My Hilarious Debate With a Filipino Freethinker Dimwit on PH Protectionism
I had this very interesting and hilarious debate with a Filipino Freethinker (or freefarter) who’s using a dummy Facebook account (perhaps to shield his real identity). Perhaps he’s ashamed of his own congenital stupidity. I
tell you, these freefarters are a new breed of atheists in the Philippines. It’s so-called non-believers like them who are giving a real bad name to atheism.
Detecting their dogmatic and evangelical atheism laced with incurable stupidity, I think that they blindly believe atheism is everything. That all you need to do to be rational, or to be accepted as a ‘man of reason’, is to be an atheist like them.
I started to question their dogma– to expose their contradictions and the real nature of their so-called atheism– a few years ago when some inner members began trolling my blogs, calling me names like Randoid, because of my anti-RH law (then RH bill) stand. That time I didn’t know people like them exist.
But what about this freefarter who’s using the dummy account Jesse Bersamina? Well, this troll who blindly supports the RH law is just as stupid as Eusebio Seballos, another Freethinker dummy… or perhaps Jesse Bersamina himself.
I am 100% sure these trolls belong to the Filipino Freethinker cave because I had a few online encounters with them, along with their freefarting fellows, a few years ago, when the RH bill was still far from being passed into law. In fact, one of their active members even claimed that foreign professionals are not barred by our laws from practicing their professions in the country, which is absolutely not true.
I am blogging about these guys because close online encounters with the third-rates don’t happen all the time. Have you ever encountered an impossibly stupid creature? The kind of creature who dogmatically thinks he knows what he’s talking about because of something he has or whatever (like atheism)? Or: did you ever have a close encounter with someone who makes you think he/she represents what’s wrong with this country or the world?
Yes, that’s how I felt… I told my self: Remember this day… That is the kind of person who represents our society’s collective mediocrity.
So, what did this Filipino Freethinker Jesse Bersamina say that made me think he embodies almost everything that’s wrong with this country?
A few days ago the guy made this so stupid a gibberish on this Facebook group:
“The Philippines has open economy. Foreigners may invest by owning up to 100% of a business. Phil is one of the first member of WTO.”
I didn’t mince words when I posted my comment:
This freefarting online insect Jesse Bersamina is just one of the stupidest trolls of the Filipino Freefarfters. Just like his fellow farters he doesn’t even know the basic facts. Yet the farters have the audacity to talk about reason, proof, evidence, and not taking things on faith.
Jesse Bersamina: “has open economy. Foreigners may invest by owning up to 100% of a business. Phil is one of the first member of WTO.”
You, creature, are clinically insane.
He also said: “Pres Aquino has been rationalizing the tax system.”
He’s not just bobo. He’s demented.
How did Aquino Rationalize the tax system? By running after online sellers, increasing VAT and proposing to impose more taxes? Freefarter ka nga…
Just imagine how these people finished college without retaining the basic principles of logic. People like this Filipino Freethinker shows the very flaws of our educational system. It’s not really surprising when we have liberal arts and economics professors who take pleasure in crippling young people’s minds.
I had a somewhat lengthy online debate with this Jesse Bersamina just to understand how his brain works. I suspected that he originally, actually thought the Philippines is an open economy– as open as Hong Kong or Singapore. But when I confronted him with solid facts– when I told him that our Constitution limits foreign investment and professions– he toned down his script and started googling. Yes, he turned to Google.
What did Google show him? Well, it bombarded him with links telling, ‘Yes, foreigners may own up to 100% of businesses provided they comply with the law.’ That’s it. He learned from those links that there are laws allowing foreign investors to do business in the country, and then concluded that they can invest in anything.
But why did we focus our debate on this issue? It’s because of their pro-RH law stand. What they’re doing is that they’re simply fooling their own selves. I argued that the root cause of our poverty is NOT our growing population, but our unsustainable welfare state and protectionism. There is high unemployment in the Philippines because we shoo away foreign investors with our protectionism and laws restricting foreign investment and participation. This is what they’d like to demolish by arguing that the Philippines has an “open economy” because it allows foreign investors to do business in the country.
When asked what he meant by “open economy,” this Jesse Bersamina replied: “open economy means an economy that is a member of WTO.”
Isn’t that hilarious?
I replied: “So as long as a country is WTO member but maintains protectionist laws, it’s an open economy? Is that your freefarter logic? The issue is not whether .0001% of companies here is fully owned by foreigners. The issue is whether that actually helps our economy. The issue is whether they can compete with the country’s oligarchs and cronies. Whether they can join our power sector and telecom sector. That’s the issue, moron. You don’t even know that the WTO is powerless to compel members to be “open economies”. It’s just a multilateral agreement. Even socialist countries like China may join. Idiot indeed.”
This guy is utterly clueless. He’s reading links he couldn’t understand. That he doesn’t have enough brain power to understand legal provisions and to see the clear– or at least, basic– legal picture of our economic policy.
So, what I did is that I put his empty brain to the test. I’ve evaluated him this way:
- He’s just googling things without really understanding them.
- When he read an online info that says, ‘Yes, foreign investors may own up to 100%’, he then concluded that foreign investors may invest 100% of their capital in any business, venture or economic undertaking.
- He’s totally clueless.
To test whether my hypotheses were true, I asked him the following question:
It is possible under PEZA and free econ zone law under ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE circumstances and restrictions. Give me the “nature of business” that allows 100% foreign ownership.
But first, know the difference between business-for-export, license, and franchise.
Now, let this freefarting MORON answer this question: Can Walmart or TESCO fully own retail stores or malls in the Philippines?
Allow me to explain why I call it a “test”.
Observe very closely that I used the words “RETAIL STORES” and “MALLS”. My prediction is that, he would think retail stores and smalls are just the same as “retail trade” under the Negative List of the Foreign Investment Act.
It turned out that I was right.
Here’s Jesse Bersamina FAILED answer:
Your question Vincenton Post is pretty ordinary and lacking depth.
Yes, Walmart and TESCO can under the FDI laws of the Philippines, provided they comply with the requirements. But why would they?
LMAO! “Ordinary and lacking depth”. See the arrogance-plus-ignorance of this Freethinker? Since he learned from several online links foreign investors may own up to 100% of their capital, he thought that they can also put up fully-owned malls and retail stores.
Here’s my reply:
Since you failed that test. Lemme ask you further and fry you with your own Filipino Freefarter oil.
How can WalmMart and TESCO comply with the PEZA requirement without breaking the Foreign Investment Act and the Consti?
That’s when he started to break and go haywire. I had to neutralize him.
Here’s how we exchanged barbs:
Jesse Bersamina: “100% foreign owned corporation may operate in PEZA or outside it.”
Me: “Hindi ka talaga nahiya sa kabobohan mo. My next question: My question: How can WalmMart and TESCO comply with the PEZA requirement without breaking the Foreign Investment Act and the Consti? I was talking of RETAIL STORES AND MALLS here. Read the Negative list.”
Negative List A of the Foreign Investment laws enumerates the professions, ventures or undertakings where foreign investors cannot or can partially invest.
Jesse Bersamina tried his best to show that he really knew what he’s talking about. He replied:
I don’t pretend to be a lawyer or expert in FDI. But my English reading and comnprehension are excellent. It is clear that 100% foreign owned corporation are permitted to operate under the Constitution and under the implementing laws of the Philippines, namely, Foreign Investments Act
• R.A. 7042 also known as the Foreign Investments Act
• R.A. 8179 also known as the Liberalize Foreign Investments Act
Upon reading reply I knew my job was done. That guy was totally clueless in that he’s just a talking empty skull.
I had to ask my original question again since he began to indiscriminately post things he copied online: “CAN THEY PUT UP MALLS HERE IN THE PHILIPPINES?”
Jesse Bersamina: “Walmart and TESCO are retail trade enterprises. Yes or No?”
He was asking me of TESCO and WalMart are engaged in trade business, not real estate, because malls constitute real estate business. See how his brain processes information? I could have used a fictitious company.
I said: “I asked you if they could engage in retail trade in the PH and put up malls. That’s beside the point. CAN THEY? The answer is, NO.”
Jesse Bersamina: “so you don’t what is “retail trade enterprises”? Walmart and TESCO are in retail trade enterprises.”
It’s as if we’re debating whether WalMart or TESCO are engaged in real estate business. Well, I learned that TESCO decided to invest in the United States’ real estate industry. WalMart is also into real estate. The fact is, businesses can diversify. A milk company can also invest in real estate. So what the heck was his point? NONE, except he just wanted to prove how stupid he is.
So, I asked again: “But can they put up fully owned retail business and malls in the PH?”
Basically, he said yes. That was his answer.
Jesse Bersamina: “I know that Walmart and TESCO are in retail trade business and they can operate as 100% foreign owned business here in the Philippines if they wish to. They can under the Philippine Constitution and under (R.A. 7042 as amended by R.A. 8179).”
Me: “TYPICAL MORON. LOL! A hopeless one.”
Jesse Bersamina: “Walmart and TESCO can operate in the Philippines are retail traders if they put up Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of less than US$2,500,000 (Sec. 5 of RA 8762).”
That statement proves the content and nature of his brain. Finally he mentioned R.A. 8762, which talks about retail trade business.
True enough, Negative List A states: there is NO foreign equity in “retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of less than US$2,500,000 (Sec. 5 of R.A. 8762).
Here’s what actually happened to him: His eyes read that provision, and then his empty brain processed this: foreign investors may invest up to 100% of their capital in retail trade if they have paid-up capital of MORE THAN US$2,500,000. That’s actually what he’s trying to insist.
Believing he won the debate, Jesse Bersamina hilariously solidified his argument:
“you have cognitive disorder because Walmart and TESCO can operate in the Philippines as retail traders if they put up Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of not less than US$2,500,000 (Sec. 5 of RA 8762).
“Did you comprehend that?”
Funny! Not too fast.
Me: “No, I cannot comprehend you idiocy…”
I decided to play along as I started to enjoy the discussion, I asked: “You mean to say if they can comply with that cap, they can also put up fully-owned malls?”
Jesse Bersamina: “yes, if Walmart and TESCO put up Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of not less than US$2,500,000 (Sec. 5 of RA 8762). That is in Sec 5 of RA 8762. You do not have to be a lawyer to understand that.”
Really? You don’t have to be a lawyer to understand R.A. 8762. True. The problem is, stupid people are not supposed to talk about things they can hardly comprehend.
So, I had to make sure he wouldn’t be able to retract everything he said. I said:
Yeah! I know what’s you trying to say…
You don’t even understand the concept of retail trade as used by the legislature…
What you’re trying to say is: YES, they can VIOLATE the 60-40 law and the absolute restriction on foreign ownership of land as long as they have a capital of NOT less than US$2,500,000.
He replied by posting the provision of Sec 5 of RA 8762.
Me: “According to a dim-wit like you: TESCO and WalMart can FULLY OWN MALLS and RETAIL STORES in the Philippines as long as they have paid-up capital of NOT less than US$2,500,000. Never mind the 60-40 law and the absolute restriction on foreigners to OWN LAND.”
Jesse Bersamina: “I said previously, I’m not a lawyer but I fully read and comprehend the FDI laws. I am a computer programmer and my expertise is kerberos client-server security. But my English reading and comprehension are excellent. Are yours up to scratch?”
Funny! I replied:
You don’t need to explain… We got what you mean and how you understood the Consti…
WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US IS:
TESCO and WalMart can FULLY OWN MALLS and RETAIL STORES in the Philippines as long as they have paid-up capital of NOT less than US$2,500,000. Never mind the 60-40 law and the absolute restriction on foreigners to OWN LAND.
— That’s a nice way to context-drop the entire Charter of the Philippines. Miriam would be proud.
Until it was time to confront his little brain with solid, real, unassailable facts.
I told him:
Proof you don’t understand how the legislature used retail trade…
“Retail Trade” shall mean any act, occupation or calling of habitually selling direct to the general public merchandise, commodities or goods for consumption, but the restriction of this law shall not apply to the following… “
Here’s the most hilarious part of our debate. Jesse Bersamina said: “Walmart and TESCO are retail business enterprises. They are not real estate enterprises. They can lease lands and/or buildings to operate their business.”
Funny, he still didn’t get the reason why I posted the definition of retail trade. It was to show him how the legislature used the term “retail trade”. That term has a specific definition or meaning under our laws. That it does not merely mean “selling” or “retailing”. It means ‘direct selling’.
So, I told him:
Here’s why you’re a MORON…
I used the terms:
2. RETAIL STORES
You thought ‘retail trade’ is synonymous with ‘MALLS’ and ‘RETAIL STORES’.
I repeat. According to the law: “Retail Trade” shall mean any act, occupation or calling of habitually selling direct to the general public merchandise, commodities or goods for consumption, but the restriction of this law shall not apply to the following… ”
Key word for morons like you: “DIRECT SELLING”.
RETAIL STORE is NOT the same as DIRECT SELLING.
His reply? Jesse Bersamina: “everybody knows what is retail trade businesses except idiots like yourself.”
Holy baloney! Hilarious!
Me: “Haha! Everybody knows that Walmart and TESCO are NOT direct sellers, MORON. The Retail Trade law is NOT talking about MALLS and RETAIL STORES… NOW, I repeat my question for a MORON like you Jesse Bersamina: CAN WALMART and TESCO fully own and operate RETAIL STORES and MALLS in the PH?”
Jesse Bersamina went on like a broken record: “if Walmart and TESCO put up Retail trade enterprises with paid-up capital of not less than US$2,500,000 (Sec. 5 of RA 8762) they can operate anywhere withing the jurisdiction of the Philippines.”
Me: “Except that I was NOT talking about DIRECT SELLING. I am talking about MALLS and RETAIL STORES. Can they? WHAT YOU’RE TELLING US IS: TESCO and WalMart can FULLY OWN MALLS and RETAIL STORES in the Philippines as long as they have paid-up capital of NOT less than US$2,500,000. Never mind the 60-40 law and the absolute restriction on foreigners to OWN LAND.”
Jesse Bersamina: “but you were talking about Walmart and TESCO. Now, you are changing your story from Walmart and TESCO to MALLS and RETAIL STORES. What a pathetic lawyer. Is that why you are pimping? You want to change Walmart or TESCO line of business? Or you are ignorant about what Walmart or TESCO do.”
HA-LMAO!!! I almost fell off my chair! Was I trying to change Tesco’s or WalMart’s line of business? Like I said, they’re also engaged in real estate. And I could have used a fictitious company or any other foreign company.
I just replied: “Is that DIRECT SELLING? Are malls and retail stores a form of DIRECT SELLING as defined by R.A NO. 8762? Only a MORON like you would answer YES. Is their line of business DIRECT SELLING, bec. you’re insisting on retail trade, which the Congress defined as something that’s about DIRECT SELLING?”
What a hopeless Filipino Freethinker. Whatever that term (freethinker) means…
I ended up toying with his empty brain: “A retail store is a real estate, too? So, WalMart and TESCO are now DIRECT SELLERS?”
Jesse Bersamina: “direct selling is another expression for the word retailing.”
My final blow: “Is that Walmart and tesco’s line of business then?”