PH is now Asia's strongest-performing economy, says expert

[jack_bauer]

---

But still foreign investors cannot invest as much as possible because what really covers in the Negative List are the most profitable and productive sectors that needs much capital that is beyond the capacities of most Filipino businesses to invest like mining, oil and gas, agriculture, telecom, power, publishing, light manufacturing, infrastructure, banking, tourism, education, health care, transportation, and many others.

this is another story.. FDI has little effect to this enterprises..

Allow 100% FDI in defense sector with a condition that only the reliable friends of the Philippines like the US, Japan, Russia, and EU to participate.

no sane country will allow foreign germs to make defense programs for them.. as they say, there are no permanent allies.. i doubt the DND will allow outsiders to do there work for them, anyhow there are other options for capitalization.. we can always ask for foreign loan grants..

Allow 100% FDI in public health care as the government doesn't have enough capital, technology, and expertise to improve our health care situation in our country.

we can only trust our own.. we can never trust anyone.. this is non-negotiable.. imagine USA monopolizing our health programs..

Allow 100% FDI in small and medium-sized domestic market enterprises without minimum paid-in capital restrictions so that the workers and consumers will have more option on where to work or to buy their daily needs in life which means more competition in our domestic market means more jobs for the millions of unemployed Filipinos and more choice for our consumers on where to buy something else.

Let Wal-mart, Carrefour, Target, Costco, and many other foreign-owned retailing giants to compete SM, Ayala, Gaisano, Robinsons, and many others.

there are reasons why a minimum capilatization is asked.. this is to avoid illegitimate businesses..

Together with the abolition of the protectionist economic provisions of our 1987 constitution like the idiotic 60/40, abolish the RA 7042 entirely and allow 100% foreign competition in our domestic markets.

Replace the 60/40 with equal protection clause between local and foreign businesses where foreigners can invest and own 100% of a businesses they set-up legally.

equal protection is only for the sovereign, not unless, you are willing to give-up your sovereignty..

[lazaro4ever]

Let Wal-mart, Carrefour, Target, Costco, and many other foreign-owned retailing giants to compete SM, Ayala, Gaisano, Robinsons, and many others.



Together with the abolition of the protectionist economic provisions of our 1987 constitution like the idiotic 60/40, abolish the RA 7042 entirely and allow 100% foreign competition in our domestic markets.

Replace the 60/40 with equal protection clause between local and foreign businesses where foreigners can invest and own 100% of a businesses they set-up legally.

We simply cannot make local and international business an equal opportunity. Ask any economist, they'll tell you that doing this will kill the small to medium sized business, which makes up for a big majority of the business sector. In the end, you'll lose jobs. That's what is happening to the U.S. also. Walmart and other big chains are killing small businesses.

[jack_bauer]

We simply cannot make local and international business an equal opportunity. Ask any economist, they'll tell you that doing this will kill the small to medium sized business, which makes up for a big majority of the business sector. In the end, you'll lose jobs. That's what is happening to the U.S. also. Walmart and other big chains are killing small businesses.

yes, correct. that's why, we need to take advantage of this protectionist constitution right now. In the future, when we'll have good economy.. we can always compete those big players.. but not now.. just not now..

look at the present AFP modernization program. for how decades it has been stalled but with sound and corrupt-free policy, we have improved.. having the same premise, if only we will utilize our resources better with less corruption, we can improve our economy and the country as a whole..

[Joseph20102011]

this is another story.. FDI has little effect to this enterprises..

FDI has little effect because we chose to restrict ourselves from more FDI inflows to enter in our country just to cater some local business interests who cannot really compete with real foreign competition.

no sane country will allow foreign germs to make defense programs for them.. as they say, there are no permanent allies.. i doubt the DND will allow outsiders to do there work for them, anyhow there are other options for capitalization.. we can always ask for foreign loan grants..

Allowing 100% FDI in defense doesn't mean that any foreign governments will interfere in our internal affairs especially the defense but what I suggest is to allow foreign military equipment companies to invest in our defense sector like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and many others like technology transfer for example to our Armed Forces of the Philippines.

By the way, India which is a way larger country is clamoring to allow 100% FDI in defense sector, why not the Philippines?

Assocham seeks 100% FDI in defence sector - Economic Times

we can only trust our own.. we can never trust anyone.. this is non-negotiable.. imagine USA monopolizing our health programs..

Current status quo never allows FDI in public health sector never assures better health services to the patients because our government doesn't have enough capital, technology, and especially expertise to address the needs of Filipinos who needs affordable health care. Encouraging real competition in health care will not only lower the prices of medicines but also it improves the efficiency and innovation in medical technology which are vital for our Filipino patients to cure from their respective diseases. In an globalized economy, whether you like it or not, open the public health care sector to 100% foreign investment. Other countries like US and Europe have done that.

there are reasons why a minimum capilatization is asked.. this is to avoid illegitimate businesses..

You are wrong, the real reasons on why minimum capitalization is asked is to protect some uncompetitive local businesses from real competition at the expense of the workers and especially the consumers. Singapore, Hong Kong, United States, and many developed countries never asked any foreign investors there of minimum capitalization and instead they allow them to invest 100% from their own capital without minimum capitalization conditions.

equal protection is only for the sovereign, not unless, you are willing to give-up your sovereignty..

By using your appeal to fear fallacy, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan that allows 100% FDI at most of their economic sectors should have been controlled economically and politically by the United States and the European Union but instead, their respective economies caught up the US or EU GDP per capita within a generation and therefore they became a developed economy status as these countries opens themselves to more FDI inflows as much as possible than us.

[Joseph20102011]

We simply cannot make local and international business an equal opportunity.

That's a simple misconception, competitive businesses regardless of country of origin doesn't need arbitrary laws to themselves from real competition and look, Philippine-owned business like San Miguel Corporation is able to compete with the lucrative Hong Kong market where San Miguel Beer is one of the most famous alcoholic products there and also, Liwayway Marketing Corporation, the makers of Oishi is able to compete the huge market of China and in fact, they thrived there.

Liwayway Marketing Corporation - WikiPilipinas: The Hip 'n Free Philippine Encyclopedia

Ask any economist, they'll tell you that doing this will kill the small to medium sized business, which makes up for a big majority of the business sector.

Some uncompetitive small business may die in a short-run but in a long-run basis, more small businesses will emerge as higher purchasing power by the workers due to intense competition in the market will drive some of the workers to establish their own businesses to compete the existing businesses.

In the end, you'll lose jobs.

More competition in the job market like more foreign-owned businesses to thrive for example means more job oppotunities for the unemployed Filipinos like me at home not abroad. More competition in the job market will increase the wages of the workers in a long-run as decreasing labor supply will force companies to increase the wages of their workers so that this workers will able to satisfy their increasing needs.

Backward bending supply curve of labour - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Labour supply - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's what is happening to the U.S. also. Walmart and other big chains are killing small businesses.

Wal-mart really helps small-businesses to thrive and survive.

CARPE DIEM: Wal-Mart Helps Many Small, Local Businesses

Walmart Giving Small Businesses a Chance at Selling in the "Big Box" | Fox Small Business Center

Why Wal-Mart Can Be Good for Small Business - Risky Business (usnews.com)

[jack_bauer]

@Joseph: you seemed to forget that FDI's are temporary investments..

...honestly, you have made me make enormous researches regarding the pros & cons of Parliamentary government for Philippine set-up.. in which case, you earned my respect.. but, you insisting too much in FDI's made me re-think about your stand..

forgive me for my skepticism, but reading through your blogs makes me think that your opinion is solely based on (emerging) popularist thinking against our present government structure..

should this forum permits through other thread, i'd like to discuss with you parliamentary form against federalism.. since i'm for federal form of government..

OnT: suffice it to say, our arguments regarding the protectionist clause of the 1987 constitution are not on the same plane.. i was hoping you'd get to notice why i have mentioned the FDI law.. since that law is distinct and totally different from the 60/40 protectionist clause which you're so fond of mentioning..

[jack_bauer]

FDI has little effect because we chose to restrict ourselves from more FDI inflows to enter in our country just to cater some local business interests who cannot really compete with real foreign competition.

most FDI's are used to meddle local business which is very detrimental to our weak economy..

Allowing 100% FDI in defense doesn't mean that any foreign governments will interfere in our internal affairs especially the defense but what I suggest is to allow foreign military equipment companies to invest in our defense sector like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, General Dynamics, and many others like technology transfer for example to our Armed Forces of the Philippines.

i assumed you are privy to businesses, you just can't expect this conglomerates to give pro bono services to us, when they invests they are expecting something big in return. and by the way, most of these defense contractors are prohibited by host countries to engage in technology development for other countries other than their own. example, when lockheed would develop a cretain prototype, they are prescribe by US laws not to divulge nor share that technology to other countries, for in the first place, the loan grant for lockheed came from the US government.. im sure you're aware of that..

By the way, India which is a way larger country is clamoring to allow 100% FDI in defense sector, why not the Philippines?

Assocham seeks 100% FDI in defence sector - Economic Times

they are still in the process of considering foreign intrusion into their defense program.. lets wait and learn from them..

Current status quo never allows FDI in public health sector never assures better health services to the patients because our government doesn't have enough capital, technology, and especially expertise to address the needs of Filipinos who needs affordable health care. Encouraging real competition in health care will not only lower the prices of medicines but also it improves the efficiency and innovation in medical technology which are vital for our Filipino patients to cure from their respective diseases. In an globalized economy, whether you like it or not, open the public health care sector to 100% foreign investment. Other countries like US and Europe have done that.

we always have foreign loans as an option..

You are wrong, the real reasons on why minimum capitalization is asked is to protect some uncompetitive local businesses from real competition at the expense of the workers and especially the consumers. Singapore, Hong Kong, United States, and many developed countries never asked any foreign investors there of minimum capitalization and instead they allow them to invest 100% from their own capital without minimum capitalization conditions.

i'd like to know what are these enterprises that these nations allows 100% foreign ownership.. let me answer you later..

By using your appeal to fear fallacy, Hong Kong, Japan, Singapore, South Korea, and Taiwan that allows 100% FDI at most of their economic sectors should have been controlled economically and politically by the United States and the European Union but instead, their respective economies caught up the US or EU GDP per capita within a generation and therefore they became a developed economy status as these countries opens themselves to more FDI inflows as much as possible than us.

where is fallacy in that? what fear am i talking about? you are comparing countries with different culture.. you can't assume the success of one country will be our success too..

[Joseph20102011]

@Joseph: you seemed to forget that FDI's are temporary investments..

But FDI has a capability of generating more jobs for millions of unemployed Filipinos at home as much as possible and can improve the infrastructure of our country that is essential to our future economic growth as our Filipino-owned companies doesn't have enough capital, technology, and expertise to tap our labor market, our natural resources, and our vast consumer market.

By the way FDI is much better than OFW remittances as FDI mostly turns into investment for further improvement of our economy while the OFW remittances will only stimulates the consumption side at the expense of the investment side as most of the recipients of OFW remittances tends to spend it immediately not saving some of a remittance share for further investments like setting-up a small business.

...honestly, you have made me make enormous researches regarding the pros & cons of Parliamentary government for Philippine set-up.. in which case, you earned my respect.. but, you insisting too much in FDI's made me re-think about your stand..

As I said above, we cannot rely on our own Filipino businesses of supporting the entire economy even if their capital, technology, and expertise are lacking to support the needs of millions of unemployed Filipinos at home.

We need to re-structure our economic model from consumption, OFW remittances-based into investment, FDI-based economy which will be vital for the Philippines to move forward economically.

forgive me for my skepticism, but reading through your blogs makes me think that your opinion is solely based on (emerging) popularist thinking against our present government structure..

If Noynoy Aquino really cares with our country, he should admit that the 1987 constitution ratified by his mother needs not just a simple amendments but a total revision of its charter in order to fix the economic, social, and political problems of our country for somewhat in a long-run.

should this forum permits through other thread, i'd like to discuss with you parliamentary form against federalism.. since i'm for federal form of government..

It is wrong to compare federal and parliamentary because the like of asymmetric federalism, federacy, federation, unitary, semi-unitary, semi-federal, and others are the kinds on how to treat the regions of a certain country while the likes of parliamentary, presidential, absolute monarchy, and others are forms on how to govern a country, state, district, municipality, or barangay.

Government - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

OnT: suffice it to say, our arguments regarding the protectionist clause of the 1987 constitution are not on the same plane.. i was hoping you'd get to notice why i have mentioned the FDI law.. since that law is distinct and totally different from the 60/40 protectionist clause which you're so fond of mentioning..

The RA 7042 is just an affirmation of the 60/40 equity restrictions against foreign investments of the 1987 constitution and had the 60/40 equity restrictions against foreign investments has not been there in the 1987 constitution, we would have been allowing 100% FDI at most of our economic sectors and our country should have been the major destination of foreign investments in Southeast Asia not Vietnam or Indonesia.

Amending the restrictive and outdated economic provisions of the 1987 constitution is really important for the Philippines to satisfy to address the concerns of most foreign investors regarding the ownership issues that is being imbedded by our constitution instead of vested this issue only to our Congress which would be more flexible that stipulating it in our constitutional document.

Constitutional provisions whether you like it or not is supreme over the statutory laws passed by our Congress and it guides the lawmakers on how to pass a law that is not contradictory to the constitution.

[Joseph20102011]

most FDI's are used to meddle local business which is very detrimental to our weak economy..

It gives local businesses a lot of money and motivates them to improve their services to pace-up with foreign competition and also gives an option for local businesses to hire foreign CEOs, loan foreign capital, and study foreign technologies for further improvement. You need to learn and realize that competition breeds competitiveness.

i assumed you are privy to businesses, you just can't expect this conglomerates to give pro bono services to us, when they invests they are expecting something big in return. and by the way, most of these defense contractors are prohibited by host countries to engage in technology development for other countries other than their own. example, when lockheed would develop a cretain prototype, they are prescribe by US laws not to divulge nor share that technology to other countries, for in the first place, the loan grant for lockheed came from the US government.. im sure you're aware of that..

I know that but my whole point is that the government can able to get foreign capital, technology, and expertise through a partnership with foreign-owned defense companies to improve our defense strength.

they are still in the process of considering foreign intrusion into their defense program.. lets wait and learn from them..

We really need the help from US especially in defense sector as we cannot stand against China alone.

we always have foreign loans as an option..

History shows that over reliance on foreign loans from IMF and World Bank would cripple one's economy in a long-run and the Philippines experienced that same thing during the Marcos time as the government borrowed lots of money from IMF and World Bank for infrastructure projects but the money that the government loaned from IMF and World Bank was used for corruption by the Marcos family. Foreign loans are just a short-term fix but long-term pain.

i'd like to know what are these enterprises that these nations allows 100% foreign ownership.. let me answer you later..

I'll list the countries that allows 100% FDI most of their economic sectors.

where is fallacy in that? what fear am i talking about? you are comparing countries with different culture.. you can't assume the success of one country will be our success too..

South Korea emulated the economic model of Japan as their basis for their economic rise.

Singapore emulated the economic model of Japan as their basis for their economic rise.

Malaysia emulated the economic model of Singapore as their basis for their economic rise.

China emulated the economic model of Singapore as their basis for their economic rise.

India emulated the economic model of Singapore as their basis for their economic rise.

[Joseph20102011]

ARGENTINA'S FOREIGN EQUITY OWNERSHIP BY SECTORS:

Mining - 100%.
Oil and gas - 100%.
Agriculture - 100%.
Forestry - 100%.
Light manufacturing - 100%.
Food manufacturing - 100%.
Pharmaceutical manufacturing - 100%.
Publishing - 100%.
Fixed-line infrastructure - 100%.
Fixed-line telephony services - 100%.
Wireless/mobile infrastructure - 100%.
Wireless/mobile services - 100%.
Power distribution - 100%.
Power generation (biomass) - 100%.
Power generation (coal) - 100%.
Power generation (hydro) - 100%.
Power generation (solar) - 100%.
Power generation (wind) - 100%.
Power transmission - 100%.
Banking - 100%.
Insurance - 100%.
Airport operation - 100%.
Domestic air - 49%.
International air - 49%.
Port operation - 100%.
Railway freight - 100%.
Newspaper - 30%.
Television broadcasting - 30%.
Construction - 100%.
Retail distribution services - 100%.
Tourism - 100%.
Health care - 100%.
Waste management and recycling - 100%.

Argentina - Investing Across Borders - World Bank Group