I read the recent entries of in FilipinoVoices.com on the possibility Jun Lozada and Governor Panlilio might embark on blogging, with interest. I disagree with many of the assumptions Rom makes in Too Much. To wit: that there is anything particularly different between Philippine political blogs and those overseas; that the public tired of NBN-ZTE (my understanding is that when those Shenzen photos surfaced, Internet traffic spiked for Inquirer.net, and back to pre-Holy Week levels where they’d remained in the doldrums until then); that Ed Panlilio won by force of charisma (he has little of that; it was a revolt on the part of the traditional upper and middle classes of Pampanga, and a victory was barely eked out in the face of the mobilization of the poor, who, despite decades of Panlilio’s involvement with them, still gravitated to the Pineda machine); though I agree Lozada’s run of out anything new to say
I think Benj is wildly off the mark in The Worst-Case Scenario: The Cyber Crackdown. The infrastructure simply isn’t in place, either for regulating or monitoring content a la China (see the analysis of Chinese methods in my conference notes), or simply pulling the plug, a la Burma. Though China does provide the key to understanding how governments will tackle the Internet, not because domestic public opinion matters, but rather, in an effort to damage foreign public opinion. The Chinese government supposedly prefers to apply influence on potential critics to get them to engage in self-censorship, rather than provide ammunition to critical foreign observers by actually throwing bloggers in jail (though it’s done that, but perhaps more to make an initial point).
I’d think that in pragmatically allocating resources to neutralize critics, our government would make the Internet the least of its priorities, not because its an inconsequential field of battle, but rather, because it’s easier to neutralize. The way the government latched on to Bong Austero is a case in point. Whatever he meant or intended became irrelevant: his e-mail, having been produced by a private person helped give the impression that a middle-class constituency was mobilizing, spontaneously, to defend the administration. It was broadcast and repurposed and the buzz his e-mail created gained him a column.
The Internet is a wide field and blogs are just part of the landscape: there’s YouTube, where political messages are broadcast; there’s message boards and groups, where many of the older generation and even a significant chunk of the younger but politically-inclined citizenry is active (a couple of weeks ago I had a round table with some student leaders and the ones from UP told me about how the Peyups message board played a significant role in raising issues that affected the recent student council elections); there’s the passing-on of e-mail, too from person to person; there’s the online news sites, and then blogs; there’s even online broadcast of radio content, particularly effective for Filipinos overseas who tune in to keep tabs on what’s going on at home.
Here, the advantages of incumbency and of managing media scientifically have been magnified, and not reduced. The principle at work, as far as neutralizing critics is concerned, is similar to using chaff to discombobulate the radar signals of the enemy in warfare. If the enemy latches on an issue, simply scramble it by drowning it out in a flood of competing messages; and if that fails, you’re better off launching, say, a denial-of-service attack on an offending website. On the other hand, for the purposes of an offensive or counteroffensive, the Internet is simply yet another platform for amplifying the Message Of The Day -and it can be done relatively cheaply, and efficiently. The message of the day will be seized upon by the genuinely convinced, too. A paid propagandist has an advantage over the committed, but amateur, partisan: there are no ethical concerns to worry about, no effort required to demonstrate respect or even tolerance for contesting claims.
Still, Marocharim brings up the point that interests me the most in Back to Basics. The question of the future of political writing on the newfangled Interweb -particularly for those holding political office. One dominant view of online communication is that it is a conversation; and that a conversation is highly personal, and is less effective when institutional; that it must be characterized by authenticity: which is why the disciplining and clarifying benefits of rhetoric are hotly contested, too. Perhaps, on a person-to-person basis, rhetoric is counter-productive; but in dealing with entire populations, or even segments of those populations, it is essential. Political leaders, particularly in national positions must now balance communicating with segments while those segments, at least for now, continue to believe they constitute a whole: one whose component parts, the citizenry, shares basic values (recall my past reference to Joseph Lane’s reference to Pericles to understand the ongoing American primaries campaign).
The question of authenticity -that bloggers possess it, politicians by their very nature are incapable of it- and the counter-culture self-identification of bloggers as somehow superior even when engaged in political partisanship, is at the heart of whether politician-bloggers should be welcome to, or resisted, when it comes to planting their flags in the blogosphere. Will the politician post manufactured content, in contrast to, say, the more authentic content of even politically-committed bloggers?
James Fallows, journalist-blogger, and incidentally, also a former speechwriter, in tackling criticisms of Barak Obama’s rhetorical gifts, dissects this question:
Several people have written back to say: Well, maybe he just has better speechwriters! And: Since you (me) used to work as a speechwriter (for Jimmy Carter), shouldn’t you be particularly sensitive to this point?
Answer, to the second question: No. And it’s precisely because I have worked is this field that my answer to the first question is: I don’t care who originally came up with these phrases or drafted the speech.
If a public figure’s basic quality of mind or ability to express himself is in question, as frankly is the case with President George W. Bush, then it might be worth investigating whether the words he is uttering actually reflect his underlying outlook and comprehension.
No sane person wonders this about Obama. By himself, long before he had a staff for such help, he wrote one very good book, Dreams from My Father. By all accounts he has written other crucial speeches, including the one about Rev. Jeremiah Wright, all on his own.
So once we have this indication of his basic abilities and outlook, it really shouldn’t matter whether he applies them in every speech he makes. Indeed it would be a misuse of his time and talents to do so. No important political leader can personally perform a lot of the tasks that are carried out in his or her name. The test is whether he can motivate, lead, and manage teams of people to perform in the way, and at the level, he would do himself — if he had a million hours in each day rather than 24. (This is the leadership version of “give someone a fish, and you feed him for a day; teach someone to fish… and soon the oceans will be empty.” Oops, that’s a different point.)
If Obama personally wrote both the 2006 and the 2008 commencement speeches, great. To me it suggests that he’s getting better. If he wrote the old one and an assistant wrote the new one, great too. It shows that he is able to have even better work produced in his name. In a way, the second would be more reassuring, as a guide to possible performance in office.
I’ve said before that politics is primarily about communication: a politician either has the ability to communicate, or doesn’t; rhetorical gifts are a definite plus but their absence isn’t a fatal liabilty; but as I pointed out above, the politician’s dilemma is to communicate in general and particular with limited time and resources, and widely-varying expectations and even assumptions on the part of the various audiences. As with so many other activities, the benefits of highly-focused communications has to be balanced with its costs when it comes to equally necessary wide-scale or wholesale communications.
The only member of Congress I can think of who has a genuinely readable blog is Congressman Ruffy Biazon. From what I’ve heard, the entries are actually his: but is the time and thought he puts into it, worth it, politically?
The only national candidates seriously attempting blogging are Adel Tamano and Danton Remoto (with the up-to-now token participation of Gilbert Remulla, JV Ejercito, and TG Guingona) in The Opposite of Apathy, an interesting experiment that still has to gain its sea-legs. Previously, Mong Palatino experienced the shortcomings of online campaigning in 2004, but it isn’t clear if those shortcomings were due to flawed assumptions (that there is a youth vote, for one), flawed messages (can his ideology compete when it comes to the kind of audiences plugged into the world wide web?) or other handicaps (the efforts of the administration to neutralize the Left by hook or by crook, whether by outright liquidation or institutional subversion through the Comelec, etc.).
My own suspicion is that the blogosphere is politically valuable if -and only if- politicians recognize that it’s an effective venue for courting the Middle Class, with an eye to engaging then mobilizing its members. It is not the venue for mass, or wholesale politics, where TV and radio reign supreme; it is the place for retail politics, and for providing access to a limited portion of the electorate -citizens interested in policy debates, regardless of economic status.
The problem, of course, is that the Middle Class has little to offer the politicians, and particularly so, come 2010: the middle class proved itself as manageable as the masses from 2005 onwards, and having neutralized itself with 2010 as its consuelo de bobo, it will truly have proven itself bobo at least as having an impact in 2010 is concerned; but potentially very significant in 2013 and then 2016, because other factors will then start having an impact (but more on that some other time).
Numbers-wise, they (the middle) are inconsequential and would only matter if they donated generously to campaigns, but they don’t. Not being invested, either in terms of time or money, in the candidacies competing for the mass vote, and the mass vote proving itself susceptible to being marshaled by old veterans (the churches, the labor and other movements, the local machines) or managed by institutional intervention (at the Comelec and in the counting), the candidates have no reason to take middle class advocacy into consideration. Not because politicians don’t care, per se, but in a fight that requires the most efficient allocation of resources, there’s little reason to allocate them to cultivating the middle class.
Case in point: if stuart-santiago says, don’t vote for politicians who do product endorsements, what will it achieve? It will validate the assumptions of the politicians when they undertook those endorsements. They won’t lose or win on the basis of a boycott on the basis of their endorsements. And those who do win despite such a boycott will only serve to entrench the practice. An advocacy of a boycott would only be effective if done -now, prior to elections- by boycotting the products they endorse. A mass-based approach to an issue raised and ventilated (and most effectively wielded) by the middle and upper classes is self-defeating. It’s not that it’s the wrong fight -just the wrong target, considering those expected to do the fighting.
So, let me suggest that the middle class’s salvation, politically, is if campaigning for its heart and mind is done on line: because the middle is actually so broad (what, A to C? but only on line do A to C actually meld together, effectively). That is because appealing to Middle Class values (not very different, for now, to those of the upper class in whose image they have been raised and trained) in the mass media immediately alienates the masses; but online it can be done consistently and with less of a chance it will lose mass votes. The politician who devotes energy and resources to cultivating the middle online just might discover getting real bang for the buck -because, if the middle is properly courted online, it might actually mobilize; then the kind of middle and upper class revolt seen in Pampanga might actually have a chance to be replicated in national politics.
But failing that, what the blogosphere is trying to work out, is a larger conflict, one History Unfolding discussed recently:
The most fundamental conflict in western civilization, in my opinion, is probably between reason and emotion. A year or two ago I purchased a most interesting-looking book, The Closing of the Western Mind by Charles Freeman, dealing with the gradual erosion of reason and the triumph of Christian faith between the fourth century B. C. and the seventh century A. D. ,,, the very title raises the issue of whether this could happen again – not a frivolous question in an era in which faith is rivaling reason in struggles to establish an orthodox view of how and when the human race came into being. In fact, surveying the last few centuries, I suspect that the empire of reason has passed its peak. On the other hand, that may not be altogether a bad thing either. Human beings may have some capacity for rational thought, but they cannot rid themselves of their feelings, and attempts to proclaim the supremacy of reason in human affairs have repeatedly led to disaster. What we need is that precious and most elusive of modern outcomes, an equilibrium – and it must be found fairly soon.
Though David Kaiser in his entry has a different time frame, his concerns, to my mind, can be connected with a belief earlier brought up by one of my favorite historians, John Lukacs. In At the End of an Age he says that our present age, the Modern Age (which began in the 1500’s and superseded the previous Middle Ages) is passing:
To list the evidences of the ending of the Modern Age would fill an enormous book. Here I must try to sum up -or better, to suggest- some of them.
The progressive spreading of democracy has marked the history of mankind, certainly during the past two hundred years but in many ways throughout the entire Modern Age. This progress was usually gradual, at times revolutionary, and not always clearly visible on the surface of world events. How long this democratic age will last no one can tell. What “democracy” really means is another difficult question. But there is a larger consideration. We are living through one of the greatest changes in the entire history of mankind, because until relatively recently history was largely (though never exclusively) “made” by minorities, while increasingly it is “made” by majorities. (In reality it is not so much made by majorities as it is made in the name of majorities.) At any rate, this has become the age of popular sovereignty (at least for a while). History has moved from the aristocratic to the democratic era -a passage occurring mostly during the Modern Age, and one that may transcend even the great accepted (Western) scheme of Ancient and Middle and Modern times.
This spread of democracy was the vision of Alexis de Tocqueville; it is present throughout his writings, most clearly in the second volume of Democracy in America, where his very method of description was to summarily juxtapose and contrast how society, politics, arts, and even more, mores and manners, formed differently in aristocratic ages before the developing democratic times. And within this very large vision there was a historically more limited one: Tocqueville’s recognition, more than a century ago, that this had been and still was a gradual process: with aristocracy declining and democracy rising, the existence of some kind of aristocratic order was still necessary to maintain some of the freedoms of otherwise increasingly democratic societies… Nearly 175 years later, at the end of the Modern Age, much of this is past. Still the Modern Age was marked by the coexistence of aristocracy and democracy, something which has now come to an end.
“Aristocracy” ought not be categorically defined as the rule of kings and/or noblemen. “Democracy” also means something more than the rule of “the people,” more, indeed, than mere popular sovereignty. Bust especially in Europe, between the highest and the lowest classes (or between the rulers and the ruled) there was another, rather particular, class in the middle: the so-called bourgeois class or classes…
And he says that as the Modern Age now undergoes its terminal decline, it should more accurately be known as the Bourgeois Age. In a most lyrical passage, he distills what that Age has been all about:
The Bourgeois Age was the Age of the State; the Age of Money; the Age of Industry; the Age of the Cities; the Age of Privacy; the Age of the Family; the Age of Schooling; the Age of the Book; the Age of Representation; the Age of Science; and the age of an evolving historical consciousness. Except for the last two, all of these primacies are now fading and declining fast.
Indeed! The challenges to, crumbling of, and increasing certainty that all these Ages of have passed -of the state, of money, of industry, the city, of privacy, of family, of schooling, the book, and representation- are played out in this blog nearly day-to-day; just as the debate over which should be exalted, reason or emotion, periodically re-erupts here…
But this clash between Reason and Emotion, as Kaiser sees it, or the passing of the Modern Age, as Lukacs put it, in either case is being played out in blogosphere, too, between those whose references are to a longer framework of time (the Internet Age being the latest evolution of the Modern Age, for example, a view I subscribe to in my attitude to blogging being the latest reincarnation of the Era of the Pamphleteers: see the latter part of my May 7, 2008 blog entry) and those for whom the present Age has vanquished all that’s come before (the Internet as the successor to the Modern Age, though not necessarily a Postmodern Age, as expressed by big mango in Are You a Member of Generation V (for Virtual)? ).
To return where I started: it’s folly (and fallacious) to think a present or future tyranny would be a carbon copy of past tyrannies; tyrants and tyrannies evolve and they thrive when their victims think that so long as the old ways aren’t repeated, exactly, then they are free.
Ricelander (at 12:43am) & UP n (at 1:13 am), so far, Roxas has not done anything to justify ‘nailing my hopes’ on him. I just thought that being from an Oligarch clan, he would be in a good position to correct the sins of his class but the Roxas family isn’t exactly known for audacity. (Would’ve been good if that were the case though.)
I also agree that he is unlikely to win not least because the Liberal Party lacks credibility as a genuine Reformist party. Their turning a blind eye on Hello Garci will come back to haunt them.
As for the MNC’s, the tendency i observed is that they seek out the local rich people to cooperate (as business partners, distributors or dealers), rather than compete with them.
From what i observed, independent wealth is no guarantee against greed (and rent-seeking). It’s like drug addiction so i don’t buy JV’s logic. (I heard that he’s been doing good in San Juan though so maybe it applies to him personally.) Also, the example of Crispin Beltran (regardless of his ideology) provides a counterexample.
Sorry if i was unclear, but no i don’t think so. What i outlined above (at 9:41pm) are two separate scenarios.
If we’re contented with facades, then why not stick it out with Gloria Arroyo? And if we only had a facade of democracy, what is to prevent our local Putin from likewise just maintaining a facade of “harness[ing] the personal interests of the oligarchs and competing clans and hew them to the national interest”? It’s always easier to collude with the already powerful [aka the Oligarchs] against the powerless [aka us].
Viktor12,
Manolo already linked the blog in his post above, Thanks!
Some skepticism on Mr. Palengke,
Why is he advertising, supersize to the pinoys.
Is he calling for a paradigm shift, or is it procter and gamble versus Unilever.
Unilever has been thriving on the tinge tinge mindset of the pinoy, you buy what you can afford today.
True, if you do the math you will save more if you buy the larger size Tide than Surf sachets in a month.Have you even noticed the sachets are even getting bigger and bigger. affordability my foot.
If it works for him, let us see if pinoys will supersize after the elections.
“Karl, thanks for the links. It seems that the study you linked to used the National Poverty Line while the one i referenced used the International Poverty Line (in the link you provided at 4:34 pm above) which accounts for the differences of 80 Million vs. 200 Million poor.”
Thank You Cvj,since you call me by first name it is time to call you Chuck or carlos,chuck na lang .
And I also compared the disparity between the percentages of UNDP and the CIA factbook
UNDP is 4.6% and CiA is 8 % for those living below a dollar.
So much for that,two year hanging question.
Closure,at last.
The whole idea is to expand investment which as it is now is very low compared to the more progressive ones in our region alone. Competition need not be on existing industries but in new ones that are otherwise undeveloped because the locals would rather go safe or the needed investment is just too big.
Thanks as well, Karl.
ricelander, i agree with what you’re trying to achieve, but the pattern of our neighbors show that foreign investment comes in after the locals get their act together, not before. I read somewhere that the reason why foreign investors don’t set up shop here is that the local market is just too small (in terms of purchasing power) not like in India as Leytenian described above (at June 1st, 2008, 8:31 am).
Wealth (and therefore buying power) is just too concentrated so the likes Henry Sy, Lucio Tan, the Lopezes or the Ayalas find it advantageous to set up satellite businesses that could just buy from each other. Look at the business partners of Multinationals in IT and BPO firms, they are owned by the same big families. Sa kanila lang umiikot ang pera. The only time the ordinary Filipino comes in is as an employee or, in some industries, as a consumer of the final product (or service).
A typical example of how the entry of MNC’s don’t help is in the case of the National Broadband Network who relies on political connections. Instead of becoming a competitor, ZTE (which is a Multinational) just joined in to play the game. Being pragmatic, they work with the system as it is.
CVG,
“The more a company exported, the more likely it was to receive cheap, long-term loans (as well as tariff protection for its sales in the domestic market)”
agree. good blog there you have CVG. i need more time to read.
many guys out there want foreign partners,who knows how things are done here.
They are all aware what happened to Hanjin.
Some europeans are interested in packaging, coconut oil,power.
kaya lang malaking obstacle talaga ang 40 % max dahil wala naman kapital ang mga pinoy di naman lahat ng kinakausap ng mga european ay yung mga billionaryo eh.some people are just referred to them na sa tingin nila tama na ang laway ang puhunan.
So we won’t have to be creative on how to get over that 40% hurdle, kahit na madaming galit sa chacha, this has to go.Sa mga nagkukwestyon sa constitutionality of Jelac, the purpose can be expanded to business if that is not he original purpose,just think NAIA3 and mining.
Thanks Leytenian. I’m wary about how economic policy debates have been framed for the past two decades i.e. export promotion vs. import substitution, private enterprise vs. state ownerhsip, free market vs. crony capitalism, Socialism vs. Capitalism etc. etc. because the dividing line don’t necessarily go along these distinctions. If the traditional Communists are blind to the benefits of the market system, the free market fundamentalists seem to be similarly blind to instances of Market failure.
If anything, the winning combination (whether capitalist or communist) seems to be economic equality first, then market reforms later.
“many guys out there want foreign partners,who knows how things are done here”
I mean many foreigners out there are looking for local partners.
Time to call my self LOL as in ULOL.
No problem, Chuck!
Economic equality,babayaran lahat ng utang ng pilipinas
Kasalanan natin, di natin binoto si Eddie Gil
It is interesting that while everyone is still debating on an economic system based on two extreme poles the reality in economic history is that a mixed bag is what has worked and continues to work.
The doctrinaire free traders are now in retreat as their dogmatic adherence to equilibrium science in markets has brought the world to this present day multiple crisis that has all countries reeling in varying degrees.
Naturally the countries that are more strategically dependent on import dependency will be the hardest hit.
Correcting a paradigm that economic policy of the country has been based on for generations will be most difficult.
Habito’s column today says it succinctly- Growth that is inclusive simply because assets are in the hands of only a few. The attempts at asset reform have been largely unsuccessfull.
The talk about protectionsim in the Philippine context is erroneous since most of the modern productive capacities were built by the colonizers and were in the hands and continue to be in the hands foreign capital.
The reason is plain for everyone to see. The so called protectionist years were really protection for foreign companies.
Nothing much has changed….
Our landlord class simply collects the rents today as always.
The international imperialism of money that is the integral part of the crisis of capitalism is similar in substance to the days in 1929. The problem then was a lack of income and maldistribution. Today it is a world wide phenomenon.
John Steinbeck wrote about it so clearly in his award winning book “The Grapes of Wrath.”
We see it today in the markets where rice is plentifull but so unaffordable for the majority of pinoy’s.
Monetary remedies which is primarily creating inflation (increasing money supply) to solve the crisis of overproduction have simply transfered the problems nationally to the international arena.
The biggest contradiction versus globalization is that all politics is national and localized.
The idea of inclusive economic development is still the responsibility of national constituencies.
The ideas surrounding the conflicts in present day attempts at globalization is the exlcusive brand being pushed by the G-7 economies.
Foreign investors know that they constitute foreign obligations that have to be drawn from a domestic economy.
Do not expect substantive foreign investments when the fundamentals of the Philippine economy still is a very narrow and shallow.
It is up to local investors to improve on that whether it be the state or the private sector.
If i believed he had the money to do that, maybe i would’ve voted for him. Having said that, Eddie Gil’s approach was wrong headed since ir he had such money, it would have been better spent on public services. For example, Argentina defaulted on its debt in 2001, and after that, its economy took off:
http://www.cepr.net/index.php/op-eds-columns/op-eds-columns/how-argentina-jump-started-its-economy/
leytenian: there is no Evo-Morales type or Hugo Chavez type leader in the Philippines. Both Morales and Chavez have strong indigenous bloodlines. Chávez was born to schoolteacher parents in a mudhut in July 1954. Chavez is of mixed Amerindian, Afro-Venezuelan, and Spanish descent. Morales (about same age as Chavez) was born in the highlands of Orinoca Oruro, and is of indigenous (Aymara) descent. He was one of seven children born to parents so poor only Evo and two other siblings reached age 14. The others died — some thing about poverty and life expectancy of children. Evo worked the farms and had been on the receiving end of soldiers’ rifle-butts. Morales and Chavez are both populists, like Erap is a populist –talking the talk of the masses to get elected (and talking the talk of the masses helps, big-time, to get one elected).
As cvj had mentioned, Erap was not a Chavez. Just try to remember the social programs that Erap unleashed in his first term.
Chavez’ problems was not from his first term. Chavez first-term programs included road building, housing construction, and mass vaccination. Chávez also halted planned privatizations of, among others, the national social security system. BUT Chavez is another example that power corrupts. It is after his first term that the Chavez problems were more evident — jackboot authoritarianism over the opposition and dissenters to his style-of-leadership; impatience on the limits the constitution puts on his powers; cronyism; wink-wink tolerance of abuses by his followers (including looting). Chavez is also going nuts in the brain —building a 2-million size army, which is combining the armies of Japan, Malaysia, Thailand, and Indonesia then doubling it). Now militarization does result in employment to a lot of 19-to-26 year old males joining the army, but an AK-47 is the equivalent of 5 textbooks, a weapons carrier equals an elementary school building, yrly pay of a soldier equals yrly pay of a schoolteacher, so maybe Chavez’ paranoia is tilting him to an excess which will cost Venezuela’s poor.
History (15 or so many years later) will judge. And if Che Guevara is romanticized by many and hated by others(or even Mohatma Gandhi is despised as a trator to India by a segment of India’s population) I’ll bet a week’s salary that Chavez becomes hated by many and adored by many (or becomes a same-oh same-oh 3rd world politician who was once president).
CVG,
hahaha, you made my day.. the link about argentina further explains my comment on this blog: June 1st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
to KG, On previous Blog: the Omen :my comment on May 15th, 2008 at 6:03 am. i explain about steps to bankruptcy. i was not qouting adam smith..but what CVG is trying to imply confirms my belief that there are indeed savvy financial talents in this blog.
i will not favor of default but what i’m trying to suggest is to negotiate the terms of our loans. it might scare the rent seeking oligarchs… LOL. maybe our current admin has done its job already. we don’t know.
hi UPn,
i am just not familiar with Roxas and Noynoy. I don’t have no clue of who would be my preference for pesidential candidates in 2010. i would like to see candidates with positive accomplishments in the area of increasing employment, enhancing our educational system, healthcare, rule of law and track record of management in local and international banking industry (controlling interest rates).
i think i prefer regulations back to basic and mix it with financing talent.
Aa for GMA, I am sure the wikipedia entry for her twenty years from now will have two sentences or more that wikipedia mentions for presidents of the Philippines —- graft and corruption.
[It is a few years away still, but I do hope that the president after GMA will NOT have “…impeachment proceedings” nor “… coup attempts” attached to his/her name. Pinas voters have to choose well.]
How is bloodline relevant in the Philippine context? Unlike Latin America were there are distinct heterogenous populations of European, African and Native ancestry in big enough numbers with respect to each other, we were far enough from Spain such that majority of Filipinos are as genetically homogeneous as we were before the arrival of the Spaniards. That is to say, we cannot define ourselves by our ‘bloodlines’. As far as the Y-DNA Haplogroup [aka genetic markers] is concerned, we Filipinos are roughly divided (in a study by Kayser et.al based on 39 individuals):
Haplogroup O1-M119: ~41% (the so-called ‘Austronesian’ Haplogroup)
Haplogroup O3-M122: ~36% (common among Han Chinese)
Haplogroup C-RPS4Y ~10% (Haplogroup of the Australian Aborigines and the Mongols including Genghis Khan)
Haplogroup O2a-M95: ~2.6% (common among Japanese and Burmese)
Haplogroup O-M175: ~2.6% (‘East Asian’ Haplogroup)
Haplogroup R-M173: ~2.6% (‘Western European’ Haplogroup)
Haplogroup F-M89: ~2.6% (‘Middle Eastern’ Haplogroup)
Haplogroup K-M9: ~2.6% (‘Eurasian’ Haplogroup)
Linguistically, we’re similarly homogeneous where, apart from their own languages, almost everyone can converse in Tagalog and understand English.
What separates us instead is economic class and the social attitudes that come with it.
Pinas voters have to choose well.
Right.
🙂
Jeg, some voters think they are more ‘rational’ than others which to me is one of the hallmarks of the elitist mindset.
Many other countries were watching Argentina when it defaulted on its loans. What they saw — that the poor became even poorer, really much poorer— gave them pause. About 12% of Argentina (in 2001 when default was declared) were of extreme poverty — “Not enough to eat”. A year later, and for several years, those in “extreme poverty” jumped to 25% or more of the population. Large-scale demonstrations as well as anarchy were also visible in the streets of Buenos Aires. [Anarchy always gives politicians pause because of the likelihood of “…surge the gates”. Political leaders do not want to trigger things that can result in “…surge the gates”.]
Two traditional measures of economic inequality, the Gini coefficient and the wealth gap between the 10% poorest and the 10% richest among the population, grew continuously since 2001, and decreased for the first time in March 2005.
ARGENTINA DATA
Column 1 — date
Column 2 — percent EXTREME POVERTY (not enough to eat)
May 2001 11.6% 35.9%
Oct 2001 13.6% 38.3%
May 2002 24.8% 53.0%
Oct 2002 27.5% 57.5%
May 2003 26.3% 54.7%
2nd sem 2003 20.5% 47.8%
1st sem 2004 17.0% 44.3%
2nd sem 2004 15.0% 40.2%
1st sem 2005 13.6% 38.5%
1st sem 2006 11.2% 31.4%
3rd Q 2006[2] 8.7% 26.4%
The table above shows statistics of poverty in Argentina, in percent of the population. The first column shows the date of the measurement (note that the method and time changed in 2003; poverty is now measured each semester). Extreme poverty is here defined as not having enough money to eat properly.
Column 3 — poverty line (is set higher: not enough for the basic needs including food, clothing, shelter, and studies.)
———-
I have an acquantance at PAHO Washington DC (she is a Spanish/English translator). She suffered through the poverty and the anarchy in Buenos Aires streets during those years.
Jeg, some voters think they are more ‘rational’ than others which to me is one of the hallmarks of the elitist mindset.
Yes. Nothing we can do about that but engage their ideas and upbraid them if theyre wrong or approve of them if theyre right. On balance, I think I would rather have differences of opinion than sameness of opinion. That’s what the internets provide: a venue for discussion. MLQ3 is correct in that it’s the new pamphleteering, and it’s also a conversation.
Jeg, that’s all well and good in this venue, but the point i was trying to make is that, in the real world, there is a tendency for certain people to tolerate election cheating and even support disenfranchisement of most voters because of what Bryan Caplan says, forgetting that the same principle applies to them as well.
I agree. And they also forget that this isnt unique to the Philippines. (I swear, if I hear ‘onli in da pilipins’ one more time…)
UP N student:
“Not enough to eatâ€Â. A year later, and for several years, those in “extreme poverty†jumped to 25% or more of the population. Large-scale demonstrations as well as anarchy were also visible in the streets of Buenos Aires. [Anarchy always gives politicians pause because of the likelihood of “…surge the gates”
a good balance to the discussion. yes it was a hasty move for argentina because what they have at that time was a system of no model. it was a decision out of desperations-the absence of management. i don’t think the Philipines is close to the problem of argentina before but I do hope our curent admin will continue to implement regulations on transparency to fight graft and corruption. As what GMA said on her recent interview with IHT, she delegated this task to this ombudsman.
UP n, doesn’t the poverty statistics you present above show a downward trend starting in May 2003 through 2Q 2006, which is inconsistent with your narrative. How can you say extreme poverty ‘jumped’ when the stats you show are going downward? Also, if you click through the link i provided (at 10:15am), it explains that:
The party responsible for defaulting on the debt won reelection.
A blog entry on Argentina from economist Dani Rodrik:
http://www.rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/04/will-argentina.html
Argentina’s Kirchner may not be Chavez or Morales but it looks like some EDSA Dos vs. EDSA Tres dynamic is also taking place over there.
Leytenian,
Sorry kung balikan ko tong topic na to.
kala ko nagkaintindihan na tayo di pa pala.
hindi ito url na nilink mo pero same article:
http://freedomfromdebt.wordpress.com/2008/04/22/dr-walden-bello-in-the-shadow-of-debt/
Dr. Walden Bello: In The Shadow Of Debt
This is where you got the things you mentioned on fdi, the plaza accord and why neighbors were flooded with japan investments.
at ang pinagbasihan mo ng cut and paste mo:
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1568/is_n2_v26/ai_15473461
A tale of two countries – economic impact of Philippine protectionist policies and lack of protectionism in Hong Kong
Reason, June, 1994 by William McGurn
What I noticed is this:
Walden Bello :
read his past articles, you may find them at the inquirer, you will see what I mean, when I said he is against liberalization.
And that
McGurn article on protectionism, runs counter to what walden bello believes in.
Yun lang ang ibig sabihin ko.
Granting na the other day you were talking about investment policies and another day you were talking about oligarchs.
ganun pa din.ok I just shot the messenger LOL.
cvj: Argentina defaulted in late 2001, and extreme-poverty percentage:
11.6% May 2001
24.8% May 2002
26.3% May 2003
17.0% 1st-sem-2004
You cite that the party responsible for defaulting on the debt won re-election as if the voters remember the party. The president when Argentina defaulted resigned — forced out by riots!!!!
observations on China:
corruption there is several times much worse compared to dito
masyadong pronounced and rich-poor divide
the economic gains have not trickled down
and yet…..
how come we don’t hear much about those things?
UPn, ok i stand corrected. Nevertheless, after the default, Argentina was able to follow its own policies that resulted in its economic takeoff under Kirchner. They were able to repay the IMF on their own terms.
Unlike here, it is a consequence of fast economic growth. I agree though that this is a problem as i mentioned above (at June 1st, 2008, 10:02 am)
Actually, they have. In 1981, there were 634 Million living on less than 1 US Dollar a day. In 2001, this was reduced to 212 Million (see link posted by Karl above, at June 1st, 2008, 4:34 pm) . Their economic growth is fast enough for trickle down to work.
If you don’t hear much about those things, how come you know that corruption is worse over there than here?
“Habito’s column today says it succinctly- Growth that is inclusive simply because assets are in the hands of only a few. The attempts at asset reform have been largely unsuccessfull. ”
For anyone interested in the link:
http://business.inquirer.net/money/columns/view/20080601-140156/Pushing-equity
i rememeber this topic debated here till kingdom come once.
GDP
http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/columns/view/20080531-139885/Education-and-poverty-reduction
“MANILA, Philippinesâ€â€The economy’s first-quarter growth slowed down to 5.2 percent from last year’s 7.0 percent, and the silence is deafening. The critics who were so quick to point out the flaws in the national income estimation methodology of the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) last year, when it was reporting record-high growth rates for the country, have not as yet said a word. It would seem they have no problems with the methodology when what is being reported is relatively low growth, when our growth rate is lower than Thailand’s and Indonesia’s. But high growth rates are immediately suspect. Since the methodology has remained the same, the problem has to be with the critics: Low sense of self-worth? Partisanship? Overweening hatred for Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, in such a way that any success on her part must be immediately denigrated?”
Karl, yeah i read that. That’s an example of the Appeal to Motive fallacy on Monsod’s part.
kailangan ko pang mag research, ad hominem circumstantial argument pala.
forgot my logic 101.
two times ko pa naman kinuha in two different universities.
“Actually, they have. In 1981, there were 634 Million living on less than 1 US Dollar a day. In 2001, this was reduced to 212 Million (see link posted by Karl above, at June 1st, 2008, 4:34 pm) . Their economic growth is fast enough for trickle down to work.”
CVJ, this has a lot to do with outsourcing work. The kind of jobs going to the Chinese – manufacturing jobs – give them a better trickle down than our agricultural, service sector (usually, non-permanent pa) jobs.
Brian, as stated below, there was not much Foreign Direct Investment in the 1980’s in China and yet the statistics i linked to above shows that 1 dollar a day poverty decreased from 634 Million people in 1981 to 375 Million in 1990.
The foreign investors only came later in a big way starting in the 90’s.
Karl: I don’t know if this is part of her message, but Solita Monsod’s article has a complaint against defeatism by the elite of the country.
And her last paragraphs — her appeal for all to support primary education — is indeed valid. Primary education. I have pointed to where the IMF/World Bank has cited the skewed allocation of resources by the Philippines. Ineffective are the “special interest group” (if one can name who these groups are) who espouse more money to be given to primary education (maybe because elementary-school students do not surge the gates). The net result is that a higher proportion of Pinas funds for education is allocated to the noisier group — the college and university students — when studies indicate that national development is better served by allocating more money to primary education.
KB,
walden bello’s link was to support my statement about investments. that’s all there is to it. the protectionism “cut and paste” was to support my statement to agree with trade liberalization and CVGs export promotion/import substitution.
meaning, if investments strategy combine with trade liberalization maybe one solution to our problem. what i’m trying to do was gathering data from different expert’s opinions to come up with my own solution to understand the situation of our country.
talking about politicians to start their own blog? here’s what i’m expecting to see on their CV/Resume on their websites.
1. 8 Key Success factor
2. 2 examples of achievements that demonstrate the Success factor
Include #’s, $ or (pesos) , or size,scope,for emphasis.
( example ( ONLY) on Gloria’s success factor,
increased GDP from 2006 to 2007 by 3.5%
( example on Garcia, increased shares invested with meralco from 15 pesos to 60pesos… )
3. 3-Line Narrative Format.
On Success Factor: Questions of
1. what was done ( what did Gloria do to increase GDP)
2. The Process ( it is by coaching, implementing, deregulations, adding regulations, delegating, negotiating or leading)
3. The Result: Completed $$$ project ahead of 6 months schedule and 8% below budget.
Example on Senators running for president: Completed school project in barangay such as such of 13 million pesos 3 months ahead of schedule and 10% below budget.
I have to expect each of them to provide their track records of cost savings, implementation and what was done during the process of implementation.
I could care less of their economic plan. An economic plan cannot be implemented unless proven track records of implementation and success are showcased on their websites. If they will have their economic plan ready for 2010, then it has to show the process of how it is going to be done. If they cannot answer it, then they cannot represent our needs.
“when studies indicate that national development is better served by allocating more money to primary education”.
Also, post secondary education nowadays is getting more expensive and many secondary school graduates can no longer afford to pursue..
I think this rational of allocating more resources to secondary education had long been foreseen by most Governments as to better serve the national development. Most who proceed to University in the older days are mostly Managerial and Professionals, like Physicians and Lawyers and Engineers and everyone knows that if all has to proceed and get their University Degrees, well, there will be no more skilled workers, machine operators, technicians to do the day to day slogging in the fields and yet these individuals need a very good Primary and Secondary Education before they can go out in the fields too. Maybe that is why from junior Kin to Grade 12 it is Publicly funded in all our schools, Catholic or Public Schools..
BTW in the News, the Catholic School Board Trustees (the ones that were voted to run the catholic school board of Toronto) is in the headlines for Spending irregularities and the Ministry is planning to take over the Board, if they can not balance their budget…oh… those Religious Schools…
Trustees urged to step down
Clarington-Peterborough Catholic school board asks trustees’ association to put pressure on Toronto board to `do the right thing’ over spending abuses
June 2, 2008
The seven elected trustees of the Peterborough Victoria Northumberland and Clarington Catholic District School Board, which includes the easternmost end of the 905, have asked their provincial representatives to put pressure on Toronto trustees to “do the right thing and allow new leadership to heal rifts in the community.”
They must step aside to “re-establish confidence in Catholic education in Toronto and beyond,” says their letter to the Ontario Catholic School Trustees’ Association
*******************
The Pressure is mounting and the Minister of Education, a very Patient Lady is also about to loss her Patience..
http://parentcentral.ca/parent/article/435168
cvj,
how about those living on US$2 a day? US$3 a day? US$4? US$5?
following the drift of your quote, only those living on US$1 a day is poor, while those living on US$2 to US$5 aren’t. though maybe for Chinese living in the countrysides, US$5 a day is already comfortable enough.
still, China does not have an expanded middle class – the kind of trickle down effect some of our kababayans are hoping to happen here. the kind especially demanded by some people from gloria in her 9 years of office
but this is not to downplay the efficacy of China’s poverty reduction efforts. it worked for them. hundreds of millions benefited. they did extremely well. could be the world’s best poverty reduction effort
****clears throat****
i used “we” not “I” in case you have not noticed.
parang mga comments ng iyong paboritong Fil-Aussie. everytime he has a comment on Pinoys he includes himself!
are you telling me that for you there is zero corruption in China? Oh my! you haven’t heard much!
in one sense wala ngang corruption sa China kasi second nature na duon ang corruption ingrained na sa kanila yun.
Anthony, i’m not sure what we’re arguing about. I happen to agree with you about the existence of corruption in China. Also, the 2 dollar a day poverty indicator is in the same link i.e. 876 Million in 1981 reduced to 594 Million in 2001.
Foreign investments streamed into China only when the environment made it reasonable to do so. A China that was anti-foreign, anti-capitalism, anti-consumerism and anti-WTO (rule of law) was not really an inviting place for a foreign investor. China then is Myanmar of today — paranoid repressive government leaders that distrust its own population, especially those in 30%-to-90% percentile (the upper 10% were the generals and the politburo). Way earlier, it was only by dealing directly with China government bureaucrats that a foreign firm can participate in China economy, or even to donate goods/services when calamity hits. Deng started the process (liberalization — acknowledging the ineffectiveness of state-control of collective farms and smokestack and other industries and risking China having a larger number of (and more powerful) economic oligarchs), and it was only years later that foreign investments streamed into China, and at a faster rate as consumerism became a factor in China’s economy and “trickle-down” trickled down. I have not seen a prediction of what happens to China’s “gini”, but soon enough (before 2020), China will overtake the US-of-A as the largest car market in the world as more Chinese enter their 40%-to-80% income-percentile groups.
UPn, as quoted above (at 7:02 pm), in the case of China, foreign investments lagged, rather than led the economic takeoff. When you use the term liberalization, according to Dani Rodrik, the innovative reforms of Deng involved the State and the Market working together:
1. the household responsibility system,
2. dual-track pricing,
3. township-and-village enterprises, and
4. special economic zones
http://www.rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2008/05/re-uniting-development-economics.html
Except maybe for #4, it is hardly the standard set of neoliberal prescriptions of market fundamentalists.