Things you need to know before idolizing marcos

[ClaNker]

^ Ah basta may infrastructure.

[TopEngine]

Kakaiba talaga. I think you need to check the basics.

What good is the infrastructure if there are minimal employment

What good is the infrastructure if the central bank is bankrupt

What good is the infrastructure if that's built on epic debts

What good is the infrastructure if there is aggressive depreciation

And the list goes on.

Edit: Does that sound like a "good economic standing"? The answer is NO.

I did not say that at time Philippines is at good economic standing pero malapit na sana.
Yang mga binanggit mong problema na solusyunan ba ng Cory government? baka worst pa nga. Wala pala ikinaunlad nung nag-iba ang nakaupo. Ano reklamo niyo ngayon kay Marcos?
Pero kung hindi sana pinatalsik ng mga dilawan at emosyonal na mamamayan, natuloy sana yang mga proyekto ni Marcos. Mga ilan taon pa sana after 1986 Philippines should be reaping the fruits of those projects, maunlad na sana ang Pilipinas ngayon.
Kaso pinahinto ni Cory mga projects, mga iba pinamigay sa Oligarchs (kasama na kamag-anak), kaya nagkaroon ng matinding shortage sa enerhiya, sino ngayon gusto magnegosyo (investors) sa Pilipinas? Kaya mas lalo tumaas ang unemployment rate, kaya bankrupt, at mas lalo tayo hindi makabayad ng debts.

That's pure basics. Until now hindi niyo pa rin ma explain maayos argument niyo, puro patanong.

[ClaNker]

I did not say that at time Philippines is at good economic standing pero malapit na sana.
Yang mga binanggit mong problema na solusyunan ba ng Cory government? baka worst pa nga. Wala pala ikinaunlad nung nag-iba ang nakaupo. Ano reklamo niyo ngayon kay Marcos?
Pero kung hindi sana pinatalsik ng mga dilawan at emosyonal na mamamayan, natuloy sana yang mga proyekto ni Marcos. Mga ilan taon pa sana after 1986 Philippines should be reaping the fruits of those projects, maunlad na sana ang Pilipinas ngayon.
Kaso pinahinto ni Cory mga projects, mga iba pinamigay sa Oligarchs (kasama na kamag-anak), kaya nagkaroon ng matinding shortage sa enerhiya, sino ngayon gusto magnegosyo (investors) sa Pilipinas? Kaya mas lalo tumaas ang unemployment rate, kaya bankrupt, at mas lalo tayo hindi makabayad ng debts.

That's pure basics. Until now hindi niyo pa rin ma explain maayos argument niyo, puro patanong.

Sige nga mukhang ang dami mong alam na tama.

Paliwanag mo sa amin kung pano mapaunlad ni makoy mo ang pinas kung di sya pinatalsik. Mind you ang dami pang pera ng pinas nung 1986 ha at napak liit ng utang natin.

Enlighten us please, the floor is yours.

[[archie]]

What basics? What argument?

Kung pinatuloy ni Marcos after 86?

Simple durog pinas sa utang. Ilang beses na sinagot yan. No one would lend us money kasi hindi kaya magbayad.

ROI ng ano? Sinagot na ni sir niky yan.

Panahon niya pa sasad na palitan ng dollar, depreciation is wild, etc.

Still refuse to see all this.

Ngayon ako naman sagutin ng matino:

Which is more important, economy or building infrastructure?

[[archie]]

Sige nga mukhang ang dami mong alam na tama.

Paliwanag mo sa amin kung pano mapaunlad ni makoy mo ang pinas kung di sya pinatalsik. Mind you ang dami pang pera ng pinas nung 1986 ha at napak liit ng utang natin.

Enlighten us please, the floor is yours.

I second this.

[confused shoes]

Si [archie], kahapon "rest your case" ka na. Nakadami ka na pala ulit, hehe.

Sige "rest case" na rin natin ang infrastructure. Sa nakawan na lang tayo.

Napoles+tanda+***y+pogi+Pandak+Erap+Tabako vs. Imelda+Macoy. Alin ang mas marami ang nakulimbat?

[[archie]]

Back read?

I would not engage in terms of corruption Kasi "di bale corrupt basta may nagawa"

O ya, kinukilit kasi na mayaman na daw dapat pinas because of ROI. Different story altogether.

[jhnkvn]

I will voice out a contrary opinion.

Seriously, isn't anybody questioning the article Monseratto linked out? $1 trillion Marcos wealth?

If we were to talk about non-adjusted GDP figures and let's say Marcos started getting 100% of the country's GDP from his second term onwards (1969-1986), that will be a figure around $396b. But it's irrational to be getting 100% of a country's GDP.. so let's peg it that he gets 10% of the entire nation's economic output - this would hypothetically mean $39.6b stashed away somewhere.

Now let's say he's a shrewd investor and threw it all on the S&P 500 index fund which has outperformed similar investment assets such as bonds, etc. from 1986 to 2010 which is the time the article was published. At 1986, the S&P 500 was at 211.28 and at the end of 2010, $1,115 or a rough 530% increase. Given the same rate of return, this would have propelled his holdings from $40b to $212b. If he were to get 20%.. it would be $424b. Only when he was getting 50% of the nation's GDP from 1969 to 1986 would it hit $1 trillion.

Remember.. this is already quite.. worst-case scenario. I mean.. come on, it's a country's GDP we're talking about. Even if you throw in loans from international institutions... 50% GDP? Come on.

[jhnkvn]

Now, I'll attempt to answer archie's question: Economy or infrastructure?

This is a chicken and egg problem fundamentally. Without infrastructure, your economy will sag. Without economy, you won't be able to fund infrastructure.

Now Marcos decided to go for infrastructure to pimp up the economy. There's no problem there. IOUs aren't a problem either really -- think China's double-digit GDP growth was all internally funded? Of course not. Infrastructure is only good if it's utilized properly. We can argue he profited from kickbacks of the project but at least the project was completed. Remember, high growth rates lowers the debt ratio, stronger capacity to pay, and sustains a higher level of public debt.

Now, post-People Power is what really matters. The country's in shambles but the infrastructure was already there. First thing you do is turn them into assets -- something that adds value to something. But I am appalled by how our government simply mothballed projects such as the Bataan Power Plant and that sent power crisis reverberating throughout our country. The infrastructure is already there - take damn advantage of it.

Continuing on with the power crisis.. manufacturing entities flocked out of the country in doves because of rising overhead costs. Like I said, it's a chicken and egg problem. In this case, the utility of mothballed infrastructure is zero and this negatively affected our economy.

Power is unfortunately one of those things our government failed miserably at. Corruption, although you can say was started by Marcos, was systematized over time and blaming it all on him seems like an opinion of bad taste.

The sad thing currently is that Filipinos has grown so accustomed to it that they accept corruption. How many of fellow Tsikoteers have bribed police enforcers or have name-dropped some politician's name?

What our country lacks is vision. It isn't corruption that bogs down the country.. China's corrupt as hell if you've ever done business there but at least their leaders have a vision for the country. At the very least, not trying to undo what the previous administration has done and throwing mud at the other party for not being in the ruling party.

[jhnkvn]

Let's say Marcos continued his term post-1986... would we be better off today than before? I believe so.

If you're going to be corrupt.. the most logical thing is to do it in a sustainable matter. Habol mo really isn't immediate wealth -- you aim for sustainable kickbacks. Because if you don't do it gradually, the citizens will clamor.. you get thrown out of office and get your ass handed to you. Do it like how our political dynasties do -- gradually.

Kung pinatuloy ni Marcos after 86?
Simple durog pinas sa utang. Ilang beses na sinagot yan. No one would lend us money kasi hindi kaya magbayad.

Probably. But we aren't taking account the value of under investment and that is the lost opportunity cost. What if rather than political unrest, power crisis, etc. you borrow heavily and turn those into tangible economic value through increased government expenditures and infrastructure development? By primping up the economy, you increase GDP and that in turn actually improves debt serviceability. It is impossible for anybody to do IOUs without a sustainable plan.. it's illogical -- dictator or not. Even dictators need to fall in line when it comes to international scrutiny and even dictators need to please the masses lest they turn into unrest.

Now let's move in in a corporate sense..

Look at Ayala Land's increased expenditure spending lately due to the low interest macro-environment. It effectively shot up its debt to equity from 40% to triple digit percentages, raised executive paychecks, and began throwing wads of cash to infrastructure spending as "investments" for the coming years. Now if Ayala's management is great and that their vision is good then that's good.. excellent in fact because you boost your IRR through the roof by leveraging through properly calculated risks... But what if Ayala's management floundered? What if they made a series of bad business decisions?

Now gentlemen, that's where our country is right now. Bad leaders, bad decisions.

Gawin natin yun corporate setting again but on a different scenario. Let's say Ayala Land did not do IOUs but relied on internal cash balances. Fast forward a few years, SMDC is thrice as large as Ayala because SMDC shrewdly used the favorable macroenvironment and used debt to primp up its "investments". As an investor, will you be investing in ALI?

Under-investment (lost opportunity cost) is equally costly to a debt crisis. Remember that.

In any case, who says nobody is willing to give us loans when you're in the brink of bankruptcy? That might be common sense in small amounts but it's the opposite on larger amounts.. ika nga "if I owe you a hundred peso, well I be damned. But if I owe you a billion, you be damned." Last thing any creditor will want is a default and you as the investor will try to avoid that scenario as much as possible by implementing debt servicing such as debt restructuring, etc. Take Argentina's debt default as example which wiped out 85% of creditors' value.

This is why the premise of "No one would lend us money kasi hindi kaya magbayad" is incorrect.