Book Notes on: Capitalism in Philippine Agriculture (Ofreneo, Rene. Foundation for Nationalist Studies. Quezon City: 1987)

*Capitalism in the Philippine Agriculture traces the history of corporatism in the countryside – from its colonial beginnings up to the advent of the so-called Green Revolution. The author shows the commanding role of agribusiness transnationals from the developed capitalist countries in the modernization of Philippine agriculture, which ironically aggravates further the age-old problems of poverty and inequality in the rural areas. The growth of agricultural capitalism under the aegis of foreign capital also makes the country even more dependent in the west.

…critically re-examines the various agrarian programs of the government, which have become the vehicle for the full ascendancy of big agribusiness in the countryside. In the name of agricultural modernization and export oriented strategy, giant corporations are now taking over almost all phases of agriculture and all kinds of crops. In contrast to this concerted offensive of the foreign and local agribusiness firms, the announced program to improve social equity – mainly through land reform and cooperativism – has not been realized

Rene E. Ofreneo is the editor of the Philippine Journal of Industrial Relations. He holds an M.A. in industrial relations from the Asian Labor Education Center of the University of the Philippines, where he is working as a training specialist and a labor researcher. In 1978, he received an International Organization fellowship in rural labor education. In 1976-77, he edited the Philippine Labor Review. He has also published a number of articles related to industrial relations.

Preface:
A common argument about analyses such as Ofreneo’s offered by conservatives is: they criticize the capitalist system but offer no alternative solution. (the book) gives more than just a broad hint that a planned economy and the abolition if private property in farm land could do away with the misery and chaos fomented by the green revolution, fake land reforms, exploitative credit systems and even more exploitative production contracts, high-handed and anti-social business activities of foreign agribusiness firms in connivance with local partners and officials and so forth. The conservatives will say: this is not an alterntive. But that’s only because they don’t like this alternative, and for no other reason. (Ernest Feder UP Law Center, Diliman)

Introduction:
The produce of the earth – all that is derived from its surface by the united application of labor, machinery and capital is divided among three classes in the community, namely, the proprietor pf the land, the owner of the stock or capital necessary for its cultivation, and the laborers by whose industry it is cultivated. But in different stages of society, the proportions of the whole produce of the earth which will be allotted to each of these classes, under the names of rent, profit and wages, will be essentially different… To determine the laws which regulate the distribution is the principal problem in political economy. (David Ricardo: Principles of Political Economy)

QQ:… even if the agricultural yield of the country were to grow 10 to 100 times more than the present level as a result of technological improvement, one could still say that no genuine rural development had taken place if the rural masses remain trapped in the vicious cycle of poverty, ignorance, unemployment/ underdevelopment and backwardness, all of which are rooted in an unjust and unequal socio-economic order. Agricultural modernization in itself may become the vehicle for the further perpetuation of the status quo in the rural areas.

QQ: The direct exploiters are the landlords who appropriate a certain percentage of the fruits of the land by virtue of ownership. The indirect exploiters are those who control the marketing and pricing of the agricultural produce as well as those who profit from processing cheap primary agricultural products.

I. THE COLONIAL LEGACY
A. From the encomienda to the hacienda
B. “Free trade” for American big business
II. THE POST-WAR YEARS (1945-1970)
A. The transition to capitalist agriculture
B. Changes in the export crop sector
C. Poverty and class structure
III. “AGRARIAN REVOLUTION” IN THE 1970s
A. Laying a capitalist cornerstone
B. Food production intensification
C. Impact of the capitalist transformation
IV. EXPORT EXPANSION IN THE 1970s
A. “Rationalizing” traditional exports
B. Development of new crops
C. Fish, meat and wood for export too
V. NEO-COLONIAL AGRO-INDUSTRIALIZATION
A. From free trade to foreign investment
B. Imperialism and Philippine agrarian programs
C. No business like agribusiness
VI. PROSPECTS FOR THE 1980s
A. Emerging trends and conflicts

Deconstructing a McDonaldized Conception of Society

I have just read the book authored by the sociologist George Ritzer and I tried to absorb as much as possible all the concepts that he tried to bring up. While in the process of reading the book I was taking down notes although I couldn’t capture as much as I wanted to because time is not a leisure I can afford. The best I can do is to take note several terminologies which I believe are rather significant as well as some concepts/ claims by the author that I wish to expound on or re-evaluate.

I am not attempting a comprehensive book review although to some extent maybe that is what I am doing. What I am going to write about is a point by point (randomly selected by virtue of what my mind specifically targeted) analysis of some of the ideas presented/ introduced in the book. Might I remind the reader of this piece that I am merely reacting on impulse and giving way to the free flow of thoughts inside my head which doesn’t necessarily aim to contradict the book although in some instances this may seem the case. I am writing it down for academic purposes (perhaps for future reference). I am reminded by what my Humanities I professor said at our first meeting “Don’t trust the teacher.” This is perhaps why I tend to question (intentionally or unintentionally) every bit of information I get hold of. By the way, as the rule of dialectics goes, a thesis will always beget and spawn off an antithesis. This by far the limit that I can reach, I am not brilliant enough to concoct my own thesis (as Ritzer has done) nor am I learned enough to extrapolate a reliable synthesis.

§ Quotable quote: William Kowinski argues that the mall “was the culmination of all the American dreams, both decent and demented; the fulfillment, the model of the post war paradise.”

§ On Levittown Houses (mass-produced prefabricated houses pioneered by Abraham Levitt and his sons. The company built 17,447 homes which later roofed 75,000 people): It was said in this section (at least from what I infer) that the idea of building uniform houses dehumanizes its residents because the land developers’ only aim is to profit from the large quantity of houses that they would construct to decrease the cost per unit (making it more enticing to low income earners). To a certain degree it strips the individuality and originality accorded to humans; this is claimed to be a form of dehumanization. I don’t fully agree to this. For one, I can see that the author errs in presenting this as a form of dehumanization perhaps because he views it too much from a theoretical point of view. I have had first hand experience in a low cost housing project in Bulacan called DecaHomes. The principle is very much the same; I have seen the entire process in fact how the floors, walls and wirings are prefabricated in an assembly like manner. To this extent maybe it is McDonaldized. I have interacted with the families who have availed of these houses with full knowledge of the uniformity of their residences, and it’s not an issue for them. Having a roof over their heads at the lowest possible cost is much more a priority. Men are entitled to food, clothing and shelter and experiencing these rights are the first steps to the concretizing humanization.

§ It was also mentioned that (fast food) workers are working “numbered hours of robotized actions” and that this is said to be dehumanizing. I believe that no one can bring down a person’s worth or value without his or her consent; it’s just a matter of perspective. People who go into the fast food industry or a kind of work being of similar nature to the former are aware of what they are going into. It is a lucid act that they commit to with full knowledge of the circumstances involved so in essence they do this in good faith. Plus, they are compensated (justly we might assume, unless specified otherwise which makes the case more complicated) for it. In this sense people have a livelihood from which they can obtain an income to pay for their food, clothing and shelter which we can call the experience of humanization. It would be more harassing if in the first place they have no employment from which they can earn a salary that would support the basic survival needs of an urban individual. It maybe true that it is a trade off; one has to undertake a repetitive/ uncreative job in order to afterwards reap the fruits of his labor an live on it; but it doesn’t have to be dehumanizing or idolizing when the person concerned refuses to view it as such.

§ With regards to the aforementioned point, it may be true that flipping burgers repetitively may become boring and would eventually suck out the creative potentialities of the individual performing it. A person will only become mechanical if he succumbs to the idiotizing aspect of his job. I view it as mind over matter; it’s rather surprising that a sociologist overlooked the fact that collectivizing its subjects (or collectively addressing its subjects) would run the risk of oversimplifying situations or deleting alternative but plausible scenarios. For example a worker can rise above the “dehumanizing” quality of his work if he sees the logic behind it. Why flipping burgers in the exact specified process is efficient has a logical/ reasonable origin. In fact a worker can benefit from this if he applies theses basic principles in his life. People would have to agree with me that a McDonaldized system is neatly organized and if this orderly fashion is selectively applied in appropriate aspects of the personal life, solving problems would be easier (it would be in a systematized less chaotic manner). With what I have said, a supporter of the author’s arguments would rebut me by saying that I am guilty of romanticizing the situation. I say, in my defense that romanticizing the situation brings back the innate humanistic side of the argument as opposed to the rigid (to an extent even harsh) depiction or interpretation of this existent reality. I am not totally disregarding or dismissing the whole notion that dehumanization is existent, I am merely saying that sometimes people, in their attempt to capture the essence of a certain concept tend to exaggerate or overemphasize specific matters to the extent that other equally important matters about the subject are neglected/ forgone.

§ From page 41 I quote (parenthesis not included): In a McDonaldized society, people rarely search for the best means to an end on their own (it’s a waste of time). Rather, they rely on previously discovered and institutionalized means. Thus, when people start a new job, they are not expected to figure out for themselves how to do the work most efficiently. Instead they undergo training to teach them what has been discovered over time to be the most efficient way of doing the job. I included this quote because it can be used to substantiate a claim on Schumpeterian profits. Ford pioneered the use of the assembly line and by doing so it amassed great profit. It is the earnings that an innovator would get to compensate for the rigorous and often costly process of research and development. This goes true with McDonalds who continually strives to perfect the process of rationalization to maximize efficiency.

§ In the book, various forms of “conveniences” have been criticized because service-providers have the tendency to quantify almost every aspect of it. The scenarios particularly used to illustrate this claim are the entry of a group of people (presumably a family) to Disneyland or a fast-food drive thru. These have been juxtaposed with how commodities are placed in a kind of conveyor belt that would undergo the “production process”. There may be a superficial similarity but I refuse to subscribe to this limited interpretation of reality. People should not be treated like commodities to be quantified. Aiming to intellectualize things to make them seem scientific is as crass/ crude as treating them as mere commodities. The fun that one can get out of being entertained cannot be objectively quantified nor should it be. In a family for instance, the parents may have spent money (quantifiable) on the different rides (measurable) of an amusement park (rationalized) but the psychological (psychosocial/ emotional) gain by the whole family from is priceless. (ß just like the series of credit card commercials; there are in reality things beyond our “price designation” capacity… no wonder the advertisement sounds so pleasing)

§ In page 55, it was said that the presence of many search engines in the Internet such as Yahoo (and Google) de-skills people. It used to be that before, computer users had to be equipped with certain skills in order for them to navigate the worldwide web. On my part though, this is not much a trade off, in fact the presence of search engines are advantageous to computer users. Knowledge and information are now more accessible than ever. It doesn’t de-skill people but it does the opposite. For one, programmers constantly improve the internet so it means that new knowledge is being put to good news. People who have a degree or specialize on computers upgrade their knowledge and skills by inventing new ways of how the Internet would become faster, more powerful and efficient. On the other hand, ordinary users do not need to hassle themselves with technicalities for them to acquire information/ knowledge that would eventually enhance/ catalyze an advancement of their skills in different fields.

§ From page 71 I quote: Television programming is heavily, if not exclusively determined by quantitative factors. The ratings of a program, not its quality, determines the advertising revenue it is likely to generate and therefore its longevity. In this I decisively agree. I am particularly critical of the popular (I don’t exactly know why) noontime show Wowowee. Its ratings are sky-high yet I do not see it as a show of good quality more so of good taste. The dancers are annoying; they not only degrade themselves but all other women as well. The way they dance and dress is not even wholesome; we can only imagine the impact/ influence the show has on its audience (most especially on the kids). The host, I especially abhor because of his disgusting reputation (note: this is highly subjective) and he doesn’t seem sincere as a host. The way I see it, he finds amusement (from the look of his face) in humiliating people or watching people humiliate themselves in front of him/ national television. He doesn’t look the least bit sympathetic about his fans’ condition (that most of them aren’t exactly rich). No, it’s not about the Ultra stampede although that’s an additional; it’s about the whole mediocre concept of the show. At least in other game shows like Game Ka Na Ba people learn things from watching. The dancers, the host, the nonsensical jingle that’s played over and over and the entire concept (of preying on the masses); it’s just so despicable. George Ritzer has claimed that the quality of television programs are sacrificed for quantity, well I say he should have drawn his example from Philippine primetime. (I am reminded of a painting that I saw in the newspaper once entitled “Kinaka-wowowee”. In the painting there is a contestant with a sad expression and he/she is surrounded by the host and contestants who seem to be ridiculing her. Oh, how it perfectly encapsulates my sentiments! It’s a shame I couldn’t remember the name of the artist.)

§ From page 93: …to overcome the problem of unpredictable appearance and behavior among employees, Disney has developed detailed guidelines about what Disney employees should look like (the “Disney look” and how they should act. Disney has assembled a long list of “dos” and “don’ts” for different kinds of employees. Female “cast members” (a Disney euphemism for its park employees)who are not in costume must not wear jeans, clinging fabrics, athletic shoes, socks of any kind, hoop earrings, bracelets, or more than two necklaces. Female hosts may not use eyeliner or frost their hair; they must use a deodorant or antiperspirant. Mustaches and beards are unacceptable for male hosts. The list goes on and on. …At Busch Gardens, Virginia, “a certain amount of energy is devoted to make sure that smiles are kept in place. There are rules about short hair (for the boys) and no eating, drinking, smoking or straw chewing on duty (for everyone). I know how it feels to be restricted in such a manner (that to a point it seems already abusive). For more than a decade I studied at an exclusive all-girls school and I know how taxing it feels to obey every single rule on the handbook. The soles of our shoes shouldn’t be more than 1 &1/2 inch thick, our socks should be folded twice and shouldn’t go beyond the ankle, the skirt had to be 2 inches below the knees (teachers really literally measure them with yardsticks).We had to wear our IDs all the time. No bracelets, necklaces and dangling earrings are allowed. Our hair accessories are limited to the colors blue, white, black and brown and absolutely no hair color is allowed other than the natural. Our brassieres should only be white or skin-tone because it’s not nice to see fancy colors under a white blouse… plus whole lot more! (The shear agony that our individuality suffered!) But looking back, it wasn’t rigid conformity that learned from it, it was how to be more disciplined. There is a reason why regulations are decreed in the first place. For one, it maintains a certain standard of hygiene that is good for the individual (deodorants are a must). Secondly rules are what are generally acceptable to most people. Sometimes, people tend to be caught up in the latest fashion sense that they tend to be eye-catching and daring. It isn’t exactly professional to wear distracting clothing; neither is it of good etiquette. Also, the customers feel safer when they see “predictable” clothing on workers. The stereotyped clean-cut image that is portrayed puts the customer more at ease. Personally, would you trust your kids to mount on a ride operated by a bearded, tattooed, multiple-body-pierced smoking guy with purple hair color? But of course there is a limit on what employers should “prescribe” to their employees. For instance I don’t really approve of sales ladies wearing short skirts. A professor of mine included this topic in her undergraduate thesis that the human resource department of shopping malls is required to check on the legs of applicants (there should be no unsightly scars, etc). I find this utterly degrading.

§ From page 98: Another form of entertainment that aims to provide no surprises is the package tour, which is as oriented to predictability as it is to efficiency. Tour operators have turned travel into a highly predictable product by creating trips that allow minimal contact with the people, culture and institutions of visited countries. This creates a paradox: people go to considerable expense and effort to go to foreign countries where they have little contact as possible with native cultures. This is a very good point to raise but we also have to remember that not everyone is equipped with“sensitivity” to other cultures. Even social scientist who are supposed to be experts of the field make mistakes; what more ordinary unaware people. Tourists are the ones alien to the land and what if the do something that offends the way of life of the natives? It’s rather unfair if that happens. Though mistakes are unintentional, sometimes moral damage is done.

§ From page 125: Cohen underscores at least three different irrationalities: (1) Rational systems are not less expensive, (2) they force people to do unpaid work, and (3) most important here, they are often inefficient. It might be more efficient to deal with a human teller, either in a bank or at a drive-through window, than to wait in line at the ATM. For the first, I argue that they are cheaper, for the whole economy that is. It is true that the use of sophisticated machines are costly but imagine if individual restaurants were to do their own research and development to find out the most efficient way to run the business and not adopt a “prefabricated rationalized model”. Although the world may benefit from the diversity of possibilities at gaining success, to an extent it’s a foolish waste of money. With regards to adding on to the original value, of course producers will do so for profit. But still, individually producing, say a can of soda is a lot more expensive than buying it from a mass-producer. (Besides if a consumer purchases a commodity it means he agrees to the market price, so what he purchases amounts at the least to the price set by the producer). For the second, I argue people should not be treated like dummies because they are fully capable of doing the work being specified. In the book the unpaid work being pertained to that a customer does, include throwing the trash at the waste receptacles, lining up and the like. This requires a negligible amount of energy. Kung sa Pilipinas, kusa na yang ginagawa. Tamad na ang turing sa mga taong hindi gumagampan sa mga gawaing tulad ng nabanggit. Personally, I don’t really mind cleaning up the mess I made before I leave or lining up when necessary (granted that the workers are doing there job accordingly). I don’t consider it as “unpaid labor”; it’s more like a responsibility so that the society will run in a less chaotic manner. For the third, I say that rationalized systems are efficient although admittedly they have flaws and defects. Monetarily speaking, it saves the economy a lot of money. Plus they are more convenient. If rationalized systems were not efficient, then how come people are still patronizing them? A world without ATMs, efficient? I don’t think so…

§ From page 136: The spread of American and indigenous fast-food causes less and less diversity from one setting to another. In the process, the human craving for new and diverse experiences is being limited, if not progressively destroyed. It is being supplanted by the desire for uniformity and predictability. I don’t believe that the spread of indigenous and mainstream fast food limits diversity. Rather, it even contributes to diversity. Individually these two categories will spawn their own breed. Eventually there will come a point when they will be fused to produce a hybrid which will then spawn its own kind. At one locale, there will be more to choose from, much more when a person goes from place to place. And besides countries, regions, states and islands have their own distinct culture so people need not fear the occurrence of absolute uniformity. Rationalized systems still have varied effects from one place to another; so uniformity or less diversity is a myth or at the very least a false alarm.

Terminologies:
Edutainment
Infotainment (news)
Retailtainment (mall)
McDoctors/ Docs-in-a-box
Unreality industry (example lemon scent detergent but there’s no lemon)
False fraternization (illusion of concern/ commodify emotions)
Tentative pregnancy
Designer deaths/ modern dying
Kevorkianism (Dr. Jack Kevorkian à give back to people control over their death)
Post-humus reproduction (sperm from a dead man)
Bureaucracies/ scientific management/ assembly line
McDonaldization: cultural imperialism vs. transnational phenomenon (monolithic vs. federation of semi-autonomous enterprises)
Kimchi: spicy pickled cabbage
Financescape: movement of megamonies through national turnstiles at blinding speed
Ethnoscape: movement of a large number of people throughout the world through tourism
Cultural homogenization vs. hybridization under globalization)
Glocalization: complex interplay of local and global
Coca-colonization: furor in France during the 1940s on the importation of Coke
Complexification (prevailing pattern in post industrial society) vs. simplification (engendered by McDonaldization = uncreative minds, simple selves, minimal communication)
Modern and post modern: compression of space and time
Sneakerization: customization
From page 181: Fordism has a number of characteristics:
Mass production of homogenous products
Inflexible technologies, such as the assembly line
Standardized work routines or Taylorism
Efforts to increase productivity (economies of scale, deskilling, intensification, homogenization of labor)
Market for mass-produced items
From page 182: Post-Fordism’s distinguishing characteristics:
Declining interest in mass products and growing interest in more customized and specialized products
Shorter production runs
Flexible production
More capable workers
Greater differentiation
From page 186: Five basic elements of a post-modern society
1. Association with capitalism
2. Superficiality
3. Waning of emotion of affect
4. Loss of historicity
5. Reproductive technologies

Quotable quote from page 192: McDonald’s is a symbol of problems such as environmental degradation, dietary dangers, the evils of capitalism, poor working conditions, faltering unionization, neglected children, and the threat of Americanization.

Note: sorry for the grammatical errors in this document, I was in a hurry to finish it

Journal entry #1: on November 29, 2006 discussion

In all honesty, there are a lot of points during the discussion which are worthy of a separate session either to be expounded further or be debated upon for a more thorough analysis. But for a practical start I have selected only a few matters to ponder on because I believe that excavating them would render significant realizations. For one, it was mentioned that the annual remittance of overseas Filipino workers amounts from $8-10 billion but one should not be deceived by these figures because their effect on the economy is rather superficial and temporary. I for one agree that a typical Filipino shopper loves to purchase as much consumer items as he can get hold of. Furniture, clothes, accessories, and loads of other consumables seem to satisfy the typical Filipino consumer. In other words, Filipinos purchase products that are intended for immediate consumption and with minimal or zero investment value. As a result, differed consumption by relatives abroad is only a form of delay because it is also spent on non-capital goods that won’t generate future income. There have been efforts by the government to motivate people, balikbayans in particular, to become entrepreneurs and start their own business. But this is to no avail or at most its effects are somewhat negligible.

To substantiate that Filipinos exceptionally love to buy consumables, I’d like to site food as an indispensable example. It seems as if every celebration always has to have an accompanying “handaan” of the grandest sort. Graduations, baptismals, despididas, welcome-home parties and even in-between shopping snacks siphon out the earnings of a lot of people. So it’s not really surprising that whatever is remitted in the country flows out almost as quickly especially since Filipinos seem to have the uncanny knack of patronizing imported goods. My mom, with her quick wit and practicality always reminds us to as much as possible patronize Filipino brands. So whenever we are out for a quick lunch, the list of choices is almost always limited to Jollibee, Chowking, Greenwich and Red Ribbon. True enough, these restaurants seem to be expanding and sustaining a good percentage of the clientele for food and have received international acclaim form renowned economists and business schools. I can only imagine, especially now that the holidays are coming, that a good portion of the money sent by relatives from abroad are being splurged on dinning out. But what really concerns me is that the people are spending is not really retained within the economy; instead it flows out of the country. For one, it is a confirmed fact that Jollibee’s burger patties come all the way from Australia. I can only imagine where, Red Ribbon’s icing, Greenwich’s ingredients and Chowing’s Hong Shu vegetables come from. So in essence we can’t really say that we are patronizing Filipino brands when the producer’s themselves find it more economical to obtain their supply elsewhere. The same goes for SM malls; they maybe owned by Filipino Chinese but upon closer inspection Mr. Henry Sy actually imports them from China. The same goes for Ben Chan for his RTW clothing-line and his brother the owner of Oishi. They may be Filipinos by citizenship, and it is undeniable that they provide local employment opportunities by having more franchises that distribute their products but it is also true that they have factories in China where they employ more Chinese at lesser costs. In essence, it is rather contentious to use the development/expansion of local industries as the sole gauge to monitor the economy and the generation of employment because given the aforementioned setup it is rather evident that a large sum of money is utilized/ made functional and circulated elsewhere.

Another point that I would like to bring up, but rather briefly (because I know this would be debated on in class) is the one concerning the UPCAT and the tuition fee increase. While I believe that there is wisdom behind the previous mechanism to which UP used to filter its incoming freshmen, I believe that it isn’t exactly fool-proof. It is true that those from public schools, especially those with innate potential deserve to continue further schooling and be rightfully subsidized by the government. Also, it is logical to assume that those who have the capacity to study in private high schools can also afford to go to private universities/ colleges. But this is not always the case… I for one am a product of a private school but by means of socialized tuition fee. I have learned to value quality education as much as my parents did. We have a modest family income but with my three other siblings studying as well, compounded by the rapid increase of tuition fees, its rather hard to imagine how we could have gone by without availing/ applying for it. I have an older sister who has quite the same situation as mine, she took up Area Studies also in UP Manila and graduated a cum laude. Ayoko magbuhat ng sariling bangko, that’s why I am citing my sister’s case, if she doesn’t deserve to be a recipient of subsidized education, then who is?! But of course this is a case to case basis… Personally though, with regards to scholastic standing maybe those who are not as hard-working as others should be the ones pulled out. Getting into UP tends to make other people slack off, sometimes to the extent of regularly cutting classes to the unfair expense of taxpayer’s money. I believe that being an iskolar ng bayan makes me accountable and conscious of my actions, at least for those who are not maybe they are not deserving of a slot in UP and should be made to compete with other more deserving people for place in the university. If the issue is more concerned of who deserves to be subsidized, then maybe those who are industrious and can maintain a decent GWA as reflected by hard work and scholastic performance. Then again, this is just my own point of view…

Another thing that I wish to comment on is the potential income that UP can generate from leasing out its idle assets. I agree that commercializing certain land assets (in fact it can be said that it is a liability since its maintenance and security costs are subtracted from the budget) is not the same as commercializing education. Imagine, the system holds claim to 24,500 hectares of land and only 1,500 hectares of it are concretely functional? In a previous economics class, it was proposed that unproductive land should be taxed heavier than productive lands because it decreases the possibility of hoarding productive land to the disadvantage of the economy; I agree to this. In the same manner, UP should not hinder other people form maximizing its development; I see it as an opportunity forgone for the economy. It’s only a lease anyway, and the contracts I assume were drawn to favor the side of the university. I don’t find anything wrong with trying to generate our income especially since the university is aided with properties to do so. In fact, I find it rather selfish not to; why burden the government with expenditures and higher budget allocations when UP has brilliant minds to think of solutions to independently augment the budget. Self-reliance would in fact benefit not only UP constituents (there won’t be TFIs anymore), but also other sectors because the government would have more money to spare for social services and the like.

I think I have said enough. For purposes of economy I would comment on the readings some other time.

Just a stupid theory on paroxysms… (unedited)

I have this theory that’s based on an experience that I had on the 2nd of July 2006 wherein I felt a simultaneous insurgence of emotions (bad, mad, sad and at the verge of tears). Maybe its just a crooked thought that crossed my mind among the many other crooked thoughts that I conceive, but I guess its worth writing about it. Rather than running the risk of a potentially-significant thought to be as good as non-existent, perhaps there’s merit in writing about it (and validating its physical existence) for whatever seemingly-negligible value it may contain.

…is it really love that people like? Or it’s gruesome aftermath? The experience of heaviness in the chest that I have always claimed to have a romantic affair with, is what I am pertaining to. I have ever since loved to affiliate myself with sorrow, especially the tormenting kind, because it makes me sound heroic and more human than what I really am. In light of this and of Pablo Neruda’s ever-famous lorn-filled verse: love is short, forgetting so long, I realized that heartache is ironically what I crave for. It sounds neurotic I admit (I am not one to argue my sanity) but I gave the matter considerable thought, and lo, this is actually the case. What makes matters worse (depending on how you perceive it) is that, an orgasm is what I can associate it with. Biologically when a person feels an orgasm coming, it is preceded by a stimulus then a consequent build up of tension at the lower part of the body. After which, there’s this unexplainably agonizing yet pleasurable experience that one feels prior to the climax. Then… the bursting, the outflow that sweeps and overpowers the body with the glorious experience of emancipation...

The same happens with a heartache. The stimulus can be a fight with a close friend, a fix in a stressful situation or a break-up that would instigate a build up of tension. It is felt in the chest in a non-hypothetical (though unexplainable) manner, which sometimes climbs up to the throat and stings the back of the eyes. Prolonging and trying to control it actually intensifies the liberation that is felt when its release is finally allowed. It’s like an eruption that contrastingly engulfs you…

I have never experienced a biological orgasm but according to reports having many is what makes people lead a long and happy life. Does an emotional orgasm serve the same purpose? As of the moment, I’ve had had a lot and I can say that I am leading a relatively satisfied life. So it’s effects are therefore yet to be tested and proven… I never really thought that my obsession and attraction to sorrow is somewhat “sexual”; I don’t know if I’m speaking sense but I’d like to believe so (even the least bit) because it’s hard not to have something certain to hold on to when confusion is less than an inch away from shaking the foundations of one’s sanity. Of all the things that I don’t understand and I have done wrong, I’d like to believe that there is a tad bit of logic in what I am writing down.

What is forgiveness? Someone once sent me a quote that, metaphorically it is the fragrance that a flower gives off when it is crushed. I’d like to believe that I can still be as heroic as a crushed flower, contributing something to humanity despite the many times that my personhood has been brutally shattered…
Why this genre by the way? Usually when I start to wallow in wrath and sullenness rhymes and images start to flow out of me…I was a writer/poet then, because I sold by entire self and soul to the arts. But I did not nurture the seed that was planted in me; ideally I should have taken creative writing, literature or journalism at least. But I felt it rather selfish because the most that I can do was contribute to the literary world. In essence it was a trade off; either I become selfish and render the most artful of verses or I become humbled by my vision to contribute more to mankind, groping in the dark without a mastered skill to boast of. Writing is selfish because it mainly seeks self-expression; influence is just an unintended consequence. There is pride that can be reaped when the world depended on the next sardonic rhyme that a writer can produce but there is nothing productive about it. What I want is to make a difference, one that can be felt not mainly by myself but of others. I want my name to be unheard of, unwritten, and unspoken than be popularized in a shallow and conventional manner. I want more smiles, less poverty, next-to-utopian and sustainable bliss and the actualization of idealism not through my words but through my actions. A new drive possessed me, but it extricated whatever genius/ command over rhymes that I was previously granted. For the last time, I tried to be selfish and gripped solidly at whatever shadow that was left… but no. My rhymes no longer echoed the melody that it used to; the picturesque that I was capable of painting with words became a drab canvass of empty lines.

I loved poetry and it used to love me back but it can’t do that any longer. So with every tear that I shed, with every emotional orgasm that I experience, I am reminded of the days how it rocked my heart and hand to move as one. But those were the days… and these are the days…No longer accessible are the soft memories of the past. The most I can do is to attempt to feel it. It has fled violently from my grasp because of the chaos that intellectualization and emotionalism pervaded. Poetry’s warmth, intensity and entirety are like indelible marks of a muse’s face that gives breadth to my life; eternally existing and yet unreachable.

Random Notes: The Philippine Road to NIChood (edited by Thompson, W. Scott and Villacorta, Wilfredo)

*Bro. Andrew Gonzalez got his PhD in Linguistic from University of California in Burkley

* Some of the articles in the compilation overly praised President Ramos for his “good work”. I’m not sure if they were sucking up to him (mga himod tumbong) cause it was during his time that this book was written or, their economistic backgrounds took the better of them (most of them are economists). I bet most of them are still alive to suffer the consequences of privatized and deregulated public services/utilities and “un-forgo–able” (I coined this, it sounds nice) commodities. Are they not aware of how the politics, the economy and more importantly the culture in the Philippines work? Efficiency and honesty (as opposed to consumer harassment and manipulation) are almost non-existent. It’s so damn embarrassing to admit that the latter are the ones actually embedded in our culture. Too bad decisions can’t be reversed or withdrawn…

* On Andrew Gonzalez’ article (The Emergence of Nationhood: The Linguistic Evidence) It is stated that, the Philippines from being an aggregate of unrelated tribes spread over a group of islands, through the colonization of Spain became a fledgling nation with its self-identity and national unity. Well, on this I’d have to believe otherwise. First, pre-colonial Filipinos engaged in trade with other communities which means they formed relationships with each other to the point perhaps of economic (inter)dependence. Next, I believe that if history unfolded without the Spanish setting foot in our country, the Philippines would still have had a sense of self identity and national unity most likely stronger than what it turned out to be (the Spaniards are not a pre-requisite for this to happen). The Spaniards tried to erase all traces of our past by attempting to burn artifacts and symbolisms of our cultural heritage which somewhat halted all opportunities for unification. This resulted to a lagging (if not cessation) of a process, which would have taken place otherwise.

* QQ: (page 79 by W.S. Thompson) Although the term “NIC” refers literally only to economics, it has come to refer to a certain economic status of nations and includes far more than just economics, as we all see, which is why we came to include ‘civil society’ as an adjunct to the concept. With respect to Korea, for example, I take NIChood to include not just 250,000 percent increase in exports since 1960, the obsessiveness about the prestige of their exports, but the free and fair elections which brought the present government to power, the investigations of corruption and abuse of office in past governments –but also the role of Korean musicians and artists and world arenas, and the NGOs demanding the clean-up of the environment and the polity. With Taiwan it has meant a certain maturity about identity and the development of a personality in world affairs in spite appalling obstacles. We use NIChood thus to denote not just a rapidly growing economy, but a maturing polity as well for the good reason to believe that one cannot last long without the other à Who thought this would be appropriate years after?! Whatever happened to our export industry, our elections (Hello?!), our environment (cute turtles *sob* in Guimaras no more) and the investigating of past governments (Marcos money, Cojuangco land, Ramos’ indecisions, Estrada’s corruption and stupidity…). Although the notion of a maturing polity is rather vague and relative, well at least it connotes progression.

* QQ: Governments in order to become NICs do not have to be authoritarian, they have to be authoritative! ß And I believe this to be true but they have to win the confidence of the people because a fine line divides these two perceptions.

* A 1995 SWS survey showed that by late 1994, 78% of the Phil. population believed that to develop faster the government should try to slow down population growth.
* QQ by Lance Gokongwei: Filipinos are tired of grandstanding politicians… people have attained a certain political maturity and are willing to look at issues rather than personalities. ß this was said around 1997, so what happened?! it’s still about people in the limelight. My guess is that society prefers to have a person to blame because it simplifies the problem, rather than admitting that a problem is spawned by a malfunctioning/ ill-functioning system, which would be more difficult to comprehend and address.

* An inventory of Philippine NGOs:
1. Institute of Education and Management for Environment and Habitat = offers degrees in environmental education
2. Institute for the Study of the Environment = by the conservative economist Bernardo Villegas; founded to assist industries in integrating environmental considerations to corporate policy.
3. The Jaime Ongpin foundation (named after Aquino’s finance secretary) = aims to help the elderly, handicap (or differently-able)
4. Kalahan Educational Foundation = helps a tribal people in Nueva Vizcaya in developing their environment
5. Kalipunan ng Maga = helps Cordilleran peoples in their struggle for self-determintation
6. Kinaiyahan Foundation = aims to raise the consciousness of the people in Mindanao with a databank, through grassroots work ßI don’t know if these organizations are still existent. It’s nice to know that these organizations have a genuine concern and awareness for social responsibility… the downside to this is that, the more organizations that exist, the more costly they become. Even if they are non-stock and non-profit, operational and fixed costs are there to be paid. In one article on the Gates Foundation, when Warren Buffet, one of the world’s richest people donated his wealth, a comment there caught my attention because rather than setting up a new foundation (with all that money, it can more than suffice on its own), Buffet opted to entrust it to an existing foundation. True enough, it is more economical; funds can be directed towards its rightful destination, instead of being spent unnecessarily on rental of headquarters, separate taxes, operational costs, etc. (indeed it is wasted in that sense)

* What the Philippines needs are not more technocrats but more patriots (by Alex Melchor)

* Statecraft is not a Nintendo Game ßshould be said to all the politicians out there who believe in this or are oblivious to living this concept out

Reaction: Other Factors Than Economics to Reach NIChood (Seung Young Kim)
I am utterly disappointed! The title sounded so nice and being the idealist and hopeless romantic that I am, I thought “finally someone who makes sense”. It’s not just my hate for numbers and graphs that makes me want more proof that what the subject can give. Personally, I can’t help but feel that economics compresses reality so much to the point of distortion. At least in sociology/ anthropology people are regarded as people although at times they are treated like guinea pigs being observed in an experiment. But economics… heck! A person’s like is reduced to a mere mortality percentage; a child’s literacy is considered as a negligible ratio and human suffering is now quantifiable in statistical terms! …and then I come across this article whose title at the least intrigued me… but what do I see? This is utterly preposterous, una profanacion! The other factors besides economics being pertained to in the title are national security and national image… (so disheartening)
I have ever since wanted to make a separate paper on national security (or the issue of military (over)spending), but I am no expert in the matter…
“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed” (from Pres. D. Eisenhower as quoted by Samuelson and Nordhaus)”ß and I definitely agree. It has always been a riddle to me why the budget allocation for defense is so big and for social services so meager.
I believe that we can modernize our military in less costly ways. In training for example, instead of using real guns and actual bullets (which may not be re-used) why not use guns with cameras to enhance the shooting skills of the soldiers. The lack of actual handling of ammunition can be compensated by lectures and regular technological innovation updates so there won’t be a need to purchase all of them. Anyway, the essence is still there, the shooting proficiency of the soldiers is not sacrificed and neither is the supposed budget that could have evaporated so easily from purchasing costly paraphernalia. Also instead of “simulated laboratories and specialized training fields” why not go to rugged terrain? Afterall, in real combat soldiers have no actual experience of where they are to be deployed… by doing so, their resourcefulness, quickness, application of appropriate strategy and tactics formulation will altogether be harnessed. One can bring up environmental considerations as an intersecting issue but disruptions nonetheless at a minimal since (as mentioned above) the gadgets that are used are “not real”.
What is my justification for this?! When the soldiers signed up, they became immediate candidates to become heroes in their own right because defending the country entails the potential sacrifice of their lives. But death is not the only measurement for them to prove their noble intentions. By forgoing part of the budget allocation, which will be redirected to social services, they are doing the country a big favor. It’s not that they will not be provided for; it’s just that they are living such a glamorous life with more than adequate monetary compensation for their families (nuclear and extended) that it seems rather unfair to most of the other citizens. Defending the national territory and security is not a glamorous job, so it shouldn’t be perked up and “beflowered” so much the way it is now. But of course politics is involved; the president is beefing and fattening it up for personal interests; military elites as part of national power stakeholders etc… All the hullabaloo almost wants to make me wish for life to be simplified into economic models with all other things remaining constant…
Second is national image: the immediate image of an export product is decided by the quality and economic performance of the exporting country, but the national appeal, based on culture and historical attractiveness form an important undercurrent. This enhances the appeal of sophisticated products ß Well I say, our craft is sophisticated alright! Our independent films (collectively) are world class, which reap numerous awards; there’s this designer in Cebu who happens to be so good that Hollywood stars practically drool over his rattan creations. Our output is good, but what makes it unpopular in the market is the country’s image. Corrupt cops, even more corrupt officials, dirty cities, even dirtier elections… So you see, it’s actually the other way around. There are individuals who attempt to dignify our country but because of a vicious cycle, they are the one’s being stripped of their dignity by the country that they wished to bring honor to.

Diagnostic Paper: Relevance of Economic Theory

Economics, simply stated is the study or systematic inquiry of human activities that are generally categorized under production, consumption and distribution (sometimes also pertained to as exchange) of goods and services. The etymology of the word is credited to the Greeks, which back then meant ‘household management’. As per other bodies of knowledge, economics is considered to be eclectic to the point that appropriately defining its boundaries is shrouded with controversy. It touches if not includes other disciplines such as but not limited to: mathematics, sociology, psychology, accounting, geography, and political theory. Due to its complexity, it is said that attempts at creating economic models is tremendously difficult because collective human behavior is not completely predictable. Also, even economists are divided with regards to whether to treat this subject matter as an art or a science. All in all, the nature, magnitude and implications to individual and social welfare is the primary focus of policy prescriptions that have been produced from the study and application of this field.
More important than defining and acknowledging the existence of economics is knowing and understanding its relevance in the micro, national, macro and global scale. Ever since its emergence as a separate discipline in the 18th century, it is undeniable that people have seen more clearly the significance and impacts of economics from the personal to international level. The cognizance of such became the reason why national governments adhere to and employ various theories that have been fashioned/ refashioned and extensively debated upon economic theories.
Roughly classified into 4 categories, the more popular of the numerous theories that have been conceived fall under classical. Marxist, neo-classical and Keynesian. Classical economics was a by-product of post-mercantilist practices and served its purpose as a new phase or a refreshing beginning that was chiefly concerned with macroeconomic phenomena. Economists such as Adam Smith, John Stuart Mill, David Ricardo and Thomas Malthus are some of the more well-known figures and proponents of this time. Smith’s claim of absolute advantage was one of the main arguments that attacked mercantilism. He was in support of free trade and division of labor as a means by which a country can increase its income. Perhaps the statement “if a foreign country can supply us with a commodity cheaper than we ourselves can make, better buy it from them” can be used roughly as one of the bases that various economies have employed. To this extent even the Philippines has imported from other countries such as China commodities that are produced more cheaply as compared to when the country produces them. Shoes, accessories, bags and countless other merchandize flood our markets and eventually our homes with its origins extend way beyond our borders. Although Smith, claimed that exceptions to free trade include military security, and tax imposition on imports to protect/ encourage local industry, this seems to be one of the aspects that our government is guilty of neglecting. The Philippines, together with other countries are guilty of unbridled reception of products sometimes to the disadvantage (or eventual demise) of local producers and industries; the production of footwear in Marikina being one of my cases in mind. It is true that international trade is rather indispensable due to the fact that resources are scarce and that a country may not be as geographically, demographically and technologically endowed as others. Benefits of trade include, improvement of the standard of living, acceleration of economic development, stimulation of production, generation of foreign exchange earnings (to buy capital investment that we have no capability of producing as well as paying off our burdensome debts), promotion of product specialization, increases consumer satisfaction among others.
Still on classical economics, Ricardo formulated the theory of comparative advantage in which he states that: a country should export the goods in which it has the greatest comparative advantage and should import the goods in which it has the greatest comparative disadvantage. It is said that this analogy can be applied to a person who is both a nurse and a doctor at the same time. This person has a greater comparative advantage as a doctor and thus confine his/her activities to such. This brings to mind the exceptional case of health workers in the Philippines wherein skillful doctors opt to become nurses abroad. The theory of comparative advantage tells us, although it may seem inconsistent with the analogy at first, that the exodus of health workers is a comparative advantage in a micro scale because they earn more abroad than in domestic hospital and also because our country has comparative advantage on the labor market which is said to be more profitable (due to remittances) that we export.
Next we move on to Marxist economics. Traditionally and philosophically speaking, Marxist theories are founded based on dialectical materialism wherein there would be an initial thesis which will generate its own antithesis then a synthesis. Marxism became controversial because it directly attacked the capitalist system at a time when capitalists were so engrossed with reaping, spending and advertising the fruits of their ingenuity. The theories of Karl Marx per se inspired other thinkers, representative of other countries to formulate their own indigenized version of an advertent defense/ counterattack of the prevalent capitalist system. USSR, Eastern Europe, Cuba and China are some of the countries who have/ had a history adopting the belief that the state is not independent from society and economics. They aimed to change the economic base which would thus alter the society’s political-legal superstructure. In the Philippines however there are progressive organizations who study and subscribe to the beliefs propagated by Marxists, socialists and communists alike. These organizations deliberately oppose and protest the government’s advancement of economic reform because it would worsen the effects of free trade, globalization, economic imperialism and neo-colonialism in the country. Although their advocacies may not be that popular in the policy-making procedures of government they serve the purpose of making people aware of the economic inefficacies of government (sometimes also that of other governments) or in other cases serves as an equalizing agent that reminds legislators to include ordinary workers, farmers (non-capitalists) into consideration.
Moving on to neo-classical economics whose chief concern is to dissect and explain microeconomic phenomena. The major assumption is that market forces tended to ensure that the economy will maximally employ its resources without leaving anything idle which shifted attention to a more basic perspective. It is said that neoclassical economics is heavily mathematical in nature that only those who were well versed in the complexities of numbers could understand nevertheless it gave more room for governments to encourage small scale economic activity. In Bangladesh for example, there is a bank that understands the economic value of small scale lending to “financially-incapacitated” people. It has been lauded for its innovative and practical practices objectives and also because it recognized the significance of microeconomic development as the foundation behind a stronger economy. In the domestic scene, the current administration is promulgating micro-entrepreneurial measures to aid market proficiency and encourage the exercise of the productive potential/capacity of common citizens.
Lastly, Keynesian economics rejects the theory that the free market will provide employment for everybody. It advocates tax cuts and government spending on public works during periods of recession and create jobs even at the risk of running a budget deficit. On the other hand, when the economy booms, it is said that governments should stop spending or increase taxes to reduce demand then use the budgetary surplus to pay off debts. In essence, Keynesian economics deals with problems with substantial gravity such as issues on debt, unemployment, and taxes which even when addressed separately still requires stringency. The Philippines or any other developing country for that matter is particularly laden with the complexities of these concerns.
The four major categories and a simple demonstration of their utility and relevance in the national an international scale have been stated. In reality, governments need to employ a combination of these theories because there is no one theory that addresses the multi-dimensional/faceted problem of stabilizing or improving the economy.

(References are available upon requests)