Kung ikaw ang ma Presidente?

[emow]

---

Depends on what government.. A good example of profitability of GOCCs is the Chinese government, their state owned companies makes an average of $160B annually. this year they are on the roll, over $200B profit.
Profit growth at Chinese state firms accelerates in H1 | Reuters
Thats 4 times our national budget. The drawbacks for China's success is that they dont remit that much to their govt coffers, thereby their GOCC grows even biggger and another drawback is that their GOCC is one of the biggest conduit of corruption.

Taking these into account minus the negative effects. dont you think na we can further service our welfare department, improve our national defense, improve our education systems etc; if our govt had access to profitable GOCCs money ?

Govt should work more than relying on people taxes (even now BIR is looking for more taxable income). Beside we are limiting foreign investment why not let the govt take over key industries and power sector, invest on mining and oil exploration, or even invest abroad (like China is doing in the field of mining, agriculture, finances), even China build ghost city thats how much money they got. We relied too much and protect the oligarchs, two people of this country owns significant amount of our national GDP.

enough of those Penoy BS like govt cant make it profitable thats why he is pursuing privatization, hes doing that so that the oligarchs would reap profits; GOCCs need to be spearheaded by brilliant minds... theres no chance in doing so if the govt lower their salary and take away their incentives and bonuses, like what Penoy is doing.


Thereby my second suggestion... is to improve our GOCCs, and then use the profit to augment the national budget and improve further the GOCCs.

1. Since 1978, china has been privatizing a lot of its State Owned Enterprises, SEO, as their economic policy gradually shifted from socialist to capitalist. In 2010, its top 500 companies are mostly SEOs with its top private company landing at 39. But inspite of its private companies being dwarfed by SEOs in terms of profits, more than 70% of innovation and new products came from the private sector. This is very important in uplifting the average chinese's standard of living. The high profitability of SEOs doesnt automatically translate to consumers' well being. The fact that these SEOs create monopolies on different industries means that consumers have little choice compared to industries where competition is prevalent. Case in point, for many years China had an SEO that monopolizes its auto industry. After China entered WTO, it lowered tariffs on foreign imports of cars. That SEO surely suffered losses but the average chinese benefited from more choices. It is because of the existence of the competition among private enterprises(in its fullest meaning) that the average consumer increased their standard of living. The SEOs benefited from this rise of purchasing power, and not the other way around. If SEOs are a boon to the country, then China should have stayed its pre capitalist economic policies. There may be a case in keeping some SEOs but i am still more inclined in privatizing them so that consumers will benefit from competing enterprises.
2. Companies will only improve when there is a threat of losses, a reality private enterprises face every second, but not SEOs and GOCCs which can survive on the red with tax payers money, not to mention the bonuses they award themselves inspite of losses. there is also political clout in the appointments of upper positions for these Goccs so improving them through political maneuvers will just replace one political clout with another. Profitable goccs are exemptions rather than the rule. And if ever it is profitable, i would rather place it to different shareholders. The oligarchs might seize these corporations, thats why its important to deregulate markets to increase competition, both foreign and local. Without tax money backing previous goccs, the new owners will have to compete fairly in the market, meaning without government assistance. The aim is not to enrich the government but to benefit the consumers.

3. I would support in improving national defense. But i would slowly dissolve welfare programs, which have transformed from safety nets to hammocks of idleness. Its not really the problem of the people managing these programs, but its the whole idea itself is wrong. I would rather government deregulate education as well. Have you seen the books for public schools? Laughable if not tragic.

[Romeojin]

1. Since 1978, china has been privatizing a lot of its State Owned Enterprises, SEO, as their economic policy gradually shifted from socialist to capitalist. In 2010, its top 500 companies are mostly SEOs with its top private company landing at 39. But inspite of its private companies being dwarfed by SEOs in terms of profits, more than 70% of innovation and new products came from the private sector. This is very important in uplifting the average chinese's standard of living. The high profitability of SEOs doesnt automatically translate to consumers' well being. The fact that these SEOs create monopolies on different industries means that consumers have little choice compared to industries where competition is prevalent. Case in point, for many years China had an SEO that monopolizes its auto industry. After China entered WTO, it lowered tariffs on foreign imports of cars. That SEO surely suffered losses but the average chinese benefited from more choices. It is because of the existence of the competition among private enterprises(in its fullest meaning) that the average consumer increased their standard of living. The SEOs benefited from this rise of purchasing power, and not the other way around. If SEOs are a boon to the country, then China should have stayed its pre capitalist economic policies. There may be a case in keeping some SEOs but i am still more inclined in privatizing them so that consumers will benefit from competing enterprises.
2. Companies will only improve when there is a threat of losses, a reality private enterprises face every second, but not SEOs and GOCCs which can survive on the red with tax payers money, not to mention the bonuses they award themselves inspite of losses. there is also political clout in the appointments of upper positions for these Goccs so improving them through political maneuvers will just replace one political clout with another. Profitable goccs are exemptions rather than the rule. And if ever it is profitable, i would rather place it to different shareholders. The oligarchs might seize these corporations, thats why its important to deregulate markets to increase competition, both foreign and local. Without tax money backing previous goccs, the new owners will have to compete fairly in the market, meaning without government assistance. The aim is not to enrich the government but to benefit the consumers.

3. I would support in improving national defense. But i would slowly dissolve welfare programs, which have transformed from safety nets to hammocks of idleness. Its not really the problem of the people managing these programs, but its the whole idea itself is wrong. I would rather government deregulate education as well. Have you seen the books for public schools? Laughable if not tragic.

1. Of course in due time SEO which arent profitable would be force to close down or be left to private hands. It doesnt mean that all SEO arent profitable or govt needs to keep them afloat, you said it yourself SEO dwarfs the private companies in terms of profit.
The idea is to keep and strenthen those SEO which are making money for the govt and in return it will fund govt projects. We should not be closing our doors to SEOs without realizing its vast potential, China's SEOs is good examples why shouldnt we not follow its path ?

Look at Malampaya projects govt earns a $1B+ a year from royalties, imagine if the govt owns it 100% and be proactive in looking for another oil/gas field; thats a lot of money pouring in into our national coffers. And many more oppurtunities like in mining, steel industry, overseas venture and other business activity that could do little harm to the country's oligarchs

And about consumer choices ? cmon we are paying high utilities rate, we got slow internet speed, high fuel prices; we are left with little choice. Before when the govt had control of Petron, the govt can control prices and even operate at minumum profit to lower fuel costs. Whats good on choices if we are paying a hefty amount.
And im talking only on key industries, not expecting the govt to create their own automotive brand or compete with big foreign companies.

and this is a fantasy thread lol, If im the president I will empower the GOCCs. If it works on China it will work here.


2. You live in the notion that these GOCCs are operating on the red/ surviving on tax payers money. I already cite examples that GOCCs/SEOs can give the govt BILLIONs, not the other way around.

In business you reward your best people, if they make billions then give them millions in wages/bonuses. Thats how to attract brilliant people into the organization.

The govt had $4B reserves from Malampaya project, they can start from that funding. Its just a matter of political will.


3. Thats why poor people had big families they had low medicare cost and its almost free to send their kids to school, I doubt they will complain on the quality of education lol.

I had no qualms about it, its basic job of the any govt to service the vulnerable of the society. The only problem is the lack of funds to service them hence govt should work more and tap the vast potential of GOCCs... more money more projects. But GOCCs growth should be prioritize and only augment 30% of the profit into the the govt coffers.

[sancarlos]

Kung ako ma presidente:
1. No. 1 nako nga pakgangon ang corruption. Atong kalisod ga sugod ani. Atong moralidad ga sugod ani. Atong pag antos ga sugod ani
2. Striktong disiplina. Una sa mga government officials/employees. Dayon ang mga taw. Tan-awa ang Singapore strikto pero nindot puy-an.
3. Tarongon ang mga serbisyo sa health, transportasyon, ug employment. ugi limit ang population (similar but not the same sa 1 child policy sa China). Ang mga naglisod man hinoon ang managhan ug anak.

3 ra pero mao ni mag sugod ug pag palambo nato

[emow]

1. Of course in due time SEO which arent profitable would be force to close down or be left to private hands. It doesnt mean that all SEO arent profitable or govt needs to keep them afloat, you said it yourself SEO dwarfs the private companies in terms of profit.
The idea is to keep and strenthen those SEO which are making money for the govt and in return it will fund govt projects. We should not be closing our doors to SEOs without realizing its vast potential, China's SEOs is good examples why shouldnt we not follow its path ?

Look at Malampaya projects govt earns a $1B+ a year from royalties, imagine if the govt owns it 100% and be proactive in looking for another oil/gas field; thats a lot of money pouring in into our national coffers. And many more oppurtunities like in mining, steel industry, overseas venture and other business activity that could do little harm to the country's oligarchs

And about consumer choices ? cmon we are paying high utilities rate, we got slow internet speed, high fuel prices; we are left with little choice. Before when the govt had control of Petron, the govt can control prices and even operate at minumum profit to lower fuel costs. Whats good on choices if we are paying a hefty amount.
And im talking only on key industries, not expecting the govt to create their own automotive brand or compete with big foreign companies.

and this is a fantasy thread lol, If im the president I will empower the GOCCs. If it works on China it will work here.


2. You live in the notion that these GOCCs are operating on the red/ surviving on tax payers money. I already cite examples that GOCCs/SEOs can give the govt BILLIONs, not the other way around.

In business you reward your best people, if they make billions then give them millions in wages/bonuses. Thats how to attract brilliant people into the organization.

The govt had $4B reserves from Malampaya project, they can start from that funding. Its just a matter of political will.


3. Thats why poor people had big families they had low medicare cost and its almost free to send their kids to school, I doubt they will complain on the quality of education lol.

I had no qualms about it, its basic job of the any govt to service the vulnerable of the society. The only problem is the lack of funds to service them hence govt should work more and tap the vast potential of GOCCs... more money more projects. But GOCCs growth should be prioritize and only augment 30% of the profit into the the govt coffers.

1. I meant the SEO in china dwarfed private sector in profits, but this is not a universal truth especially in the Philippines. Part of the success of their seos is that chinese government barely extracts from seos profits. And yes, they shower themselves with bonuses. However, their profitability doesnt really benefit the average chinese.
1.a. the idea of improving goccs means a lot of intervention from government? The natural ills of corruption will spill over to goccs. Unless they are run almost like a private company, subjected to competition and no bail outs. The potential of goccs is nothing compared to unobstructed influx of private investors.
1.b. offtopic: when oil was still subsidized, prices at the pumps were lower. But it didnt matter because we were plagued with powershortage, fuel shortage, and a depleting economy. The subsidies were unsustainable and threatened to bring down the whole economy. Ramos was forced to propose deregulation.
2. Malampaya was already involved in a scam. And based on reality, most of our goccs are operating on the red and unproductive.
3. Welfare programs are sources of corruption. I dont think government can peRform that job well nor it should perform that job at all.

[firestarter]

Kung akoy ma presidente..

Pangita-on nakong pinaka pagarpar nga mga poster diri sa istorya. Dayon silay himuong presidente. ..

[sancarlos]

Kung akoy ma presidente..

Pangita-on nakong pinaka pagarpar nga mga poster diri sa istorya. Dayon silay himuong presidente. ..

Hehehehe...No. 1 contender ka bro...Iboto si firestarter!!!!!

[firestarter]

Hehehehe...No. 1 contender ka bro...Iboto si firestarter!!!!!

OT: Hehehe, shadow account na pud ni ai.. sige pa bro.. sakpan ra lage ka puhon ban na pud ka.

[sancarlos]

bitaw pareng emow, isuwat sd imong plans if ikaw ang ma presidente para maka comment sad sila...

ako, if mo bali ang tuyok sa kalibutan ma presidente ko, mo focus ko sa education.

1. build schools, schools, and a lot of schools.
2. increase salary ceiling sa mga teachers para ma attractive ni na profession
3. teach kids the basics of honesty, honor and dignity.

diha ko magsugod. lisod naman gud badlungon ning current generation sa mga politician kay nangugat na. mrag "you cant teach an old dog some new trick" na idea.

ako sad ni...hehe

Hehehehe...Dagko naman kaayo nag sweldo ang government teachers oy. Dako pa sa engineers nga 5 years to finish college. Selfish ra sad. Parehas sa mga pulis, mangurakot, mang holdap kay gamay ra kono sweldo...Sh******t ninyo.

[sancarlos]

OT: Hehehe, shadow account na pud ni ai.. sige pa bro.. sakpan ra lage ka puhon ban na pud ka.

Hehehehe....Sori bro...Pilyo ko gamay...Can't help doing adlib...

Bitaw for me, purely stricter rules, implementations and punishments para mo tagam ang mga kawatan, maldito, ug mga salot sa lipunan.

[gazmembrane]

if i become the president, ilisdan nakog military junta ang system