BWorld 223, Ease of setting up and closing down business

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last June 18, 2018.

Last June 6, I attended the “Seminar on Protecting your Trademarks and Inventions Overseas” jointly organized by the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), held at the PCCI building in McKinley Hill, Taguig City.

The main audience of that seminar were entrepreneurs and companies big and small to help them be aware of existing intellectual property rights (IPR) rules and their protection, commercialization, licensing and dispute resolution. I do not represent any SME or big company but I was invited there by Jess Varela, Chairman of PCCI Committee on IPR.

The three important speakers that day were Dennis Broze and Peter Willimott of WIPO Office in Singapore and Atty. Allan Gepte, Commissioner of the Tariff Commission and former Director-General of the Intellectual Property Office (IPO).

Then last June 13, I attended the 6th Ease of Doing Business (EODB) Summit 2018 at the PICC, organized by the Department of Trade and Industry (DTI). It is an annual event sponsored by the DTI with one important goal — to raise or improve the Philippines’ global ranking in the World Bank’s (WB) Doing Business (DB) annual reports. The DB 2018 report was recently released and the Philippines’ global rank has worsened, compared to its ranking in the last two or three years.

This year, the EODB 2018 event is more optimistic because of the passage of the “Ease of Doing Business Act of 2018” or RA 11032 which was signed into law only last month. The DTI and various agencies including SEC, LRA, BIR, BOC, BFP, LGUs have adopted various measures to hasten the law’s implementation.

Among the important speakers in the EODB 2018 were DTI Secretary Ramon Lopez, who is also the Chairman, Ease of Doing Business and Anti-Red Tape Advisory Council; Senators Juan Miguel Zubiri and Aquilino “Koko” Pimentel III, and Mr. Guillermo Luz, former Co-Chairman of the National Competitiveness Council (NCC). Sen. Zubiri is the main author of the law in the Senate and also the Majority Leader while Sen. Pimentel is former Senate President and now Chairman of the Committee on Trade.

In both the PCCI-WIPO and DTI events, the over-riding subject is competitiveness of the Philippine economy and its businesses.

Below are results of three annual reports, the WB’s DB, World Economic Forum’s (WEF) Global Competitiveness Index (GCI), and WIPO, INSEAD and Johnson Cornell University’s Global Innovation Index (GII) annual reports.

Numbers in parentheses represent the number of countries and economies covered in that particular annual report.

While the results in global ranking vary among the three reports, one trend can be identified — the most competitive Asian economies are Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, Japan, Malaysia, and Thailand.

The Philippines is among the least competitive in the region, which is not good for us.

I have three wish lists on this matter.

One, the prioritization and signing into law of RA 11032 is among the very few measures of the Duterte administration that I support. I wish that he will do more ease of doing business policies, not the ease of closing businesses such as when he moved to close Boracay for six months or the ease by which the government over-taxed people via TRAIN.

Two, I wish there was a provision on the ease of closing a business in RA 11032. Among the best incentives to attract investment is a contestable market or free/easy entry, free/easy exit. If businesses see that government will bureaucratize and harass them if they decide to close shop someday, they will think twice about coming in.

Three, I wish there was another law mandating that work in government (local and national, elected and appointed, continuous or on-off) will only be a maximum 15 years, prompting officials and staff to go back to the private sector.

Since many officials intend to become regulators and bureaucrats until they retire, they tend to be more prohibitionist and extortionist since their over-regulations and taxation of business will not apply to them.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

---------------

See also:

BWorld 211, Intellectual property, innovation, and prosperity, May 20, 2018 

BWorld 220, Trade imbalances, protectionism and rhetoric, June 15, 2018 

BWorld 221, Mindanao power development, reality vs illusion, June 16, 2018 

BWorld 222, Austrian thinkers and the G7 zero tariff challenge, July 8, 2018

Fat-Free Econ 40: IMF Irrelevance

* This is my article today in interaksyon.com.
-------

In a forum last Wednesday at the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) director for Asia and Pacific Department, Dr. Anoop Singh, revealed a little known shift in the multilateral lender's "new" role.

According to him, their main concerns now are (a)  the rising inequality in the Philippines and other Asian economies that have been growing rather fast recently, (b) unstable macroeconomic fundamentals that can restrict potential growth, and (c) raising public finance to develop human capital and public infrastructures.

Here is one of the charts Singh showed in his talk. While inequality has stabilized in sub-Saharan Africa, or declined in the Middle East and North Africa, as well as in Latin America, inequality in the Philippines and other Asian economies has increased.

Another slide he showed pertains to the difficulty of doing business in the country -- with the Philippines ranking in the 140s globally -- and the low level of public investment in infrastructure as seen from the country's low infrastructure score.

During the open forum, I asked Singh two questions. The first is: Has the IMF become irrelevant to many Asian economies? Its focus on solving inequality and inadequate public spending on education and healthcare betrays a shift away from the lender's original mandate of helping countries suffering from balance of payments (BOP) difficulties.

The IMF was organized in 1945 to “promote international monetary cooperation… facilitate the expansion and balanced growth of international trade… promote exchange stability and avoid competitive exchange depreciation… assist in the establishment of a multilateral system of payments… and in the elimination of foreign exchange restrictions which hamper the growth of world trade… give confidence to members by making the general resources of the Fund temporarily available to them under adequate safeguards… (and) shorten the duration and lessen the degree of disequilibrium in the international balances of payments of members.” This is contained in the Articles of Agreement of the IMF, Article I.

There is hardly any BOP difficulty in Asia these days , making the region the envy of the US and the EU. In fact, in the wake of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-1998, the Asean and its three biggest neighbors -- China, Japan and Korea -- organized the Chiang Mai Initiative,  which pooled money that any signatory to the agreement can draw from in case of BOP problems.

In the case of the Philippines, it no longer owes the IMF, having graduated from the lender's fiscal and macroeconomic tutelage a few years back. On the contrary, the Philippines lent $1 billion last year to the IMF to help the EU address its fiscal difficulties.

So if the problem is back in the US and the EU -- the so-called developed regions that organized the IMF and two other institutions at Bretton Woods after the Great Depression -- the million-dollar question is why the IMF persists in sending "experts" to countries like the Philippines to pontificate about issues we already know about and the solutions to which have been discussed ad naseum?

In the same vein, is it wise for the Philippines to lend money to the IMF so it could maintain a representative in the country? Why pay so much for a bureacrat, especially when talking can be done more efficiently, if not effectively, over the Internet?

In his reply to my query, Singh said addressing social inequality can help economies sustain their growth through a more productive labor force. Sounds like someone from the World Bank or the Asian Development Bank (ADB), right?

This betrays more than just irrelevance on the part of the IMF in so far as countries like the Philippines are concerned. If you check the IMF website, then you'd discover that the lender has adopted the same line as that of the World Bank and ADB: "To foster global monetary cooperation, secure financial stability, facilitate international trade, promote high employment and sustainable economic growth, and reduce poverty around the world.”

Now this raises the issue of redundancy, which was the second question I raised during last Wednesday's forum. The IMF's fellow Bretton Woods institution, theWorld Bank was organized precisely for that: “Our work is challenging, but our mission is simple: Help reduce poverty.”

As for the ADB: “The ADB aims for an Asia and Pacific free from poverty… alleviate poverty and help create a world in which everyone can share in the benefits of sustained and inclusive growth.”

Perhaps it's time to dismantle the IMF? Enough said.

------------

See also:
Foreign Aid 2: Circuitous and Leaky Process, November 03, 2005
Foreign Aid 6: IMF is Engineerable and Abolishable, September 05, 2006
Foreign Aid 8: Abolish the IMF, August 08, 2007
IMF socialism, January 04, 2009
IMF dinosaur, let it fade away, June 16, 2009

Fiscal Irresponsibility 26: On the $1 B Philippine Loan to the IMF, June 27, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 15: IMF and Freedom From Debt, July 01, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 38: Jobless Growth vs. Jobless Non-Growth, February 12, 2012

Fat Free Econ 39: P57,000 Public Debt Per Filipino, February 25, 2013

Fat-Free Econ 33: Institutions and Why Governments Fail

This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal, 

http://www.interaksyon.com/business/49935/fat-free-economics--institutions-and-why-governments-fail

---------------

Institutions are mechanisms and structures of social order, whether created via volunteerism or by coercion. Private institutions are characterized by their voluntary creation and sustenance while public and government institutions are created by coercion through the Constitution, legislation, or other government orders or proclamations.

In most public discourse, institutions often refer to those in the public sector because they prescribe certain behaviors of the people through various regulations, and they are sustained via taxation and other mandatory fees and contributions to the government.

When institutions are weak, they do not function properly. They or the officials that lead them do not enforce certain rules and regulations that they are mandated to do. Rather, they exercise certain arbitrary powers and allow exemptions as to whom the rules and penalties will apply and to whom the rules can not apply.

In their book “Why Nations Fail" (published 2012, 529 pages), Daron Acemoglu, an economist from MIT, and James Robinson, a political scientist from Harvard University, argue that nations can fail if they have more “extractive” rather than “inclusive” economic and political institutions.

Extractive institutions do not properly enforce law and order, they do not secure property rights, and there is “absolutism” in public commands. Inclusive institutions on the other hand ensure law and order, secure private property rights, allow for economic competition and political pluralism.

These points were discussed extensively by one of the authors, James Robinson, in a conference on December 5 at Mandarin Oriental Hotel jointly sponsored by the Angara Center for Law and Economics and the World Bank.

I agree with the Robinson's analysis that the main function of government is to promulgate the rule of law and protect property rights. And that is where the Philippines and other governments fail. They do not strictly promulgate the rule of law. Rather, there is more rule of men, deciding to whom the law and prohibitions will apply and to whom they do not apply. So it is more of government failure, not national failure. And the question is, why governments fail.

Examples are the protection of shops and malls, hotels and buildings, schools and universities, airports and seaports, ordinary individuals and so on, are done mainly by private security agencies, not government police and armed units. The police and other agencies are generally corrupt that people and businesses distrust their capacity to protect the citizens and their properties, so they get private security agencies to protect themselves and their properties. They turn only to the police after a crime has happened for legal cases later. But the crime prevention function is done mainly by the private sector.

There is also government failure in various welfarist and subsidy programs. There are endless programs like education and healthcare for the poor, housing and credit for the poor, tractors and electric tricycles for the poor, cash transfer and roads for the poor, condoms and pills for the poor, and so on. Someday there could be cars and iPads for the poor - and poverty still persists.

In the current global and regional public finance condition, almost all governments have dis-savings and are heavily indebted. The public debt-to-GDP ratio can range from 20 to 200-plus percent. Yet many economies have positive savings rates, meaning their savings-to-GDP ratio is positive - from about 14 to 50 percent among Asian governments alone. This is another example that savings and efficiency in the private sector is compensating for dis-savings, waste and inefficiency in the public sector. 

It is a bankrupt idea that more power should be given to governments (local, national and multilateral) and people should work and pray that "enlightened and good" leaders will wield such powers to do central planning and redistribute wealth, regulate and regulate, tax through "inclusive institutions". And when thieves and dictators grab government authority, people should rally and mobilize again to replace and topple them. Then gamble again that the next round of leaders are not thieves and dictators. This is precisely the experience of the Philippines and many countries for many decades now.

People are not idiots that government, whether ruled by thieves or angels, should nanny them from education to healthcare, housing, transportation, agriculture, condoms and so on.

One of the discussants in the forum, Dr.Bernie Villegas of the University of Asia and the Pacific made a correct position during the roundtable that the PNoy administration should focus its last three years on building or strengthening public institutions - the courts, the legislature, and various bureaucracies - to become "inclusive" and protective of law and order, protective of property rights. But he stopped there. 

For the government to focus on that very important thrust, it should stop creating new welfarist programs, step back and focus its resources on improving existing programs, or even abolish those programs that were more of debt generators than productivity enhancers. 

The free market, more personal responsibility - as opposed to more and bigger government - still has a long way to go in this country and elsewhere. There are just too many central planners around us who endlessly produce “great ideas” and they seriously think that their bright ideas should be forced on the rest of society, and taxpayers should finance their grand ideas endlessly.

It is this central planning mindset - of more forced collectivism and coercion in society - that causes conflict among people. We should have less coercion in society. It is good that people have lots of “bright ideas” but such ideas need not be forced and slammed on everyone else. Rather, bright ideas can survive and thrive via voluntary exchange and civil society volunteerism.
---------

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 29: Anti-capitalism, Fanaticism and the Poor, November 13, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 30: BPOs and Obama, November 14, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 31: On the Kasambahay, Solo Parents Welfare Bills, November 26, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 32: GDP Growth, Stockmarket and Rule of Law, December 01, 2012

Rule of Law 15: RoL and Government Failure, August 16, 2012
Rule of Law 16: On the New SC Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno, August 25, 2012
Rule of Law 17: Justice Without Discrimination, October 18, 2012

Welfarism 22: CCT, 4Ps and Central Planning

More government central planning, more wastes and inefficiencies. This is once more exhibited in the Conditional Cash Transfer (CCT) or Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) program of the government.

My economist friend from UP, Jhiedon Florentino, rode a taxi and engaged the taxi driver to a fruitful conversation. Well, it’s more of probing the mind of one of the average persons in this country on what they think of certain government policies like the CCT. Jhie is down to earth enough to listen to the man’s frank ideas and witty remarks. Then he posted their conversation in his facebook wall last October 12-13, 2012. One more reason why fb is both an entertaining and educational platform in the planet today – at zero politics, zero taxes involved.

“Me” here refers to Jhiedon. The taxi driver is from Malinta, Valenzuela City, Metro Manila. Jhie posted this in a 4-parts installment in his fb wall. There are comments after each part. I put all the comments and exchanges after part 4. I also made short English translation to some points, for the non-Filipino readers of this blog. Thanks to Jhie for allowing me to post this in my blog. Six pages pages long, enjoy!

Part 1:

Manong Tx driver: ...d naman namin hinihingi maging 4Ps, pero binigyan kami...

Me: lahat sa sitio ninyo 4Ps manong?
Manong: Di ko nga maintindihan, yung mga taong dapat makaavail, hindi nakakakuha, yung mga nagbabasura...

Me: sa tingin ninyo manong, bakit....
Manong: sa katamaran na pumunta, di nila alam, at iyong iba mga wala namang mga IDs. Tapos aatend ka ng mga meeting, malayo...

Me: nakaatend na kayo manong ng mga meeting
Manong: oo, nung minsan nagkasakit si misis

Me: anong pinagusapan ninyo nung FDS manong
Manong: naku, FAMILY PLANNING ang pinaguusapan nung pumunta ako....

(Translation: Driver said they did not ask for the 4Ps but government gave them the money. He did not understand why the less poor got the money but the very poor like garbage scavengers got nothing, they are lazy to walk long and attend meetings, or they do not have any ID. He attended one meeting, the topic was about family planning) 

Welfarism 19: Consumption-led Growth and Direct Welfare

There was an old article in the WB blog that was posted by three friends -- an economist, a political scientist and an IT whiz guy -- in their facebook walls last week. I didn't notice that it was posted in February 2008, until I dropped a second comment to it, which the web administrator kindly posted.

The paper was entitled Rising growth, declining investment: the puzzle of the Philippines by Alessandro Bocchi. It is an attractive title and he showed this chart in his paper,

From 1980 to 2006, GDP growth was on up-down-up-down trend but with sustained growth, while investments as a share of GDP (I/GDP ratio) has been declining to less than 15 percent by 2006.

Mr. Bocchi offered these explanations why it happened:

1.    The public sector cannot afford it;

2.    The capital-intensive private sector (i.e.: those businesses that, when operating, utilize more capital than labor) does not want to expand that fast; and

3.    The rest of the private sector does not need it.

In my earlier article here, Fat-Free Econ 1: Macroeconomics for Micro Concerns last March 08, 2012, I noted that GDP growth was mainly due to our consumption-led economy. Going back to an Econ 11 basic macroecon formula, 

 Y = C + I + G + (X-M) 

C or private consumption expenditure is 73 percent of Y or GDP. So that even if government  consumption G, or public and private investments I, will grow slow or even flat line, ie, zero growth, but if C will grow fast, then GDP can grow fast. 

The writer probably forgot this equation, they just want to push more WB loans to the Philippine government to expand G and finance further more public I.

C mainly came from domestic household savings, but a substantial amount also comes from  OFW remittances. Lots of money from such remittances are converted into direct household consumption like food, housing, education, healthcare and cell phones/telecom services. Part of such remittances also go to micro I like buying a new tricycle, a jeepney, a tractor or pumpboat. Or putting up variety/sari-sari store, a rice mill, etc. which are often not tracked by the national accounting system. 

Another question will be: If OFW remittances will continue rising but formal I will flat-line or even decline further, can the C-led growth be sustained?

I think the answer is Yes, even though the assumption that I will decline further may not be correct. With more remittances, it is possible that domestic production for certain goods and services will remain flat, or ever decline, but C will remain high via larger importation of goods and services. It is hypothetically possible that there will be zero local production of computers and cellphones, not even an assembly plant, everything, 100% are imported. But since the foreign currencies are coming in regularly to pay for those huge importation, then lots of shops and malls of imported products will arise. The big amount of remittances will snap those imported goods and services, and GDP can grow. 

In short, there is no "puzzle" or mystery to the Philippines' GDP growth. 

People adjust to a corrupt and inefficient government here. Public education quality from elementary to tertiary levels is generally poor, except for a few like a science high school and the University of the Philippines (UP). So people invest in private education -- tutorials, private schools from pre-school up to university.

Public healthcare system is also of poor quality generally except for a few health centers, so people invest in private health insurance (HMOs) and high out of pocket spending, especially for diagnostic tests, physician fees and medicines.

Public roads and infrastructure are of poor quality too, so people invest in new cars, even SUVs with good suspension system to withstand many ugly roads. Or people take the toll roads, expensive rates but road quality is world-class.

These household adjustments to an inefficient and corrupt government help drive the C upwards. Household welfare is done by the households themselves. Government welfare programs are mostly directed to the political supporters of the politicians in power, especially those from the administration party.

Below is my comment to the WB blog article, and the reply of the web administrator.

Consumption led growth

SUBMITTED BY NONOY OPLAS ON WED, 2012-03-28 04:30.

This is the 2nd comment that I will post here, you disapproved or censored my earlier comment. There is no "puzzle", Remember your basic econ equation, Y = C+I+G+(X-M). Philippine economy is mainly C or consumption-led. C is 73 percent of GDP, so that even if I or G will grow slow, or even flat-line, but if C will grow fast, GDP can grow fast. What is puzzling about that?

Now you may ask, "is this sustainable?" Yes, it is, because a big source of C is OFW remittances, tens of billions of $ are coming in yearly, increasing trend. Many of those remittances are spent for household consumption like food, education, healthcare. But a big portion is also spent for private I like a tricycle, a jeepney, a sari-sari store, which the national accounting system is not able to properly account. No puzzle, no mystery. Only cute article title to grab public attention.

• reply

Re: Consumption led growth

SUBMITTED BY CLAUDIA GABARAIN ON THU, 2012-03-29 07:46.

Dear Nonoy, sorry we didn't notice the first time you sent your comment. These past few days we've been inundated with spam email and they just buried yours. Thanks for taking the time to write again.
By the way, Alessandro Magnoli, the author of the piece, left the Bank a while ago, so it's quite unlikely that he'll reply to it.
Thnx for your interest,

-- Claudia

Blog Admin

--------

See also:
Welfare Economics: Philippine Institutional Issues, November 14, 2011
Welfarism 18: Hong Kong's Expanding Government, March 27, 2012

Health Transparency 5: Forum on Good Governance in Health

Government (local and national) procurement of medicines, medical equipment and other supplies, hiring of health professionals and consultants, are among the problematic and not-so-inspiring stories in the country.

During the MeTA 2nd National Forum in late January 2009 that I attended, I observed and posted this:'

.... Second, medicine storage and warehousing by local governments for their constituents. A presenter from the WB showed some of his findings, complete with pictures: dirty warehouses, rodents, garbage and medicines mix up in one room. Warehouse personnel who do not make a regular inventory of medicines, how many have been disposed, how many are left, how many and what drugs are expired. Warehouses that do not have temperature control; one warehouse has a thermometer, fine, but the room temperature is several degrees hotter than the required minimum temperature for proper storage of some medicines. Some local health personnel release and give away expired drugs.

My proposal on this is that those warehouses by local government units (LGUs) should be closed down, LGUs can issue vouchers to their poor and needy constituents, the latter will go to government-accredited Botika ng Bayan or Botika ng Barangay to get the medicines, and the LGUs will pay those drug outlets later. There will be no need for LGUs and DOH then to train personnel for medicine procurement, warehousing, storage and inventory as internally proposed (using WB loans or additional budget appropriations) as these skills are already available in those government-accredited drug outlets. The comparative advantage of LGUs is politics and more politics, not efficient health care provision....

See, Health Transparency 1: MeTA Forum January 2009, January 26, 2009.

I actually expected the WB to demand major reforms in LGU procurement of medicines as the WB is a major lender to the government's health programs. But until now, I did not see or hear the WB, or ADB and other multilaterals, or the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), installing strict checking mechanisms to prevent the above wastes.

Ensuring good governance in health is an important and continuing challenge for the DOH and LGUs. Of course my personal policy bias is towards less governance in health, to assign more personal and parental/guardian responsibilities in healthcare to focus more on preventive than curative healthcare. But I digress.

This coming March 26, 2012, two big centers at the Asian Institute of Management (AIM), the Dr. Stephen Zuellig Center for Asian Business Transformation and the Hills Program on Governance will jointly sponsor the Good Governance in  Health forum. This is what the organizers wanted to achieve:

The key to providing concrete solutions against corruption is to maintain a consultative and cooperative relationship between stakeholder representatives and the government. This involves building stronger ties between health regulatory agencies and institutions concerned with fighting corruption and promoting good governance.

Following the mapping exercise on corruption cases and ethical dilemmas present in the delivery of health services in the Philippines, the second phase of the GGH program will involve the formulation of solutions and gathering of best practices in response to the identified cases. These solutions will be translated to the health sector through an extensive advocacy campaign, which includes capability-building workshops directed toward the promotion of anti-corruption practices and good governance in the Philippine health sector.

Representatives and key players from five sectors were targeted to participate: (a) local governments, (b) health regulators, (c) social health insurance, (d) commercial enterprises, and (e) medical practitioners.

I'm sure other sectors and players, like the huge health NGO community, will get jealous why they will not be invited  in this activity. But the organizers are facing a budget constraint and can accommodate only a limited number of participants. It is a by-invitation only event and not open to the public.

Former National Treasurer and former UP NCPAG Dean Leonor "Liling" Briones will be one of the few speakers. The bulk of the activity will be the workshop among the participants.

I remember there was one meeting by MeTA Philippines, about the result of the WB-funded assessment of government procurement of medicines for selected hospitals (LGUs, DOH-affiliated, and the AFP hospital). Some of the figures presented were harrowing, as some government hospitals have procured at 10x or higher the given drug reference price. So if people think that central procurement by government of medicines and other medical supplies will result in lowering of prices, think again, it can be the opposite. The corruption culture in the government is still alive and kicking and so, cost maxmization instead of minimization, is what usually happens. The thieves and corrupt officials in various agencies will have little leeway to siphon off money to their pockets if they will procure at low prices, so the tendency to bloat the prices of procured medicines and/or other medical supplies.

Promulgating the rule of law -- the law against stealing and robbery in government and putting guilty parties to prison -- is the main solution to this and related problems. But this is easier said than done. So I hope that certain solutions and check-balance mechanisms that are more easily implemented, can be extracted from among the participants in this forthcoming forum.
----------

See also:
Health Transparency 1: MeTA Forum January 2009, January 26, 2009
Health Transparency 2: CHAT Discussion and Debates, June 15, 2009
Health Transparency 3: MeTA Forum January 2010 (Prevention vs. Medication), January 27, 2010
Health Transparency 4: Drug Promotions and Government, September 03, 2010

Pol. Ideology 22: Diskurso sa Kapitalismo, Sosyalismo at Gobyerno

Or a Discourse on Capitalism, Socialism and Government.

The bulk of this blog's readers are from the US, Philippines, UK, Canada and Germany, in that order. Thus I write in English most of the time. But for this article, the exchanges are done mostly in Filipino language. This is my exchange of ideas with Arcy Garcia in his facebook wall. Arcy is a friend way back in the 80s in BISIG when I was still a socialist. I've abandoned socialism and Marxism since the 90s but Arcy remains a steadfast socialist, someone I would consider as a true-bloodied socialist who, unlike many other socialists and ideologues, has deep tolerance and respect even for opposing views, and does not believe in violence to advance the socialist agenda.

Arcy gave me permission to post here our exchanges - thanks Arcy. Here we go.
------

Arcy Garcia

P1.3B raw ang kinita ni Pacman sa laban kanina...isang mahabang putok sa taas ng kilay ang parusa sa kanya....(may pambili na naman siya ng isang mall. (P215M ang kay Marquez, may pambili na naman siya ng hammer)..yan ang kapitalismo. magkano kaya kinita ni Arum? ang tagapagpagalaw ng mga manika.

• Nonoy Oplas yan ang isang kagandahan ng kapitalismo. Di mo kailangang maging Ayala or Henry Sy para yumaman at sumikat, pwede kang maging pacquiao or si Schumacher or Mike Jordan or maski Phil Younghusband lang. Heto, mga super-rich athletes,http://funwithgovernment.blogspot.com/2011/06/roger-federer-manny-pacquiao-and-free.html
  

  
  

  Government and Taxes: Roger Federer, Manny Pacquiao and the free market

  funwithgovernment.blogspot.com
  

  FB exchange between Bonn, Nonoy, and Kissy, 18 June 2011Bonn JuegoWhew! It's som...See More

  
  

  Yesterday at 6:12am ·  · 
• 
  

  Mark as Spam

  Arcy Garcia hindi sila dapat kumikita nang ganyang kalaki tol. ang sistemang nag-aanak ng ganitong kalaking biglang yaman ay artipisyal-tulad ng mga manlalaro natin sa PBA- na sinasahuran habang pinahihirapan naman ng mga kumpanya ang mga mangagagwa nila sa mababang sahod. o ng ateneo, si Norman Black, galing sa tuition fee ng mga estudyante.
  

  Yesterday at 12:37pm · 
• 
  

  Nonoy Oplas ok lang kung "artipisyal" basta galing sa pinaghirapan, hindi pinagnakawan. Sa gobyerno na gustong kontrolin ang kapitalismo kuno, kaya kaliwa-kanan ang regulations and taxation, subsidies and welfarism kuno, sila ang yumayaman nang di man lang nababaliaan ang katawan (tulad ng mga boksingero, basketbolista, etc.) o kaya namamatay sa sports (cycling, F1, Nascar, etc.).
  

  Yesterday at 2:10pm · 
• 
  

  Arcy Garcia hindi comensurate ang hirap at prakrtis sa kita tol. isang ordinaryong manggagawa sa isang kontrakteor ng manila water- P200 isang araw, sa kanya pa ang piko. si Pacman, 4 na linggo ng jogging, boksing, disiplina sa pagkain, etc. hindi naman matatawaran ito. pagod at hirap din ito- pero para kumita ng P1.3 bilyon (sabihin nating mga kalahating bilyon dahil pambayad niya kay Roach, trainers, etc., etc ang iba- hindi pa rin commensurate. hindi makatarungan.) dito ang crux ng isyu- hindi fair na pagsusukli sa hirap at pagod ng bawat isa- manager ng bangko- tama- mahirap di yan. reesponsibilidad- pati sa pagtulog, dala mo ang pag-aalala; pero hindi naman cguro tulad ng sahod ng mga CEO ng BA at Goldman Sacchs ang sahod at kita kasama ng santambak na perks.
  
  

  Yesterday at 2:16pm ·  ·  1