April 26, 2006 · Posted in: Gloriagate, Governance

Unmasking the myth of ‘Arrovonomics’

SHOULD Filipinos believe the rosy picture being painted by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo about the state of the economy? Can they take her word for it when she claims that the economy is on the verge of take-off, the fiscal condition is improving, the peso is really strong, and the debt burden is being prudently managed?

Largely unchallenged, Arroyo’s stewardship of the Philippine economy was the focus of yesterday’s first public forum on the economy at the University of the Philippines campus in Diliman sponsored by the Active Citizenship Foundation, the year-old political think-tank of the Akbayan party-list organization. The forum’s main speaker, economist Maitet Diokno-Pascual, painted a different picture, debunking what the Arroyo government trumpets as its economic achievements.

Unmasking the myth of what she calls “Arrovonomics,” Pascual said that Arroyo’s economic successes remain anchored on short-term solutions, only this time with the central objective of ensuring her political survival.

“‘Arrovonomics’ sees credit upgrade as the key to survival,” Pascual said. “Its main strategies are to finance the machinery for survival, and maintain the confidence of the creditor community by continuously stressing that the problem is political and not economic.”

Pascual, chairperson of the Institute for Popular Democracy and former president of the Freedom from Debt Coalition, said Arroyo’s solution to the problems of a heavy debt burden and chronic fiscal deficit is to have a strong peso, lower interest rates, higher VAT, and to include non-cash tax revenues in the government’s declared revenues.

“So that the desired outcome would be a lower debt to GDP (gross domestic product) ratio, lower debt service, and smaller deficit to GDP ratio,” explained Pascual. “Hopefully, these will give her the credit upgrade that she needs and therefore she can hang on until 2010 and beyond.”

Access to credit is really a big confidence game, said Pascual. “And what we’ve been told is that the government hires PR agency consultants to facilitate dialogs with the credit rating agencies just to improve its rating. It figures the credit rating agencies are easy to deceive since they are only after the bottomline.”

So far, she conceded, the strategy seems to be working. “Arroyo is playing the game very well.”

But there are unplanned consequences, warned Pascual. “With a strong peso, your customs and export revenues are bound to fall. Higher imports will have an impact on trade deficit and on tax collections. If the government will have to improve its deficit through spending cutbacks, all of that will have an impact on economic growth. There will be reduced growth and it will need more borrowing. So you go back to the same problems again.”

The cycle, she said, is compounded by the fact that the economy remains vulnerable to a crisis.

If the Arroyo government is able to sustain itself, Pascual said it is because of two things: OFW remittances and overborrowing. She also pointed to the country’s elite whose fortunes — profitability of banks being tied to their lending to the government — apparently are more important than ousting her.

Pascual’s critique of the following claims of “Arrovonomics” is as follows:

Claim No. 1: The economy is on the verge of take-off

Official growth is suspect.

The National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) reported that real GDP grew by 5.1 percent last year. This was lower than the original target of 5.3 to 6.3 percent. It was also lower than the previous year’s actual growth at six percent.

Real GNP (gross national product) growth was at 5.7 perent, also lower than 2004.

Closely examining the GDP, Pascual said that what balances the supply (production) and demand (spending) sides is a statistical discrepancy or error that contributed 1.8 percent to GDP growth last year. Without the discrepancy, GDP grew by only 3.3 percent from the demand side.

Government’s accounting method for GNP and GDP is also unable to capture all items to be able to provide a clearer picture. Pascual said there are indications that imports are being understated. Services like business process outsourcing are also not being captured and the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) is anticipating an understatement of $2 billion from this.

This makes the data less credible, Pascual said. “And it’s hard to say with the adjustments what the growth picture would look like since you don’t know the extent of change for each of the years. You really wouldn’t know what the impact on the real growth figures after the new data comes out.”

Overseas employment is fuelling what little growth there is.

In its original development plan targets, only two were actually met — overseas employment and the deficit.

The government was able to deploy 981,677 migrant workers last year compared to its target of one million. The national government budget deficit was better than target at 2.7 percent compared to 3.6 percent of GDP in 2005.

Yet in everything else, the government failed. With job generation, only 702,000 jobs on the average (using labor force data surveyed every quarter) were created when the original plan eyed 1.4 to 1.6 million per year.

Export growth, targeted at 10 percent per year, registered only an actual growth of 3.7 percent. Import growth projected at 12 percent, on the other hand, only hit 7.4 percent.

Inflation, targeted at 4.5 percent, was pegged at 7.6 percent last year.

With regard to employment, one thing that government has also done is to redefine who are unemployed. Before, one has to be out of work and looking for work to be declared unemployed. Nowadays, under the “pure, clean concept” of unemployed, one is not counted as part of the labor force if he or she is not looking for work for more than six months.

But even if you go by the new definition, the unemployment rate, said Pascual, is increasing.

The domestic economy is weak and highly vulnerable to crisis.

The National Statistics Office‘s survey of the manufacturing sector showed a shrinking number of establishments, with the number of paid workers also falling. Profit as a percentage of revenues are similarly falling, although the value of output per paid worker is rising. Another indicator of a weakening manfacturing sector is that households have already overtaken industries in electricity demand.

Prices are rising faster than wages, which Pascual said should be the other way around if the government wants some of the benefits of the growth to go to the producers.

Taxes and jobs are also not growing as much as GDP.

Historically, the debt seems to be the only one that’s growing faster, although that trend was not repeated in 2005 because of the “strong” peso.

Filipinos continue to face joblessness, hunger, no money, dwindling access to “commons.”

While there has been a slight reduction in poverty incidence, the 2003 survey of the Food and Nutrition Research Institute (FNRI) on hunger showed that 21 percent of chidlren 0 to 5 years old and 34 percent of mothers have experienced food insecurity — unable to eat, ate only one meal a day, missed a meal. More than half of households had an experience of food insecurity. The survey, which asked children to name the food they eat, surprisingly listed coffee among the 30 top food items.

NSO’s annual poverty indicator survey in 2004 found 35 percent of the poorest 30 percent of households with no access to safe drinking water compared to 32.5 percent in 2002.

In terms of employment, only 59 percent of the working-age population have a job. That figure has not changed over the years. The quality of employment is also deteriorating — jobs are less permanent, seasonal or part-time, low wage or unpaid, low-skilled.

While jobs are being created in the agriculture and services sectors, these are mostly unpaid (in agriculture) and low wage (services). In both cases, they are even seasonal.

In terms of income, the 2003 Family Income and Expenditures Survey (FIES) found that the poorest 30 percent are dissaving — spending more than what they are earning. The poor are not able to save because whatever income they have is not enough to cover their expenditures. They, said Pascual, are also probably in debt.

The income of all families, rich and poor, fell between 2000 and 2003, with the family income of the poorest 10 percent falling by 8.7 percent.

Claim No. 2: Improving fiscal condition

The so-called improved fiscal condition was attained by borrowing heavily so Treasury earns from borrowed funds, and cutting infrastructure and social spending — in short, dagdag bawas.

If there was a very good improvement in the deficit last year despite juetenggate and Gloriagate, Pascual said it is because the Arroyo government relied on two easy ways to do it, in patented dagdag-bawas fashion — padding revenues and cutting spending.

For the 2005 fiscal performance, the actual revenue was bigger by P12.5 billion while actual spending was smaller by P21 billion, which resulted in an actual deficit that was also smaller by P33.5 billion.

How were the revenues padded:

by borrowing more than what was needed
by earning interest from dagdag utang
and by allowing the Bureau of Internal Revenue and Bureau of Customs to declare as part of revenue non-cash tax revenues — e.g. taxes paid by a government agency to another government agency

Tax revenues were also actually lower than target. What accounted for the increase were Bureau of the Treasury revenues, which was P34 billion more than the target. What the government did was to borrow money and then earn profit from it.

Pascual said that part of how the Treasury earns is by lending to bankrupt government corporations like the National Power Corp. (Napocor). In 2004, the government absorbed P200 billion of Napocor debt, from which it profited from by holding on to P200-billion worth of Napocor bonds.

Cutbacks on spending were done on the interest on domestic debt and on everything else like infrastructure and social spending.

Since it is mandated by law, the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) — the annual share of local governments from the national internal revenue taxes — was not subjected to any cuts, and was in fact even restored by Arroyo partly to buy local government support which she needed in 2005 at the height of the Gloriagate crisis.

Overall, P21 billion was cut in government expenditures primarily to please credit rating agencies. With the IRA, the increase by P40.4 billion is dictated by the exigency of political survival. The amount, Pascual said, was made possible by cutting non-IRA, non-subsidy spending by P50 billion, which represented a 10-percent cut of all other expenses of the government.

Tax targets were also not reached. So the government is declaring non-cash tax payments of government agencies as part of revenues.

Pascual believes the Arroyo government could be in violation of the Administrative Code for cutbacks in spending by more than what it saved in interest expense.”You have to declare something as savings, which theoretically is the interest expense,” she said.

Claim No. 3: Strong peso

OFW remittances and earnings are contributing to the current strength of the peso.

A strong peso, Pascual said, means that there is a greater supply of dollars in the country compared to the demand for them. She also traces the current strength of the peso to the weakness of the dollar and the excess global liquidity which found a lot of foreign money that came in during the first quarter of 2005 and made the picture look good despite the political crisis.

Only, the peso is strong for the wrong reasons.

On the supply side, the only thing that is coming in a lot are OFW remittances, now estimated at $12 billion a year. At the same time, the demand for dollars is low because of weakening production.

Other plus factors, however, don’t apply because of the weak export growth, trade deficit (9 percent of GDP in 2005), net outflows of investment and loan capital ($3B in 2005), and flight of resident capital ($4.8B in 2005 from $2.3B in 2004).

The increase in the dollar supply is also a result of borrowing. Early this year, the government borrowed 70 percent of all of its borrowing needs for the year. This was loaned from the bond market, which, unlike loans from the usual lending agencies (International Monetary Fund or the World Bank), are available right away in cash.

Government, claimed Pascual, got the the borrowed funds worth $2 billion and earned interest from it for several months. The reliance on external borrowing, she said, is in fact a sign of weakness and vulnerablity.

Besides, not everybody benefits from a strong peso. Only importers will gain and not be hurt by it, Pascual said. The government gets hit because there will be less customs revenue. For instance, earnings from oil importation will be less because the value in peso is lower.

OFW families, while they will benefit from cheaper imports, will really lose money. Their relatives will be sending the same amount of dollars but which are now cheaper in peso terms.

Domestic producers who import some of their production inputs will also benefit from cheaper imports. But they will have to contend with cheaper foreign-made goods that compete with their products. So they will have to scale down their production.

Claim No. 4: Prudent debt management

The debt problem persists with Arroyo’s heavy reliance on borrowing.

Pascual said she is no longer sure how much we really owe as there are many things that don’t get counted in the official debt figures like the contingent debt and footnote debt.

The official foreign debt figure is pegged only at $54 billion. But with contingent and footnote debts, it’s actually $71.1 billion.

Contingent debt are debts of government-owned and -controlled corporations (GOCCs) or private businesses (BOT projects) guaranteed by the national government. Footnote debt refers to figures they don’t count as debt but which the government has to report because IMF wants it to do so.

There are also government-issued dollar bonds (ROP bonds) denominated in foreign currency that, Pascual said, don’t get counted as part of foreign debt if a resident bought those debts. The national government reports it as part of foreign debt but the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) doesn’t, treating it only as part of the footnote.”The lines are being blurred about what is foreign and domestic debt, what is in dollars and peso,” she said.

Domestic debt, at P2.164 trillion, is also increasing as a result of the government’s reliance on borrowing to raise revenues and finance the deficit, including the international reserves of the Bangko Sentral. The Arroyo government also resorts to borrowing to finance infrastructure, including participation of the private sector. In fact, it has been borrowing more than program, in excess of deficit and of principal.

“Let’s not bullshit each other that privatization is letting private sector come in. Even the concerns of creditors of the private sector have to be addressed by the government, particularly in water and power projects,” Pascual claimed.

While our debt managers have learned to stay away from short-term foreign debts after the 1983 and 1991 crises, domestic short-term debt is still greater than 25 percent, though domestic long-term debt is lower than 30 percent.

In 2005, government’s debt-related spending exceeded revenues by 113 percent.

The Ponzi game cannot be played indefinitely.

Arroyo is also engaging in what economists call the “Ponzi game” of borrowing to repay maturing principal.

A recent study of the Asian Development Bank (ADB) said the Ponzi game played by Arroyo is working but is not sustainable. To which Pascual agreed, adding that the Ponzi game, whose main strategy is to keep treasury bills below market rates, cannot be played indefinitely without squeezing out bank profits.

“The role of the Treasury is crucial to maintain the borrowing addiction. It needs to keep treasury-bill rates below the market. Once you don’t do that, then you’re in trouble as it will affect the profitability of the banks. if you keep lowering T-bill rates, the bank will keep lowering the deposit rate until you will have to pay the bank for your deposits, which happened in Japan. It’s going to be that absurd.”

Napocor troubles not over

The troubles with Napocor are also not yet over. It is still the biggest headache of government, she said. At the time that the government absorbed P200 billion of Napocor’s debts, the Power Sector Assets and Liabilities Management Corp. (PSALM) borrowed $1.4 billion in 2004. It again had to borrow PhP1.6B and $400M last year.

The ADB study said that every year that Napocor’s privatization is delayed, PSALM will have to borrow so much.

Pascual likewise assailed government’s policy of socializing private debt even as profits remain private. She said the next big deal to watch out for is the Napocor-Meralco settlement. “It started out at P43 billion. They made a deal, then it became P20 billion. It looks like it will become zero.”

You can download Pascual’s presentation here.

52 Responses to Unmasking the myth of ‘Arrovonomics’

Barako Café » Blog Archive » No & no to GMA

April 26th, 2006 at 9:44 pm

[…] Two forums were recently held, one on a bad economy and another on a charter that will “weaken safeguards on civil liberties”. […]

Juan Makabayan

April 26th, 2006 at 10:24 pm

Reality check:

The first reality we must accept is that WE ARE TRAPPED. We are caught in a bind — damned if we do; damned if we don’t situation.

The second is that we cannot get out of the trap unless we are ready to take the risks in an all-or-nothing situation.

The third is that we are not ready, because we are not willing to pay the price – to sacrifice.

The fourth is that the readiness to take risks and the willingness to sacrifice is not about economics.

The fifth and more important reality is that the problem is not the economy, it is us – what’s in us – that makes us consumers intead of producers, workers instead of entrepreurs, job seekers overseas instead of job creators, laborers instead of farmers, caregivers instead of doctors, domestic helpers instead of teachers, exported instead of exporters …

Lastly, and the most important reality is that there is hope – the reality of things unseen, the reality that there is a way, a way out of this economic, fiscal, debt crises. Hope economics will help us turn the tide.

April 26th, 2006 at 10:33 pm

But ‘hope economics’ can operate only in an environment of truth.

Ambuot Saimo

April 26th, 2006 at 11:14 pm

It’s a relief that there is somebody “reality-checking” the papogi version of the Arroyko administration by hiring PR firms. Point is, the peso is strong because of remittances of Pinoys abroad who because of economic harships their family is encountering in Pinas have to increase or double their remittances by working even more harder by doing overtime. That’s the reason why the OFW’s remittances grew from about 7 billion dollars in 2004 to about 12 billion in 2005. If you take away that amount will the peso be that strong? It’s not Gloria who made the peso strong, its the OVERSEAS WORKERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Chabeli

April 27th, 2006 at 12:03 am

This Arrovonomics by Ms. Pascual is FANTASTIC!!! Ika nga, the numbers don’t “lie.” GMA, apparently, does–she was and remains to be a a talking Bul*sh*t, after all!

Juan Makabayan: Great comments! I remain HOPEFUL that things are solwly unravelling…

Ambuot Saimo: Yes, our OFWs are the ones responsible for our economy; they are the HEROES!

April 27th, 2006 at 5:43 am

… and when I say the OFW’s remmitances almost doubled, I’m not talking about abstracts. I am here abroad and because of “complaints” of my folks back here in Pinas about left and right increases of everything (except salaries) they cannot catch it up. That’s why I have tripled my padala home. The same is true with all the kababayans I know here. If the economy is that “rosy” how come about 30% of Pinoys live below poverty line (up from since Arroyo took power) and keeps increasing and worst, many are eating only once a day??? Gloria… stop fooling the Filipinos. They are not tanga! The real problem is you!!! Because of what you did, the country is literally at standstill and cannot move on because her strength or resources is being wasted in investigating the anomalies you created left and right. Dont’ blame the investigators… it’s their duty. So, the immediate solution to both economic and political problem is … Gloria resign!!! Haaay buhay … ambot gid!!!

Tom

April 27th, 2006 at 5:52 am

Myth indeed. Naalala ko tuloy na “myth” ay katunog ng “Sith.” Heto ang part of Wikipedia article on Sith:

Fear leads to anger.
Anger leads to hate.
Hatred leads to power.
Power leads to victory.
Let your anger flow through you.
Your hate will make you strong.
True power is only achieved through
testing the limits of one’s anger,
passing through unscathed.
Rage channeled through anger is unstoppable.
The dark side of the Force
offers unimaginable power.
The dark side is stronger than the light.
The weak deserve their fate.
–tenets of Sith philosophy

Parang bagay na bagay sa kasalukuyang subject matter. Siguro ay nagsimula siyang Jedi kaya lang na-seduce ng Dark Side.

Bangketa Republique 5.0 » QHours: The National Situation

April 27th, 2006 at 10:05 am

[…] BR: Well, earlier I attended a Forum on Arrovonomics and the main presentor in the panel is economist and power industry expert Maitet Diokno-Pascual and I agree with her that somehow politics and economics are two different perspective but have a melting point and a union point to be exact and that is: blaming political woes as source of possible economic meltdown just to make sure you will politically survive. […]

gwaping

April 27th, 2006 at 12:36 pm

….granting Miss Diokno-Pascual is right, what do we do now, tanggalin si Arroyo, suportahan ang coup d’etat ng militar, ibalik si Estrada? Magsisihan habang panahon? E, wala nga, baka lalo pang lumala ang statistis ni Miss Diokno-Pascual, sana mag-offer naman ng solution ang mga economist na pinaniniwalaan nyo, puro comments lang e, kumilos kayo, at pagkilos nyo ‘wag nyo samahan ng politika!

April 27th, 2006 at 12:38 pm

….also, tanggalin na sana ang mga PROPAGANDA kung merong forum na ginagawa ang mga matatalinong tao katulad ni Miss Diokno……..by using the term ‘ARROVONOMICS’ ano naman ang mapapala nating kaunlaran, maitatama ba ang mali? sus! puro kayo ngak-ngak!

April 27th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

TO: AMBUOT SAIMO

…look, they went to SC to challenge EO 464, they went to SC to challenge the CPR, they went to SC to challenge 1017, so far they won 2 out of 3 cases………..kaya pala nilang pumunta sa korte kung gusto nila, bakit naman sa congress pa sila mag-iimbestiga kung meron na silang mga ebidensya? Sabi nila nandaya ang Comelec, may kinasuhan na ba sila? Sabi nila involve sa jueteng si Mikee at Mike Arroyo, kinasuhan ba nila? Sabi ni Drilon illegal daw ang North Rail project, kinasuhan ba nila? Ginastos daw ang Fertilizer fund sa election, may mga testigo pa sila, may kinasuhan ba sila? WALA! Puro lang sila PROPAGANDA, naniniwala naman kayo, kung tutuo lahat ng sinasabi ng oposisyon mag-habla na sila, katulad ng ginawa nila sa 464; 1017 at CPR kaya naman nila ayaw lang nilang gawin, gusto nila pogi sila para sa inyo

April 27th, 2006 at 1:30 pm

Ambuot ,

Salamat saimo, sapol na sapol, tama, wasto, tumpak ang mga sabi mo.

“I am here abroad and because of “complaints” of my folks back here in Pinas about left and right increases of everything (except salaries) they cannot catch it up. That’s why I have tripled my padala home. The same is true with all the kababayans I know here.”

Hostage ang mga Pinoy sa Pinas; gina-Hijack ni Gloria atong Gobiyerno;
Kayat SOS na dahil sa gutom; SOS na dahil sa hirap mga Pinoy sa Pinas madami din OFW SOS na din.

Bawat araw maupo si Glo sa Malacanan malunod tayo sa hirap.

Dalhin ni Glo ang atong ekonomiya sa ‘trap’, palalalim ng palalim sa systemang para sa ibang lamang pakinabang, pero sa Pinoy puro pahirap.

April 27th, 2006 at 2:13 pm

Mr. jun makabayan and ambuot saimo,

I don’t think Gloria is ALL the problem, it’s the political system, the politicians, the economic system and the economists, kasama na ang mga propagandists!

clark

April 27th, 2006 at 4:12 pm

If those datas were true then we must jump for joy because there is still hope in our phil economy and we were not left behind by our counterparts in southeast asia.I just hope that our nurses wont leave our country anymore in search for greener pasture as what ms arryo says that our economy is improving,she should put this issue regarding the exodus of our nurses in her next agenda.

kumander rusty

April 27th, 2006 at 6:14 pm

Economic verge of take-off? Improving Fiscal condition? Strong peso? Debt management? Hindi po ako makapaniwala na si ginang Gloria ay may panahon pa para asikasuhin ang mga datos na ito. Eh! wala naman pong ginawa si ginang Gloria kundi “mangampanya” hangga ngayon. Sa bawat pag harap nya sa camera palaging pa “pogi” points. Kung sino man po ang nag sususog ng mga estatitikong ito, maawa kayo sa boss ninyo. Matagal na po kayong bistado ng taong bayan. Pasalamat kayo at maraming variety ang “noodles” arimuhan mapasakan ng mainit na sabaw ang kumukulong sikmura ni Juan. Ginang Gloria, Ginoong Raul Gonzales grabe ang tandem ninyo nakaukit na kayo sa kasaysayan ng bayan sana sa bawat subo ninyo ng imported na “steak” maisip ninyo ang sangkatutak na Pilipinong gutom.

Cecile Impens

April 28th, 2006 at 1:55 am

So the economy according to Arroyo is “on the verge of take-off”! How brave! At least for once, she is saying the truth: that the economy under her administration remains on the ground, stagnant! As the saying goes, You cannot catch the fish by the tail, but by the mouth! It will not require a genius person to understand that economically we are disastrous. Indeed we have the lousiest economist as a leader. The economic indicators reveal the high unemployment level, high inflation rate and negative roll of investment. Apparently, she never understood a thing but her idea of self-economy.

April 28th, 2006 at 12:34 pm

..but miss Impens, kaninong economy naman ang matino, kay Marcos, kay Cory (Oh, my God!), kay Ramos (?) o kay Erap (susme!)?

…i think, it’s the system that we need to change, kaya pumayag na kayo sa cha-cha kasi PALPAK ang constitution ni Cory na punong puno ng ’emotion’ kulang sa realidad…

tikboyblue

April 28th, 2006 at 1:45 pm

From The Economist: RP lags in e-readiness survey.

Teka, diba sabi ni Gloria in the Palace our economy is on the verge of take-off? If so, why is that one pillar of the economy, ICT or e-readiness, is lagging behind?
O baka on the verge of diving talaga ang ibig sabihin ni Gloria in the Palace?

http://philippinepage.blogspot.com/2006/04/rp-lags-in-e-readiness-survey.html

loudzZ

April 28th, 2006 at 6:36 pm

kung economy ang pag uusapan, paano kaya kami dito sa Mindanao na magiging BanggsaMoro na pala kami.di namin alam na ibinigay pala kami nin Gloria sa muslim na kung tutuusin mas marami ang kristian kaysa kanila.ano kaya ang ipapakain sa amin,Bala?

April 28th, 2006 at 6:54 pm

Si Gloria ay nagsasabi ako ay isang economist.kapag ako ang ihahalal ninyo bubuti ang atin bansa. magiging mura na ang mga bilihin.hindi na magugutom ang mga mahihirap.Uusad na ang ating bansa pero sa tingin koy lalong naghirap ang bansa.Bakit???? kasi ang perang ibinayad ni Juan dela Cruz ay nanduon sa mga taong tumulong sa kanya upang protektahan sya na huwag maalis sa puwesto.Yon mga ALEPORES nya tudo laban sa kanya dahil kung mapatalsik nga naman ang amo nila mawawala sla sa pwesto at kasama pa sila sa kaso.

April 29th, 2006 at 2:24 am

Gwaping said: kaninong economy naman ang matino,Marcos, Cory, FVR, Erap?

I am not lauding any of the people you mentionned since I believe that each of them failed to do his/her duty to the country. “To bring the government closer to the people”! They failed to provide the people the basic social needs: free and effecient medical assistance for the poor and the needy, higher budget for the amelioration of education mainly for the public schools, cheap social housing to eradicate the worse than ever illegal squatting and unsightly shanties and the most important is to improve the economy for the betterment of citizens living condition.

We always ask the question : what is wrong in our government? The leader or the system? The two contribute to the failure and success of any government, but we forget the importance of government platforms! So is it the driver or the vehicle? I will say, it is the destination that is wrong, since we had no specific idea of our destination.

So your solution is the Cha-Cha? This Cha-Cha calls for the adoption of Parliamentary system of government! How this will manage the 7,107 islands, 78 provinces, the 16 regions and more than hundred cultural minorities? This will be chaotic than anyone could ever imagine! The survival of the fittest. The bigger the population of an island is, the more weight this will contribute to their political schema! And what will happen to the small provinces? Surely, they will be forgotten! We, the Filipinos need the urgent need for unity and this Cha-Cha will lead us to division. To have a fair parliament, then we ought to have countless number of representatives, means, more people to be paid, more expenditures to shoulder. This will promote the quick collapse of the already ailing economy. What I find in the “peoples initiative of Arroyo” is the ABSENCE of information about this move! She is trying to entrapped us in a situation totally stranger to us, and needless to say, the schema that will never work for us!
Finally, why not ask for some constitutional amendments through referendum. If this is really the government of the people, for the people and by the people, then include the citizens in decision making. It will indeed, harness us to participate in running the country, not only depending on these incompetent politicians to do the walking for us. At the end of the day, we can say that “we participated in finding the right destination for our future!

Toro

April 29th, 2006 at 8:56 am

Sabi ni Gwaping: “…i think, it’s the system that we need to change, kaya pumayag na kayo sa cha-cha kasi PALPAK ang constitution ni Cory na punong puno ng ‘emotion’ kulang sa realidad…”

Ang sa aking pananaw naman, ano mang sistema ay lubos na pinagaralan ng mga nagpasimuno nito nuong sila’y nagsisilbi pa sa pamahalaan. Hindi ginawa ang ano mang sistema upang linlangin ang mga tao. Ngunit ano mang mabuting sistema ay walang ligtas sa mga ganid sa kapangyarihan at mapagsamantalang politiko. Hahanap sila ng paraan kung saan sila pwedeing makapangdaya.

Example na lang, sa pondo na hawak ng Executive body, ginagamit ang pondo na nakalaan sa isang bagay tulad ng fertiizer funds ngunit ginamit sa election. Ang sistema ng Comelec ay maayos, ito’y ginagalang sa pagayos ng matuwid at mahusay na election, until they decided to make things happen para ang mga chosen candidates ay manalo. Ang Legislative body, na naturingang tagagawa ng batas, ay pinabayaan ang mahigit na 2,000 bills na matulog, 7 lang ang naging batas, sa dahilang inubos ang oras sa kakaimbistiga, lahat in aid of legislation, ngunit anong lehislasyon ang nagawa, wala. Sila na rin ang nagtanggol sa isa nilang kasamahan na sinakdal ng 3 nilang senate committees na kasuhan ng kidnap for ransom at drug trafficking na nakaloob sa senate committee report No. 66, ngunit nawalang bisa ito sapagkat ang mga kaalyado nito sa senado ay hindi pinirmahan ang report.

Bakit ko binanggit ang mga ito. Binanggit ko upang patunayan na ano mang mahusay na alituntunin o sistema ay masisira kapag ang kasamaan, ambisyon, at katimawaan ng politiko ang umiral. Gagawa at gagawa ng paraan upang makakita ng butas ng maisagawa ang kanilang kabuktutan. Tulad din ito ng illegal na pag access ng mga hackers sa computers. No good system is safe to scheming rascals.

Ikalawa. Nakasisiguro ba tayo na ang parliamentary ay kasagutan sa ikabubuti ng political system. Sa bawat umpisa ng ano mang pang malawakang pamamaraan ay may kasamang tinatawag na birth pains. Gaano katagal pa ang kailangang panahon para umusad ito na maayos at wala ng problema at lahat ng gusot ay naalis na, as we say everything is in place, things are back to normal. Panahon lang ang makapagsasabi.

Pangwakas, sangayon ako na magkaroon ng pagbabago sa Constitution, sa pamamagitan ng economic reforms upang matugonan muna ang mabigat na pangangailan ng bayan to hasten economic recovery. Dapat din mapagaralan na mabuti ng tao ang isinusulong na parliamentary at federalismo ng hindi magkamali and definitely not through “forced” initiative. Kung ang pagmamadali nito ay upang maiwasan ang probable impeachment ni Gloria at upang wala ng election sa 2007 then by all means charter change this year must not pass because it is being pushed for the wrong reasons.

April 29th, 2006 at 6:42 pm

gwaping said: also, tanggalain na sana ang mga Propaganda kung merong forum na ginagawa ang mga matatalinong tao katulad ni Ms. Diokno …

As long as there is still someone who is brave enough to confront the government, be it in court, in public forum, by media, whatever, I can say that there is still hope for the better Philippines. By information disseminations, we cater to the the most basic civil right: access to information! Citizens’ rights been already reduced to the extreme minimum that, by depriving us more from necessary informations like economy, peace and order, etc., is not a sign of democracy.!

lamok

April 30th, 2006 at 8:47 pm

Why she did not compare the conditions accross years i.e. was the economy better during the Marcos, Cory, Ramos, Estrada years than GMA?

“In its original development plan targets, only two were actually met — overseas employment and the deficit.”

If its Estrada who is in malacanang, would these two targets be met? At least, …

Is there somebody out there who can do better? Will Rez Cortez or Susan do better than GMA? Aba…kong OO e, di Susan or Rez Cortez na ako!

April 30th, 2006 at 8:59 pm

toro said

“Ang Legislative body, na naturingang tagagawa ng batas, ay pinabayaan ang mahigit na 2,000 bills na matulog, 7 lang ang naging batas, sa dahilang inubos ang oras sa kakaimbistiga, lahat in aid of legislation, ngunit anong lehislasyon ang nagawa, wala.”

Seven lang? You sure? Is this over how many years? Baka naman in 1 month lang….then seven is fine.

I can’t believe that a Senate whose budget including pork barrels amounts to tens or perhaps hundreds of BB Billions over the years can only pass (7) seven bills.

Dahil pag-ganyan, and if I am their employer – I would have fired them long time ago! Lugi negosyo…very inefficient!

If true na 7 lang…then the Senate is hopeles…and they are doing a great disservice to the people paying them!

scud_1975

April 30th, 2006 at 9:56 pm

lamok, ang totoo nyan nung isang taon 6 lang ang naipasang batas ng mga Senador at Congressmen. 2 out of 6 originated from Senate. RA9340 ” An Act Resetting Barangay and SK election” and RA 9341 ” An Act establishing Reform in Regulation of Rent”

http://www.senate.gov.ph/

arrowhead

May 1st, 2006 at 2:39 am

We are, as a nation, have no sense of history- our own as well as other countries. As a people, we have a very short memory,which can only span up to a few weeks to a few months, and we never learn of lessons taught to us a year ago- much more decades or generations before. We have no focus and we are easily swayed by the popular media, which, as well as our government, are corrupted.

We all have to, in our hearts, to affect change. Focus in what is good for our nation, even though with this plan, it might take three generations before we realize a developed Philippines. But there is no other way. Enough people power. Bad governments are unfortunate, but maybe they serve a purpose- to teach us what government we ought to have in a slow but surely manner. You cannot really teach the incorrigible masses that make bad choices on politicians to vote, but maybe if they feel the pain of it, they will learn, maybe not them, but who knows maybe their children. By then, they may choose good leaders. This is going to be a slow process and there is no fast solutions; look at Singapore, Korea, Malaysia, etc. Just about every developed country reached what they are now slowly by focusing on nation building.

A little bit of American history: The hundred of thousand of immigrants that landed on Ellis island did not have it good immediately. They were not prosperous immediately. They endured just about every hardship immigrants have to. To them the American Dream is just that- a dream. But look at their children now. Those immigrants endured the hardship to make the USA what it is now. In my opinion, they were a great generation.

Maybe it is time that we have our own dream, The Philippine Dream…a call for greatness for this generation.

INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » Labor Day RP unemployment remains high

May 1st, 2006 at 10:59 am

[…] This round of survey used government’s new definition of unemployment. Government critics have criticized such redefinition (click here and here), saying it artificially pulls down the rate of unemployment, as it includes only those who are actively seeking for work. The old definition of “unemployed” includes those who do not have work and are not looking for work because of their belief that no work was available or because of temporary illness/disability, bad weather, pending job application or waiting for job interview. […]

INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » Hothouse of rebellion

May 1st, 2006 at 1:56 pm

[…] Five years since, under Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the continuing disparity in wealth distribution in the country has not alleviated the plight of the poor. As economist Maitet Diokno-Pascual highlighted in her recent critique of Arroyo’s brand of economics, while the income of all families, rich and poor, fell between 2000 and 2003, the poor have had it the hardest with the family income of the poorest 10 percent falling by 8.7 percent. […]

jigz_nav4u

May 1st, 2006 at 10:49 pm

After four disastrous governments, its immaginable that to restore a battered country back to normal could be an impossible task,while the system has to be changed according to new global challenges,. Its evident though , that economic growth could not be attained unless the system is improved, therefore, the opposition and the present government should both contribute to the upliftment of our country’s condition.

May 1st, 2006 at 11:06 pm

I agree with Juan Makabayan on his reality check of april 26

Came home Sept 2005, got some ideas as to where the govt.
is into and how the opposition is faring,

May 2nd, 2006 at 4:22 pm

jigz_nav4u said…..”therefore, the opposition and the present government should both contribute to the upliftment of our country’s condition”……………..PERFECT!

This is what ‘am trying to point out (I admit though not in so good statements)…bottom line, kung puro politika lang ang gagawin ng opposition they won’t achieve anything….when I said Propaganda regarding the title of Miss Diokno’s forum when she used the term ‘Arrovonomics’ my concern is she’s just being partisan…she can have a more effective forum with passion.

Regarding the charter change, in addition to economic reforms, some electoral reforms must be changed as well but not necessarily go for parliamentary system…example, with the present presidential system, can we not strengthen the party system by adopting just a TWO party system and not MULTI party system? The multi party system destroyed a lot of our Filipino values, it makes our election POPULARITY contest instead of ‘valued political exercise’ kahit sino na lang na hindi magwagi sa nomination ng kanyang partido ay magtatayo ng sarili niyang partido….THIS IS THE SYSTEM THAT KILLED THE CHANCES OF RAUL ROCO, this is the system that gave us RAMOS and ESTRADA, this is the same system that tolerates the candidacy of Eddie Villanueva and Ping Lacson.

Another example would be on the local election including the election of representatives. Can you imagine how much money we are wasting for a 3-year term? Well, aside from the divisiveness that it’s promoting? This how I account for the 3 year term: 1st year, planning, familiarization of the constituentcy & organizing; 2nd year, execution of the plans during the 1st year; 3rd year, planning for next year’s election: BOTTOMLINE – one year lang ang trabaho ng mga local leaders. If they are lucky or so dominant that they can complete the limit of 3 terms (9-year term), that would be different but still IT’S VERY EXPENSIVE FOR US.

May 2nd, 2006 at 6:10 pm

Lamok,
Here’s the link showing the inventory of pending senate bills from (July 26, 2004 – April 5, 2006) totaling 2,240 of which only 7 had been made into law. And to think they spend billions of pesos of taxpayers money to run that Senate?

http://www.senate.gov.ph/statistics.aspx#SENATE_BILLS

Alecks Pabico

May 2nd, 2006 at 6:42 pm

Gwaping,

I understand your point but I don’t think that Maitet Diokno-Pascual is just being “partisan” — in the sense of plainly being anti-Arroyo — when she referred to Arroyo’s set of economic policies as “Arrovonomics.” The ascription was a dig at the “Arrovo” printing error — or so the Bangko Sentral claims — found in some P100 bills. And it’s that image that Pascual tried to project in her critique of Arroyo’s handling of the economy — which, as she says, is itself a continuing blunder.

In my opinion, regardless of whether or not she used what you think is a “disagreeable” term, it does not detract from or diminish the substance of her analysis. And I consider it a welcome development since for the longest time, I haven’t heard from any economist an honest-to-goodness, critical appraisal of the real state of our economy under Arroyo.

May 2nd, 2006 at 6:45 pm

Gwaping said,
“…The multi party system destroyed a lot of our Filipino values, it makes our election POPULARITY contest instead of ‘valued political exercise’ kahit sino na lang na hindi magwagi sa nomination ng kanyang partido ay magtatayo ng sarili niyang partido….THIS IS THE SYSTEM THAT KILLED THE CHANCES OF RAUL ROCO, this is the system that gave us RAMOS and ESTRADA, this is the same system that tolerates the candidacy of Eddie Villanueva and Ping Lacson. ,,”

There is one important point that was not foreseen by the constitutionalists in allowing multi-party system. Take the case of FVR, he won the presidency by a mere 27 percent (the number may be inaccurate but definitely it was below 30 percent). Five other candidates had split the votes. Clearly, it cannot be said that he was the President of the majority of the people. In other states, where multi-candidates ran for that high office, another election is conducted between the two candidates who obtained the highest votes but neither got more than 50 percent of the total. This insures that the winner is indeed the choice of the majority.

5642erwin

May 2nd, 2006 at 11:41 pm

tma k gwaping,khit cno pang maupo ung mga meron lhat magagaling!yang c k bel at k satur lhat ng nsa party list n yan kung d ako nagkmali 2nd term n nila yan anong ginagawa nila ngaun nsa congress n cla,trabaho nila magpsa ng mga batas,nung wala p cla s congress nsa lbas p cla ang iingay nila n akala mo npkgaling nila,pngalawang term n nla may mtandaan nb tyo ginwa ang mga yan pra s mhihirap?bka ung pundo kung saan din nila gingamit..

May 2nd, 2006 at 11:47 pm

s 22o lng yang UP n yan pugad n ng msamang ehemplo ang mga nandyn,kya pala ang bansa ntin susama kc krmihan ng politiko produkto ng UP…

May 2nd, 2006 at 11:52 pm

Syang ang pera ng byan,ano p b ang positive n marinig ntin lalo pag s UP magdaos ng pagpupulong?meron pb?

May 2nd, 2006 at 11:58 pm

S 22o lng ksalan din ng tao kung bkit sya naghihirap!kung meron masipag na pinoy,meron din mga tamad!!minsan trabaho n ang lumalapit ayawan p…dpat lang i2loy yan chacha n yan,luzon lng ang mlking pkinbang s buhis,lalo n mga politiko s luzon..

May 3rd, 2006 at 12:58 am

5642erwin,

I hope you wouldn’t mind if I ask you to refrain from using SMS-style writing in your comments. It’s more for clarity of thought and expression. Anyway, space is not an issue here, so don’t be oppressed by the usual 128-alphanumeric character limit to messages the way you do with your mobile phone. Thanks.

Jhanel

May 3rd, 2006 at 6:19 am

I agree with Alecks Pabico. Anyway, I just wanted to let everybody knows that, it doesn’t take one person to resolve all the problems in our country, we all have to take part in that issue. However, it takes one good person to lead the country and that is the major problem. They keep giving insane lies to the Filipino people that they will do this, that and that they are better than the other. The truth is, anybody can be good if they are just honest and capable of doing their job. It don’t matter who the president (but, she is a WACKO) is, what matter is if that person is true and ready to face challenge on her/his everyday life. Even us people needs to start to learn how to be brave in choosing the right and true leader for our country. With all those small amount of money, some of us take it and vote for the wrong person because of financial hardship. But if we are not going to allow ourselves to be truth and honest then our country is not going anywhere but just to support all the culprit and thieves.

May 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm

I do not wish to dispute the economic issues raised by Pascual. Her opinion is a matter of personal perception which can differ from one economist to another. Economists are no different from lawyers who are taught the science of reasoning called logic to help them in the correct interpretation of the law, yet they come out with differing interpretations. Rightly or not, there will always be a dissenting view.

Let me just touch on one point, specifically that of the value of a credit upgrade and why this is important for the country. Foreign investors look up to reputable financial houses like S&Ps and Moodys, to name a few, for their analyses on credit ratings, risk evaluation, and financial valuations, particularly on sovereign ratings of high-risk countries.

The country’s poor fiscal position and inadequate income from taxes caused the country’s sovereign rating to be downgraded. Being a high-risk country, the immediate impact of this is on foreign investments. It prevents the country from tapping longer term credits to finance infrastructure projects, etc. Besides, a downgrade means higher interest rates. The recent credit upgrade that S&Ps bestowed to the country and the growing strength of the peso are the direct results of the implementation of the value-added tax reform law.

S&Ps improved outlook for the country’s sovereign rating from negative to stable, assisted by the steady flow of OFW remittances, has helped strengthened the peso. A strengthened peso translates to more capital availability particularly to small business. It also means cheaper imported goods and a tremendous interest savings (an upgrade lowers interest rates) on dollar denominated foreign debts, both public and private. Of course, the trade-off is reduced foreign exchange earnings for the export sector, including those of the OFWs, etc., but that’s how things work. There is always a trade-off.

How successful the govt may be in pursuing its economic objectives is not seen here as Gloria’s objective to stay on forever. It is seen here in the light of economic reality and not as a political ploy as Pascual suggests.

May 3rd, 2006 at 7:58 pm

Okay, Alecks Pabico, Miss Diokno is an effective critic, but what are her offered solutions? I think this is the general problem of the opposition now, while MAYBE they are right in their criticisim of GMA but they don’t have CLEAR alternatives, the same is true with the other progressive group where Miss Diokno belongs.

May 4th, 2006 at 8:07 am

I can’t help but agree with you on this particular point, Gwaping. Too much grumblings but no offered solutions. I’m a realist, I look at facts positively and objectively, not based on ideals or illusions.

bisdakworld

May 4th, 2006 at 5:43 pm

Masasabi nating bubo tayong mga karamihang Pilipino lalo na kapag panahon na ng eleksyon…nagpapagamit tayo sa mga P_TANG inang mga salot na politiko na nag iniisip ay ang kanilang pansarili at hindi ang mga nakakarami….pinipili natin ang kandiato basi sa kilala ng mga botante dahil siya’y sikat na artista, o maraming pambili ng buto ng tao…..Bakit hindi tao gumising na kung gusto nating umunlad ang ating naghihikaos na ekonomiya…magkaisa tayong lahat at tulungan nating mabalik ang kaginhawaan at kapayapaan sa ating mahal na bansa…..

May 4th, 2006 at 6:07 pm

Hello bisdakworld, suggest you avoid nasty words like what you used in your note. It won’t add value in this democratic exchanges of views and opinions.

Nevertheless, your suggestion is so general that is only full of hope and emotion. It sounds like coming from a politician (nadinig ko na yan both from the administration and opposition). The challenge to all of us is how! Maybe we can start in agreeing to change the framework or the system. Then we can follow to choose the right persons to lead us in that new system. ’tis is not easy, somehow this will be painful in the process, we just need to be persistent!

I think our behavior is a clear manifestation of an ineffective system when it’s full of loopholes. It tolerates so much misbehavior that leads to commitment of crimes, specifically corruption.

observer

May 8th, 2006 at 2:01 pm

hello, gwapings. sana dumami tao nag iisip gaya mo. nandyan na ang solution, mahirap na nga lalo pa natin pinapahirap situation. I just hope that all of us will unite in prayer to give our leaders the wisdom and conviction to do the right thing.

ProblemSolver

May 9th, 2006 at 1:15 pm

Here’s the solution:

The Philippines is endowed with abundance of both natural and mineral resources, in fact, if fully utilized, has potentials 1,000 times the Japan’s economic miracle. (Japan lacked both of these natural and mineral resources). In addition, the Philippines possessed respectable talents and creativeness from her population. Her population has suffered so much that they become hardened and accustomed to dire living and living on the edge. Japan now suffered and is bleeding economically for it allowed itself to be export-oriented in search of US Dollars and US Dollar reserves. Lessons from Japan in the past 50 years, and of late South Korea demands a closer look of what had happened. We knew that Japan’s traded securities dropped significantly to 30%. And that Japan, as a sovereign creditor whose only reliance to US Dollar accumulation thru deposits to US Federal Treasuries and bonds, and heavily dependent onto only the productivity of her population thru corporate performance can only be sustainable by being part of the fiat US Dollar. Few countries today heavily rely on Chartalist theory, of money claims, that government, by virtual of its power to levy taxes payable with government-designated legal tender, does not need external financing. Accordingly, sovereign credit enables the government to finance full employment economy even in a regulated market economy. The logic for Chartalism reasons that excessively low tax rate will result in a low demand for currency and that a chronic government fiscal surplus is economically counterproductive and unsustainable becuase it drains credit from the economy continuously. Thus, according to Chartalist theory, an economy can finance with sovereign credit its domestic developmental needs, to achieve full employment and maximize balance growth with prosperity without any need for sovereign debt or foreign loans or foreign investments, and without the penalty of hyperinflation. But Chartalist theory is operative only in predominantly closed domestic monetary regimes! Countries operating and participating in neo-liberal international “free-trade” under the that aegis of unregulated global financial and currency markets cannot operate on Chartalist principles because of the foreig-exchange dilemma. Any government printing its own currency to finance legitimate domestic needs beyond the size of its foreign-exchange reserves will soon find its convertible currency under attack in the foreign-exchange markets, regardless of whether the currency is pegged at a fixed exchanged rate to another currency, or is free-floating. Thus all non-dollar economies are forced to attract foreign capital denominated in dollars even to meet domestic needs. But non-dollar economies must accumulate dollars reserves before they can attract foreign capital. Even with capital control, foreign capital will only invest in the export sector where dollar revenue can be earned. But the dollars that exporting economies accumulate from trade surpluses can only be invested in dollar assets, depriving the non-dollar economies of needed capital in domestic sectors. The only protection from such attacks on domestic currency is to suspend full convertibility, which then will keep foreign investment away. Thus dollar hegemony, the subjugation of all other fiat currencies to the dollar as the key reserve currency, starves non-dollar economies of needed capital by depriving their governments of the power to issue sovereign credit for domestic development.

Under principles of Chartalism, foreign capital serves no useful domestic purpose outside of an imperialistic agenda. Dollar hegemony essentially taxes away the ability of the trading partners of the US to finance their own domestic development in their own currencies, and forces them to seek foreign loans and investment denominated in dollars, which the US, and only the US, can print at will with relative immunity.

The Mundell-Fleming thesis, for which Robert Mundell won the 1999 Nobel Prize, states that in international finance, a government has the choice among (1) stable exchange rates, (2) international capital mobility and (3) domestic policy autonomy (full employment, interest rate policies, counter-cyclical fiscal spending, etc). With unregulated global financial markets, a government can have only two of the three options.

Through dollar hegemony, the United States is the only country that can defy the Mundell-Fleming thesis. For more than a decade since the end of the Cold War, the US has kept the fiat dollar significantly above its real economic value, attracted capital account surpluses and exercised unilateral policy autonomy within a globalized financial system dictated by dollar hegemony. The reasons for this are complex but the single most important reason is that all major commodities, most notably oil, are denominated in dollars, mostly as an extension of superpower geopolitics. This fact is the anchor for dollar hegemony which makes possible US finance hegemony, which makes possible US exceptionism and unilateralism.

So, how can the Phillipines solve these insolvable financial and monetary crisis?

**The Philippines needs to activate its domistic market to balance its foreign trade. The Philippine economy can benefit enormously by the aggressive deployment of sovereign credit for domestic development and growth, particularly in northern Luzon, Leyte, Samar, Negros and Panay Provinces, and most importantly, Mindanao. Sovereign credit can be used to stimulate domestic demand by raising wage levels, improve farm income, promote state-owned-enterprise restructuring and bank reform, build needed infrastracture, promote education and health care, re-order the pension system, restore the environment and promote cultural renaissance, whikle exchange control continues, the Philippines can free its economy from the dictate of the dollar hegemony, adopt a strategy of balanced development financed by sovereign credit and wean itself from excess dependence on export for dollars. Sovereign credit can finance full employment with rising wages in the Philippine economy of 87 million population and project it towards one of the largest economy in the Far East within say, 5 years short time! The expansion of Philippine domestic economy will enable the Philippines to import more, thus allowing to correspondingly export more without persistent excessive trade gaps. There are much that can be done more to fully develop the full potentials of the Phillipines economy but exporting for US dollars, foreign investment to earn dollars, working abroad to earn dollars, and transnational corporate supplants are not the way to do it. Unless the Philippine inhabitants allow themselves to become fully embracing and compliant to dollar hegemony and financial colonization, then it is irreversible.

eggman

June 3rd, 2006 at 11:26 am

Gwaping on Ms. Diokno-Pascual: I’m sorry to tell this but his views closely borders on argumentum ad hominem. Ms. Diokno-Pascual recent talk might be silent on proposed solutions but this might just be due to the fact to topic of the day’s forum is limited to just that — discussing the Arroyo administration’ economic policy; thus, it is unfair to label her as just being partisan. Discussing the proposed solutions could be made the subject of another forum.

The good thing about Ms. Diokno-Pascual’s report is that it dispels much of Arroyo apologists’ claim that Arroyo might have legitimacy problems but she is at least doing something about the economy. Ms. Diokno-Pascual has just been able to do just that and expose Arroyo’s very weak economic policies. In fact, we know about this fact all along but nobody until now has been able to articulate it. Thank god for Ms. Diokno-Pascual — for finally pointing out that indeed, the Empress has no clothes on!

INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » The debt burden and Arroyo’s ‘borrowing addiction’

June 3rd, 2006 at 3:00 pm

[…] Economist Maitet Diokno-Pascual, in her assessment of Arroyo’s economic strategies, attributed the lingering debt burden to the government’s reliance on borrowing — even overborrowing — to raise revenues and finance the deficit, including the international reserves of the Bangko Sentral. This, she said, is meant to “improve” the country’s fiscal condition so as to maintain the confidence of creditors who are only after the bottom line. […]

INSIDE PCIJ: Stories behind our stories » Now, it’s 'work' that goverment wants redefined

June 13th, 2006 at 8:51 am

[…] “Arrovonomics, the deceptive and wrong economics of a fake president, is very clearly the order of the day,” she says. […]

Give You Answers : Gloria Arroyo's Economic Policy?

December 5th, 2006 at 4:36 pm