Gusto mo ug kausaban, di ba? Manlihok ta! O basin kutob ra mo sa yawyaw ug pagreklamo?

[Marshall Lawyer]

---

@TS, why not talk and discuss all these change blah blah and solutions to society's problems here in this forum? This is a biggest community you can get or gather for free.

if talking at a forum alone can solve our social problems, everyone would have done that a long time ago. i did talk, but look at the comments i got initially. for anyone who cares about others caring - for anyone who cares in general - it's quite alarming to read those kinds of comments. it speaks greatly of the kind of citizens we have these days. that's why beyond mere talking, each one of us has to act too. there's got to be a balance between both or we'll be forever stuck here talking... in circles... without a way out.

talking is well and all. but it's best if paired with actions. everyone's still invited. if your ideals are different, it's okay to decline gracefully.

and we're not just gonna talk about changing society. WE WILL CHANGE IT! you won't see it tomorrow immediately. but you will see it nonetheless. pax filipinas!

[hobie]

I admire the intentions of the party as a whole,
But in reality, it boils down to the candidate themselves.
Hopping from one party to another.
In conclusion, party system here in our country is non sense.
Look at the news, take estrada and lim for example, kauban sauna karon kontra na.
And i wonder where are the old and strong parties from before, una is a new one or atleast a new name, team pnoy unsa na iya partido gani? Bago pa man sab.

Naa to time pag previous elections, a candidate wala gipa apil sa partido, ang ending kay nag gama ug iyang own na partido. Tsk2

[Ferrari 430 Scuderia]

unya namo pag plano ug mabotar namo kay basig ma pilds ra unya sayang ra ang effort.

[emow]

hi emow! that's great input from you! as of now, we're trying to work on all the loopholes. we do admit that our platforms are far from perfect, and that we too have our fair share of struggles. however, everything's a work in progress and we're doing it one step at a time, district by district (since we are a district-centered political party and we practice the 60(district)-40(national) federalism principle). that's why we need more sincere people who can think like u do and assist us in actively campaigning for the principles we espouse - and not the candidates' personalities.

to answer your query, however, social market economy is neither dirigiste (total government intervention) nor overly free market. social market economy is the balance between the two. there's a bit of state regulation and a bit of the invisible hand. the government is still necessary because too much freedom in the economy will result to recession (remember the 2008 financial meltdown?). what happened more than four years ago is that banks had too much freedom in the US. they abused this freedom by accepting loans here and there without bothering to check whether the loaners were qualified or not. they consolidated all these loans and sold them to investors who bought the loans and invested them. banks were so happy that they made too much money so they approved more loans and sold them. what happened then was that there were more borrowed money than actual income or money deposited. had there been enough government intervention (i.e. strict policies that regulate the amount of money coming in and out of banks; policies that regulate bank-investor relationships), then the 2008 recession would not have haunted everyone else in the globe. please see the documentary Inside Job for more detailed explanation of this matter.

also, to quote Alexander Pope, the virtue of "capitalism is the unequal move of blessings." given the fact that RP is still a developing country, to suddenly inject a purely capitalist economic system will create a great disparity between the already rich and the poorest of the poor. we cannot risk this as yet. capitalism needs capital and you cannot do that when majority of your population lives below the poverty line. social market economy is the best alternative.

the best working example of social market economy is Germany's own politico-economic system, which was instrumental to their quick rise to power following the chaos of World War II and later when East Germany was finally integrated with the West. To put it more succinctly:

In order for this system to function effectively, it is crucial to guarantee competition within a framework of open markets and to prevent the exercise of market power. In this way, market mechanisms expand consumption opportunities, motivate suppliers to make innovations and technological advances, and distribute income and profits in accordance with individual achievement. One of the key responsibilities of government is to establish the policy framework for effective competition. At the same time, the state must foster the willingness and ability of individuals to take personal initiative and to act independently (© Federal Ministry of Economics and Technology).

social market economy is like yin-yang working together to create a balance between government and the market. this feature is already existing in the Philippines, and one of our visions as a party and organization is to maximize the social market economy features within existing systems - of course with human dignity at the core of it all. as far as job generation is concerned, both private and public entities can work hand in hand in creating more jobs. look at PESO or POEA. these are just a few hints of social market economy at work in the Philippines. they say, though, that there are actually a lot of jobs in place already. the problem is that these existing job vacancies do not match the respective qualifications of available workforce. hopefully, we can sort this out too in the future.

thanks for your input and it would be our pleasure to have you participate this saturday and hear your thoughts out! pax filipinas!

@ marshall:

1. I have to paint a different take on why the housing market of US four years ago crashed and burned. It was a bubble inflated not by the "too much freedom" of the banks but it was a government induced bubble. Here's how it started:

a. The federal reserve (government) has kept the interest rates artificially low for a very long time. This caused people who would otherwise cannot afford a housing loan with an interest rate on the real market, apply for one due to the availability of cheap credit. This caused an artificial boom for a decade. Sub prime loans upon sub prime loans piled on top of one another. Banks were encouraged with very risky investment practices due to the Community Reinvestment Act (government). Eventually the course of the bubble ran its due and it predictably burst. It caught the US government off guard. But not certain economists who predicted the bubble a decade earlier.

It was not caused by the lack of regulation. It was caused by excessive government meddling into the market with a misplaced sense of charity for the people. Misplaced in the sense that they are guided only by their desire to do something good. The saving grace of the crisis would have been the big correction by letting corporations and businesses liquidate their losses (burst) but the US government in a bid to "save" the economy tried to stimulate it by injecting billions of unnecessary dollars which effectively secured the debt of their future generations by expanding money supply out of thin air to reinvigorate the economy. The result, transfer of wealth from the working class to big corporations through government legislation. The Government became a tool to channel wealth of the nation to "too big to fail" banking institutions.

b. To safeguard the wealth of each citizen, government must never get involved in the economic affairs. Only through protection of rights and enforcement of contracts the government should function. That is the balance between free market and the government. Anything more the government will do, that will be the breeding ground of potential corruption.

c. The disparity of rich and poor has two angles. Its either the government tries to limit the wealth of the rich to narrow the disparity from the wealth of the poor effectively impoverishing the entire nation, or allow no limits so as to any amount of wealth any citizen will acquire, effectively increasing the wealth of both the rich and poor thus the entire nation.

d. Effective competition can never be designed by groups of men. Billions upon billions of individual thoughts, actions, decisions, possibilities, and market information cannot be designed effectively. The market (you and me, and all other people) will decide through the invisible mesh of our individual pursuit of our own lives.

[m_a_r_k_u_z]

mao ni giingon, nga ang dato, nisamot og ka dato, ang pobre, nagpabilin, bisan unsaon pagpaningkamot, mao ra japon....nganong daghan mn jud mag-ilog og pwesto aning pulitika? unsa man jud ang naa ani? kausaban? hmmm... mas naa cguro kausaban kung kinsa man ang naa sa taas nga pwesto ang motabang namong mga kabos, matagaan og luna ang mga squatter, aron mahapsay ang pag-poyo, dagko kaayug buhis ang katawhan, hapit nalang walay mahibilin sa sweldo. ang presyo sa palitonon cgeg taas, ang sweldo nagpabilin, og ngano pud kaha ng sweldo sa pilipinas lahi2x man og rate, manila dagko og rate, ang provincial, gagmay, kay matud pa mahal daw ang palitonon sa manila, sa cebu d i barato?

TS, unsa man d i na n u plata porma, unsa mana imong pasabot nga kausaban? kausaban sa unsa? kanang yaw2x og reklamo, dli mn jud na kalikayan labi na og dili kaoyon sa balaod nga gipatuman, kay naa man pud balaod nga maka ayo, naa pud balaod nga maka daot. mao nga kaming mga inosenteng lumolopyo niining syudad, wala jud tawun mahimo, kung pag boot na sa labawng makagagahum, bisan sakit sa boot, tuman nalang.

[amingb]

si TS ba imbis mo convince ug tawo mangaway man hinoon ....

[Godfather]

@ marshall:

a. The federal reserve (government) has kept the interest rates artificially low for a very long time. This caused people who would otherwise cannot afford a housing loan with an interest rate on the real market, apply for one due to the availability of cheap credit. This caused an artificial boom for a decade. Sub prime loans upon sub prime loans piled on top of one another. Banks were encouraged with very risky investment practices due to the Community Reinvestment Act (government). Eventually the course of the bubble ran its due and it predictably burst. It caught the US government off guard. But not certain economists who predicted the bubble a decade earlier.

I beg to disagree. Marshall is right. The banks lent money left and right without examining the capacity to pay of the creditor. The more loans they approved, the more they can bundle and sell to investors. True the low interest rates qualified more people but if greed did not reign, the banks should have made sure that the creditor can pay their monthly amortization before loaning the money out. Why are you blaming the low interest rate primarily? It were the banks who got greedy.

It was not caused by the lack of regulation. It was caused by excessive government meddling into the market with a misplaced sense of charity for the people. Misplaced in the sense that they are guided only by their desire to do something good. The saving grace of the crisis would have been the big correction by letting corporations and businesses liquidate their losses (burst) but the US government in a bid to "save" the economy tried to stimulate it by injecting billions of unnecessary dollars which effectively secured the debt of their future generations by expanding money supply out of thin air to reinvigorate the economy. The result, transfer of wealth from the working class to big corporations through government legislation. The Government became a tool to channel wealth of the nation to "too big to fail" banking institutions.

With unemployment tottering at double digit levels, what would have happened if these banks were allowed to fail? How much chaos would it have dealt the economy not only of the US but of the world? Besides, that help earned the government billions of dollars, better than a good investment in the market.

b. To safeguard the wealth of each citizen, government must never get involved in the economic affairs. Only through protection of rights and enforcement of contracts the government should function. That is the balance between free market and the government. Anything more the government will do, that will be the breeding ground of potential corruption.

You speak like a Republican. Do you know of the agriculture subsidies like for milk, corn, etc.? Have you heard of how the US government tax steel from China and other materials to protect US companies? Do you know the consequences if the government did not control interest rates? Try envisioning what would happen if the government completely stayed away from financial transactions. No government involvement is but a dream. The fact is there are some areas where regulations are necessary.

c. The disparity of rich and poor has two angles. Its either the government tries to limit the wealth of the rich to narrow the disparity from the wealth of the poor effectively impoverishing the entire nation, or allow no limits so as to any amount of wealth any citizen will acquire, effectively increasing the wealth of both the rich and poor thus the entire nation.

You assume that the rich entrepreneurs will willingly share the wealth to the workforce by paying them higher salaries. Why then is the gap between the rich and the poor widening? Why then is the middle class slowly disappearing? Will it not bother you if one making $20K a year pay the same percentage of their salary to one making $500M? How is taxing the millionaires more going to impoverish society and taxing everybody the same rate enrich everybody?

d. Effective competition can never be designed by groups of men. Billions upon billions of individual thoughts, actions, decisions, possibilities, and market information cannot be designed effectively. The market (you and me, and all other people) will decide through the invisible mesh of our individual pursuit of our own lives.

Please elaborate. I can't seem to make sense of the above.

[<SMILE>]

OT: Hahay unsa man ni maora man ug monologue oist.

ONT: Epektibo ba kaha ning federalism
tested na ni nga form of governance.
asa mang mga nasura ang ga-adopt
ini karon?

[kit_cebu]

^usa.............

[<SMILE>]

Aw kung ma-adopt ni nato
naa na pud diay tay State of Cebu
ug State of CDO, nindot pud ni da,
Unya state of Basilan pud (kinsa kahay mo-lead nila didto unya unsa pud kahay mga balaod nila)
daghan pud unya na sila ug bisita nga tag-as ug bungot.