Two Economic Views That Economists Should Be Careful Of

While I'm no economist, I just consulted one of my economic professors who is a doctorate in the field.  I told her about the economic concepts of two persons.  I'll name the models as the Blabbersky Model and the other, the Pedronomics Model.  These are two extreme views to avoid for these reasons.

The Blabbersky Model is a view of an overly closed economy.  I named it after some American guy who thinks the Philippines is blessed to have 60/40 economic policy.  He believes that progress is bad, that the poor are blessed, that multiplying children beyond one's means is good for the country, he somehow embraces poverty, he thinks that opening up the economy will destroy the "holiness" of the Philippines.

This view also views the culture of being habitually late, lavish feasting, covering up the fault of your countrymen, the victim mentality and lack of discipline makes life worth living in a third world country.  Countries worse than the Philippines like Bangladesh (where peeing and pooing anywhere is very acceptable, gross) may find his economic view acceptable.  He may think Tondo is the best city in the Philippines.

He would rather remain dirt poor than get rid of practices he believes makes life worth living in the Philippines.  He would rather get fired than show up on time.  He would rather sleep in the streets with lots of children than to be living in a decent house with only a few children.  In short, he is embracing poverty as a blessing, he views wealth as evil never mind that salary for employees is a share of wealth.

The Pedronomic Model on the other hand has extreme poles towards the Blabbersky Model.  This would be assuming what is good for the third world country only having been there for a short time.   This guy sells lands to foreigners, allows immediate 100% ownership and lets businesses enter indiscriminately.  For one, 100% ownership of business is in terms of intangible assets, not land.  A foreigner may own his business shares 100% but he doesn't have land bought.  He may be renting a piece of land but the land owner DOES NOT own any shares to his business.  The land owner may evict him for violations but the ownership of shares still belongs to the foreign investor.

The problem also is that this guy thinks joint ventures in general are bad.  The 60/40 joint venture rule in the Philippines is bad because it's self-serving.  But let's face it, in life foreigners will want joint ventures to get familiar with the country.  Although China is strict with 100% ownership but they allow 50% and higher ownership for foreign companies.  Having a joint venture can be helpful for foreign firms to be familiar with uncertain waters, to have help with the local people and to establish good relationship with the government of the country they invest in.  But this guy thinks no foreign company will accept joint venture agreements.

What he doesn't realize is this.  Selling of land of foreigners will mean they will take over.  Unless they have citizenship first, they shouldn't get lands.  Also another flaw in this model is that you are indiscriminate in accepting foreign firms.  A foreign firm that's lousy will always be as lousy as a local firm that's lousy!  It may also mean the invasion of crime syndicates into the country.  Plus, you ca't approve all business proposals can you?  Only good foreign businesses must be allowed to enter.


  1. Maybe all we need now is for one of them to say "One shall stand, one shall fall" then have them kill each other. Good riddance, if ever... :P

    Although I can tolerate that Pedro more, with what you just said about land ownership, it just makes me think he want to stage another invasion of the Philippines. As if the xenophobia of those hypocrite ultra-nationalistic Failipinos aren't enough... -_-


Post a Comment