Skip to content

Gibo Teodoro’s Marshall Plan and his “Nanny State” Politics

February 7, 2010

A good leader is one who honestly believes in this famous motto of Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest Founding Fathers of the United States: “Government works best when it governs least.”

Will he double the size of the government?

Will he double the size of the government?

Lights, camera, action!

The most-awaited election engine has just started, and the entire Filipino nation is now eager to bid incumbent President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo goodbye.

Less than 100 days in the run up to the May 10 elections, our presidential candidates, along with their political allies, have been very busy courting the voters’ attention, promising next-to-impossible political, economic, and social platforms and agenda, and doing their best to gain the support of our country’s demagogues and “king-makers.”

One might say that it’s easy to fool voters in this country that is never founded on the right philosophy. Since the Filipino nation lacks intellectual leadership, it can be likened to a ghost ship floating aimlessly amidst turbulent waters. It’s no surprise that every presidential candidate has been busy spouting vague generalities, welfare statist proposals, sickening contradictions, and good-to-hear promises so to fool the people. Yes, all the presidential candidates are offering to up the country’s level of welfarism or nanny-statism. However, the most offensive part of this political farce is that sad, nauseating fact that the people are applauding these statist politicians and even goading them to push for more welfarist political promises. This is normal to a country that embraces a culture of mediocrity. What the people don’t know is that they are asking for their own enslavement and the destruction of this country.

Like the rest of the candidates, administration presidential bet Gilbert “Gibo” Teodoro promises to bring positive changes to the country with his “nanny state” politics and “Marshall Plan.”

Teodoro’s mediocre politics

In terms of economic platform, Mr. Teodoro simply spouts vague generalities and floating abstractions. He highlights the importance of “innovation” without concretizing the ways and methods by which to achieve this goal. The question that should be asked is: What particular economic system is consistent with “innovation?” He does not elaborate.

Although he speaks of both domestic and foreign direct investments, he is still mum on what concrete economic system he would apply in order to keep foreign investors had he been elected president of the country. The administration bet and his opponents only have three choices: a) free-market capitalism, b) mixed economy, or c) statism (fascism or socialism). According to 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, the Philippines has an economic freedom score of 56.3, making its economy the 109th freest in the 2010 Index. Our country ranks 20th out of 41 countries in the Asia–Pacific region, and its overall score is slightly below the world and regional averages.[1] The Philippines is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, a reputation that is not good to foreign investors.[2]

This is the condensed economic platform of Mr. Teodoro: “To avoid a state of progress plateau, the country needs more innovative ideas to fuel the industry and the economy. The country has exhausted the era of copying and remodeling trends; it is time for something new in order for the country to become more globally competitive. The country needs to generate more ideas. The talents and minds of our countrymen is our greatest resource.”[3]

Now let us break down this statement that is full of vague generalities and contradictions. He speaks of “more innovative ideas,” “new trends,” “global competitiveness,” “generation of more ideas,” the need for more talents and minds, among others. These are all abstractions, but I have not yet heard his concretized economic model/system to achieve these goals. What is clear is that the psyco-epistemology of his politics is that these floating abstractions can only be achieved through government controls, intervention, and regulations. Yes, like his political opponents, Mr. Teodoro seeks to double the size of the government under his proposed leadership program. He speaks of an ultra mixed economy with a higher degree of government intervention, controls and regulations.

Gibo’s nanny or mommy state proposal

What did he learn from Gloria?

What did he learn from Gloria?

Mr. Teodoro admits the fact that we need to lower our national debt. Perhaps he is aware that his number one endorser in Malacanang, President Arroyo, doubled the combined debt borrowed by her three predecessors, former presidents Joseph Estrada, Cory Aquino, and Ferdinand Marcos. From 2001 to 2008, the total borrowings of our Economics graduate president, who is a big fan of John Maynard Keynes, ballooned to 923.8 billion pesos, more than double the P358.03 billion incurred by the past 3 presidents.[4]

Teodoro says that it’s better to borrow money than tax the people. “Lahat naman ng bansa may utang, at minsan mas mabuti pang utangin ito depending on financial conditions other than buwisan mo lalo ang mga tao. So, financial management yan, treasury management and financial management.”

Is he saying that it’s okay to increase our national debt since all countries are indebted to foreign creditors? It seems that Teodoro learned a great deal from the President who doubled the country’s financial obligation. As a result, every Filipino, including those not yet conceived, owes something to our country’s domestic and foreign creditors.

When it comes to education, Teodoro implicitly speaks of his “nanny state” politics. He says that the government must “[e]xhaust all means to give everyone the proper college education–Aside from usual scholarships and state subsidies, creative solutions should also be implemented to give every Filipino the education that is rightfully his.”[5]

The question is, where will he get the money or wealth to provide “everyone the proper college education?” Taxes? Maybe not. Maybe he’d just borrow money to maintain his ratings.

Gibo as a welfare-statist politician

In fairness to Mr. Tedoro, he speaks of some “indirect” ways to finance his welfarist or nanny state politics, like proper internal revenue collection, proper “management” of pork barrel, fighting corruption, and regional autonomy.[6] Here’s one contradiction in Mr. Teodoro’s welfarism: He speaks of providing what the people and the students need, but he balks at ending the “perks” of our congressmen. In the first place, the only job of these lawmakers is to make laws. Again, where will he get the money? He does not specify.

His plan for the country is focused on infrastructure programs during his first 100 days in office. Mr. Teodoro states: “You have no choice but to continue with a lot of programs like the infrastructure programs that need to be continued and management day-to-day of the security situation. Number three, you have to plan your legislative agenda, the most important thing. Your first budget, your legislative agenda. That legislative agenda would include the constitutional convention law, the support for the new Philippine education road map because basic education must be reengineered.”

Gibo’s dangerous universal health care

But like most socialist politicians in this country, he’s in favor of implementing universal or single-payer health care system, a very dangerous scheme that is being practiced in Venezuela, Cuba, France, Canada, Great Britain, and all socialist/statist countries in the world. This, I think, is the most dangerous part of Mr. Teodoro’s “nanny state” politics.

In the United States, people in Massachusetts manifested their strong opposition to the Obamacare by electing a Republican candidate, Scott Brown, to replace a Senate post held by demise Senator Ted Kennedy for four decades.[7] The landslide victory of Brown evidences the fact that most Americans are opposed to the universal health care because they clearly understand that this statist proposal is against their individual rights.[8] Yes, America became the greatest nation on earth because they can truly comprehend the true essence of liberty and individual rights, which are not beset with contradictions and vague premises. The American ideal of liberty and individual rights is founded on the fundamental law of logic— the Law of Identity, which means A is A, and the Law of Causality.

“And I want to experiment also legislatively with universal participative health care, if it is feasible. Meaning to say, everybody participates. I mean, what’s for a rich person to contribute 100 or 200 pesos per month to a participative delivers on health care so there’s more for everybody, not merely in terms of buying medicine and providing care but for providing reimbursements for doctors and nurses, so there’s an incentive to stay and participate in the system and I want also a legislative proposal for student loan program rather than scholarships,” says Teodoro.[9] But this is the most dangerous experiment a president could ever make. Mr. Teodoro has to check his premise. Like all of his rivals, Mr. Teodoro’s politics is centered on “distribution,” not on “production.”

Gibo as a “bad leader”

A bad leader is one who is addicted to redistributive policies. Most bad leaders are motivated by altruism and good intention, but they are unaware that their welfare statist policies are dangerous to the liberty and rights of their people, as well as to the progress and future of their country. Venezuela and Cuba are a good example of this kind of statist politics. A good leader is one who knows that “production” precedes distribution. He is aware that if a government issued a flurry of welfare state programs to help the poor, then somebody had to produce wealth, otherwise the whole country would go bankrupt, prompting the politicians to either tax the successful and the people who produce or borrow money from foreign sources. A bad leader is concerned only with policies that produce short-term positive effects. A good leader focuses on policies that would yield long-tern positive outcome. It is clear that like all of his opponents, Mr. Teodoro believes in that classical idea that for a government to serve the people, it needs more power. A good leader is one who honestly believes in this famous motto of Thomas Jefferson, one of the greatest Founding Fathers of the United States: “Government works best when it governs least.”[10] But it seems that not a single presidentiable or politician believes in this ideal.

His sinister Marshall Plan

Mr. Teodoro’s peace and order platform is centered on his idea of “Marshall Plan.” “The Marshall Plan approach has proven very successful in eradicating violence in society ravaged by generations of fighting. If properly implemented in Maguindanao, people living in the region could do their part in helping the country achieve economic stability and greatness,” he says.[11]

The Marshall Plan is an experiment applied during the term of former United States President Franklin D. Roosevelt. The central objective of this plan is for the United States to lead the rebuilding and creation of a stronger economic foundation for countries in Western Europe, and repelling the threat of internal communism.[12] In the United States, Marshall Plan cut across political, economic, and social spectrum of the country that later on led to global welfarism worth nearly $100 billion in current dollars.[13]

However, Teodoro’s Marshall Plan is primarily a military strategy designed to “eradicate” violence in society.” The danger of this military strategy is that it’s not well defined. I am in favor of eradicating insurgency and the threat of Islamic terrorism in the country, but I believe that this politico-military action should be properly defined, and that the people should be adequately informed so that they be guided in their decisions or choices. For me, it is dangerous to vote for a political platform that is not fully defined and is full of vague generalities, contradictions and unspecified terms and aspirations.

Click here for more blog articles on the upcoming May 10, 2010 ELECTIONS!

Definition of Terms:

Free-market Capitalism: it is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights, including property rights, in which all property is privately owned. The recognition of individual rights entails the banishment of physical force from human relationships: basically, rights can be violated only by means of force. In a capitalist society, no man or group may initiate the use of physical force against others. The only function of the government, in such a society, is the task of protecting man’s rights, i.e., the task of protecting him from physical force; the government acts as the agent of man’s right of self-defense, and may use force only in retaliation and only against those who initiate its use; thus the government is the means of placing the retaliatory use of force under objective control.

Individual rights: A “right” is a moral principle defining and sanctioning a man’s freedom of action in a social context. There is only one fundamental right (all the others are its consequences or corollaries): a man’s right to his own life.

Law of Causality: The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature . . . . The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it.

Law of Identity: The law of identity does not permit you to have your cake and eat it, too. The law of causality does not permit you to eat your cake before you have it . . . . The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.

Nanny State: is a term that refers to state protectionism, economic interventionism, or regulatory policies (of economic, social or other nature), and the perception that these policies are becoming institutionalized as common practice. Opponents of such policies use the term in their advocacy against what they consider as uninvited and damaging state meddling. It has been referred to as a form of political correctness.

Statism: A statist system—whether of a communist, fascist, Nazi, socialist or “welfare” type—is based on the . . . government’s unlimited power, which means: on the rule of brute force. The differences among statist systems are only a matter of time and degree; the principle is the same. Under statism, the government is not a policeman, but a legalized criminal that holds the power to use physical force in any manner and for any purpose it pleases against legally disarmed, defenseless victims.

Welfare state or welfare statism: Morally and economically, the welfare state creates an ever accelerating downward pull. Morally, the chance to satisfy demands by force spreads the demands wider and wider, with less and less pretense at justification. Economically, the forced demands of one group create hardships for all others, thus producing an inextricable mixture of actual victims and plain parasites. Since need, not achievement, is held as the criterion of rewards, the government necessarily keeps sacrificing the more productive groups to the less productive, gradually chaining the top level of the economy, then the next level, then the next.


[1] 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Philippines.

[2] 2010 Index of Economic Freedom, http://www.heritage.org/Index/Country/Philippines.

[3] Gibo Teorodo Website, http://gibo.ph/issue.aspx.

[4] Balea, Judith (2009, July 28). Lower RP Debt: Truth or Spin. BS-CBN Website, http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/business/07/28/09/lower-rp-debt-truth-or-spin.

[5] Gibo Teodoro Website, http://gibo.ph/issue.aspx.

[6] Gibo Teodoro Website, http://gibo.ph/issue.aspx.

[7] US News Website, http://www.usnews.com/blogs/Jamie-Stiehm/2010/01/20/scott-browns-victory-dims-the-obama-glow.html

[8] ABC News, http://blogs.abcnews.com/george/2010/01/obama-massachusetts-anger.html

[9] Gibo Teodoro Website, http://gibo.ph/issue.aspx

[10] Presidentialexpert.com, http://www.presidentialexpert.com/leadership_thomas_jefferson.html

[11] Philippine Star Website, http://www.philstar.com/Article.aspx?articleId=537562&publicationSubCategoryId=67

[12] Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Plan

[13] Mises.Org, http://mises.org/freemarket_detail.aspx?control=120

34 Comments leave one →
  1. Gina permalink
    February 8, 2010 3:38

    re college education- student loans from the SSS which will be paid back by installment in x number of years once they have found employment.

    • February 8, 2010 3:38

      It reminds me of Gloria’s student loan plan just before the 2004 elections. Did anybody pay for his/her loan? Well, a friend of mine applied for a loan, got the money paid by the taxpayers, but never paid it back at all. Many students applied for loan, but they never paid it. Why do I know this, I was the editor in chief of my university that time and we followed up on this student loan. It appeared that most borrowers never paid at all.

      • msr permalink
        February 21, 2010 3:38

        did your friend got the job already?
        i believe, in the student loan program Gibo specified is, repayment starts when the student got a job and it would automatically deducted through his/her SSS. I don’t know if the same goes with GMA’s student loan program.

  2. February 10, 2010 3:38

    Besides the fact that Teodoro is for the doubling the size of government, his party is also a party of explicit theocracy.

  3. February 19, 2010 3:38

    Why is there no student activities denouncing the government in acquiring more loan , specially from UP? We know UP colleges are funded by the government. It is logical for UP student to keep quiet, or else they will loss government support in their education.

    • February 19, 2010 3:38

      Yeah. Well, the answer for this, Sir, is because the people like it. It is even the people who demand for more government spending and welfare state programs. Yes, the deafening silence of UP is understandable.

      • ACPatagnan permalink
        February 23, 2010 3:38

        And another thing is that what is mostly taught in UP are all socialist ideas.

      • February 23, 2010 3:38

        Precisely!

  4. February 20, 2010 3:38

    I wonder what is the basis of you article, are you an economist? How come Gibo was able to convince the Makati Business Club and Philippine Chamber of Commerce and not yours? And how come you don’t criticize other candidates economical plan? Im sure its because only Teodoro has concrete plan!

    following from http://allgiboteodoro.blogspot.com/2010/02/makati-business-club-admits-gibo-has.html

    ———–

    Business World, February 18, 2010:
    THE COUNTRY’S premier business group yesterday said administration bet and former Defense secretary Gilberto “Gibo” C. Teodoro, Jr. of the Lakas-Kabalikat ng Malayang Pilipino-Christian Muslim Democrats (Lakas-Kampi-CMD) has presented clearer goals and plans of action compared to other leading presidential candidates.

    Alberto A. Lim, Makati Business Club (MBC) executive director, said after the MBC general meeting that in contrast to Liberal Party (LP) bet Senator Benigno Simeon “Noynoy” C. Aquino III and Nacionalista Party (NP) standard-bearer Senator Manuel “Manny” B. Villar, Jr., who previously presented themselves to the group in separate occasions, Mr. Teodoro “pointed out specific programs, specific goals and specific time lines to achieve such goals. He’s very articulate… we think he’s very good.”
    Snippets from Gibo’s speech. My favorite part: when he talks about the need for political harmony. Amen to that. It’s time for us to grow up, Philippines. Stop the hate so our country can heal and progress!

    * * *
    Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) speaks:

    At the presidential forum of the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry (PCCI) on February 16, 2010, this was the feedback (reported by Philippine Star):
    PCCI vice chairman Donald Dee said “as usual Gibo (Teodoro) was most impressive.”

    Speaking to reporters after yesterday’s presidential debate, Dee said Teodoro’s platform and answers stood out against other aspirants who attended the forum.

    The PCCI panel, composed of representatives from various business organizations, was also reported to have been dazzled by Teodoro’s performance.

    The panel was composed of Miguel Varela, chairman emeritus of PCCI; Alfonso Uy, president of the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry; Sergio Ortiz-Luis Jr., president of the Philippine Exporters Confederation; Edgardo Lacson, president of the Employers Confederation of the Philippines; Jesus Pineda, chairman of Philippines Inc.; Eusebio Tan, president of the Management Association of the Philippines and Gregorio Navarro, president of the Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines.

    Ortiz-Luis criticized the stand of Aquino on fiscal prudence. “I have never agreed with fiscal prudence. We should spend in accordance with our growth targets. We have to expand our economy,” Ortiz-Luis said.

    * * *
    Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Inc. (FFCCCII) speaks:

    Gibo is also the choice of the Filipino-Chinese business community. See the report of Manila Bulletin, February 5, 2010.
    Lakas-Kampi-CMD presidential bet Gilberto “Gibo” Teodoro Jr. is best to be at the helm of the country in times of national crises, a key leader of the Filipino-Chinese business community said Friday.

    At the first council meeting of the Federation of Filipino-Chinese Chambers of Commerce and Industry Inc. (FFCCCII), Alfonso Uy, FFCCCII national president, said Teodoro’s extraordinary crisis leadership typifies the spirit of Filipino-Chinese volunteerism that is geared at mitigating the effect of disasters on peoples’ lives without media fanfare and mileage.

    “That is extraordinary leadership, when you do something good without expecting public adulation in return,” he said.

    Teodoro was welcomed warmly by an enthusiastic gathering of the influential FFCCCII, which has 170 member-organizations nationwide.

    Uy said that Teodoro, the assembly’s guest speaker, has been an active partner of the FFCCCII in the chambers’ activities in the latter’s capacity as chairman of the National Disaster Coordinating Council (NDCC) until November of last year.

    “During relief operations for typhoons Frank and Ondoy, we saw how effective, methodical and hardworking a crisis manger Secretary Teodoro is,” Uy told the meeting to resounding applause by participants.

  5. February 20, 2010 3:38

    @ Editha.
    You said:
    “I wonder what is the basis of you article, are you an economist? How come Gibo was able to convince the Makati Business Club and Philippine Chamber of Commerce and not yours? And how come you don’t criticize other candidates economical plan? Im sure its because only Teodoro has concrete plan!”

    I’m not an economist and I don’t think I have to be one to understand the politics of a presidential candidate. You’re simply speaking on a relativist point of view that only the experts can know. If that’s the case, then this nation would have improved and developed if we truly have good economists and experts who don’t subscribe to Keynesian economics, monetarism and such other drivel ideas or programs. Convincing the MBC doesn’t mean one is right on various issues. Read my blog again so that you won’t just resort to context-dropping. Here, you’re simply attacking a straw man.

    By the way, I do believe that an economist who subscribes to Keynesian economics is nothing but an intellectual prattle.

    • miriam quiamco permalink
      February 23, 2010 3:38

      You are not an economist and you say that subscribers to Keynesian Economics are nothing but engaging in intellectual prattle, how so misinformed you are. Japan’ s economic success is due to its faith in Keynesian economics and it escaped the great depression in the 30s unscathed due to Keynesian Economics. There is a time in a country’s history when Keynesian Economics serves a purpose and a time to unsubscribe to this economic theory. I suggest you do more research on Keynesian Economics, and by the way, the countries you pointed out to be failures and are experimenting with Keynesian Economics are also leaning towards socialism, and we are not that way, Keynesian Economics in our case is meant to grow our economy at a sustained rate and we are not taking over private businesses unlike Venezuela, Cuba, etc. Read some more . . .

      • ACPatagnan permalink
        February 23, 2010 3:38

        Japanese economy is stagnant and does not grow, still in recession. Our country is under the idea of socialism. Under socialism, it is not necessarily mean the government taking over private business, but control and intervention, in a form of lots of regulations. Keynes idea is an accepted idea in USA and you can observed the clear results: recession.

      • miriam quiamco permalink
        February 23, 2010 3:38

        The Japanese economy, the second biggest economy in the world for the longest time (China just surpassed it)has made it to where it is now due to Keynesian Economics, this is irrefutable. Any country could fall into recession despite any economic model it follows. The U.S. despite being a corporate welfare state has operated on deregulated financial markets and the corporate corruption that ensued caused its recession. Remember Reaganomics, it advocates deregulation and privatization of everything, and look where it led the U.S. Meanwhile, “the new deal”, during the great depression helped the American economy recover!!!

      • Joseph permalink
        March 19, 2010 3:38

        I do agree with Miriam Quiamco

        One of the best Keynesian’s of our age Ravi Batra is one of my favorites he describes the adherence to this Ayn-Rand – Greenspan economics is the sole factor of the demise of all of today’s economic woes and here you are mr. froivnber teaching us what is right, though history itself had confirmed it wrong.

        You said it yourself froivnber that you are not an economist but a researcher expounding on Ayn-Rand – Greenspan teachings

        I think it’s time for you to have a reality check and read some more

        I suggest

        The Great Depression of 1990 by Ravi Batra

        Greenspan’s Fraud also with the same author

        Ayn-rand as I tell you is now a passe and his economic ideas bore fruit in this depression

        Greenspan is a fascist economic dictator in by following Rand has become the biggest fiasco of our time

    • Joseph permalink
      March 9, 2010 3:38

      So you said it friend neither you are an economist but a theorist and observer try just one sarisari store kid and you will see if your theory is correct by either micro or macro enterprise. Your article is good reading but you are living in planet mars. In chess there is a saying “Plan even if that plan is the wrong plan rather not plan at all” Remember that saying friend coz Gibo has a plan we don’t know if that is the right plan but it is a certainly a plan the others just dont have one or just whipping the whirlwind.

      Also friend If you write don’t try to be an economist ask them why??? It’s is the only thing in this world that will put you in planet earth

  6. maynardjameskeenan permalink
    February 20, 2010 3:38

    I guess you have a point there. I believe the government should get enough of borrowing and they should focus more on the production of funds rather than distributing them. Producing funds means not borrowing more money, but on investing to the people who can empower themselves to become productive to the economy. Gibo’s platforms are indeed quite general, but the principles behind them are quite convincing. I believe that if Gibo will be less abstract about them and, as you said, concretize all the proposed actions, then people will appreciate it.

    • ACPatagnan permalink
      February 23, 2010 3:38

      The ONLY way to empower the people or every individual citizens by the government is the PROTECTION (preservation) OF EACH individual rights, liberty and pursuits of his own happiness. And rights here means right to its own life by his own effort and not the effort of any government. That is the only service the government should provide to its citizens in the following: the army, for protection against foreign invasion, the police–against the criminals, and the courts of law for any disagreements. The government should not be involved in any economic activities of its citizens: control and interventions. By doing so it will distort the nature of market or economic activities of the people and corruption will remain in the system. The government is the greatest potential violator of individual rights.

  7. Jan Fernandez permalink
    February 20, 2010 3:38

    @Blogger: Do you really expect that a candidate can specify all the platforms fo r all the different sectors up to each minute detail? As for your article, it smells of “Americanism”, foreign policies designed for foreign countries won’t be as effective if applied in a different time, a different place with different people in a different situation. Another flaw in your article is that you kept ignoring the fact that 80% of the Philippines’ wealth is owned by 20% of the population, do you really think that a laissez-faire economy would be fair to those uneducated people with no capital to begin with? Capitalism,sir, is an economy where in people with the most capital are on the top, in the case of OUR country, a majority of the population only have enough capital to live upon. I know that you as an objectivist shouldn’t recognize emotions as a means of cognition, but if you consider all the factors of living in the REAL world you can see objectively that nobody thinks objectively, not even you. If you are really “objective” why did you choose to post an article bashing only one party?

    From your posts, it is clear that you are an “objectivist” (Please do correct me if you aren’t one). Honestly, I don’t know much about Objectivism or Ayn Rand but from what I’ve read, this philosophy is nothing but a glorification of selfishness. While it is true that sometimes we must put ourself before others, it doesn’t mean that you should just ignore other people. You said it yourself, “By the way, I do believe that an economist who subscribes to Keynesian economics is nothing but an intellectual prattle.”, to which I respond that you are merely a Filipino man subscribing to Objectivist theories by some Russian-American woman that you, judging by your posts, seemingly worship. I know that I am seemingly violating your individual rights by interfering with what you believe in, but I am simply exercising my individual right of freeedom of speech. My question to you is why are you even bothering to post in your blog? Is it in your self interest to blog about these things? What good does this blog do to you, you’re not your brother’s keeper why bother to share this knowledge? Well I think you do actually care for others’ interests, which is ,for me, a good thing.

    Read this if you have the time, it shows the drawbacks of american policies for the Philippines:http://www.jstor.org/stable/20070329?seq=1&Search=yes&term=law&term=martial&term=philippine&list=hide&searchUri=%2Faction%2FdoBasicSearch%3FQuery%3Dphilippine%2Bmartial%2Blaw%26gw%3Djtx%26prq%3DPhilippines%2BMarcos%26Search%3DSearch%26hp%3D25%26wc%3Don&item=5&ttl=1420&returnArticleService=showArticle&resultsServiceName=doBasicResultsFromArticle

    I got these passages from wikipedia, it might save your life:

    Psychologist Albert Ellis has argued that adherence to Objectivism can result in hazardous psychological effects.

    After his expulsion from Rand’s circle, Nathaniel Branden accused Rand and her followers of “destructive moralism,” something he reports having engaged in himself when he was associated with Rand, but which he now claims “subtly encourages repression, self-alienation, and guilt.”

    Commentators have noted that the Objectivist epistemology is incomplete.

    According to Robert L. Campbell, the notion of proof for propositions remains sketchy.

    • February 20, 2010 3:38

      To Jan Fernandez:

      Before you drivel on about political system, economics and capitalism, better know the real concept of capitalism.

      I have written several topics of that kind here. If you care to read, that’s good. If not, that’s just fine, but I think reading my opinion on a particular matter would guide you as to how you’re going to rebut my premise.

      And please do not assume I don’t know what I’m talking about here. Your self-indulgent twaddle about Objectivism, as if I have no knowledge or whatsoever at all about the information that you gave, is nothing but a good example of context-dropping, and that you’re simply taking on a straw man. What you read, if you read it at all, is just a the tip of an iceberg, a speck of the real context of what The Vincenton Post is all about. Do not assume, research. Do not context-drop, read more.

      On CAPITALISM:
      Capitalism and Imperialism are contradiction in terms
      Does Capitalism Produce Slavery, Monopoly, and Unearned Wealth?
      What Makes a Nation Great?
      The High Cost of Ignoring FREEDOM!
      The Moral Base of the Filipino Nation and Philippine’s Intellectual Bankruptcy
      Why the Communists are Advancing to Take Away Our Freedom?
      And more BLOGS on CAPITALISM.

      On OBJECTIVISM:
      Ayn Rand: The Greatest Philosopher On Earth
      Atlas Shrugged— The Answer to ‘Economic Ignorance’
      Atlas Shrugged: Don’t Support Your Own Destroyers!
      On Intellectual Dishonesty, Relativism, and Subjectivism

      • Free Pharte permalink
        February 26, 2010 3:38

        Can you please give us a source other than your platitudes? Surely there are sources from which you drew these. I don’t think you conjured these all in your head, did you? Or were you writing under the divine guidance of the Goddess Ayn?

  8. Jan Fernandez permalink
    February 20, 2010 3:38

    @Blogger: I already finished reading some of the blogs you listed, and I find it disturbing that you simply borrow your most of your arguments and information from Ayn Rand, which is also disturbingly true to her concept of context, that ideas are indeed generated from existing ideas. I do not wish to “context-drop” again ,but I think it is safe to assume that all of your blogs are relatively one-sided in favor of capitalism and objectivism ,which I think is perfectly fine since the vincenton post is obviously a blog dedicated to the introduction of Rand objectivism to the Philippines . I find the concept of context interesting and almost true ,but is somewhat lacking in the sense that contexts are subjective since it depends on how a person perceives what the context is, it is possible that you and I have different contexts/realities hence understand ideas and theories differently. That is why there are opinions ,and as to your article I agree with you that the Philippines is indeed a welfare state ,and that need, not achievement is the basis for reward. This in fact tends to make people lazy,but a major flaw in your argument is that you ignored the context that particularly in the Philippines, not all people have the intellectual and financial capital that is needed for them to produce for themselves. I also agree that production is needed for distribution, but how can you produce if all of your citizens are dead? To this I must quote Keynes if you don’t mind, “The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead.”

    Oh, and with regards to the candidates and their “vague platforms”, in my opinion Gibo or Gordon have the clearest platforms of all present candidates, and I sincerely believe that blind altruism cannot help our country ,but altruism together with the seemingly ‘objectivist’ concepts of individual principle, rational thinking ,and contextual knowledge might just do the trick (in short Gibo, haha biased). Nothing is ideal in this world, we should make the best of what we have for now.

    • February 20, 2010 3:38

      Please specify the things I “borrowed” and present your disagreement with them. That’s too generalized. I would be glad if you can rebut the premise I presented on each blog I posted above in a clear, non-relativist, an honest manner.

      But clearly you are simply ignorant of the true concept of capitalism and individual rights. You’re one of the reasons why this country is embracing collectivism. You’re simply a product of the country’s “collective mindset” that is bringing this country to disaster. It’s hard to deal with a relativist mystic who rejects the value of ideas. The only way to argue with an irrational is to say, “I don’t agree with you.”

  9. John permalink
    February 21, 2010 3:38

    @Jan Fernandez – You SHOULD know what you’re saying. Because what you’re saying sounded like a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalizations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentified wishes, doubts and fears thrown together by chance.

  10. ACPatagnan permalink
    February 23, 2010 3:38

    The candidate “Gibo” Teodoro did not say anything about government deficit spending; Government spending is not even talk about by any candidate. The reason is that nobody knows how to, even our present president; and also the accepted idea by the majority about the nature or proper function of the government. To sum up: our candidates are promising to every voters to provide all the necessities in life: free education, free land, free meals etc. They know that majority of our people are poor materially and spiritually. Majority of the voters ( rich or poor) will vote a candidate who can provide those things. Now to an objetivist, changing the majority idea is a very great task worth doing for a life time–seems an impossible mission. But it is not an altruistic act. It is a very selfish act because I do not want to live with the dominant idea of our society.

    • February 23, 2010 3:38

      Gibo is not promising free everything. He wants to grow the economy at a sustained level and lessen inequities by proper public investments in education, health, defense, environment etc. WE tried a different model and it hasn’t worked for us. The government has not invested enough in health and education, so we have high poverty and hunger rates which mock the sustained economic growth this administration has accomplished. Economic growth with social justice is wha we need, just like Thailand, a country that has ample investments in defense, education, health care and liberal loan arrangements for the poor, its poverty rate is 10% and it has grown its economy at a sustained and great speed.

      • February 23, 2010 3:38

        @ miriam quiamco.

        “He wants to grow the economy at a sustained level and lessen inequities by proper public investments in education, health, defense, environment etc.”

        The problem is he did not identify the proper economic system to achieve what he called “innovation,” etc. What is clear is that the psyco-epistemology of his politics is that these floating abstractions can only be achieved through government controls, intervention, and regulations. Yes, like his political opponents, Mr. Teodoro seeks to double the size of the government under his proposed leadership program. He speaks of an ultra mixed economy with a higher degree of government intervention, controls and regulations.

        You said: “WE tried a different model and it hasn’t worked for us.”

        What models? Ours is a mixed economy bordering on dictatorship or fascism. What models are you talking about? Ours is a system of excessive government controls and regulations? What models are you trying to imply? Economic system or political model?

        You said: “The government has not invested enough in health and education, so we have high poverty and hunger rates which mock the sustained economic growth this administration has accomplished.”

        The problem is that the government should not be investing in education, but let private schools flourish. Ask yourself what improved our education system. It is the private schools and universities that served as impetus for the development of the country’s education. There is no tinge of doubt that private education is better than government rationed education. Now you might say most people can’t afford tuition fees. If the government did not issue excessive regulations and controls, there would have been free and open competition among private schools, a situation that would lower the cost of school fees. Profits give private education the incentive to develop and improve their means of instruction, facilities, methods, research, etc.
        The government cannot solve poverty through controls, statist or welfarist laws and regulations.

        You said: “Economic growth with social justice is wha we need, just like Thailand, a country that has ample investments in defense, education, health care and liberal loan arrangements for the poor, its poverty rate is 10% and it has grown its economy at a sustained and great speed.”

        What we need is government’s respect for individual rights and economic freedom. The only way to solve poverty and hunger is to FREE THE MARKET and let the capitalists and job creators mind their own business. Government is not the solution to poverty and hunger.
        I expect this country to decontrol and let the creators of wealth and jobs do their business. I also expect this government and the politicians to thank the creators of wealth and jobs and not disparage them! If the government decontrols and respects free market principles, we wouldn’t only attract foreign capitalists who produce call center jobs, but capitalists who also specialize in other industries. This is the only way for this government to create jobs other than call center jobs. Consider the case of Intel that shut down its business due to government regulations and unfriendly corporate tax rate in this country.
        How will the government make opportunities for both high-paying jobs (such as CCs) and for advanced learning degree programs available? By spending too much staxpayers’ money? Or by coercing/pressuring private businesses/companies thru the use of laws and edicts to increase the salary of private workers beyond their capacity and means? If this is what you’re trying to imply then I ask you to know the reason why multinational companies like INTEL left the country…

    • February 23, 2010 3:38

      @ ACPatagnan

      “The candidate “Gibo” Teodoro did not say anything about government deficit spending…”

      If they talked about government spending literally, that won’t be good to the voters. If a candidate like Gibo about government programs, free education, universal health care, what is the only logical, literal consequence of these programs? Is it not government spending?

      “To sum up: our candidates are promising to every voters to provide all the necessities in life: free education, free land, free meals etc.”

      Yes, and their pro-poor slogans are like magical spell to the ears of most Filipino voters who’d like to hear pro-poor programs, welfare state platforms, etc.

  11. February 23, 2010 3:38

    @ miriam quiamco.

    You said: The Japanese economy, the second biggest economy in the world for the longest time (China just surpassed it)has made it to where it is now due to Keynesian Economics, this is irrefutable.”

    Where did you get this pathetic information? Better study economics.

    You said: “Any country could fall into recession despite any economic model it follows. The U.S. despite being a corporate welfare state has operated on deregulated financial markets and the corporate corruption that ensued caused its recession. Remember Reaganomics, it advocates deregulation and privatization of everything, and look where it led the U.S. Meanwhile, “the new deal”, during the great depression helped the American economy recover!!!”

    I have answered that a long time ago… Statism: A Love Story
    The High Cost of Ignoring FREEDOM!
    RULE OF LAW: The True Wealth of Nations
    And read also this: Note of the History on American Free Enterprise

    • Miriam Quiamco permalink
      May 19, 2010 3:38

      Oh, you better read up more about Japanese Economics, I am simply a professor of Japanese Politics and have lectured about Japanese public policies that have worked for this country. And where have you been getting your amateurish knowledge of political economy, from Ayn Rand? Ah, that is why you are not taken seriously here, truly sophomoric, only college kids are enthralled with Ayn Rand’s half baked philosophy.

  12. March 16, 2010 3:38

    Can you believe this story?

    I had to share this with everyone.

    (NewsCore)

    A WOMAN’S breast implants have saved her life after she was caught in the line of fire and shot at point-blank range with a semi-automatic assault rifle.

    The Sun reports Lydia Carranza’s silicone implants took the force of the blow and prevented bullet fragments from reaching her vital organs.

    The dental receptionist was at work in Beverly Hills, Calif., when a gunman burst in and opened fire.

    He first shot dead his wife before turning the gun on Carranza, who was sitting a few feet away.

    Surgeon Dr. Ashkan Ghavami said: “She’s just one lucky woman.

    “The bullet fragments were millimeters from her heart and her vital organs. Had she not had the implant, she might not be alive today.”

    Carranza’s implants took her from a B to a D-cup.

    Alleged gunman Jaime Paredes was charged with murder.

    • Blue Marlin permalink
      March 19, 2010 3:38

      Years ago, I once saw in TV (Ripleys, if I remember) a woman whose implants saved her when she was stabbed by a swordfish. A fucking SWORDFISH. The implants did a good job in cushioning the blow.

      Maybe I should get a boobjob too. It might come in handy one of these days.

  13. House of David permalink
    March 19, 2010 3:38

    Brilliant discussion!
    Such transparency of sources and clear use of journalistic principles of credible and evidence based arguments!

Trackbacks

  1. Edu Manzano’s Anti-Capitalist, Statist Rants Versus Call Center Industry « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Why They Missed It? « THE VINCENTON POST

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: