Talk:Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents 1 Defaced...but I can't seem to figure out how to fix it 2 Neutral Point of View 3 Arroyo's succession to the presidency in January 2001/Shooting of Military 4 "Boring" 5 Support for Kerry? 6 Re-election 7 I've gotta say it 8 Midget 9 Problem with article - incomplete sentence 9.1 Coup d'état 10 i really think this is biased... 11 Elections 12 Confused 13 Removal of "UN blacklist" allegation 14 Criticisms of the economy? PLEASE HELP ME 15 RXN to peoplestruth, though this is not the right place 16 Satisfaction ratings 17 Presidency section

Defaced...but I can't seem to figure out how to fix it

King of new here. The page was defaced and I was going to revert it, but when I go to "edit this page" from the article tab, it just shows the article as it seems it SHOULD appear, but not how it actually does. What's with that?

The timing seems off to me for her having been a classmate of President Clinton's at Georgetown. The article says she took her BA in 1968 and then went to the school of foreign service at Georgetown. Clinton graduated from the SFS in 1968 and headed to Oxford that autumn. 163.1.78.138 11:20, 9 September 2005 (UTC). (Her official website biography indicates that she received a B.A. in Economics from Georgetown, although other sources indicate that she transferred her Georgetown credits to Assumption College in the Philippines and took her degree there. What is certain is that she did attend Georgetown simultaneously with Clinton for at least two years and perhaps longer as a member of the same School of Foreign Service class.)

(What is also clear is that her academic work at Georgetown in the School of Foreign Service was distinguished as she was a consistent Dean's list student and that her transfer credit would have contributed to the honors granted by Assumption College.)

Is she a member of the Philippine Academy of the Spanish Language (or whatever it is called)? -- Error

According to this article, yes. -TheCoffee 06:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

A large amount of content was deleted by various anons. I did my best to revert it, but some of it seems NPOV, and I slapped a tag on it. I'm referring it to cleanup. [[User:Rhymeless|Rhymeless | (Methyl Remiss)]] 06:47, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I editted it for NPOV and removed the tag. There doesn't seem to be much debate about it here anyway. This article could use a lot of work, particularly concerning GMA's second term. TheCoffee 09:24, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

In a historical situation where it is very difficult to judge what is the truth the article mostly ignores the suppressed opinions. An example: For journalists the Philippine became the most dangerous country in the world besides the Irak. Killing of members of Human Right Watch organisations were incredibly growing. Believing The Manila Times freedom of demonstration etc. is less than under Marcos dictatorship. Regarding a lot of messages in 2006 its possible that the Edsa II was a well prepared putch against an elected president (see the DVD about the live of Estrada), and that the real winner of the elections 2004 was Poe. Economy: There are missing all problems caused by the present government: "In the Philippines surveys show that more people than ever go hungry and say they eat only one full meal a day. Hunger drives the poor to work harder and longer yet they earn less and less and pay more for food." (Manila Times 07.12.2006) etc.

Arroyo's succession to the presidency in January 2001/Shooting of Military

"Protesters numbering in the thousands marched to the presidential palace on May 1 and demanded Estrada, who had previously been arrested on charges of plunder, be released and reinstated. The protesters refused to be pacified and violence ensued. In response, several protesters and prominent political leaders were arrested. Arroyo eventually stopped the protests and survived the first serious challenge of her administration, the first of many in the coming years."

Why you delete the information about the shootings and killings of protesters? 02 Nov 2006

Because nobody was killed. Coffee 00:12, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course: The military shooted, several were killed, many wounded - like in China, not so much dead!! 9 December 2006

"Boring"

At one point, GMA taught economics in Ateneo de Manila University. My history teacher, a student of hers, says she was horridly boring. ^_^ -TheCoffee 06:10, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lol... my sister said that economics is really boring whoever your proffesor is... - insanedriver

yeah economics is boring. i saw Mareng Winnie (Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod) teach at UP. we know how she can make politics really interesting in her show on tv but inside the classroom, you can see students in half-sleep. lolz. - jbvillarante

To each his own, this isn't really the place to discuss this. Sorry for filling space with useless info but I think economics is fascinating especially when very simplistic notions sometimes lead to counter-intuitive results. I suggest you read: The Undercover Economist by Tim Harford to gain a better appreciation for econ :) You could read Freakonomics by Steven Levitt but I think it's overrated. The first book explains real world phenomeno with more eco theory, the second uses only simple statistical tools to find patterns and correlations. Responsiblebum 03:53, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

sorry, i may have taken out of context. i was referring to economics as a subject in class, which is boring. but really if you read stuff on your own and really study the theories then you compare them with actual data from the government and the reality you can observe in your everyday life, economics can really be amazing... - jbvillarante

Support for Kerry?

I removed this sentence:

the Filipino President also denounced U.S. President George W. Bush and publicly supported Bush's opponent in the 2004 U.S. Presidential Election,Senator John Kerry.

I don't remember her supporting Kerry. In fact I remember the Philippine Star's headline the day of the US election being something like "Place prefers Bush victory". If someone's going to put that sentence back in, please include a reference. TheCoffee 2 July 2005 04:25 (UTC)

If I remember correctly, the Philippines and I think either Thailand, Malaysia, Indonesia, or Singapore were mostly pro-Bush according to a CNN article in 2003. --Akira123323 13:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Re-election

Arroyo was not "re-elected" in 2004 for she was elected as vice-president is 1998. She wasn't elected as presidemt until the 2004 elections so i've edited the article. Circa 1900 04:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC) The Philippine Charter does not allow reelection of the President. 05 February 2007

I've gotta say it

For a president, she's pretty hot. 69.58.249.133 09:09, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Surely not as hot as this babe???

Nah, Arroyo needs to do a Playboy centerfold . . . "Women of the Presidency" 69.58.249.133 05:39, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

You think our president's hot? Well, I think your senator's hotter. I'm referring to Hillary, of coure. -SomeoneWhoChoseNotToSignHisUserName

I'd tap it. :) –24.247.164.42 06:58, 25 February 2006
(next time, please sign your comments with ~~~~)

if you mean me then sorry, i forgot and then was just too lazy to go back and do so :) WookMuff 06:31, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

This whole talk page section makes me puke a little in my mouth every freaking time I read it. ;) --Chicbicyclist 09:19, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Midget

She must be pushing 4'9" or so? --Grocer 14:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds about right to me - somebody I know (who stands at about 4'11") received an award from her; apparently the President was significantly shorter than the recipient despite wearing very high heeled shoes!

Problem with article - incomplete sentence

It looks like someone started but saved before he or she was done editing. From the article:

Coup d'état

Main article: 2006 Philippines coup

   On Friday, February 22, 2006, there was an allege

The President, through the Department of Education, declared a moratorium on all classes from elementary to high school level. Some colleges and universities also suspended classes. By the virtue of Proclamation No. 1427, she declared a State of Emergency for the whole country in an attempt to quell rebellion, which many fear might be a prelude to the institution of martial law. The Government's first move after declaring the State of Emergency will be to disperse the demonstrators, particularly the groups picketing along EDSA. It is reported that former Philippine president Corazon Aquino is among those protesting. 137.104.74.34 04:26, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

i really think this is biased...

i have to do a reaction paper regarding GMA's ruling in the Philippines. I thought I could find something out of here, but lo and behold! i really think this article's biased. where are her positive projects? hey, i'm not a staunch supporter of her. i'm just a student trying to learn things in a non-biased perspective. heck, why don't you mention her "rolling stores" even though it sounded cheap? please do something.

Okay, I placed a neutrality dispute notice on the page. There will be a discussion of neutrality here soon. :) --Noypi380 06:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, this page has problems. Tried to change and edit the structure, and it was reverted by a bot. The neutrality dispute tag disappeared too. I have to write all over again. Weird. --Noypi380 09:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For the meantime, I tried to fix some sections, especially the "presidency" section. I think its better now, but the scandal sections should be changed. Brought back the neutrality dispute tag, as requested by the anon user, who still needs to explain why he/she disputes the articles's NPOV. :) --Noypi380 13:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

If there's no explanation, they I don't see why the tag should stay? --Howard the Duck | talk, 14:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Okay, the tag was removed. :) --Noypi380 11:59, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I still feel like the article is biased. Looking at the table of contents, the "Scandals and coup plots" section is just as big as the "Presidency" section. And there's a lot of anti-GMA info that isn't met with responses. The "Human rights violations" section, for example, doesn't mention that there's no evidence linking the PNP/AFP to the killings. And lots of paragraphs are leaning against GMA and include unsourced info. An example...

The policy went into full force in 2002 although critics claimed (What critics?) that it unnecessarily breaks certain traditions (Example: Labor Day must only be celebrated on May 1). Businessmen often complained (What businessmen?) that the government was always too slow and too late to announce when the holidays will take effect. To this day, people demand (Which people?) that a full-year schedule of holidays be released during the year before so that appropriate calendars can be printed well in advance. The government still has yet to respond to the demand. (Why do they need to?)

I won't put a NPOV tag on the article right now, but I intend to fix it up sometime over the next few days. Coffee 05:48, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, first of all I've merged the "Scandals" section into "Presidency". This way there won't be an anti-Gloria-info-goes-here section for people to inflate, and hopefully coverage can be more well-rounded. I also merged the "Campaign for a new mandate" into "2004 election", since really they're the same issue. Coffee 17:02, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

Based on the anon's quote, the problem is not the POV, but verifiability. If the "critics", "businessmen", "people" are too many, it would be impossible to cite all their names, right?. :) For a solution, the contributors who added the quoted section should also add their sources (such as weblink). :) --Noypi380 04:02, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Why you put away this quotes? "In August 2006 opposition lawmaker Cayetano said “immediate members” of the family of Mrs. Arroyo were hiding a multimillion-dollar bank account in Hypo-und Vereins Bank AG, in Munich, Germany. The account number was given by the congressman, exposing it as bank account 87570-23030-32100-6271-571. The amount found in the “secret bank account runs to the tune of $500 million,” according to Tribune sources (www.tribune.net.ph). The First Gentleman has vehemently denied the charge of Cayetano. He went to Munich and got a certification from the bank but with a difference in bank account numbers (!).(09 September 2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.67.242.233 (talk • contribs) 17:53 September 9, 2006.

Reasons it was removed:

• Lack of link to actual article.
• The Daily Tribune is generally not considered to be a reliable source.
• Copy-violation - most of what you posted was a direct-copy&paste.

I've edited your other contribution about election fraud and added a less biased source and tried to give it a more neutral POV. We need a source for this claim about the bank accounts so we can track down a better source and make it more neutral. --Edward Sandstig 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I also think that it is biased. People just don't see what good things GMA has done for this country. I would be really happy if her great projects would be included here. Jamskienetopia 08:51, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Jamskienetopia 16:57 March 5, 2007

Biased? My God! Where have you been! Look at our country! Do you see anything positive? My God! You must be blind! Look, Philippine History is repeating itself, look at the late President Marcos, he did "good things for the country" but that was all a scam! He changed our form of government, to parlementary, just like what Gloria is doing, and in parlament, Gloria can become a dictator, like Marcos. Gloria is doing what Marcos was doing back in the 70s, please read Philippine History, and try to compare Marcos to Gloria, better yet, compare both Ferdinand Marcos and Imelda Marcos to Gloria, because she's the imbodyment of both of them! And if you enjoyed yourself during Marcos' Martial Law, "May God Have Mercy on Your Soul." - Greg - 12:24PM - 16 March 2007

How dumb can you get. Almost every single thing you said is inaccurate, I feel embarassed for you. You don't see the stock market near all time highs, the strong peso at 6 year highs, the 5 consecutive years of stable economic growth, inflation at the lowest level in decades? The only bad things happening are because Gloria's enemies are doing their best to tear the Philippines to pieces. You better keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further. - JC —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 192.127.94.7 (talk) 04:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC).

Inaccurate? Ferdinand Marcos did alot of good in his first term in office, the Philippines' was even declared, "Asia's Strongest Economy." But that all ended, in 1972, when he declared Proclamation No. 1081, Martial Law, then in the next year, 1973, Marcos proclaimed a new constitution that instituted a parliamentary system, thus making him a Prime Minister, thus allowing him to stay in power, until "PEOPLE POWER." You say inaccurate? Now we look at Gloria Arroyo, showed a lot of promise, like Marcos did, but just last year declared Proclamation Number 1017, just like Marcos did. Marcos declared Martial law to quell increasing civil strife and the threat of communist takeover following a series of bombings in Manila, he also quell increasing opposition against him, suppressed the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed him, when Gloria declared 1017, she did the same, she suppressed her opposition, the freedom of the press, made unwarranted arrests against all that opposed her. Just this year, the Philippines was declared "Most Corrupt Government in Asia," now you tell me if that's progress. Now she wants to change our form of government to a parliamentary system, making Gloria a Prime Minister, allowing her to stay in power, just like Marcos, you tell me my information is inaccurate, maybe it is YOU who should "keep your mouth shut before you make a fool of yourself any further." - Greg - 03:20PM - 18 March 2007

Elections

In 2006 Clinton John Colcol, designated as “official receptionist” and tabulator by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) in the last May 2004 polls in South Upi, Maguindanao, came out with the fact he was part of the group that manipulated the results of the elections.

In his affidavit, the witness revealed that he was allegedly directed by election officer Haidi Mamalinta to ensure that Mrs. Arroyo would get more than three thousand votes and FPJ less than two thousand votes in South Upi. “The truth is that GMA got almost one thousand plus votes only, and FPJ got 2, 700 plus based on the 31 canvass votes out of the 35 precincts,” (Daily Tribune 09/02/2006).(09/09/2006) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.67.242.233 (talk • contribs) 17:59 September 9, 2006.

Confused

I am really confused, but I do not seem to be able to find out where Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo was born. On this article it says she was born in San Juan, Rizal in the info box. But when I click the link it goes to San Juan, Metro Manila. In the text it says she spent her first years in Lubao, Pampanga however. On that article it says that both her father and herself are from that place. On none of the external biographies I can find a definate statement on her birthplace. This must be a known fact however. She is the current president of the Philippines! Can anyone help me with this? Magalhães

This is still also a problem for me in my translations to other wikis.--Jondel 05:54, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

San Juan was part of Rizal province at the time that she was born, since Metro Manila wasn't organized until 1976. This page says she's from San Juan. I think I added the info about her spending her "first years" in Lubao, Pampanga (I got that info here). I'm not sure why she was born in San Juan if her family lived in Pampanga though. Coffee 14:22, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe she was born there in a hospital or so? Magalhães 16:09, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Diosdado Macapagal lived in San Juan up to the time he became president. Congressman Macapagal (which is the time Macapagal moved to San Juan after returning from a foreign posting in Washington) like all congressmen, had a Manila home and an official though seldom lived-in home in his district. After his presidency, Macapagal moved to Forbes Park. See his autobiography "From Nipa Hut to Malacanang".Gareon 10:28, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Removal of "UN blacklist" allegation

I have been unable to find any sources from the UN about this supposed blacklist. So far all we have is that one report from the Inquirer. I've reworded the sentence to clarify that the "blacklist threats" were only mentioned by the CHR Chairperson. --Edward Sandstig 21:25, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

No comments? Should I just remove it since there really was no threat of being blacklisted? --Edward Sandstig 21:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of the economy? PLEASE HELP ME

As someone who studied economics, I think she's all talk. The best she's done is not make things worse. Economically, we're more stable but we're not progressing. Filipinos are still among the most unproductive and expensive laborers in Asia (perhaps the world). We rely too much on remittances to fuel demand. Investments in infrastructure will help but institutional reforms to increase the Filipino's potential productivity are non-existent. I personally do not believe our current situation is sustainable (Those high skilled OFWs will eventually migrate).

Manufacturing output is down, investment is down, bank lending is down, inequality is on the rise, jobs creation is mediocre if not worse, etc. (just check the business newspapers: BusinessWorld, Inquirer, Philippine Star)

Check Cielito Habito (ADMU economics director) for a more credible source for critiques. If you read Asian Development Bank's outlook for the Philippines it's just politely saying were muddling along. No clear direction or momentum at all.

Also, institutional reforms for the economy was suppose to be embodied in the Charter Change (which I'm for). But I was sorely disappointed to find nothing but political reforms that will make things worse by further concentrating power to the elite and infringing on our freedoms.

Responsiblebum 08:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Cielito Habito was my economics teacher in ADMU. One thing I remember him saying was that the good thing about having a bad president (referring to Erap) is that it makes is so much clearer to recognize a good president (referring to Gloria). Then again, perhaps you have a point... aside from the growing GDP, shrinking inflation, well performing stock market, shrinking unemployment, lowering poverty rate, record high per-capita income, improving manufacturing performance, rising tourism rates, strengthening peso, shrinking budget deficit, rising investments, rising government revenues, improving fiscal discipline and macroeconomic fundamentals and overall economic outlook... if you can look past all these "statistics" and "facts" about the economy, perhaps you could say it's "all talk". *sarcasm detector explodes* --Coffee 08:56, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Coffee are you a trained economist? or did you just take a couple of eco subjects? I don't mean to be condescending, I ask only because it would make my explanations easier. Especially about shrinking inflation and strengthening Peso; they're not always a good thing. An analogy can be drawn in ERAP's time. Inflation and the Peso was better. Also, it is not actually the Peso strengthening but the dollar weakening[1][2]. Just look at our exchange rate with other currencies. Peso either depreciated or is stable.

Also check out what Ceilito Habito said in the following about the economy: http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=28081 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=26834 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=25537 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=24153 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=21488 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=20163 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=18747 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=17506 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=16304 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=13782 http://business.inq7.net/money/columns/view_article.php?article_id=12558

One of the articles mentions that the shrinking employment is largely a product of the unemployment redefinition. Also most employment was generated through OFWs (more than any other time). If the economy is so good than why aren't we generating enough jobs to minimize this? It also states the higher GDP per capita can be explained by the weakening dollar and inflation. Same can be said of the lower poverty rate because it is defined by those living on less than 1 USD a day (in fact more Filipinos as a percentage of population are hungry now than ever). Record investments by foreigners are still paltry compared to our neighbors (do I need to explain why this comparison is important?). You will also find that consumers and local businessmen do not share the view of improving economic outlook. Foreigner equity investors, like Joey Salceda, yes but they have a conflict of interest (I'll explain if you wish). There are many studies that show that the relationship between stock market and short & medium term economic performance is tenous at best. Still very much debated. As for stok market performance vis-a-vis sustained long run performance, fahget about it. Plus our macroeconomic fundamentals hasn't really changed (i.e. engines for growth and potentials for that growth).

Improving manufacturing performance is just plain wrong [3] [4].

Also, sarcasm is unnecessary. If I appeared overtly hostile and unreasonable I apologize. I'm not here to just wail on GMA without rational basis. Also, I truly prefer GMA over ERAP but I do not believe she is doing half the good that she says or could be doing. Responsiblebum 05:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are you linking to a column...especially inq7.net. Most of their columnists are not exactly neutral. The peso is also appreciating faster than other currencies, so that kinda throws the whole "the dollar is weakening argument). An appreciating peso is not always a good thing but for a country that has huge outstanding foreign debts, an appreciating peso is a good thing.

Besides, the talk pages aren't exactly intended for discussions of these type of things.--Chicbicyclist 06:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Record investments by foreigners are still paltry compared to our neighbors (do I need to explain why this comparison is important?).

Maybe it has to do with the fact that our neighbors did not recently experience a political crisis and their infrastructure spending is not as paltry as ours. Speaking of infrastructure spending, Gloria can't do that, not yet anyway, until macroeconomic numbers are up and the government's financial standings are better(which, she is doing a good job with). She only started heavily focusing on infrastructure the last couple of months as well(which is understandable, considering the country's high debt levels acquired in the last few decades, especially in the Marcos years. You fix that, then you have money at hand. Appreciating peso also helps alot).--Chicbicyclist 06:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree the inquirer isn't very neutral or well informed sometimes (I also read BusinessWorld and Philippine Star; which also reported the drop in manufacturing output). But Ceilito Habito is a highly respected economist and it's hard to argue with his economic logic. It's also hard to argue with consumer and business surveys. And it is in agreement with ADB's medium term outlook for the Philippines. I forgot to add that many Asian currencies are trying to hold down the value of their currencies [5] hence Peso's appreciation is faster (also because we started at a lower baseline than others). I also remember an economist saying we save some money on our debts through appreciation but lose more from the depreciative effects on OFW remittances. Also it makes smuggling more profitable and widens the trade deficit while killing our export industries. Sidenote: One professor of mine wanted P70=$1 to help industrialize the country. But it's complicated so I leave it as a sidenote.

Vietnam's infrastructure spending is higher than ours yes; BUT we still have better or comparable infrastructure than they do right now. They started from a lower base. Anyway, I don't care so much about infratstructure as much as actual economic reform. Raising taxes is not refrom. It's like stepping on less/more gas on a car's engine. You can go slower/faster but your potential speed is the same. Actual reform should be changing the engine. The economic engine. Make it more efficient through structural reforms. Instead we've slipped in global competitiveness surveys. I seriously doubt the government will do anything tangible with the competiveness summit. I'm not voting for her again unless I see changes (e.g. rationalizing agrarian reform, more flexible labor market, rationalizing tariffs and industrial policy, NOT SIGNING TRADE DEALS THAT ALLOWS JAPAN TO DUMP TOXIC WASTES ON OUR COUNTRY[6], etc).

Final Note: On the reduction of Non-performing Loans, we did a regression on it before. Early on, it was caused by the redefinition of NPLs not a drop in ACTUAL NPLs.

I initially just wanted to put a criticism topic up and tried to get some people to help. But it seems I have to back up what I say for you guys to believe me, hence help me. Responsiblebum 06:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not an economist, I just had that one economics class in college and I keep up with business news (I like reading good news, so the business section is my refuge). Chicbicyclist is right though, talk pages should be for discussing changes to the article, so I'd rather not continue down this path. :p --Coffee 06:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Very well, I will prepare the section myself. I'll not explain when a strong peso and lower inflation can be bad or good then? I like good news too but the lies are getting intolerable since GMA isn't using the goodwill I see here to make harder more productive reforms. “Iron Lady of Asia” my ass. She can't earn the goodwill of the majority she might as well not lose the goodwill of the educated and make hard reforms. I hope someone trained in economics will help me write the section and answer criticisms though. Responsiblebum 06:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

As long as foreign companies own the natural resources (mines, timber, beaches, railways, airports, land, oil, fishing rights), the Philippines will always find itself in debt and beholded to everyone else except our own citizen's... debate all you like, while the economy continues to spiral downward, poverty and hunger increases, and OFWs ("modern day heroes") continue to die at the hands of abusive employees.... enjoy, you damn economists with your theories while the people suffer. Kick around the same ideas and ignore the root problems. Do you also agree that we can't increase the minimum wage just 125P? let's just eliminate the minimum wage then! let's earn just 100P a day to attract foreign investors.... let's eliminate all education and save some money! brilliant! wonderful IMF-WB reforms.... user:peoplestruth

Better continue this debate in World Bank, International Monetary Fund, etc, this article is about this head of state. Let's keep this discussion about improving this article. :) --Noypi380 02:55, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

An interesting view broughth the Manila Times in December 2006:

 Data twisted

The comparison between Estrada and Arroyo as shown in the newspaper is wrong. The 1998 economic performance should not be attributed to Estrada since policy action work with a lag. Estrada assumed office in July 1998, amid the East Asian crisis of 1997, which he had nothing to do with. In short, Estrada should be responsible for the economy’s performance in 1999 and 2000 and Arroyo from 2001 to date, since she assumed power in January 2001. GDP: Estrada—3.9 percent Arroyo—4.5 (the difference is the election spending in 2004 and the increasing remittances of the OFWs. As percentage of GDP, remittances have increased to 13.5 percent of GDP. But why should Arroyo get credit for these remittances? Filipinos have been leaving the country because not enough jobs are being created at home!) Remember that the relatively low GDP growth rate in 1999 was because the economy was still recovering from the Asian crisis. Inflation: Estrada has done better. Unemployment: Estrada has done better. Estrada has spent more for social services, education and health than any other President during the last quarter century. This performance shows his serious commitment to improving the lot of the great majority of Filipinos. He has invested more in human capital than any other president during the last quarter century. Estrada has managed the budget. Arroyo mismanaged the budget totally—operating on a reenacted budget for three of the last three years and incurring the highest deficits measured in three ways: national government deficit, consolidated public sector deficit and public sector borrowing requirement. (Dr. Benjamin Diokno, UP college of Economics, Manila Times, December 11, 2006). (02 March 2007)

RXN to peoplestruth, though this is not the right place

As long as foreign companies own the natural resources (mines, timber, beaches, railways, airports, land, oil, fishing rights), the Philippines will always find itself in debt and beholded to everyone else except our own citizen's... debate all you like, while the economy continues to spiral downward, poverty and hunger increases, and OFWs ("modern day heroes") continue to die at the hands of abusive employees.... enjoy, you damn economists with your theories while the people suffer. Kick around the same ideas and ignore the root problems. Do you also agree that we can't increase the minimum wage just 125P? let's just eliminate the minimum wage then! let's earn just 100P a day to attract foreign investors.... let's eliminate all education and save some money! brilliant! wonderful IMF-WB reforms.... user:peoplestruth

I will try to answer your issue with raising the minimum wage. The others will have to wait (if ever). I'm sorry this is out of topic and I'm rusty but I think this is important for peoplestruth (and everyone) to consider.

The answer is, we could… but are you willing to pay the price?

To elaborate, let me give the following oversimplification. We make the following premises:

1.) Money is worthless by itself without goods/services to trade with. The value of money lies in the willingness and ability of other people to trade goods/services for it.

2.) Income = Consumption i.e. The economy as a whole can only consume as much as it produces; and earn so long as others consume another's production. Or simply one's consumption is another's production and one's income is another's consumption. This is a derivation of the GDP equation: GDP = consumption + government spending + investments + net exports. We've taken out net exports and discounted investments effects on productivity to simplify matters. GDP, crudely, is the income part.

Now let us set up a hypothetical closed economy of 12 people. 10 are employed and 2 are not. Each employed person produces 1 unit of bread and 1 unit of milk for a total of 10 for the economy. Each good is priced at P10 and the people are paid P20 each. The 2 unemployed persons aren't part of the formal economy so their income and consumption is not recorded. Assume they're in the shadow economy. To illustrate the equation is givenː

Income of 10 people = consumption of 10 people

10 x P20 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people

P200 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people

P200 = P200

income = consumption

Please note that there are only P200 worth of bills circulating in the economy therefore the entire GDP of the economy (10 bread and milk) is “priced” at P200. This is important because money is worthless by itself. It is only important if you can trade stuff for it. In this case, bread and milk.

Now let us raise the wage of P20 to P25… (This also raises money supply by P20 but let's not get into that).

Income of 10 people = Consumption of 10 people

10 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people

P250 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people

P250 = P20 x 10

P250 ≠ P200

How can this be? Sure workers get more pay but the economy still produces the same amount of goods (10 bread and milk). All that money can only still be exchanged for 10 bread and milk. And how can you increase total wages to P250 when your total sales are P200?

Two things happen hereː 1.) People start charging each other more for their goods to cover the increase cost of wages. 2.) People start bidding up the price of the goods in an attempt to buy more goods (after all they have more money now).

Either way this put upward pressure for the price of goods until the equation balances. So thatː

Income of 10 people = Consumption of 10 people

10 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 10 people

P250 = (P12.5 + P12.5) x 10 people

P250 = P25 x 10

P250 = P250

Back to square one people still can only buy 1 bread and milk each. It's as if nothing happened EXCEPT FOR A LOT OF INFLATION (i.e. 10 bread and milk is now “priced” at P250). Unfortunately this isn't usually the case because of sticky prices and menu costs. Prices do not change in the short run. So firms may lay off workers or close up shop if they can't operate until prices adjust. Leading to unemployment. Let us assume 2 people are laid off.

Income of 8 people = Consumption of 8 people

8 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 8 people

Noteː the economy now produces 8 bread and milk due to less workers

P200 = (P10 + P10) x 8 people

P200 = P20 x 8

P200 ≠ P160

How can the economy operate this way? Through dissaving. Firms/people can use up their savings until they can charge higher prices. Unfortuntely, this isn't sustainable and causes the capital stock of an economy to go down. I took capital stock out to simplify matters. This happens until prices adjustː

Income of 8 people = Consumption of 8 people

8 x P25 = (1 bread + 1 milk) x 8 people

P200 = (P12.5 + P12.5) x 8 people

P200 = P25 x 8

P200 = P200

Now we have less people employed (8people), less overall production (8 bread and milk), and inflation (8 bread & milk = P200). Will the employed and productivity go back to previous levels? Maybe, but it takes a lot of investments to put up a factory or business so it takes time. And what if minimum wages rise again w/o a corresponding increase in productivity? Firms will be even more reluctant to invest.

Caveatː I admit the real world economy is a lot more complicated than this. For one thing inequality is not factored in. This model assumes everyone's labor is valued equality. This is not realistic like most economic models, but the whole point is that raising the minimum wage without a corresponding increase in productivity will only result in inflation. If you think the reason for our workers ills are greedy capitalists then why are so many SMEs filing for exemption from minimum wage increases?

I don't think I'm good enough to be called an economist. But “damn” economists advocate a more sustainable mode of growth through growth in productivity. What if you doubled productivity in our model?

Income of 10 people = consumption of 10 people

10 x P20 = (2 bread + 2 milk) x 10 people

P200 = (P10 + P10) x 10 people

P200 = P200

People earn the same amount but now they can consume twice as much. Certainly more sustainable than raising the minimum wage. How? try the reforms I mentioned on top (in reality some inflation might be desirable when the growth happens but it's complicated).

It is unfair to say economists still advocate the same tired old ideas without studying economic history. Economic theory has gone a long way since mercantilism, classical economics, Labor Theory of Value, Say's Law, and communism to name a few obselete ideas.

Final Note: The minimum wage needs to be increased sometimes yes. But it must take into consideration the productivity of workers and not just the supposed cost of living figures supplied by BAYAN. Otherwise it helps no one in the long run. And let's be honest, local Filipino productivity sucks compared to OFWs and other foreign workers. Why is that you think?

I hope you would answer intelligently and in the spirit of seeking the truth. At least put as much effort as I tried in answering you peoplestruth. Questions? Criticism's? Clarifications? I do not mind if you use the Labor Theory of Value to justify yourself. Responsiblebum 06:57, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Normally I wouldn't get myself into this kind of discussion because I do not believe in mixing politics with economics. But... given the criticism of economists and the World Bank / IMF above I will try to chip in a bit here. You are absolutely right that raising minimum wages does indeed lead to inflation in the long run given the usual assumptions. However, there is at least one reason why it needn't be so simple. First of all I should make it clear that I am no expert on the Phillipino economy so what I am saying here are just ideas that you can use or throw away it they do not apply to the specific topic. With regard to the statements about economists and economics as a science I have nothing to add to the response above. If you do not like economists then don't argue with them. I don't start a debate with an physician just because I think gravity is unfair... and I respect that though gravity seems simple to me it isn't so seen from a scientific point of view. So show some respect peoplestruth.

The concept of efficiency wages comes to mind. If wages are already very low it may indeed be the case that productivity would increase if wages were raised. This is due to the fact that people who eat healthy or at least decent food and who can afford proper treatment at hospitals tend to be more productive. Once that has been achieved they might also be motivated to work harder and more motivated if payed well.

However, the best way to raise wages is simply to make the workers more productive and hence more valuable in the eyes of the people who pay them. Wages are best determined through the market mechanism and not through laws and biased politicians striking deals. However the market it self needs to be efficient in order to work and this may be the root of the problem. If employers are not being held responsible for the way they treat workers then workers cannot be expected to trust their employer and so the whole idea of an efficient labour market is pretty much down the drain.

In the long run wages aren't the real problem. The real problem is the dependance on unprofitable businesses like agriculture and manufacturing of clothing and cheap electronic parts/devices. I'll elaborate on this below because it belongs together with the discussion of the IMF and World Bank but just to make a long story short long run success isn't achieved by employing people in inefficient industries deemed too unproductive and unprofitable to exist in the Western countries. If the East asian countries are exploited by Western companies it is because they do nothing themselves to evolve and achieve growth through innovation and knowledge-intensive industries. Let's face it... anyone can operate a machine or work at a farm. You cannot compete with the outside world if you continue to rely on these industries.

With regard to the criticism of the IMF and the World Bank lets be clear on one thing. The East Asian economies needed drastic reforms to recover from the crisis in 97-98. Governemnt policies had been completely unresponsible and simply blaming the problem on foreign investors isn't going to solve the problem. As clearly demonstrated above you cannot consume more than is being produced and hence you cannot spend more than is being earned. And to earn money you need to invest money. The East Asian economies suffer (with the exception of Japan and to a certain degree a few others) from one major problem: They are acting as wages dumpers on the world market. Why do you think so many Western clothing industries (among others) set up factories there? Because labour is cheap! This of course is not sustainable. Sure, it is good for the local economies now (increased emplyment) but these economies need to cut spending and increase investment to evolve. Otherwise East Asia will not evolve into financially stable and healthy economies.

AND... above all you need to settle political differences and prove to the people who are going to invest in your country that you can run an efficient, non-corrupt and stable government without the support of the military. And the political opponents need to make the same realization and put down their arms so that there can be peace and stability. As long as this does not happen The Phillipines are going no where. I am not choosing sides here, I am just telling you what it looks like from a Western perspective and why the IMF / World Bank act the way they do. MartinDK 14:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments MartinDK. UPDATE: Nov 9,2006 I'm going to update the model to start with 2 unemployed people as well as introducing inequality. Peoplestruth countered that he himself wouldn't ask for a rise in minimum wages in the initial conditions. Though it really shouldn't matter. Not sure if I'm capable of introducing inequality though. Responsiblebum 16:37, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Great discussions, everyone, but I really think we should stop this debate. Just a suggestion. The talk page sections are getting really long and cluttered. I think we should all focus these energies to improve the quality of the article instead of arguing amongst ourselves about political stuff. It's a fine line, I know. The minimum wage thing was very informative but it was a response to a political point. Let's try not to do that anymore. Humbly, Chicbicyclist 23:17, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I absolutely agree. However, I felt I had to make a few things clear because the tone of the debate was getting ugly. Politics definately shouldn't influence the content here in Wikipedia. But sadly all too aften it does and so it becomes impossible just to ignore. But like you said it is a fine line and I hope this debate has been settled now. Cheers, MartinDK 06:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Satisfaction ratings

Hello! Below could be the text for PGMA's satisfaction or performance ratings:

According to the 3rd Quarter 2006 Social Weather Survey of the Social Weather Stations: net satisfaction with PGMA inches up to -11. This is from 37% Satisfied and 48% Dissatisfied with the performance of President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, for an unfavorable Net Satisfaction Rating of -11. (The number -11 should be read as "minus-eleven," not as "negative-eleven"). This is slightly up from the 2nd, which had 34% Satisfied and likewise 48% Dissatisfied, or Net -13, correctly rounded.

President Macapagal-Arroyo's national net rating has been unfavorable for nine consecutive survey rounds, ever since the Third Quarter of 2004. PGMA's Net Satisfaction score is favorable only in the Visayas, where it grew to +6 in September from +2 last June. (The number +6 should be read as "plus-six," not as "positive-six".) It became slightly less negative in Metro Manila, at -41 now compared to -47 last June, and in the Balance of Luzon, at -10 now compared to -13 in June. In Mindanao, it dipped insignificantly to -8 now, from -7 in June.^[1] --Pinay06 19:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pinay06 (talk • contribs) 10:10, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Okay, also can we trim down the criticism section? its as long as the presidency section, and dunno if all the data there should be there. The survey info can be placed in the public perception subsection. The presidency section now has two important subsections: domestic policy (economy, etc) and foreign policy (Iraq, War on Terror, etc.) --Noypi380 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Presidency section

After trimming the "critics' corner", dunno how to do that eh, the article can now grow from the economy subsection (better use normal speak and not econ speak), since Arroyo herself stated that she expects her legacy to be economic growth, job creation, and putting the "fiscal house in order". And without her saying so, probably also the modernization of defense, the ambitious nationwide public works agenda (2006-2010), and the privatization of money losing state businesses can be added in the presidency section. Assuming she really is carrying these things through. Wadja think? --Noypi380 03:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)