Things you need to know before idolizing marcos

[[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]]

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?

[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.

[ClaNker]

[confused shoes]

jhnkvn jhnkvn
Boobs Make Me Happy

Nosebleed, sir

[ClaNker]

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.

Nose bleed nga.

[[archie]]

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.



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.

Where is the increase of gdp from the infrastructure?



It is impossible for anybody to do IOUs without a sustainable plan.. it's illogical -- dictator or not.

"if I owe you a hundred peso, well I be damned. But if I owe you a billion, you be damned."[/B] 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




then please tell me what is the sustainable plan if Marcos was not overthrown? Hindi nga makabayad. Remember 95% gdp to debt. Restructure how? Longer payment, more interest, lower monthly/annual? So 5% left will be 10% to 15%? That's nearly enough to run a country. In turn, kailangan pa rin umutang. Tama? Tapos restructure again to run at least 50% gdp to budget. Longer payment again hangang apo ng apo na ang magbabayad? All these for infrastructure that don't turn to gdp.

If you were an investor, would you loan more?

[jhnkvn]

then please tell me what is the sustainable plan if Marcos was not overthrown? Hindi nga makabayad. Remember 95% gdp to debt. Restructure how? Longer payment, more interest, lower monthly/annual? So 5% left will be 10% to 15%? That's nearly enough to run a country. In turn, kailangan pa rin umutang. Tama? Tapos restructure again to run at least 50% gdp to budget. Longer payment again hangang apo ng apo na ang magbabayad? All these for infrastructure that don't turn to gdp.

If you were an investor, would you loan more?

Of course that I do not know. How would he have done it? Who knows.

Do a partial sovereign default maybe? It had been on the table for years after Marcos-era and yet there wasn't any real progress to it has there?

Why do people view GDP to debt as inherently bad? Australia has a 95% external GDP to debt ratio. Japan is a classic case of over 100% GDP to debt ratio and yet.. we purchase a Camry, play with a PS4, drop-by 7-11 after office hours and wear Uniqlo shirts.

What matters is government efficiency and growth. If your economy grows more than your debt, not only does your GDP to debt fall but it also lowers borrowing and repayment costs.

I'll give you an idea but it's only being done gradually. Why doesn't the government pay off the entire IOU by restructuring the debt now that a 2013' 1-year T-bill is less than 1%? Think about that? Just paying peanuts for debt servicing. In the corporate world, IBM threw out bonds.. IOUs essentially just to further increase its share repurchase program to increase shareholder value by leveraging the favorable macro-environment. Why can't the PH gov't do the same even on a slightly higher interest rate? Because you'll need to pass bills nanaman sa Congress, have them bicker, revise it and pass the second, third,... tenth amendment..

We could say his crony-ism led to his downfall. It dented government efficiency and growth. But at the very least from somebody wielding "power", removal of cronies aren't hard. Poof and they're gone. What about now? Our legislators still clinging along their seats in our Congress and Senate.

No matter which President sat in the early 1980s, the oil crisis cannot be avoided given our huge dependence on oil - a resource we unfortunately don't have aplenty. You could daresay loans from the IMF to increase import oil credit to prevent a national economic halt was downright inevitable.

Throw in ridiculous amount of political instability just before People Power and you aren't painting a rosy picture at all. Double -7% from 84 to 85? Of course it'll affect the bottom line in an absurd way.. just look at Thailand right now. They're so desperate in drumming up support that they're having women in skimpy fatigue outfits posing next to tanks (me likey! kidding.. a bit)

But let's say we take the average GDP growth from 1970 to 1983. Let's trade-off the removal of that absurd negative figures brought about by political uncertainty transition with Marcos' first term as President where he.. according to textbooks.. performed well. We'll start with his second-term in office which signaled his supposed downfall. My data shows that given GDP growth constant of 1985 prices, 1970 to 1983 was an average of 5.2% growth. If we were to take Arroyo's term, although plagued by corruption.. but was fiscally correct, you would have arrived at 4.4% annually from 2001 to 2009 and that includes the US subprime mortgage crisis. Cory's administration paid off $4b of the loans to attract foreign investors but at the end her administration borrowed $9b leaving a $5b net deficit.

Subsequent trade balances were mostly deficits as the country went from rice exporter to the top rice importer over time. What local industry? The fiscal policies destroyed it entirely. The entire textile industry alone was dead by 1980 onwards due to that absurd overhead cost.



If corruption really deters growth. Why has Indonesia outpaced the Philippines? Given that their own dictator Suharto took the top spot in 2004's Global Transparency Report while Marcos was second? Taking $35b over three decades versus our own $10b over two decades?



The end conclusion is that.. although Marcos was horrible.. his successors were worse in my opinion. And given the constant bickering we see with our legislation and the amount of idiocy democracy has sprouted like.. seriously, a front-page Vhong Navarro issue? *facepalm* I probably won't mind giving some freedom in exchange for discipline and order.

Trust me. China is corrupt as hell. Municipal officials can simply grab your land without just compensation because the state owns the land. Some of them grab entire businesses either and you can say the country is governed too by crony-ism. But when the Red Party's ass is on the line.. crony or not, you'll just magically disappear. Dictatoral powers.

As long as things get done, hell.. I'm happy. Sadly, that isn't happening in the Philippines -- can somebody please just raise those damned LRT prices. Hindi afford yun additional transportation costs? BS. How much San Migs do you think these people even consume on paydays but can't afford to pay additional "fare" costs.

[[archie]]

Of course that I do not know. How would he have done it? Who knows.

Do a partial sovereign default maybe? It had been on the table for years after Marcos-era and yet there wasn't any real progress to it has there?

Why do people view GDP to debt as inherently bad? Australia has a 95% external GDP to debt ratio. Japan is a classic case of over 100% GDP to debt ratio and yet.. we purchase a Camry, play with a PS4, drop-by 7-11 after office hours and wear Uniqlo shirts.

What matters is government efficiency and growth. If your economy grows more than your debt, not only does your GDP to debt fall but it also lowers borrowing and repayment costs.

I'll give you an idea but it's only being done gradually. Why doesn't the government pay off the entire IOU by restructuring the debt now that a 2013' 1-year T-bill is less than 1%? Think about that? Just paying peanuts for debt servicing. In the corporate world, IBM threw out bonds.. IOUs essentially just to further increase its share repurchase program to increase shareholder value by leveraging the favorable macro-environment. Why can't the PH gov't do the same even on a slightly higher interest rate? Because you'll need to pass bills nanaman sa Congress, have them bicker, revise it and pass the second, third,... tenth amendment..

We could say his crony-ism led to his downfall. It dented government efficiency and growth. But at the very least from somebody wielding "power", removal of cronies aren't hard. Poof and they're gone. What about now? Our legislators still clinging along their seats in our Congress and Senate.

No matter which President sat in the early 1980s, the oil crisis cannot be avoided given our huge dependence on oil - a resource we unfortunately don't have aplenty. You could daresay loans from the IMF to increase import oil credit to prevent a national economic halt was downright inevitable.

Throw in ridiculous amount of political instability just before People Power and you aren't painting a rosy picture at all. Double -7% from 84 to 85? Of course it'll affect the bottom line in an absurd way.. just look at Thailand right now. They're so desperate in drumming up support that they're having women in skimpy fatigue outfits posing next to tanks (me likey! kidding.. a bit)

But let's say we take the average GDP growth from 1970 to 1983. Let's trade-off the removal of that absurd negative figures brought about by political uncertainty transition with Marcos' first term as President where he.. according to textbooks.. performed well. We'll start with his second-term in office which signaled his supposed downfall. My data shows that given GDP growth constant of 1985 prices, 1970 to 1983 was an average of 5.2% growth. If we were to take Arroyo's term, although plagued by corruption.. but was fiscally correct, you would have arrived at 4.4% annually from 2001 to 2009 and that includes the US subprime mortgage crisis. Cory's administration paid off $4b of the loans to attract foreign investors but at the end her administration borrowed $9b leaving a $5b net deficit.

Subsequent trade balances were mostly deficits as the country went from rice exporter to the top rice importer over time. What local industry? The fiscal policies destroyed it entirely. The entire textile industry alone was dead by 1980 onwards due to that absurd overhead cost.



If corruption really deters growth. Why has Indonesia outpaced the Philippines? Given that their own dictator Suharto took the top spot in 2004's Global Transparency Report while Marcos was second? Taking $35b over three decades versus our own $10b over two decades?



The end conclusion is that.. although Marcos was horrible.. his successors were worse in my opinion. And given the constant bickering we see with our legislation and the amount of idiocy democracy has sprouted like.. seriously, a front-page Vhong Navarro issue? *facepalm* I probably won't mind giving some freedom in exchange for discipline and order.

Trust me. China is corrupt as hell. Municipal officials can simply grab your land without just compensation because the state owns the land. Some of them grab entire businesses either and you can say the country is governed too by crony-ism. But when the Red Party's ass is on the line.. crony or not, you'll just magically disappear. Dictatoral powers.

As long as things get done, hell.. I'm happy. Sadly, that isn't happening in the Philippines -- can somebody please just raise those damned LRT prices. Hindi afford yun additional transportation costs? BS. How much San Migs do you think these people even consume on paydays but can't afford to pay additional "fare" costs.

O god... Kaya Ayaw ko ng hypotheticals eh.

Sabi ko nga, Wala ako pakialam sa corruption for this topic.

Eto na lang eh... Give factual numbers that the Philippines were in a better economic standing. Baka Sabihin mo na ang tanungan is "are we better off". Simple lang yan, compare his regime and after.

Dun na lang tayo sa factual, masyado lumalala imagination mo. Comparing first world countries gdp to ours? Haha come on.

[funkeemunkee]

Pero sangkatutak pa rin ang human rights abuses nung martial law.


Sent from my 3310 using Tsikot Forums🙈🙉🙊💀💩

[ClaNker]

Pero sangkatutak pa rin ang human rights abuses nung martial law.


Sent from my 3310 using Tsikot Forums����������

Hindi lang yan.

Debt driven economy, Over spending, Cronies, etc... Eventually the country went bankrupt. Yet we will still be better off had Marcos continued his term.

Corruption? Oh you just do it gradually, say 20 years or so.

Nose bleed everyone?

[funkeemunkee]

http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquirer...-serve-country


Sent from my 3310 using Tsikot Forums🙈🙉🙊💀💩

[funkeemunkee]

http://www.spot.ph/the-feed/47729/so...-marcos-regime


Sent from my 3310 using Tsikot Forums🙈🙉🙊💀💩

[jhnkvn]

As if human rights aren't violated post-martial law. Journalists are still being killed with impunity and, as per yesterday's news, Enzo Pastor was gunned down at Quezon City.

Debt driven economy? Cronies? Overspending? Sounds much like the Communist Red Party too me. Then again, where's China right now? #2 in world economic GDP and rubbing elbows with us on the Shoal.

Think the US is not a debt-driven economy? How much do you think the likes of Fortune 500 companies spend in legislative lobbying? Let's not go into overspending now..

And yes funkee, I've already back-read before posting my thoughts on the matter. I always do.

[[archie]]

As if human rights aren't violated post-martial law. Journalists are still being killed with impunity and, as per yesterday's news, Enzo Pastor was gunned down at Quezon City.

O god... Say it ain't so.

How many disappeared and never heard off again.Nobody bothered to investigate... How dare compare the dictatorship to now. Say something bad about the present president, do you get killed or arrested? Media has freedom now, how about during Marcos era?

Reminds me of North Korea rule.

[jhnkvn]

The question is more of "are we better off now?" even without the Marcos?

Is corruption still present? Yes it is. In fact, it's now damn harder to get rid of thanks to decentralization. From Marcos and his fellow cronies, the pie is now divided into everybody who can and would. Porsche-riding Customs clerk anybody? At the very least if the country is stagnating under a dictatorship, heads will roll and you simply hope it isn't your head rolling. Not Senators taking the time to give speeches blaming fingers at each other and proclaiming "why only me?".

I never said Marcos' regime was great economically. But were his successors any better? Corruption disguising as democracy simply encouraged governance inefficiency. Take our LRT/MRT fares for example. For years the government simply bickers around and point fingers at each other and bars any further progress. How about court cases that takes decades to wrap up?

What is the opportunity cost of an incredible electrical overhead due to power shortages? It dents the economy possibly more than you expect. Davao has been experiencing rotating blackouts that doesn't even follow the prescribed time at times. China's electricity per kwH is lower than our generation costs alone. How do you expect local businesses to compete internationally when the cost of producing a unit of good is higher than competing countries? That indecisiveness killed two industries at once -- agriculture and manufacturing.

North Korean rule? Nah. China is a better example about how the party clamps down (and pressures) political views that's anti-Red Party. But then again, where's China now?

Also, is our media truly free when a 7-digit bribe will keep something out of PDI's front page? How about censorship costs in videos of ABS-CBN or GMA News just to keep your face "anonymous" in case of.. let's say a Quezon Avenue "bar" raid? Don't want your name to be mentioned? May bayad din yan!

[[archie]]

The question is more of "are we better off now?" even without the Marcos?

Is corruption still present? Yes it is. In fact, it's now damn harder to get rid of thanks to decentralization. From Marcos and his fellow cronies, the pie is now divided into everybody who can and would. Porsche-riding Customs clerk anybody? At the very least if the country is stagnating under a dictatorship, heads will roll and you simply hope it isn't your head rolling. Not Senators taking the time to give speeches blaming fingers at each other and proclaiming "why only me?".

I never said Marcos' regime was great economically. But were his successors any better? Corruption disguising as democracy simply encouraged governance inefficiency. Take our LRT/MRT fares for example. For years the government simply bickers around and point fingers at each other and bars any further progress. How about court cases that takes decades to wrap up?

What is the opportunity cost of an incredible electrical overhead due to power shortages? It dents the economy possibly more than you expect. Davao has been experiencing rotating blackouts that doesn't even follow the prescribed time at times. China's electricity per kwH is lower than our generation costs alone. How do you expect local businesses to compete internationally when the cost of producing a unit of good is higher than competing countries? That indecisiveness killed two industries at once -- agriculture and manufacturing.

North Korean rule? Nah. China is a better example about how the party clamps down (and pressures) political views that's anti-Red Party. But then again, where's China now?

Also, is our media truly free when a 7-digit bribe will keep something out of PDI's front page? How about censorship costs in videos of ABS-CBN or GMA News just to keep your face "anonymous" in case of.. let's say a Quezon Avenue "bar" raid? Don't want your name to be mentioned? May bayad din yan!

To answer... Yes.

Corruption has never went away and I don't intent to get into that.

Any better? Come on man. Yes... Numbers show it. More than 500% peso depreciation during his time. Now less than 250% after his regime. 95% debt to gdp, now 50% etc.... Your were implicating that we are better of with Marcos but numbers don't lie.

All he has to show for are the infrastructures.

Electricity, I have to agree on that. It's brutal

media: it's bribe or corruption which ever way you put it. But it was never dictated by government after Marcos. Report something bad about Marcos, let's see if your still alive tomorrow.

edit: he was not great economically, instead he ruined the country economically.

[ClaNker]

As if human rights aren't violated post-martial law. Journalists are still being killed with impunity and, as per yesterday's news, Enzo Pastor was gunned down at Quezon City.

Debt driven economy? Cronies? Overspending? Sounds much like the Communist Red Party too me. Then again, where's China right now? #2 in world economic GDP and rubbing elbows with us on the Shoal.

Think the US is not a debt-driven economy? How much do you think the likes of Fortune 500 companies spend in legislative lobbying? Let's not go into overspending now..

And yes funkee, I've already back-read before posting my thoughts on the matter. I always do.

Compare that during martial law days.

We never became china during the much like communist red party days and will never will. Look at the facts and quit the "if" scenario, that's nothing but bs.

[jhnkvn]

Compare that during martial law days.

We never became china during the much like communist red party days and will never will. Look at the facts and quit the "if" scenario, that's nothing but bs.

Contrary to what you say, we were very much like the Communist Red Party during our martial law days. Do you think China's success was merely a fluke? Try talking to some old Chinese people then like those who migrated. They migrated because China wasn't even considered "well-developed" by then and we were the industrialized country in Asia. But ask them and you'll always elicit response that they never doubted China's rise as a global superpower. Vision is what fueled China's rise and vision doesn't come cheaply.

I did look at the facts. Is China not a debt-driven economy when it entered an expansionary monetary policy in 2010? Did state banks not overspend when Beijing tells them "lend."? Do you think China is not crony-capitalism given the Communist Party's grasp on business and politics?

Have you been to China? Have you done actual business in China? Or do you simply defend your Philippine views because you believe it's just the truth and only the truth in your eyes? Now who's not looking at the facts?