I'm amazed at how many people have this irony going on - people who HATE the late Ferdinand E. MARCOS SR. for his WELL-DOCUMENTED ATROCITIES while ignoring WELL-DOCUMENTED evidence that protectionism doesn't work. September is associated with two events with Marcos Sr. The first is his birthday is on September 17, 1917, (and this would be his 105th birthday if he were alive) AND the second is martial law was declared on September 21, 1972. Do I even need to keep stating that BUTASANG PAMBULSA WASN'T A REAL PARLIAMENTARY?
Now, with ANOTHER MARCOS (namely Bobong) as president - I guess protectionism lovers should REJOICE instead. The reason is that the Marcos Sr. Years were protectionist years. 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.
If protectionism month should be upheld - let's tranfers the date to SEPTEMBER. Make September 11 and September 21 protectionist festivals. September 11 can be renamed as Father of Philippine Protectionism Day. September 21 can be declared as National Day of Protectionism. After all, Marcos Sr.'s regime was really HEAVILY PROTECTIONIST. That's why Marcos Sr. deserves to be buried at the Libingan Ng Mga Bayani - right next near to CARLOS P. GARCIA. Garcia was the one who started the Failipino First Policy. Marcos Sr. strengthened Garcia's visions furhter to create a protectionist state that's almost close to North Korea.
As said, if you love protectionism, then you should love the Marcoses too. Get it?
Comments
Post a Comment