MERGED: RP among most restrictive in foreign investments?

[Tirong-say]

---

Mas maayo unta wagtangon na nga restrictions, mas maayo nga walay local cartel, free market man kaha ta, unya dili na hinuon kasulod ang foreign investors. maorag 40%-60% man tingale ang partition ana in favor sa atong local kung naay property nga paliton. maorag kinahanglan gyud ug overhaul ning parteha.

[yacky2006]

gamay rasad tingali ang pinas comparar sa ubang nasud.

mas maayo raman cguro naay restrictions kay kung wala halos tanan area na noon foreign own then kita mag work nila mora nata ug slave.

I remember the proposed US bases treaty was rejected in the Senate last 1991 with 12-11 vote.

[boom_box]

aren't we the same people complaining nga insik ray ga-tag-iya daghan sa mga dagkong negosyo diri??

is having a 60% bad than a 0% filipino ownership?

IMO, dako nasad kayo ang monopoly diri sa mga big Fil-Chinese oligarchs... i.e, Henry Sy and Lucio Tan..

[Romeojin]

a large percentage sa atong stock exchange is owned by several families. its time we had competition with their businesses. it would translate to more jobs, cheaper goods, cheaper housing, better economy etc.

sadly di man agenda ng noy admin ang chacha. daghan bya oligarchs backed him lol.

[boom_box]

a large percentage sa atong stock exchange is owned by several families. its time we had competition with their businesses. it would translate to more jobs, cheaper goods, cheaper housing, better economy etc.

sadly di man agenda ng noy admin ang chacha. daghan bya oligarchs backed him lol.

Mao jud niy naka paet...
Mas mu tuo nako krn na bahala naa japun corruption sa atong nasud basta kung open lang ang government sa level playing field sa free-market environment.. siyaro daghan jud mu sulud mag invest diri.. as long dili sila entitled mag own sa natural resources..

Ok pud ko na tang-tangon ang restriction sa foreign na mag own ug media companies diri... tan-awon ba nato kung mag-dugay ba nang ABiaS-CBN... haha

These big oligarch families are ripping off us for decades najud...

[psyche54]

gamay rasad tingali ang pinas comparar sa ubang nasud.

Compare Philippines w/ Singapore...

In terms of:

- Geographical Size
- Population Density
- Economic Growth & Sustainability
- *** Foreign Economic Policy

[ldl5165]

sa singapore allowed ba foreigners mo own og land?

[estor_boot]

but what if these proposal will fail us again? blame game gihapon?

like the oil deregulation law? isn't it supposed to lower oil prices by making it easier for new oil players to come in the market? and what happened, the market is still controlled by the big three. pareha pa ug amount wether increase ug decrease.

[gareb]

i would have to most respectfully object.

1.) the term "protectionism" is a relative term that is used pejoratively by international economic organizations such as the IMF and the World Bank against those economies that supposedly do not open up, or limit the amount of foreign capital investment coming inside their countries, as well as "real" goods (e.g. food stuffs, etc.).

"protectionism" has always been the charge of bigger economies who have excess capital and goods to those smaller economies who intentionally limit the entry of these so that their infant industries can develop. therefore developed countries see protectionism as "anti-trade" as they see it, while less developed countries see it as favoring their economies, as their own goods simply cannot compete with technologically advanced and produced goods by bigger economies.

curiously "protectionism" also exists even in major economies in the world as it takes different forms. this is the point of contention on the raging debate against US corn subsidies that other countries want removed.

this is the reason why that;

a.) to charge that the philippine economy one of the top "protectionist" countries is a dubious claim especially since they limit the definition of the word to only one form of protectionism. also,

b.)the charge does not even take into account how the philippine economy has already been inundated by cheap import products from outside its borders especially from China that no doubt forces local producers out of the market as they simply cannot compete.

this leaves us the suspicion that this charge is not a simple argument of economics but politics as well. it leaves us the suspicion that foreign capital is behind the push to remove all hindrances to its movement. this is a dangerous thing.

not a single industrialized country in the world has ever become one due to foreign investments. they became industrialized precisely because they favored their national industries to flourish hence giving us the brands and trademarks that we are so very familiar with. instead of becoming mere workers in the factories, they owned the factories and expanded their business.

[gareb]

(apologies for the multi-post. my net connection is unstable)

2.) as for the Philippine constitution being as it is, the national industrialization and full employment is seen as the foremost means to achieve the goals summarized in the first paragraph. at the end of the second paragraph is also a key line that directs the government to protect the economy from unfair foreign competition and trade policies. section 2 directs who controls and how resources should it be shared. the fourth paragraph as included below details how the government can utilize foreign assistance in using natural resources. these two key portions of the constitution is what they want removed.

the issue here isn't just buying up land to build skyscrapers for multinational companies, or foreigners owning up land to build their houses on, essentially by changing or removing this vital portion of the constitution, actual philippine soil wherein natural resources are found can be bought and owned by foreign companies. this means, we no longer have any right over our own natural resources.

please take note that there is a difference between the ownership of our natural resources and financially investing on ventures to extract and utilize these resources. it seems that those who propose to amend the constitution would want to have our country for sale. as it is already, the former president disregarded these provisions in the constitution when she pushed for the Mining Act of 1995 (RA 7942). what's the use then of amending the constitution when someone could just disregard it blatantly?

others may see this as "protectionist", and they have every right to do so, as their interests are different from ours. but the key idea here is that even at the time when the constitution was made, already they were aware that foreign capital investment can become a threat if not controlled properly and allowed to do whatever it wants. this, incidentally is the laissez-faire mantra of the IMF and World Bank, especially before the 2009-10 economic recession.

3.) though vital, the success of any economy is not entirely dependent on foreign investment.

a.)the development of economic hubs, (Singapore and Hong Kong) are very different from our own. without vast amounts of natural resources, the made their economy depend on taxes from business that are attracted to the the facilities and the existing highly skilled blue-collar (manufacturing) and white collar (office/academic and services) workers.
b.)Dubai was made progressive because it depends on capital from Abu Dhabi's revenues from oil.
c.)Korea, Malaysia, Thailand and even China, depended almost entirely from its own agricultural capital which was later used to industrialize agriculture itself, as well as its manufacturing sector.

4.) as for the matter of local oligarchs (Lucio Tan, Henry Sy, etc.) they hardly figure in the equation. they most definitely will be hurt if foreign capital would have its way, but the gains for hurting them will not come to the common people but to those who control foreign capital.

if you think it is bad now with them controlling vast resources as they do, it would just go worse if you hand our resources over to others.

the answer is not to hand over our resources to foreign capital but for genuine national industrialization. instead of disregarding these provisions, the government needs to even focus on it and take an active part in supporting agriculture through genuine agrarian reform, as stated on the constitution itself.