Skip to content

The Ugly Politics, Ideology Behind ‘Noynoying’

March 23, 2012
    "Noynoying" simply exposes the Filipino Left's intellectual bankruptcy.

"Noynoying" simply exposes the Filipino New Left's intellectual bankruptcy.

‘Noynoying’ is simply the same as that barefaced gambit being used by faux beggars to shame someone into giving alms. The only difference is that the President is being shamed- or bullied- into giving away other people’s money. When someone tries to shame you into giving him your hard-earned money, that person does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money. He does not pretend to be anything but a faux beggar, a parasite, or in tagalog word: a palamunin. But those who try to shame the President into giving away people’s money or into sacrificing or regulating certain industries in order to serve what they call ‘the greater good’, flagrantly do it on moral grounds. 

The Filipino Left—those who call on the government to unleash price controls and regulations in order to serve the common good by curbing predatory oil price increases—has recently invented a new political ‘meme’ to smear and to put the President in a bad light.

During their March 15 protests against oil price hikes, pro-regulation and price control militants created the Orwellian newspeak ‘Noynoying’ designed to paint President Noynoy Aquino as a do-nothing or ‘petiks’ commander-in-chief.

As expected, this public display of ignorance and hipster activities was initiated by young militants from the University of the Philippines, the biggest recipient of public alms or abuloy (relief or aid) among state-subsidized universities and colleges. This new meme was designed by the country’s leftist and statist propagandists to shame the president into bowing to their progressive demands, namely, price controls, education and welfare subsidy, and more pro-poor programs.

‘Noynoying’ is simply the same as that barefaced gambit being used by faux beggars to shame someone into giving alms. The only difference is that the President is being shamed- or bullied- into giving away other people’s money. When someone tries to shame you into giving him your hard-earned money, that person does not pretend that he has any rightful claim to your money. He does not pretend to be anything but a faux beggar, a parasite, or in tagalog word: a palamunin. But those who try to shame the President into giving away people’s money or into sacrificing or regulating certain industries in order to serve what they call ‘the greater good’, flagrantly do it on moral grounds. They shamelessly believe their action or advocacy is for the good of everybody. But is it? I don’t think so.

A leftist leader of a militant youth group criticized the president for doing nothing to cushion the impact of or prevent the spike in crude prices and tuition rates.

Anakbayan national chairman Vencer Crisostomo told the Inquirer that the president has  “not lifted a finger but he should be doing something.” “That is Noynoying, when you do nothing when in fact you have something to do,” this potential communist propagandist said.

Apparently, this budding communist thug wants the RP’s CEO to go full-socialist. This shows that the college mentors of these young communist militants actually embody this ‘Noynoying’ attitude’ for failing to teach their radicalized students the proper value of reason and critical thinking skills. Indeed, this ‘Noynoying’ propaganda is one good evidence that the Frankfurt School’s Critical Theory is being effectively practiced at UP and other state universities.

This Inquirer report shows this new political meme was created by young militants from UP, whose ‘communist’ education is being subsidized by taxpayers’ money. Yes, the country’s taxpayers, particularly private companies and establishments, are funding their own destroyers.

“On the UP campus Thursday afternoon, some youth protesters tried their best in outdoing each other’s Noynoying look.

“A female student in khaki shorts was on her back with shades on, as if without a care in the world, while another, in a dress, stared blankly out of a makeshift picture frame.

“The frame had the words: “Noynoying, walang ginawa!” painted in bright red.

“Mind you, the new buzzword is pronounced “Noynoy-ying” and not “Noy-noying,” Crisostomo said when asked for clarification.

“The UP contingent, numbering around 50 or so, marched on Philcoa where they held a noise barrage in support of the transport caravan led by the transport group Pinagkaisang Samahan ng Tsuper at Opereytors Nationwide (Piston) to dramatize their opposition to unabated oil price hikes and Malacañang’s perceived lack of action on the matter.”

But what is ‘Noynoying’, and what do its creators actually want?

It seems that state U's college mentors have been 'Noynoying' at work. They've produced a new breed of neo-Marxists. Photo credit: Inquirer.net

It seems that state U's college mentors have been 'Noynoying' at work. They've produced a new breed of neo-Marxists. Photo credit: Inquirer.net

Like the KONY 2012 that quickly backfired and was exposed as nothing but a phony liberal/pro-Obama propaganda, Noynoying went viral over the past few days, getting the attention of foreign media.

Wikipedia provides a ‘somehow’ objective definition of this new term: It “is a protest gimmick in the form of neologism which critics of Philippine President Benigno Aquino III have used to call attention to what they claim is the “do-nothing” work ethic and inaction of Aquino over emergency response and rising oil prices. The term is in reference to Aquino’s nickname, Noynoy.”

The Wall Street Journal defined this neologism as something that “involves sitting around staring into space, much like Mr. Aquino supposedly does instead of running the country, at least according to some of his critics.”

The Journal further states:

“Noynoying plays on the widespread perception that Mr. Aquino – who is widely known by the nickname Noynoy – might not be the most hands-on president to have led the Philippines. Since being elected in a landslide in 2010, Mr. Aquino has sometimes been caught laughing it up with celebrities instead of attending to the impact of typhoons and other disasters. It also taps into old Philippine folk tales about Juan Tamad, or Lazy Juan, who manages to get by doing the least amount of work to get by.”

Basically, this new term is politically motivated. The main intention of its creators—the country’s leftists and welfare-statists—is to portray the president as a ‘Lazy Juan Tamad’ who does nothing to serve the alleged interests of his constituents in time of crisis. The timing is there. The leftist militants used their anti-oil price hikes protests to paint Noynoy as a do-nothing commander-in-chief.

But first, let me clarify that I am a rabid critic of the President. I reject much of his political aspirations and programs such as the proposed antitrust law, the conditional transfer program, his support of the Reproductive Health bill, and new proposed regulatory policies and welfare programs. However, I cannot support this mediocre, anti-intellectual ‘Noynoying’ campaign of and by the country’s leftists and welfare-statists.

Let us not drop the context of this Orwellian effort by the leftists to paint the president as anti-welfare. Noynoy is, without a doubt, a Welfare President. He is pro-welfare, as evidenced by his many welfare and regulatory programs. However, the leftists seek to fit him into their Marxist mold. They’re so disappointed that Noynoy is not leftist or pro-welfare enough to issue price controls and to provide more subsidies. They’re so disappointed that their ‘man’ is not as radical Marxist as his father Ninoy.

The President’s response to his leftist critics?

“How can one show something to a person who does not want to see, or make him listen when he does not want to listen?” said the President. “But for me, I have all the statistics,” he added.

“I’ve been in office for 21 months and the record was broken 21 times,” Mr. Aquino said, referring to the stock exchange index.

The President said he could not do anything if some militant groups would not appreciate the efforts being carried out by his administration. “I will just try to do what is right and what I think would give results,” he added.

“When we started out, given the enormity of the problems, we thought two years minimum before you start sensing things are changing. But I think it’s [already] happening,” the President said.

It seems that the President himself does not understand- or refuses to understand- the context of this “Noynoying” propaganda by his leftist critics. Understanding the context of a political meme, propaganda, or any political attack is the only key to knowing the intention, demands, or aspirations of its actors/creators. Yet it seems that most political pundits and media commentators in this country do not actually understand the political context of this newly coined smear term.

Let me help them understand the ideology or philosophy and the political context behind ‘Noynoying’.

  • It is a politically motivated neologism designed to shame the President into bowing to its creators’ political agenda.
  • Its purpose is to make the President issue price controls (to control the price of oil and other goods) and provide more welfare to the people.
  • The end-result of this propaganda is anti-reason, anti-economic freedom, and anti-capitalism. The President cannot simply control the prices of oil and other goods because that would lead to disastrous economic consequences.
  • It is motivated by the ideology of Marxism. Since the Philippines is not fully socialist state, the intention of the term’s creators is simply to regulate the means of production through price controls and other regulatory policies, and to issue more welfare programs.
  • The term’s creators basically want a higher level of welfare statism in the Philippines through a slow process of collectivization. This slow process of welfare state can be done by introducing more regulations and welfare programs.

Like I said, the timing is there. The Filipino people, the leftists claim, is now being punished or enslaved by corporate greed. They then point to oil price hikes that severely affect the country’s economy.

Take for example this propagandist charge by militant organizations and transport groups that oil companies imposed a P9.00 per liter overpricing last year. The Department of Energy last year requested Piston Secretary General George San Mateo “for the basis of the P9.00 calculation.” The energy department has not yet received any response so far.  Instead the transport group, along with other leftist/militant groups continued to spread this lie or propaganda to fool the masses.

“It appears that [the transport group’s] claim is undue profit margin of oil companies,” said Energy Undersecretary Jay Layug, qualifying though that Republic Act 8479 or the Downstream Oil Industry Deregulation Act “does not prescribe limits for margin of oil companies.”

“In 2011, the oil companies have raised their prices consistent with the ERB formula except for instances when they added cost of biofuels,” Layug said.

It appears that the culmination of this sustained, highly exaggerated Marxist propaganda was the March 15 protest wherein the leftists’ young counterparts shamelessly demonstrated their ‘Noynoying’ pose at the University of the Philippines and other protest venues.

Now if the leftists want lower oil prices, they should call for the repeal of the 2006 Biofuels Act that helps increase the price of oil products in the country.

Yet one of the major demands of the leftists is the repeal or abolition of the Oil Deregulation Law, which allows oil companies to increase the prices of their petroleum products.

I say, the country’s Marxists missed the point. Massive regulation of the oil industry is not the answer to oil price hikes. Many countries today, including the United States, confront the same ‘oil’ problem. The government cannot order or compel oil companies to sell at a loss when domestic oil prices are being dictated by external factors.

Like I said in a previous post:

“If you want lower oil prices, then the solution is very simple: support economic freedom in the Philippines, not the legalized strangulation of business. Yes, you should advocate for the opening up of our protectionist, highly regulated economy to foreign investors to allow and attract more investors through constitutional reform. The so-called oil cartels and other cartels you all seek to abolish were all established and supported by the current political system- by the government – and by the Constitution. Thus, if you want a progressive, economically stable Philippines, you should support economic freedom, deregulation, removal of protectionism, lower taxes, and objective rule of law. Why not check your flawed premises? Try to look at it this way: it’s the government that must be- and ought to be- regulated and controlled, not industries or the private sector. Freedom from government intervention is what this country badly needs!”

By carefully connecting the dots, one can objectively understand the real story and ideological motivation behind this ‘Noynoying’ propaganda. Any rational, pro-reason, pro-capitalist individual must not join— but instead expose the ideology behind— the anti-Noynoying mob. Not all anti-government propaganda is pro-freedom. In this country, most anti-government movements are motivated by Leftism or Marxism. The clueless people behind these leftist movements simply want to replace our mixed economy bordering on socialism with an absolute socialist, welfare state.

In regard to certain economic problems like oil price hikes and education subsidies, yes, the President should do nothing. Instead, he should support the abolition of the 1987 Constitution and call for a national transition toward a free market economy by opening our country to foreign investors, downsizing the government, guaranteeing economic freedom, abolishing welfare programs and government-owned and controlled entities, cutting taxes, and focusing on the real concept of individual rights.

Advertisements
7 Comments leave one →
  1. March 24, 2012 3:38

    no one listens to your crap…

    • March 24, 2012 3:38

      What do you care? I expect that people who simply rely on the government to provide freebies and use state force and coercion against certain sectors would hate this particular blog.

  2. March 25, 2012 3:38

    Why are you so pro-capitalism and free markets? Aren’t you tired of its failures? I for one am not an advocate of socialism but you have to admit that capitalism has its ills. Capitalism and free markets do not while producing improvements in the lives of some, creates eliminable miseries on some. It creates so much inequalities in our society.

    Even the governments who are employing capitalism fail. Look at some states in Europe and even US. Many governments now employ elements of both capitalism and socialism. Look at China, who is now set to be the world’s number 1 economy is applying the mixed economy mode. Applying pure capitalism is already backward, FYI.

    Lastly, why are you so angry at Marxists and activists? What did they do to you?

    • March 25, 2012 3:38

      I’ve written hundreds of articles to explain why I’m a rabid, unapologetic, unabashed pro-capitalism. All those alleged failures being attributed to capitalism, if you understand how economics properly works, are all fallacies. It is the capitalism’s concepts of property rights, IP rights and individual rights that made all the wonders and technologies that benefit mankind today possible. The computer or laptop and the Internet that made it possible for you to comment on this site were made possible by these attributes of the free market system.

      True, capitalism creates inequalities, because men are not equally endowed with intellectual/mental abilities, talents, skills, or even good physical appearance. In a TRULY CAPITALIST society, if you’re hardworking, talented and skilled, you’d certainly be rewarded by the system. But REAL capitalism, NOT corporatism, provides equal for members of any society. Oh yes! Most people in socialistic or collectivist societies are equal in terms of economic and political status. They are equally poor or impoverished, equally oppressed by their elite political rulers, and equally rightless.

      FYI, all governments today are MIXED ECONOMIES. If you understand your economics and politics, America and other countries you have in mind are NOT free market economies. They are all MIXED ECONOMIES, or a mixture of freedom and government controls. Your misunderstanding of Capitalism is the reason why you oppose it and why you approve of, or sympathize with, socialism.

      • March 25, 2012 3:38

        I’m not discrediting capitalism and I recognize the benefits it has caused society. My point is, maybe you can consider that capitalism is not the end all and be all of everything. Just applying capitalism would not solve the problems of society like poverty. How can you expect the market to address the needs of the poor? At some point you would have to have some intervention from the government. Yes, people are not equally endowed with skills and talents, but there are those who are talented but are constrained by this system. For example, the concept of generational poverty. A child from a poor family will not be able to study because obviously they don’t have the means to do so. Maybe that child can reach high school, but may opt to not go to college due to financial constraints. That ‘uneducated’ child will obviously have less opportunities for social mobility because of lack of education. Then that person may remain poor and his/her child will be in the exact same position because they are poor. You, by being a staunch opponent of budget for state colleges and universities (even looking at that budget as “alms”), are depriving that child of being able to study and an opportunity for social mobility. What’s my point here? Having some socialist elements in your economy may be beneficial.

        Besides, capitalism in theory, is different from what is practiced today. The ideal for capitalism is that there is competition from many producers so that the market can really determine prices but that is not the norm today. In many countries, there is the existence of monopolies or oligopolies. No economy has had a perfectly competitive market. The norm for capitalism in theory is the exception of what is being practiced today.

        Another point, can you name countries that have become developed just because they were capitalist? I mean, countries that have become rich not through plundering the resources of the third world countries and/or became rich because of the US did not help them to create a counterexample against socialism.

        And I’m asking you to answer my query about China. How come China is one of the most advanced economies today while having a welfare state or employing many socialist policies? And also, how come there are countries which for the most part are capitalist but their current economy is now failing? (like Greece)

        All I’m saying here is don’t act is capitalism is the savior of the economies of the world. Applying it has its benefits, yes. But it’s not and will never be the end. After all, capitalism remains to be a theory. It’s not yet even a law in economics.

        And lastly, don’t speak as if you know everything. Do you already have a PhD in Economics? Heck, even PhD graduate in Economics don’t know everything! For one, economics is considered the dismal science. Economists already have numerous failed attempts to theorize how the economy works and should work. They even at times fail at their forecasts.

    • March 25, 2012 3:38

      balibol,

      There are lots of issues that should be addressed in your reply. Since I’m quite busy, lemme try to respond to your issues as concise as possible.

      “My point is, maybe you can consider that capitalism is not the end all and be all of everything.”

      Like I said many times before, Capitalism is the only moral socio-political system on earth. It is the only social system that guarantees individual rights. Now you have to properly understand what this concept of ‘individual rights’ mean and its relation to capitalism in order to have a valid, objective, proper understanding of the value and importance of capitalism.

      I discussed these issues here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/12/09/capitalism-defined/, https://fvdb.wordpress.com/?s=capitalism%2C+gloria%2C+ayn+rand+jose+maria+sison, https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/02/04/the-nature-of-capitalism/
      and here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/03/13/blog-debate-on-the-morality-of-capitalism/

      You said: “Just applying capitalism would not solve the problems of society like poverty.”

      It appears that you don’t understand what you’re talking about. There are elements or attributes of Capitalism, and these are: 1) individual rights, 2) limited government or non-interventionist government, 3) property and IP rights, 4) economic freedom, 5) rule of law.

      Many countries like the United States, Canada, Great Britain, the Philippines, Germany, France, Switzerland, New Zealand, Hong Kong, etc. maintain a FEW of the attributes or elements of Capitalism, while socialist countries like North Korea abolished property rights and individual rights.

      Like I said, most countries today are mixed economies. I don’t think it’s possible to lecture you on this particular issue since you lack proper understanding of important concepts like individual rights, economic freedom, welfare state, capitalism, and mixed economy. You think that countries with property rights are capitalist economies, and that reveals your very shallow, simplistic understanding of economics and politics. In order for you to understand why many countries in Europe like Greece and Portugal now face serious economic troubles, you have to understand the evil of Welfare State and how welfare and interventionist programs destroy the economies of these nations.

      Just how Capitalism would solve the problems of societies? Just look at the Economic Freedom Index and the rankings at the DoingBusiness.org and you’ll see how economic freedom and openness benefits many countries. Countries that guarantee more economic freedom achieve better economic results.

      You said: “How can you expect the market to address the needs of the poor?”

      You have to understand how economics works to have a proper knowledge of this issue. One question: WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF WEALTH? But before dealing with that question, you have to have a proper knowledge of the concept of “wealth”. Wealth is not the same as ‘paper money’ that central banks issue. Wealth refers to the actually produced goods and services by the private sector. If private companies and individuals are allowed and unhampered to pursue their ‘self-interest’ and goals, people would have more jobs and opportunities, and the nation’s economy would be more stable.

      When China opened its economy to foreign investors in 2001 by joining the WTO, that was the time people in China got jobs and were allowed to do business. That was also the time China became more economically stable since the communist revolution. But again, China is not a capitalist society because it limits property rights and all economic and political powers are held by its single political party.

      You said: “Yes, people are not equally endowed with skills and talents, but there are those who are talented but are constrained by this system.”

      – That’s the problem. In a truly capitalist society, the system does not hamper or limit any individual to pursue his own interests so long as he refrains from violating other people’s rights. Do you mean to say the government must help the individual? Then you’re talking about a mixed economy like the Philippines or a FASCIST state.

      You said: “For example, the concept of generational poverty. A child from a poor family will not be able to study because obviously they don’t have the means to do so. Maybe that child can reach high school, but may opt to not go to college due to financial constraints. That ‘uneducated’ child will obviously have less opportunities for social mobility because of lack of education. Then that person may remain poor and his/her child will be in the exact same position because they are poor.”

      – Emotional rhetoric again. The POVERTY in this country was created by the government. It’s created by our PROTECTIONIST government. We are poor because we do not guarantee ECONOMIC FREEDOM. Again, learn proper economics. People don’t have jobs because of our protectionist government and our FAILED economic policies. When our protectionist constitution was enacted in 1987, our leaders thought a protected economy would provide more jobs to Filipinos and would stabilize the economy. They’re all wrong. It’s because these alleged Filipino intellectuals had been IDIOTIZED or DUMBED DOWN by their collectivist-statist ideology. Instead Filipinos went abroad to work as nannies, domestic helpers, factory workers, professionals, etc. They went to countries which are more economically FREE than the Philippines.

      The only answer to our poverty is economic freedom. Like I said here: “If you want lower oil prices, then the solution is very simple: support economic freedom in the Philippines, not the legalized strangulation of business. Yes, you should advocate for the opening up of our protectionist, highly regulated economy to foreign investors to allow and attract more investors through constitutional reform. The so-called oil cartels and other cartels you all seek to abolish were all established and supported by the current political system- by the government – and by the Constitution. Thus, if you want a progressive, economically stable Philippines, you should support economic freedom, deregulation, removal of protectionism, lower taxes, and objective rule of law.” https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/10/01/the-folly-of-the-oil-deregulation-law-and-the-intellectual-bankruptcy-of-its-statist-opponents/

      On the issue of protectionism — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/uncle-sam-to-pinas-scrap-protectionism/

      You said: “What’s my point here? Having some socialist elements in your economy may be beneficial.”

      WE ALREADY HAVE THOSE SOCIALIST ELEMENTS IN RP. Don’t you understand that? Government welfare is SOCIALISM. Government subsidy of public education and other welfare programs is SOCIALISM. We are a mixed economy bordering on socialism. It is these welfare programs that are BANKRUPTING this country. I have addressed this particular issue here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/08/28/destroying-the-filipino-first-mindset/

      You said: “Besides, capitalism in theory, is different from what is practiced today. The ideal for capitalism is that there is competition from many producers so that the market can really determine prices but that is not the norm today. In many countries, there is the existence of monopolies or oligopolies. No economy has had a perfectly competitive market. The norm for capitalism in theory is the exception of what is being practiced today.”

      – That’s why I said you have a very flawed, narrow understanding of capitalism. You tend to confuse capitalism with mixed economy or even fascism. Competition in the market is just one of the direct consequences of Capitalism. It’s because the system allows individuals or entities to do business and pursue their self-interest. The existence of free and open competition in the market BENEFITS individuals and the society as a whole. Many of the direct results of competition are: cheaper products, quality goods and services, more jobs, higher pay, self-regulation, etc.

      In a free market society, monopolies and cartels WILL NOT EXIST. Do you know the main cause of monopolies and cartels in the Philippines? It’s the 1987 Constitution. These monopolies have been created by the government. Check my debate with someone here… https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/an-online-debate-with-an-ignoramus-filipino-statist-monopoly-and-big-corporations/

      I discussed that issue here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/08/privatize-mrt-lrt-no-to-subsidy/

      Do you know why “no economy has had a perfectly competitive market”? It’s because of government intervention. That’s the only answer. Have you heard this antitrust law? That issue had also been discussed here.

      You said: “Another point, can you name countries that have become developed just because they were capitalist? I mean, countries that have become rich not through plundering the resources of the third world countries and/or became rich because of the US did not help them to create a counterexample against socialism.”

      – You have this LEFTIST assumption that countries that got rich achieved their economic status through imperialism…

      I discussed that issue here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-philippine-society-and-individual-freedom/ and especially here https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2009/09/16/capitalism-and-imperialism-are-contradiction-in-terms/

      The first country on earth that NEARLY practiced capitalism is the United States of America.

      I once stated here:

      The United States did not achieve its early economic success through invasion and plunder. More than 100 years after its founding, America became the wealthiest nation the world had ever known, all because of its system of free market enterprise that guaranteed economic freedom, property rights and the rule of law (see Note of the History on American Free Enterprise). This new nation achieved unprecedented economic success in the 18th century because its greatest industrialists, namely, Grenville Dodge, Leland Stanford, Henry Villard, James J. Hill, and others, who were later on branded as the “robber barons” by the leftist and statist media of the past century, were free to set up and run their respective businesses, which later on became America’s economic pillar and job-creating industrial empires (see The Truth About the Robber Barons).

      Further, America was not founded on socio-political skepticism and on irrational ideals. It was founded on the Aristotelian idea that ‘man is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others.’ While most of the world was under the philosophical trap of Plato, America’s founding fathers established a nation built on the pillars of reason, individualism, and free market capitalism. The best proof of America’s individualist premise is Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence.

      This most important line of the Declaration reveals America’s concept of rational self-interest anchored on the law of nature: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/the-philippine-society-and-individual-freedom/

      Other countries that have a HIGHER DEGREE of economic freedom like Singapore and Hong Kong achieved MORE compared to countries with a LOWER DEGREE of econ freedom (Philippines, Bangladesh, Pakistan, etc.) This is a FACT!

      You said: “How come China is one of the most advanced economies today while having a welfare state or employing many socialist policies? And also, how come there are countries which for the most part are capitalist but their current economy is now failing? (like Greece)”

      – Again, most countries today are MIXED ECONOMIES.

      There are a number of factors why China is now having a tremendous economic influence. However, China did not achieve its economic status by maintaining its socialist structure. If you understand the political history of China, this country was poorer than the Philippines and many nations in Asia during its communist period under Mao Tse Tung. In fact, it was estimated that more 30 million Chinese (some put it at over 70 million) died during China’s period of collectivization. There were riots in the 1980s due to rampant joblessness and hunger.

      Do you know when China began to improve its economic condition? It was when it joined the WTO and opened its economy to foreign investors and allowed people to run businesses. It was after China implemented FREE MARKET REFORMS. Under Deng Xiaoping, China mixed its socialist political system with a single element of capitalism: PROPERTY RIGHTS, which is still being strictly limited by the government. However, this allowed foreign investors to do business in China, the main attraction of which is its huge population. This, however, turns China into a FASCIST state. http://factsanddetails.com/china.php?itemid=79

      In reality, China is MORE ECONOMICALLY FREE than the Philippines. Why? In China, foreign investors are allowed by law to own 100 percent equity in businesses and other ventures. That makes China very much attractive to foreign investors. In fact, some of China’s local governments like Xinjiang exempts tax to attract investment. LINK: http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/china/2011-12/24/c_131325105.htm . Do we have that taxation system in RP? NONE! So knowing proper economics and history is crucial to proper understanding of things. Isn’t it goodthat before you die or expire on earth you know you embraced the right idea by doing your best to understand things that could affect your life, rights, or future?

      However, it is China’s socialist politics that is driving the country into the ground. Through central planning and bureaucratic corruption, the Chinese presidium has created a housing bubble that’s about to burst.

      As to the fallacy of capitalist exploitation — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/the-fallacy-of-capitalist-exploitation/

      As to the individualist culture of capitalism — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2012/02/12/capitalism-and-individualist-culture/

      As to Capitalism, Income Gap, and Socialistic Welfare — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/07/29/capitalism-income-gap-and-socialistic-welfare/

      As to Philippine Constitution Versus Economic Freedom — https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2011/10/16/philippine-constitution-versus-economic-freedom/

      No, I don’t think I need to have a PhD in order to understand these issues. You have to understand that most people who revolutionized almost every field of knowledge (medicine, economics, politics, special sciences, etc.) did NOT have PhD. Only DIPLOMA-TOTING morons from UP and other so-called ‘elite’ universities would have that kind of stupid mentality.

  3. mjrowland permalink
    May 1, 2012 3:38

    Although I really can’t stress enough how much I can’t stand those complaining, solutionless leftists, I admittedly still got a big kick out of the invention of the term “Noynoying”. Aquino is a do-nothing president and if he took his job as president seriously, he would launch a New Deal-style economic program–which is an idea that I am sure sounds like anathema to you.

    So, allow me to elaborate: The bottom line is that so-called laissez faire, free-market economics (which really is a specific KIND of capitalism–and NOT capitalism itself) can never work in anything but a fantasy world. It is disproven by this basic truth: human beings are creatures who are susceptible to being governed by irrational desires–desires which can often run contrary to the Common Good (what the U.S. and other constitutions call the “General Welfare”). What a collection of various individuals immediately WANT is often not, or even contrary to, what humanity as a whole NEEDS. The so-called free market is good for only one thing–if it is good for anything at all–that is providing for the immediate wants of society.

    Government, on the other hand, should not simply be viewed as a “negative force” or “necessary evil” that exists only to check the bestial impulses of man, but also to provide a force for leadership and progress so the masses can be guided to work toward the General Welfare. Individualism is essential, yes, but not because we all have the right to act arbitrarily and irrationally–which is what are relativistic society teaches as a value–but because each of us has the potential to make a unique, individual contribution to the greater good of both man and God. That is the essence of the U.S. constitutional democratic republican system.

    Rand is completely wrong when she says that laissez faire ideas were the basis of U.S. republicanism. A study of the tracts on economics by Benjamin Franklin and Alexander Hamilton will prove this. Franklin Roosevelt utilized Hamiltonian methods to transform the devastated United States into the industrial giant that was indispensable in producing the war materiel needed to defeat fascism. This is why the vast majority of the New Deal’s critics in his time were mainly Nazi-supporters, and the ones in our time were all too young at the time to appreciate what the man had done. Americans who come from the Depression and WW2 generation almost all agree that the man was one of the greatest presidents the U.S. ever had.

    That is the kind of mobilization that Aquino should undertake if he really gave a shit about his country and his people. But instead, he seems to have almost as big an ego as his role-model Obama, being bent on having a dick-fight with the Supreme Court and consolidating dictatorial power for himself. (See my commentaries on those issues: http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/05/01/the-threat-of-world-war-iii-a-tale-of-two-tinderboxes/ and http://romuloadvocate.wordpress.com/2012/02/05/noynoy-aquino-accomplice-to-obamas-war-drive/

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: