what Carlos P. Garcia started to a WHOLE NEW LEVEL. That's why Marcos Sr. should be buried at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani NEAR GARCIA - both are heroes for PROTECTIONISM! Besides, protectionist lovers should be happy that Bobong is now the 17th president of the Philippines!
I remembered talks from my relatives about the Marcos Sr. "Golden Years". It was fueled by PROTECTIONISM. Filipino First? More like MY CRONIES FIRST. I hate it when people praise that idiot Garcia and his "Filipino First Policy" while hating Marcos Sr. Inflation was done not because Marcos Sr. supposedly opened up the economy to foreigners. Instead, it was because of heavy protectionism. Debt was really heavy. If IBON Foundation wants to confuse FDIs from foreign debt they are really confusing simple business terms. Marcos Sr.'s debt-driven economy couldn't be paid back because of PROTECTIONISM. Marcos Sr. also seized private businesses and made them part of his own corrupt empire. It's no different from what Mao Zedong did when he became China's longest dictator. The difference was Mao died in power while Marcos Sr. was OUSTED OUT OF POWER. Foreign investments mean foreign businesses ESTABLISH their businesses in the Philippines which produces TAXABLE INCOME. Foreign debt is all about BORROWING MONEY FROM ANOTHER COUNTRY. The foreign businesses are NOT LENDING MONEY - they are MAKING MONEY in the Philippines which becomes TAXABLE INCOME. A foreign investor that won't follow the local laws and pay taxses will be subject to tax liability and appropriate punishments. Yet, I think IBON Foundation is still spilling all the blah-blah-blahs against FDIs.
The fake news itself is as fake as it can get. I'm really amazed that some "fact-checkers" still believe protectionism is good even AFTER FACTS have DISPROVEN IT. Not every fact-checker is worthy either. IBON Foundation is really a bad joke one way or another. Historical FACTS and not CHISMIS has proven Marcos Sr. was a protectionist freak.
Comments
Post a Comment