Things you need to know before idolizing marcos

[jhnkvn]

From now on, I would not respond to "let's say" or "what if".

Those don't make sense. Kung nag "what if" din ako, walang pupuntahan.

And I don't know why you refuse to respond.

All of my responses was all but a response to your claim in post #124

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.

Which I posted a rebuttal in post #130 with the premise of my hypothesis..

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

I took up your challenge and posted my side -- facts were presented but also hypothesis were drawn up from comparable examples. I never did discredit what Marcos did but I won't go as far as throwing all of the shortcomings of four administration regimes on him.

Remember, your premise alone was that of promise -- "will we be better today with Marcos or with 4 presidents?"

And now you're negating on it. What gives.

[[archie]]

And I don't know why you refuse to respond.

All of my responses was all but a response to your claim in post #124



Which I posted a rebuttal in post #130 with the premise of my hypothesis..


I took up your challenge and posted my side -- facts were presented but also hypothesis were drawn up from comparable examples. I never did discredit what Marcos did but I won't go as far as throwing all of the shortcomings of four administration regimes on him.

Remember, your premise alone was that of promise -- "will we be better today with Marcos or with 4 presidents?"

And now you're negating on it. What gives.

Simple lang eh...

What if tuloy tuloy pagbagsak ng economy, which you would refute. And I have historical data. Yours is betting on the future without real numbers to support the claim.

[[archie]]

I know you will say that kaya binitin ko yung unang response ko, ito sana ang kadugtong nun.

"Ang tamad ay yung umuwi sa bahay ng makita na mahaba ang pila."

Kailan ba kumonti ang naghahanap ng trabaho.

Please check unemployment rate before his era and during. Again very subjective statement.

[[archie]]

Do you think I'm not getting my facts straight? In fact, I'm drawing stats from the Central Bank's then external debt arm -- the MEDIAD or Management of External Debts and Investment Accounts Department and Financial Plan Data Centers, the World Bank, the IMF, ADB, and the CIA World Book, etc. to name the most drawn sources. I am an investor by profession. Drawing data is like.. my forte in arguing and validating a hypothesis.

The Philippines was not in an economic crisis yet in the 1970s. It started in the 1980 when short-term high interest borrowings dwindled our current account to service debts. Want a more detailed timeline?

Early 1970s were exceptionally great. We had a current account surplus of 5% GNP in 1973 as an example.

In 1974 to 1978, borrowings began escalating. Propelling this was the first oil shock to the country and then the government capital spending to spurn development.

By the end of 1970s, the Philippine debt/GNP ratio was high. But was not of alarming levels. It was comparable to that of Korea, of Indonesia, and below Latin America average. You can argue that commercial bank liabilities grew from $1b (1975) to $3.7b in 1980 but the fact remained that the central bank maintained foreign currency assets that are still large enough to maintain 4 months worth of imports.

It was on October 1983 when the central bank announced difficulty to meet debt obligations of $24.4b. A decade is certainly a far cry to the "early" economic crisis in the 1970s.

True, we did turn to the IMF in 1962 and 1970 to meet a balance of payments but really now.. it was Macapagal who was sitting in office on the first tranche. Marcos didn't assume his first term until 1965 and many historians deem his first term to be truly positive (1965 to 1969). Second, governments turn to the IMF for so many reasons and not just to meet debt obligations. When the IMF is offering lower-than-market loans, of course it's better to secure a credit rather than issue out government treasury bills. Again.. we'll go back to the infrastructure and development issue.

Read it again, from the get go, debt talaga ang nasaisip. Sabi mo impossible hindi mabayaran utang. Ayan na nga, hindi makabayad 2b utang kaya restructure.

The country refuse to fix economic problems di ba?

[jhnkvn]

Simple lang eh...

What if tuloy tuloy pagbagsak ng economy, which you would refute. And I have historical data. Yours is betting on the future without real numbers to support the claim.

And building it on historical data is a fallacy. You keep on bringing up the debt structure but I keep telling you that whichever President sits on top, they will still borrow to finance our oil credits. The oil crisis was largely out of our grasp and that it contributed to our declining economy which in turn destabilized the country.

Real oil prices (constant USD as of July 2005) skyrocketed from under $20 in 1973 to peak at $90+ in 1980s. Puro kayo currency devaluation due to lavish spending but is that factually the biggest component on why we had to devalue? Want me to draw some figures again?

Like I said, imagine our oil shooting up. Tingin mo ba mura lang magpaimport ng oil? if we factor that in real-life.. what if gasoline prices shot from Php54 to Php250 per liter at the end of the year? Tingin mo "we'll be okay?". Obviously not. But given how our current system is..all they'll do is whine because "the Aquino administration did nothing.. bobo sila for not expecting this", they'll picket to the streets and demand a raise in minimum wage because it is "if not, we cannot cope and we die". The irony here is that who voted the very legislators who mothballed our energy infrastructure? The ones who get pork?

Worldwide the early 1980s ushered in recession. Paul Volcker as Fed Chairman tightened money supply and interest rates in the US shot up to 20% upwards. Kahit gaano ka katalino, who the f can forecast these scenarios which are largely out of your grasp?

Due to the tightened American policy, dollar interest rates rose. Debt payments rose (that's where your debt payments go), commodity prices declined, and quantitative demand fell due to recession.

The Filipino pride is too prideful. What makes you guys any different from the rest? Lagi nalang fingerpointing and I'm tired of that. It was so bad that in August 1982, Mexico called in for a default and so did other debtor countries.

Trying to say Marcos was an idiot for borrowing money is much like saying other countries are too. Latin America and East Asia were the most affected. Latin America in fact coined it as their "lost decade" due to stagnation. Yet the grass is always greener once you're on it isn't it?

If any President was in power, do you think he would not have borrowed much like how Marcos did?

Don't you see? Past performance is not indicative of future performance. That's a logical fallacy. Why do you think funds always have that disclaimer before you start throwing money at something?

Past performance are not future performance. Past performance can be very misleading if there are reasons to believe that future conditions are likely to be significantly different .

Want an example? Take George W. Bush. Early in his presidential term, he was very popular and successful. But his second term was marred by criticism on how he handled the Iraqi War, Hurricane Katrina, etc. and his approval ratings plummeted.

What if hindi tuloy-tuloy yun pagbagsak ng economy? What if the 1970-1980s were simply due to the global recession and wrong bets at that time. What if we held on, endured, and progressed? What if our country prospered just as our country was prosperous during his first term?

Making past performance indicative of future performance is like purchasing equity funds from investment houses just because we experienced a 15%+ annual compounded returns for 5-years and you're expecting the same return hereafter.

Read it again, from the get go, debt talaga ang nasaisip. Sabi mo impossible hindi mabayaran utang. Ayan na nga, hindi makabayad 2b utang kaya restructure.

The country refuse to fix economic problems di ba?

Like I said, it's impossible for a country that runs its own printing press to run out of cash. Insolvency is different from illiquidity. Don't confuse one for the other. Ayan ang problema ng Greece kaya hirap na hirap sila -- as a member of EU, you surrender your rights to print out wads of EU. Only the ECB could.

What it did was that it simply chose not to. And why do you think it's easier to get loans as bail-out money instead of printing out more cash and converting them? Now, I'll ask you.. why do you think that is?

Fact is.. the government doesn't really need to take out a loan. It simply chose to. If you look at it the other side under martial law, Marcos can simply print out wads of pesos using his absolute power and it'll have the same effect as taking out a loan from the IMF or World Bank. Why do you think he didn't?

[confused shoes]

Good morning sir [archie],

Mahigit kalahating araw din pala akong nawala, sorry sir pero gusto na kitang intindihin.

Madali mag work dati kahit no electricity. Hindi mo lang talaga gusto intindihin.

Either mali ang grammar mo o hindi talaga ako marunong umintindi pero mas malinaw pa yang isinulat mo kaysa sa sikat ng buwan.

Tama ka rin in a way, may magagawang trabaho pag walang kuryente.

Pag nagka brownout sa metro, magtawag ka ng mga Marcos haters at maghila kayo ng MRT para mayroon kaming masasakyan. O ayan, nakapag create ka ng job. 100 jobs per one coach of MRT.

[[archie]]

Jhnkvn, hindi na kita quote kasi ang haba ng mga post.

It's a fallacy to base on history?

That is the most absurd thing you said.

Do believe your own words?

He has been building and building infrastructure regardless of economic standpoint. Bagsak economy? So what, skyrocketed debts? So what, etc

Do you really think he would just wake-up one day and stop?

Edit:

Ask any economist if

Gdp to debt
International debt
Currency depreciation

Are not solid economic indicators of a country.

[[archie]]

Good morning sir [archie],

Mahigit kalahating araw din pala akong nawala, sorry sir pero gusto na kitang intindihin.




Either mali ang grammar mo o hindi talaga ako marunong umintindi pero mas malinaw pa yang isinulat mo kaysa sa sikat ng buwan.

Tama ka rin in a way, may magagawang trabaho pag walang kuryente.

Pag nagka brownout sa metro, magtawag ka ng mga Marcos haters at maghila kayo ng MRT para mayroon kaming masasakyan. O ayan, nakapag create ka ng job. 100 jobs per one coach of MRT.

Para matapos na non sense.

Give me data that support your claim. Puro subjective, nothing to back it up.

[confused shoes]

Para matapos na non sense.

Give me data that support your claim. Puro subjective, nothing to back it up.

Sige sir, list down some jobs that you can do without using electricity.

[[archie]]

Sige sir, list down some jobs that you can do without using electricity.

Again, where's your data. Magisip ka nga...