Things you need to know before idolizing marcos

[confused shoes]

This is just stupid.

Pero sagutin ko na para matuwa ka.

Before mainvent ang korente, Wala ba trabaho mga tao? Meron

Mano Mano Lahat pero they had work and were willing to work.

Electricity or not, kailangan ng tao ng work.

End of story.

Satisfied. That is the area before the industrial revolution. Marcos haters want that way. Case closed.

[jhnkvn]

Borrowing and infrastructure are ok, but not to mask his personal gain and get the country on its knees.

You're equating kasi that his corrupt nature = bankrupt country.. and you're so sold to ideology that you forget our current situation.

Our country is doing right. We have BPO industries sprouting here and there, we have real estate development firms borrowing heavily and investing these in infrastructure projects.

But is corruption eradicated? No. Infrastructure projects still need "padulas" to facilitate quick progress. Putting up a mall in the provinces will need you to seek favor of the governors and the municipal council.

The total amount that coursed through corruption has simply switched from the few (Marcos and Cronies) to the many (the Senate, the Congress, the Cabinet, the provincial council, the government departments, etc.)

[[archie]]

I hate people trying to group me into a category when I have presented facts that are logical and true. If you want to put up a sub-discussion, sige.. how do you improve your economy? One way or the other, you'll still be spending. The economy is an aggragate umbrella.. hindi lang yan infrastructure, hindi lang yan monetary policy, it's a basket of goods. So.. how do you plan on approaching this?

Ever since historic times, governments have been doing infrastructure to prop up the economy because it's one of the more efficient methods on how to boost the economy. Let's say you're in Greece and you want to do trade with Rome. Ano gagawin mo? You lay out roads to facilitate trade of goods. Yun stance mo kasi parang.. "wag tayo maglagay kalsada dyan.. wala naman dumadaan". Do you see how wrong is that?

Imagine if Ayala shares the same reasoning.. "wala naman tao sa Fort Bonifacio.. empty acres of land lang yan.. that's why ayaw ko maglalagay ng roads dyan.. or underground electrical and plumbing infrastructure or a catch basin for potential flooding mitigation."

I now ask you again archie.. nasaan ang progress?

Let's say and what if are not facts.

Ayan investor na naman kasi it suits your argument.

Asaan progress?

Peso depreciation slowed
Better gdp to debt
International debt

As I've said ok lang borrowing and infrastructure as long as it does not bring the country to its knees.

[[archie]]

Because you believe, we can work without electricity.



Puro ka data, nasaan ang pruweba mo na pwedeng magtrabaho na walang kuryente, except magtanim ng kamote?

Please don't go off-course sir [archie], we are technically talking electricity, here.

O my... How irrelevant is this.

Meron nga korente Marcos era and now.

Pyesta ka talaga sa work without electricity. Hahaha.

[jhnkvn]

Your still ignoring the fact, infrastructure pa rin ng infrastructure when all it does is digger deep in debt. Until maging bankrupt na central bank.

There is a black and white scenario during his era. What good did it do? Wala.

You can only say "wala" is because you're living in the future. You're not analyzing the situation then and why the policies in place was implemented. This is what you call a historian' bias (Historian's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and is a logical fallacy.

If this was an debate panel, minus points ka na agad.

Again, you're looking at the policies not in an economist view. So I will give you one more example..

Take the US' consumption driven economy (same as our economy) the example's background. Personal savings is good when it's on an individual perspective. But when the entire economy begins saving en-masse, investment is curbed because less people are willing to spend. When people are unwilling to spend, businesses get less revenues and might fold up.. this will then turn into a cascading effect as more businesses that fold up, there's less employment, hence more people outside with less disposable income.

[[archie]]

You're equating kasi that his corrupt nature = bankrupt country.. and you're so sold to ideology that you forget our current situation.

Our country is doing right. We have BPO industries sprouting here and there, we have real estate development firms borrowing heavily and investing these in infrastructure projects.

But is corruption eradicated? No. Infrastructure projects still need "padulas" to facilitate quick progress. Putting up a mall in the provinces will need you to seek favor of the governors and the municipal council.

The total amount that coursed through corruption has simply switched from the few (Marcos and Cronies) to the many (the Senate, the Congress, the Cabinet, the provincial council, the government departments, etc.)

What? Infrastructure that did not do good for the country.

In the 50s to before his take over the economy was doing OK. During his time sadsad halos Lahat. After Medyo nakakaahon na.

Still refuse to see this.

[[archie]]

You can only say "wala" is because you're living in the future. You're not analyzing the situation then and why the policies in place was implemented. This is what you call a historian' bias (Historian's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) and is a logical fallacy.

If this was an debate panel, minus points ka na agad.

Again, you're looking at the policies not in an economist view. So I will give you one more example..

Take the US' consumption driven economy (same as our economy) the example's background. Personal savings is good when it's on an individual perspective. But when the entire economy begins saving en-masse, investment is curbed because less people are willing to spend. When people are unwilling to spend, businesses get less revenues and might fold up.. this will then turn into a cascading effect as more businesses that fold up, there's less employment, hence more people outside with less disposable income.

Debate? Hehe

Huh? So Lahat based sa future? You will not take into account how he handled the country.

Go ahead suko na ko sa futures mo because you refuse to see economical figures.

If this was a trial court to discuss continuity of Marcos or kick him out dismissed na kaso kasi wala ka evidence to support. All your going for is "Malay mo".

[[archie]]

Satisfied. That is the area before the industrial revolution. Marcos haters want that way. Case closed.

Yeah sure. Stupid statement.

[confused shoes]

Yeah sure. Stupid statement.

What is more stupid is that all you can say is "stupid".

[[archie]]

What is more stupid is that all you can say is "stupid".

Hahaha.

You are so far out of touch.