00:00:00
[Music]
00:00:22
good day and welcome to another session
00:00:24
of the public intellectual lecture
00:00:26
series
00:00:26
i am leo for the department from the
00:00:28
department of interdisciplinary studies
00:00:30
and today's session involves economics
00:00:32
and the philippines
00:00:33
how far have we gone under the there the
00:00:35
regime we have here for today's guest
00:00:38
sunny africa the executive director of
00:00:40
ebon foundation
00:00:41
a non-profit research and advocacy group
00:00:44
thank you very much
00:00:45
uh sunny for accommodating us for
00:00:46
today's session well thank you for the
00:00:48
invitation leo
00:00:49
something yes um of course this will be
00:00:52
a very
00:00:52
interesting discussion because
00:00:54
apparently you know
00:00:55
the claims from both the opposition and
00:00:58
those who support the government
00:00:59
differ but we're talking about the same
00:01:01
reality
00:01:02
so the topic for today is about
00:01:04
economics now
00:01:06
so perhaps you can provide us a brief
00:01:08
overview
00:01:09
of the economic condition of the
00:01:10
philippines right the economic situation
00:01:12
because on one hand you have the
00:01:15
government or government data even
00:01:17
saying that there's economic growth a
00:01:19
6.6 increase
00:01:20
or 6.6 economic growth sin for the past
00:01:23
two years
00:01:24
and then you have also the the
00:01:26
supporters of the government claiming
00:01:28
that the various tax reform packages
00:01:30
have have actually been geared towards
00:01:32
uplifting the lives of the poor
00:01:34
and then on the other you have critics
00:01:36
saying that it has not really
00:01:38
impacted the lives of those who whose
00:01:41
lives
00:01:42
need to be uplifted perhaps you can talk
00:01:45
or perhaps give us an overview regarding
00:01:47
that discussion
00:01:49
the thing about the economy of course
00:01:51
there's so many figures you can throw
00:01:53
around
00:01:54
but for us what really matters is we
00:01:56
have to look at the figures that matter
00:01:57
to people's lives
00:01:58
so i think the fact of economic growth
00:02:01
it's true i mean
00:02:02
it's a it's a statistical fact that the
00:02:04
economy has been growing
00:02:06
it's also a statistical fact the economy
00:02:07
has been growing more rapidly
00:02:09
in the last more or less the last five
00:02:11
to ten years
00:02:12
compared to previous decades but also
00:02:15
it's a statistical fact
00:02:16
the economy is not creating enough jobs
00:02:18
and the number of poor people are
00:02:19
increasing so for us
00:02:21
it's not actually a question of um who's
00:02:23
saying
00:02:24
what's factual or not what's true or not
00:02:26
it's actually choosing what fact matters
00:02:28
for us when we assess the economy
00:02:30
so for us we will grant that the economy
00:02:33
has been growing
00:02:34
we will grant that it has been growing
00:02:36
most at the most rapid rate
00:02:38
in maybe like three to four decades but
00:02:41
i think
00:02:42
people who hold on to facts have to
00:02:43
accept the fact the economy is creating
00:02:45
less jobs now than before
00:02:48
the fact is also there are more poor
00:02:49
people now than in the country's history
00:02:52
so for us i think um
00:02:54
let's not sort of let's not look for
00:02:55
single figures about the economy
00:02:57
to say that's the state of the economy
00:02:59
so for the most important figures about
00:03:01
the state of the people
00:03:03
and that's what the economy is about
00:03:04
because in the end growth does not mean
00:03:06
anything if the people aren't feeling it
00:03:07
and right now i think the sad reality is
00:03:09
despite the growth
00:03:10
the people are not feeling economic
00:03:12
growth some people are getting very very
00:03:14
wealthy
00:03:15
they're probably the ones that are quite
00:03:16
happy to talk about economic growth
00:03:18
because it reflects increasing profits
00:03:19
increasing wealth
00:03:21
but that is not the state of the economy
00:03:23
but
00:03:24
that's the point now how do we reconcile
00:03:26
that contradiction because
00:03:28
on one hand you said it's an objective
00:03:29
reality a statistical reality
00:03:31
that there's an increase in the cos
00:03:34
there's an increase in growth
00:03:35
there's an increase in you mentioned
00:03:37
something about i think um
00:03:40
certain uh or growth being increased and
00:03:43
then on the other what they're also
00:03:44
saying it's also an objective reality
00:03:46
that people do not have jobs or a lot
00:03:48
there's an increasing rate in people not
00:03:50
having jobs
00:03:51
or not having an adequate quality of
00:03:54
life now perhaps we can start this
00:03:55
discussion
00:03:56
because that's a very loaded question i
00:03:58
think now but let's start with that
00:04:00
with the with an explanation of why for
00:04:03
example the economy is
00:04:05
booming or the economy is or this wealth
00:04:07
is being
00:04:08
generated no a lot of health is being
00:04:10
generated
00:04:12
actually um there is no contradiction
00:04:16
um there's only a contradiction if we
00:04:18
hold on to the assumption that an
00:04:20
economy
00:04:21
automatically reflects the conditions of
00:04:24
the people
00:04:25
i'm saying this whole contradiction
00:04:26
because the economy is doing what it's
00:04:28
doing by design
00:04:29
and that's actually where the problem
00:04:31
lies
00:04:32
in principle an economy should serve the
00:04:34
needs of the greatest number
00:04:36
that's what we all believe that's what
00:04:37
people who talk about economic
00:04:39
development like to believe
00:04:41
but if um if it seems like it's a
00:04:44
contradiction between growth and under
00:04:45
development
00:04:46
that contradiction disappears once you
00:04:48
accept the hard the brutal fact
00:04:50
the economy is not designed for the
00:04:52
people the way the economy is structured
00:04:54
right now it's a very elite driven elite
00:04:56
dominated economy
00:04:58
we have a political system making
00:04:59
economic policy decisions
00:05:01
for the interests of a few for the
00:05:03
interest of the wealthy
00:05:04
versus the interest of the many so the
00:05:06
reason i'm saying that's not a
00:05:07
contradiction because by design
00:05:10
when you're talking about a free market
00:05:11
economy that's unregulated
00:05:14
we're talking about economic policies
00:05:16
that prioritize profits
00:05:17
and the market over the needs of the
00:05:19
many what we will have is what is
00:05:21
happening right now but it's not which
00:05:22
is not contradictory it's a natural
00:05:24
result
00:05:25
of an economy that's um relies on an
00:05:27
undergrated free market
00:05:28
and i think that's such an important
00:05:30
point to grasp because it's not just a
00:05:32
matter of
00:05:33
let's have faster growth and then we
00:05:36
will have more development
00:05:37
if the economy is designed that that
00:05:39
growth is not going to go to the many
00:05:42
no matter how fast your growth is it is
00:05:45
by design going to
00:05:46
concentrate wealth and profits in a few
00:05:48
while not creating enough jobs and
00:05:51
relieving poverty because that is not
00:05:53
the objective of
00:05:54
current economic policy right now so
00:05:57
it's a long-winded way of saying
00:05:59
there's so contradiction because the
00:06:01
economy is unfortunately designed for a
00:06:03
few
00:06:03
not designed for them any so for us it's
00:06:05
a political question
00:06:07
i don't think we're living in much of a
00:06:09
democracy right now we can't have a
00:06:11
political democracy
00:06:12
if there's lack of democracy in the
00:06:14
economy and if there's no democracy in
00:06:16
the economy
00:06:17
we will have political decision making
00:06:19
for the interest of a few
00:06:20
leading to the seeming contradiction but
00:06:22
actually
00:06:24
intrinsic outcome of an undemocratic
00:06:26
economy
00:06:27
but again because you're mentioning the
00:06:29
free market now you're mentioning this
00:06:31
ladies fair point of view that everyone
00:06:34
should be able to have
00:06:35
the opportunity to compete and it should
00:06:38
be sort of like a
00:06:39
functional meritocracy you know where
00:06:41
the fit test can actually survive or the
00:06:43
most competent can actually survive
00:06:46
but the point there is shouldn't the
00:06:48
government
00:06:49
be regulating these things because as as
00:06:52
the duterte government has proclaimed
00:06:53
that the trained law the tax reform law
00:06:56
should actually
00:06:57
impact the poor rather than the rich and
00:07:00
that's what the government is also
00:07:01
saying
00:07:02
the train law is actually impacting
00:07:03
positively growth
00:07:05
and also um inclu inclusivity because
00:07:09
now most of the government should now be
00:07:11
able to accumulate funds
00:07:12
to impact the lives of the poor now so
00:07:15
why is that
00:07:16
because what if that's the problem with
00:07:18
the system what is the government doing
00:07:19
to regulate the system or at least
00:07:21
to fix that system that's a good
00:07:24
specific example the terrain law
00:07:26
first it's not true that the train law
00:07:29
is helping economic growth help in
00:07:30
development
00:07:32
if anything the train law is designed to
00:07:34
transfer wealth from the poorest
00:07:36
to the richest and that is by design
00:07:38
what does a trained law do train package
00:07:40
one
00:07:41
reduced personal income taxes on the
00:07:44
richest families
00:07:45
by our estimation the top 20 percent of
00:07:49
wealthiest families in the philippines
00:07:50
will be paying less personal income tax
00:07:54
because a government needs revenue the
00:07:56
reduction in revenues from
00:07:58
lowering personal income tax on the
00:08:00
richest is made up for
00:08:02
by increasing consumption taxes on
00:08:04
everyone including the poorest 80
00:08:06
percent
00:08:06
so the net effect is they reached 20
00:08:09
they are paying higher consumption taxes
00:08:12
but they get more in their pocket from
00:08:14
lower personal income taxes that in the
00:08:16
end they have more money in their pocket
00:08:18
the problem is with the poor is 80 they
00:08:20
are paying higher consumption taxes
00:08:22
but with no offsetting gains in personal
00:08:24
income tax
00:08:25
so the net effect for the poor is 80
00:08:27
percent they have less money in their
00:08:28
pocket
00:08:29
so overall what is happening is you're
00:08:31
transferring wealth from the poorest 80
00:08:33
percent
00:08:34
to the richest 20 and that is by design
00:08:36
so for us
00:08:37
again we were talking earlier about what
00:08:39
facts are in place unfortunately the
00:08:41
train was a good example
00:08:43
of government economic managers not
00:08:45
actually being very truthful
00:08:47
they keep saying that 99 of filipino
00:08:50
households will benefit from the terrain
00:08:52
law that actually isn't
00:08:55
a brazen untruth because we have
00:08:58
their own data which they presented in
00:09:00
senate committee hearings which they
00:09:02
gave to us
00:09:04
as part of our formal data requests they
00:09:06
knew
00:09:07
that the burden of the train law would
00:09:10
fall on the poorest
00:09:11
they knew that reindeer would liberate
00:09:13
the richest families
00:09:14
but they said something contrary to that
00:09:18
so first it's an untruth and again
00:09:19
it cuts the heart of the matter the
00:09:21
training is a very specific
00:09:23
data point about economic policy making
00:09:25
this an economic policy
00:09:27
designed for the wealthy at the expense
00:09:29
of the buddhists and that cuts across
00:09:31
wage policy land reform policy trading
00:09:34
investment policy
00:09:35
unfortunately the underlying spirit of
00:09:36
our economic policy is
00:09:38
to make things better for the richest
00:09:41
even if it
00:09:42
tramples on the interest of the many so
00:09:46
given that obviously by design the train
00:09:49
law is actually
00:09:50
taxing the poor more rather than the
00:09:52
rich but
00:09:53
wouldn't the logic also there or within
00:09:55
the government logic also there apply
00:09:57
that they're trying to fall
00:09:58
or follow like a kinesian model where
00:10:01
the government accumulates
00:10:03
funds so it can stimul or they can
00:10:05
actually create more jobs so for example
00:10:08
i think part of the funding that's
00:10:09
coming from or part of the funds that
00:10:11
come from the train law will actually be
00:10:13
utilized for the build build build
00:10:15
program
00:10:16
so if you follow if you're following
00:10:18
that train of logic now
00:10:19
so even if the poor is actually paying
00:10:22
more
00:10:22
aren't they getting more from that
00:10:24
particular um from that particular law
00:10:26
because
00:10:27
the government will now move towards
00:10:29
providing more jobs for them again
00:10:32
unfortunately that is not what's going
00:10:33
to happen
00:10:34
um if the training is meant to be
00:10:36
funding infrastructure
00:10:37
let's focus on the flagship
00:10:39
infrastructure projects there are 75
00:10:41
flagship infrastructure projects right
00:10:43
now um by the government
00:10:46
about 90 of those are transport projects
00:10:49
about two-thirds of those are in the
00:10:52
country's richest regions
00:10:53
um national capital region centre luzon
00:10:55
and southern tagalog
00:10:57
so at a stroke that belies the argument
00:11:00
that the train loss revenues
00:11:02
which go to infrastructure will go to
00:11:04
the poor
00:11:05
because train law will be funded
00:11:07
infrastructure projects concentrated in
00:11:10
the three wealthiest regions of the
00:11:11
country
00:11:12
not trickling down to the remaining um
00:11:16
13 12 13 regions of the country so it
00:11:18
can't be called
00:11:19
a prop or infrastructure spending if
00:11:21
it's being spent mainly
00:11:23
in the country's religious regions
00:11:24
secondly
00:11:26
in all honesty the poor
00:11:29
don't need more roads who needs more
00:11:32
roads
00:11:32
the companies based in ncr cl and
00:11:35
st who need
00:11:39
more mobility for their goods and
00:11:41
services to go to the port area to send
00:11:44
their goods abroad
00:11:45
or to bring goods into their export
00:11:47
zones they're
00:11:48
going to be the main benefits of the
00:11:50
train law so i know
00:11:51
it's always nice to have infrastructure
00:11:54
it's always nice to feel that you know
00:11:55
you have a
00:11:57
quicker commute but our problem there is
00:11:59
that infrastructure spending
00:12:01
is not commensurate to the benefits and
00:12:03
infrastructure spending will be financed
00:12:05
by the aggressive
00:12:06
tax reform package which is the train
00:12:08
law so it's not
00:12:10
it's a complete untruth the government
00:12:11
says that um
00:12:13
the revenues will be spent on proper
00:12:14
infrastructure that is not happening
00:12:17
but you mentioned that specifically
00:12:18
because farm to market roads are
00:12:20
sort of like part of this package of
00:12:22
part of the infrastructure package
00:12:24
offered by the duterte government you
00:12:26
also mentioned central the zone in
00:12:27
southern tagalog
00:12:29
because i was thinking about the recent
00:12:30
events regarding farmers
00:12:32
um apparently there's a contradiction
00:12:35
between what the government wants for
00:12:38
food supply and the condition of farmers
00:12:41
wouldn't infrastructure or farm to
00:12:43
market roads from central luzon
00:12:45
to ncr in southern tagalog to ncr
00:12:49
and even from other regions in mindanao
00:12:51
to davao and as the ports support areas
00:12:53
now
00:12:54
wouldn't these actually contribute to
00:12:56
alleviating or actually improving the
00:12:58
lives of farmers no
00:12:59
isn't that part of the government
00:13:00
framework again another good example
00:13:03
that is liberalization law well
00:13:05
sometimes called the right
00:13:06
stratification law
00:13:07
the rice liberalization law it took away
00:13:10
protections for
00:13:11
rice for domestic domestic rice industry
00:13:13
um so it took away
00:13:14
import cotas it took away the regulatory
00:13:17
authority of the national food authority
00:13:19
and it opened up the country to
00:13:20
basically unlimited rice imports as long
00:13:22
as certain tariffs are paid
00:13:24
it's basically open up the country to
00:13:26
cheap rice imports
00:13:28
again it's by design the way the free
00:13:32
market operates is
00:13:34
it kills the poor uh so it kills the
00:13:37
uncompetitive who tend to be
00:13:39
the poorest and that's exactly what's
00:13:40
happening right now um
00:13:42
because of the rice liberalization law
00:13:44
in center luzon
00:13:46
even if you have more farm-to-market
00:13:48
roads farmers will still not be able to
00:13:50
compete because
00:13:51
they have not felt the subsidies to
00:13:54
become more efficient to become more
00:13:56
competitive
00:13:57
yet right now because of the rice
00:13:58
liberalization law they're having to
00:14:00
compete with cheap
00:14:02
imported rice from thailand from vietnam
00:14:04
in india which are heavily subsidized in
00:14:06
their
00:14:07
home countries and what is happening is
00:14:09
exactly what's happening now
00:14:10
the way the market operates is you have
00:14:13
cheap
00:14:13
ballet from cheap rice from abroad it
00:14:15
drives local
00:14:16
ballet prices down rice traders will not
00:14:19
get any more from the local
00:14:20
rice farmers they will buy from abroad
00:14:23
driving
00:14:24
ballet prices down driving farmers
00:14:26
incomes down
00:14:27
forcing rice farmers to go bankrupt
00:14:29
forcing rice farmers to find other means
00:14:31
of livelihood because it's no longer
00:14:33
profitable or conventional to their
00:14:35
effort to produce rice hence
00:14:37
they will produce less rice or they will
00:14:40
stop
00:14:41
farming rice they might go to
00:14:43
construction for short-term jobs
00:14:45
you have two major long-term effects
00:14:47
rice domestic rice production will
00:14:49
collapse
00:14:50
rice farmers will be displaced and
00:14:52
they're earning like maybe six thousand
00:14:53
seven thousand pesos a month right now
00:14:55
that's nothing
00:14:56
and third the country's food security
00:14:58
over the long term will be compromised
00:15:00
and we're forced to rely on imported
00:15:03
rice so on so many levels
00:15:05
the free market operating in the rice
00:15:07
industry again it's emblematic
00:15:09
it hits the poor the worst it makes the
00:15:11
right status very wealthy because they
00:15:12
can now
00:15:13
have markups on their larger markups on
00:15:16
the
00:15:16
rice they sell but long-term development
00:15:19
and short-term
00:15:20
welfare farmers is completely
00:15:22
compromised because
00:15:24
the free market is operating so against
00:15:26
that any claim that yeah but they have
00:15:28
three more they have
00:15:29
farm to market roads it's not enough
00:15:32
what they need is what
00:15:33
thai rice farmers vietnamese rice
00:15:35
farmers indian rice farmers and actually
00:15:38
japanese rice farmers are getting um
00:15:41
there's a lot of talk about the rice
00:15:42
competitors enhancement fund
00:15:44
it's supposed to be 10 billion pesos a
00:15:46
year that is nothing compared to what
00:15:48
vietnamese farmers are earning
00:15:50
vietnamese farmers are getting over one
00:15:52
billion dollars in subsidies every year
00:15:54
thai farmers are getting over four
00:15:56
billion dollars in their subsidies every
00:15:58
year
00:15:58
japanese rice farmers are getting over
00:16:00
16 billion dollars in rice subsidies
00:16:02
every year
00:16:03
and that's the kind of support rice
00:16:05
farmers need
00:16:06
infrastructure won't help them right
00:16:08
civilization will devastate them
00:16:10
that's a good point but from i know this
00:16:13
is a very harsh point of view
00:16:14
but doesn't that or isn't that proof
00:16:17
that the free that the lazy sphere
00:16:19
concept works because
00:16:20
you're now driving or you're now
00:16:23
producing or
00:16:24
you have now access to cheaper rice
00:16:26
which benefits consumers
00:16:28
and now on the other now if you if
00:16:30
farming or agriculture is no longer
00:16:32
viable for farmers
00:16:34
they now can move on because that's the
00:16:36
promise you can now move on
00:16:38
you can now migrate to the city and
00:16:40
acquire higher paying jobs now
00:16:42
i know there's an issue on the long term
00:16:44
with when it comes to food security
00:16:46
but again from the point of view of the
00:16:47
individual consumer and you know they
00:16:50
meet the maybe the government can argue
00:16:52
the the past and they cannot move on to
00:16:53
more um
00:16:55
economically rewarding activities
00:16:58
i think it's nice to unpack some some
00:17:00
seemingly intuitive notions
00:17:02
there um i'll i'll work backwards first
00:17:05
intuitive notion okay
00:17:07
it's not profitable to farm i'll move to
00:17:09
the cities for a higher paying job
00:17:10
because that's how lazy sphere works
00:17:12
that is not happening
00:17:14
why the highest unemployment rates in
00:17:16
the country are in the cities
00:17:18
um the worst urban living condition
00:17:21
living conditions are in our
00:17:22
city urban centers they're congested
00:17:25
they're polluted
00:17:26
they're the social problems of crime and
00:17:28
everything so
00:17:31
we have to disabuse ourselves with an
00:17:33
ocean a farmer who loses work
00:17:35
will have options in the city because
00:17:38
they won't have options in the city we
00:17:39
have a bloated informal sector
00:17:41
with very low paying insecure informal
00:17:44
work
00:17:45
they will not earn more in the cities
00:17:47
they will just bloat the informal sector
00:17:49
they will blow
00:17:50
urban urban unemployment so that's i
00:17:52
think a completely
00:17:54
dodgy thing to claim that the space
00:17:57
farmer has options in the city because
00:17:59
they're not enough options in the city
00:18:01
um second point
00:18:02
um is it okay for inefficient farming to
00:18:06
just let it die
00:18:07
and then let the economy because it's
00:18:09
moving allegedly the capitalist
00:18:11
system is a self-correcting
00:18:13
self-regulating system
00:18:15
again we have to unpack that because
00:18:17
there is a prime of place that should be
00:18:19
given to
00:18:20
food self-sufficiency and it's an
00:18:22
insight that our neighbors
00:18:24
ironically were getting rice from they
00:18:26
realized they realized
00:18:28
if they let the free market operate in
00:18:30
the thigh
00:18:31
vietnamese india and japanese right
00:18:33
industry then if the free market
00:18:35
operates
00:18:36
those industries those sectors will
00:18:38
collapse
00:18:39
so they made a political choice to
00:18:41
subvert the market
00:18:42
for a development end of rice
00:18:44
self-sufficiency
00:18:46
they're subsidizing their rice farmers
00:18:49
because if they were not subsidized the
00:18:50
market would kill them
00:18:52
but there's a political decision we want
00:18:54
a rice industry
00:18:56
even if the market is inefficient and on
00:18:59
balance what's more important
00:19:00
what the market says or what economic
00:19:03
development demands
00:19:04
the political choice should be what
00:19:07
economic development demands people need
00:19:09
it's a wrong political choice
00:19:11
to they fight the market and say
00:19:12
whatever the market says
00:19:14
that's the that's the way to go the
00:19:17
market in the rice industry will say
00:19:20
let it die import the cheap from abroad
00:19:22
at the expense of
00:19:24
short-term transition costs for farmers
00:19:26
at the expense of long-term food
00:19:29
self-insufficiency and food insecurity
00:19:31
that's a political decision it goes
00:19:34
along it cuts across all runs of
00:19:37
economic activity
00:19:39
if for instance again our neighboring
00:19:41
countries
00:19:42
japan china if they chose to
00:19:46
let the market operate in terms of
00:19:48
industrial development
00:19:49
they would not have indices to begin
00:19:51
with they remain backward agricultural
00:19:52
countries
00:19:53
but at their periods of development
00:19:56
their governments intervened in
00:19:57
industrial development
00:19:59
to subsidize their industries to protect
00:20:01
their industries not following what the
00:20:03
market says
00:20:04
hence their industrial powerhouses now
00:20:06
so for us that's such a key concept to
00:20:09
to grasp we've gotten so used to
00:20:11
thinking that what the market says
00:20:14
is going to be correct it's
00:20:15
self-regulating we've gotten so used to
00:20:17
thinking
00:20:18
the only activity worth entering into is
00:20:20
profitable
00:20:21
but that is at the point of the economy
00:20:23
if the point of an economy is to create
00:20:25
enough jobs
00:20:26
enough incomes for the population if the
00:20:28
point for an economy
00:20:30
especially agricultural agriculture
00:20:31
country is to have food security for the
00:20:34
population
00:20:35
the market will not give that on its own
00:20:37
account the market actually
00:20:38
will go in contrary directions hence the
00:20:41
government should step in to regulate it
00:20:43
in a certain way to bring the economy to
00:20:46
development and that's what i think
00:20:47
where the
00:20:48
the third administration and even past
00:20:50
philippine governments have failed
00:20:52
um in the last four decades we've bought
00:20:55
into
00:20:56
the deification of the market what into
00:20:58
this celebration of global
00:21:00
competitiveness and market efficiency
00:21:02
worst of all we've bought into the idea
00:21:04
that the government should not intervene
00:21:06
in national economic development which
00:21:08
should lead to the market
00:21:09
and we are where we are right now with
00:21:11
growth
00:21:13
being very high but not enough jobs with
00:21:16
good with a lot of profits for a few
00:21:19
wealthy families and big corporations
00:21:21
but with the majority
00:21:23
actually still in poverty that is what
00:21:25
the market is delivered and by any
00:21:27
standard
00:21:28
i don't think that's a good development
00:21:29
outcome what the free market has given
00:21:31
us over the last four years four decades
00:21:33
that's actually a very good point thank
00:21:35
you because you were also mentioning
00:21:37
about the role of government
00:21:38
in ensuring i guess competitiveness in a
00:21:41
very lazy
00:21:42
in a very free market economy driven
00:21:44
system
00:21:45
but isn't the government also
00:21:46
intervening in terms of
00:21:48
of government services social services
00:21:50
because that's also part of the promise
00:21:52
promise of the trained law now that it's
00:21:54
not just about infrastructure but also
00:21:56
providing more for education
00:21:58
health services and in a way aren't we
00:22:01
seeing it in terms of the free tuition
00:22:03
policy for state universities and
00:22:05
colleges isn't that a byproduct
00:22:08
as well of a free market economy where
00:22:10
the government
00:22:11
actually just taxes people and then
00:22:15
regurgitates or you know returns no
00:22:17
these
00:22:18
uh it's uh it's funding into the forms
00:22:20
of social service
00:22:22
again let's unpack that a bit first
00:22:25
social services
00:22:26
should never be provided in market terms
00:22:29
so for us
00:22:30
that's a key key notion that we have to
00:22:31
grasp
00:22:33
health and education to some degree even
00:22:35
housing
00:22:37
if the if that's left to the market they
00:22:39
will be too
00:22:40
expensive and inaccessible for too many
00:22:42
people because
00:22:44
they will become more expensive because
00:22:45
there's always going to be a profit
00:22:47
premium put on that
00:22:49
so i think a core notion about social
00:22:51
services the people need it
00:22:53
we cannot leave it to the market and
00:22:54
privatize it because if we commodify
00:22:56
health and education
00:22:58
only those who can afford it will have
00:23:00
it so that's an important point because
00:23:02
that
00:23:02
points to how the government has to over
00:23:06
the long term
00:23:06
be the ones providing in a publicly
00:23:10
funded subsidized manner health
00:23:12
education
00:23:13
housing and all of that so those can't
00:23:16
be left to the market so
00:23:17
point number one point number two where
00:23:20
would the government get the resources
00:23:21
to provide the health education whether
00:23:23
it's universal health care or free
00:23:25
tuition
00:23:25
all of that they should get exactly from
00:23:28
taxation
00:23:29
but should you get it by taxing the poor
00:23:32
or taxing the rich
00:23:33
and that's where the prob our problem is
00:23:35
with a train law it's blackmailing the
00:23:37
poor
00:23:37
to say that you have to pay higher taxes
00:23:39
because they're giving it back to you
00:23:41
that's blackmail because behind that
00:23:43
statement that
00:23:44
if you don't if we don't charge you
00:23:47
higher taxes you won't get your services
00:23:49
then the statement is you're telling the
00:23:51
rich
00:23:52
don't worry you'll be paying less taxes
00:23:55
that's where the problem lies
00:23:56
the government has to generate revenues
00:23:59
for the social services
00:24:01
but it should be the revenue should be
00:24:03
earned
00:24:04
from those have the most ability to pay
00:24:05
that which is the rich
00:24:07
and that is a very problematic notion
00:24:09
for us under terrain law
00:24:11
they are making the rich pay less and
00:24:13
making the poor pay more
00:24:15
on the argument that it gives social
00:24:17
services that's wrong
00:24:19
the rich should pay more so the poor can
00:24:21
have social services
00:24:22
and again that's a political choice
00:24:24
redistribution of wealth
00:24:26
public responsibility for the buddhists
00:24:28
so it doesn't make sense for us
00:24:30
for the richest families and with a
00:24:32
trained package too right now
00:24:33
for the biggest corporations it doesn't
00:24:35
make sense for us that those with the
00:24:37
most ability to pay
00:24:38
will actually end up paying less and
00:24:40
those with the least ability to pay who
00:24:42
will feel every peso they lose
00:24:44
will end up paying more so again that's
00:24:46
i think a key notion
00:24:48
the train law should not be used to
00:24:50
blackmail the poor if anything
00:24:52
the government should make a political
00:24:54
choice those who have the most should
00:24:56
pay the most
00:24:56
those have the least should pay the
00:24:58
least or not paid they can't afford it
00:25:01
so because now we're we're talking about
00:25:04
data now because we're mentioning
00:25:05
the train law and its impact on the
00:25:07
economy while the
00:25:08
well economic data actually shows wealth
00:25:10
is being generated it's not being
00:25:12
equitably distributed
00:25:14
so it means those who actually have more
00:25:16
are getting more
00:25:18
while those who have less pay more for
00:25:20
the services that are that
00:25:22
for that do not necessarily um
00:25:25
meet the requirements now but if that's
00:25:27
the case now if we're not looking at
00:25:29
statistics like gdp gnp
00:25:32
and if that's the case how are we
00:25:34
supposed to a
00:25:36
define what is a humane existence
00:25:38
because
00:25:39
obviously that is now being under no no
00:25:41
under interrogation
00:25:42
because what does it really mean to have
00:25:44
a livable
00:25:45
humane life and next if that is the
00:25:48
perspective what should we really be
00:25:50
measuring what are what should
00:25:52
what data what information should we be
00:25:55
really looking into
00:25:56
and evaluate when determining the if
00:25:58
there is economic growth
00:26:00
if there is upliftment in the lives of
00:26:01
people
00:26:03
i think um human well-being there's so
00:26:05
many dimensions but you know to be a bit
00:26:07
crude about it so can sort of be more
00:26:09
manageable we can talk about the
00:26:10
material aspects of
00:26:12
human welfare it's so basic
00:26:15
for human welfare for a family
00:26:18
to have any minimum standard of welfare
00:26:20
their breadwinners have to have jobs
00:26:23
and those jobs have to be secure and
00:26:24
giving them enough incomes
00:26:26
to provide for the basic needs of daily
00:26:28
life that's one aspect jobs and incomes
00:26:31
second aspect they should have access to
00:26:33
decent social services
00:26:34
education health and housing so i think
00:26:37
in terms of material needs
00:26:38
jobs with enough incomes and social
00:26:42
services
00:26:43
i think that's where the current
00:26:45
administration is
00:26:46
is actually falling far short first we
00:26:49
always stress all the time there's
00:26:51
something wrong with the job data being
00:26:53
presented right now
00:26:55
first it's a fact that we're not
00:26:57
generating enough jobs
00:26:58
um the on average 81 000 annual job
00:27:02
generation the first two years
00:27:04
of the administration that's the worst
00:27:06
job generation in the post-marcos era
00:27:09
unemployment is actually much higher
00:27:10
than officially reported
00:27:12
the official unemployment rate is about
00:27:14
five and a half percent
00:27:16
the official number of unemployed is
00:27:17
only about 2.3 million
00:27:19
but that's because the government has
00:27:21
stopped counting unemployed
00:27:22
filipinos um they made this
00:27:26
sticker definition you had to have been
00:27:28
looking for work in the last six months
00:27:30
and able to do to um
00:27:34
start working at the drop of a pin to
00:27:36
the counter i think you need to be
00:27:38
looking for work
00:27:39
for work and immediately available for
00:27:41
work that's so tricky because by putting
00:27:43
those two new conditions
00:27:45
in the current unemployment statistics
00:27:47
2.3 million filipinos
00:27:49
are jobless but not counted as
00:27:52
unemployed
00:27:52
so that's a problem for us because um
00:27:56
when that definition was was changed in
00:27:58
2005
00:27:59
the government has been using it it
00:28:01
falsely reduces the number of unemployed
00:28:04
falsely reduced the unemployment rate
00:28:06
and gave me the impression that growth
00:28:08
is benefiting the people but i think
00:28:09
that's
00:28:10
so important because you know it's so
00:28:13
normal in a especially market economy
00:28:15
you have to have a job in the earning
00:28:17
to actually be buying your basic
00:28:20
necessities
00:28:21
so on the jobs front there's a big
00:28:23
problem um we're a service economy more
00:28:26
than a producing economy
00:28:27
we're de-industrializing we're not
00:28:29
creating enough jobs
00:28:31
because of the free market framework
00:28:32
we're doing there in terms of wages
00:28:36
productivity is actually increasing
00:28:37
labor productivity has been increasing
00:28:39
for the last two decades
00:28:40
but wages have not been increasing why
00:28:43
are we just not
00:28:44
increasing because they're being taken
00:28:46
as profits
00:28:47
by the owners of capital so the economy
00:28:50
is growing
00:28:51
because productivity is increasing but
00:28:53
the benefits from growth and
00:28:54
productivity
00:28:56
they're not going to the workers higher
00:28:57
wages because the real wages have been
00:28:59
flat for the last
00:29:00
18 years they're going to profits so
00:29:03
that's a problem there
00:29:04
again inequality and also concentrating
00:29:06
wealth on the very
00:29:08
already the very very richest so that's
00:29:11
where the problem is right now
00:29:13
we have an economy by design not
00:29:15
creating enough jobs
00:29:16
an economy by design concentrating
00:29:19
income on the very richest
00:29:21
in an economy even worse now by design
00:29:24
lowering the tax burden on the richest
00:29:26
and extremely taxable and the poor so
00:29:28
even
00:29:29
the social services we're supposed to be
00:29:31
getting
00:29:32
at best we can call them crumbs because
00:29:36
um talking about the free tuition only
00:29:39
half of the population
00:29:40
of the student population at the
00:29:42
tertiary level is actually going to be
00:29:44
benefiting from that
00:29:46
the other half of the tertiary level
00:29:48
population will still be
00:29:49
in private colleges with very very high
00:29:52
tuition
00:29:53
so it's a good step forward the free
00:29:56
tuition and sucs
00:29:58
but still a partial measure to universal
00:30:00
education at a tertiary level
00:30:02
same goes for universal healthcare it
00:30:05
might seem like a good idea to put money
00:30:06
in people's pockets through field health
00:30:08
so they can pay for hospital services
00:30:11
but
00:30:12
if those are privately provided hospital
00:30:14
services with a profit premium
00:30:16
actually you're paying more for
00:30:20
hospital care when you should be because
00:30:24
you've added a profit premium because a
00:30:26
hospital care is provided by a
00:30:28
by a private firm which is
00:30:30
profit-seeking
00:30:31
so but the social level that's a problem
00:30:34
because
00:30:35
health has become a commodity
00:30:36
unnecessarily expensive
00:30:38
instead of being a public publicly
00:30:42
provided social service provided at cost
00:30:44
or better yet subsidized so for us i
00:30:47
think you know we have to unpack some
00:30:49
some deeply held things that have been
00:30:51
that have been told to us about
00:30:53
economic growth jobs incomes and even
00:30:55
social services
00:31:06
[Music]
00:31:18
you
