Category: hard times

bookbug blues

i could be more upset about the book tax.   i am a bookbug, after all.   i buy imported and local fiction and non-fiction regularly, mostly imported mostly english, and i read them all as a matter of pleasure, of study, sometimes of survival.   do i really not mind paying more?

i mind, of course.   times are hard, money is tight.   maybe it’s just mercury being retrograde, i’ve been through this before, the post office has been taxing our mail-order books for someyears now, and talaga i know i should could be angrier but i just can’t get beyond a hay-naku sabay buntong-hininga.

kumbaga sa “straw that broke the camel’s back” this is not it, this is far from it.    because a tax on imported books simply is too lightweight and too burgis an issue to get me as mad as i already am about the scandalizingly high cost of basic goods and services e.g. food, shelter, clothing, utilities, medicines, and schooling.    “non-educational”  books simply don’t belong in the same category.

nonetheless i wish robin hemley and manolo and jessica and teddyboy and the blogosphere success in the campaign to jolt the government back to its senses and back to full compliance with the florence agreement. until then, books getting more expensive just means i’ll be buying less.   maybe i’ll even stop going to bookstores, as a matter of protest, as 1read2 suggests:

… the government as represented by the Department of Finance and Customs Bureau has made its stand on the Book Tax and Duty.  “Sue us” seems to be the battle cry: A very arrogant one at that.

…Hopefully, someone does sue thembut in the meantime what to do?

Given that it seems that the bookstores and booksellers are somewhat hesitant to challenge this ruling. Perhaps it would be time to do something against this taxation.

Do not buy books that have duties imposed. Do not buy it. Book readers and book collectors are the customers of this industry. And they make it prosper and if the industry cannot defend itself from unjust and illegal taxes it might be the time to not buy.

Books can be downloaded from the Net . Read and even share the ebook with a friend or fellow book reader.

…Refuse to pay the taxman his unjust taxes

Books can be gained in several ways and not all of them involves buying. No I am not referring to stealing. Borrow from the library or share a book with a friend.

Establish book clubs with libraries…

meanwhile as reminds in his comment to mlq3 there’s the 2010 elections coming.   how about if we not vote for candidates who support the book tax.   or, to be positive.   how about if we campaign and vote for candidates who would rescind the book tax (other things being equal ;)

also meanwhile, there’s always booksale.   i don’t mind secondhand books.   i’m also willing to trade, but first i have to put together a list of books that i can bear to part with, fiction and non-, all of them educational.   promise.

marck, edel, benignO

over @ the collective filipino voices, young blogger marck ronald rimorin laments:

When are people going to write for the poor, the downtrodden, the laid-off, the fired, the underpaid, the hungry, the sick, the ill… those people who are as sickened about everything as we are, yet don’t have the benefit of blogs or computers to do what they can of it, no matter how small?

radical u.p. intellectual edel garcellano, “sir” edel to many generations of comparative lit students, has this comment on bloggers post-bambi that might explain why it aint gonna happen, marck.

The ANC journalists find blogging the most competitive for mainstream media. Now anyone can infiltrate the public sphere when once in the pre-cyber years only the favored & the ideologically acceptable icons could smugly perorate.

Bloggers of varied IQ & credentials can deliver their daily spiel in cyberspace. Let a hundred flowers bloom? There are, of course, the attendant risks of libel & other judicial threats in a feudal environment, but the current scenario simply exemplifies that the huge energy of counter-discourse is being tapped to mount an offensive against the canonical satraps of state apparati.

This is what the valley golf brawl has uncovered: the rise of cyber critics, who responsible or not, middling or talented, tilt the balance in favor of the unarticulated response, the publicly repressed, the individually marginalized. The personal-& the quotidian, the everyday-has assumed the political: & militarist mentors are hard put to clamp the irreverent folks in jail, much less stem the textual avalanche. In the techno-terrain, words transform, mutilate.

Of course, bloggers must necessarily be middle-class, professional. No informal settlers would figure in the equation, even if OFWs infest their fold. The discourse therefore is basically extension/amplification of capitalist production, some internal resistance that however falls within the ambit of reformist negotiation. The very idea therefore of a radical dialogue isfar-fetched.

It might even cultivate the impression that freedomflourishes in a fascist state. For which a Maoist revolution is old hat, impractical, naïve, discredited.

yes, the discourse is reformist rather than radical.  most if not all bloggers are middle-class and the middle-class is, at best, reformist — we want changes, an end to corruption (which we think will solve poverty) but nothing too drastic, nothing that would rock the boat or upset the status quo.  in contrast, “radical” is associated (and outlawed) with the communist left and means drastic deep-seated changes in the way wealth and resources are distributed and how we do business with each other as a people.  the kind of discourse that threatens and shakes the status quo, indeed the kind of discourse (in filipino) that can be found elsewhere in the blogosphere, but not in sosyal fv.

HOWEVER, fv is not entirely without substance.  i hate to disagree with practically everyone who has ever dissed and continues to diss marck’s co-blogger benignO.  i’ve just been to his blog getrealphilippines — i visited once long ago to check out his ebook but was turned off, i don’t remember why now, senior moment ;) — the book’s gone, in its place a brief analysis of and solutions to the poverty and backwardness of the filipino that is the best stuff i’ve read so far on the subject from a filipino (okay, filipino-australian), who is obviously influenced by third wave thinkers and informed by the filipino experience, and whose context of solutions is actually another way of redistributing the wealth and doing business with each other as a people.  his current post substance matters in an economic crisis is also worth cross-posting @fv.

Decades of dependence on foreign employment (and a lack of appreciation of its social costs), sustained prostitution of the economy at the altar of the gods of “foreign direct investment”, and a consumer market opened to a flood of non-durable imports has rendered Philippine society one that utterly lacks substance — one that could now be providing a safety net for workers once hailed as “heroes” of the Republic now returning to become its burden.

it’s a pity that rather than flesh out, test, develop further his ideas @  fv — the perfect venue, i’d say — mostly benigno heckles and baits and asks hard questions, the latest of which is:  what does “the filipino” stand for?

Even as we struggle with the low bar of defining an identity, the aim for a stand – the higher bar – I realise seems a virtual impossibility for a people such as ours based on what I’ve seen so far.

What does the “Filipino” stand for?

The question remains unanswered; not that it ever will be convincingly.

Then again isn’t conquest of perceived impossibility the very essence of achievement? Maybe not so if you are a Filipino. And that kind of regard for achievement is probably what defines us.

what does “the filipino” stand for?  right now “the filipino” (collective, as opposed to the individual) does not stand for anything, much like fv, which does not stand for any one thing that the group as a whole can agree on — if there is, it has yet to be articulated.  in the case of the nation, the possibility of standing for something, the capacity to stand for something, has yet to be grasped, thanks to mainstream media that continue to fail the people.

do not delete (economic provisions)

verrrry interesting that it took that angry (complete with expletives) december 12 multisectoral anti-chacha rally to provoke former leftist now gma apologist-loyalist alex magno into revealing the real score behind the arroyo administration’s kulit campaign for charter change.   apparently, suko na siya (sila), sort of.

Yesterday’s march was an event of bigotry. It was undertaken in the spirit of rejecting even a mere discussion of proposals for Charter change. It is act trapped in the presumption of malice. It does not enrich our democratic culture.

I did say, in one televised interview, that I have lost hope constitutional reform will ever happen in my lifetime. A freshly-elected administration has no incentive to surrender its electoral victory to Charter change. A sunset administration, when it does initiate a constitutional reform process, will always be suspect.

We saw that in the case of Pirma at the end of the Ramos period. We see that today.”

so.   ang solusyon ni propesor magno?   kalimutan na ang change from presidential to parliamentary, kalimutan na ang ambisyon ni gma na maging prime minister, gayon din ang ambisyon ng mga representatante na maging members of a unicameral parliament.    pero, wow, huwag na huwag kakalimutan ang economic provisions na dapat daw i-delete na from the constitution.

In one recent public forum organized by civic groups sympathetic to constitutional reform, I suggested that if there is anything that is politically feasible it has to be narrowing down the debate to only the economic provisions in the 1987 Charter.

Forget about reforming our institutional arrangement. That will always be divisive because there will always be vested interests finding themselves on opposite sides of any political question. The Senate will always oppose any shift to a unicameral assembly. Oligarchic interests will always oppose a shift away from the presidential system because any other option will be a lot harder for them to control.

The only possible aspect of the constitutional reform agenda where some amount of consensus may be forged is that section that “constitutionalizes” our nation’s economic policy.

That section is anomalous to begin with. A constitution should never prescribe economic policy. Economic policy ought to be an evolving thing, shaped by the continuing process of legislation and policy-making.

In the scenario I propose, the House majority could simply pass a resolution deleting the provisions in the 1987 Constitution that preempt economic policy-making. With a limited scope, the Senate has to agree with the revision. No one, except the ideologically blinded, wants our economic policy to be fixed like religious dogma.

I call this the “Delete Option.”

Because the provisions to be removed will not be replaced, there is no need to debate wording. The debate on economic policy, henceforth, will occur where it must: in both chambers of Congress.

It is a simply, surgical operation that will not disturb the institutional arrangement. It will not endanger the political ambitions of those who now so vociferously oppose constitutional reform.

One might call it Constitutional Appendectomy.

The necessary reform of our economic architecture has been delayed because deleting the economic provisions has been tied up with the other messy political issues in the Charter change agenda. There is an immediate benefit in liberalizing the economic architecture the soonest to help us cope with the global recession.”

it’s a whole lot of crap, the assertion that deleting the economic provisions will help us cope with the global recession.   hindi totoo.   it will only open us up completely and absolutely to the free-market kind of speculative capitalism that brought down wall street and the american economy with it, and we are expected to lie back and enjoy it.

and who really stands to benefit from magno’s delete option?   why, the arroyos of course.   check out patricio mangubat’s “The fiefdom of A“:

Sources within the palace told me that the real reason behind the lifting of these economic provisions is not to really grow the economy. No. In fact, if we think about it, the reverse would happen. If we allow foreign ownership of land and property in the Philippines, the profit that they will be getting from using these lands would definitely be taken outside the country anyway. The local economy would not benefit from it. It would just be like what Mike Defensor did when his Chinese-owned mining company bagged that multi-billion contract to mine a mountain full of gold in Zambales.

The real story is the purpose of the establishment of a Hongkong-based holding company. Allegedly, this holding company which is named after a reputable historical figure “Ashmore” is owned by the First Golfer and his associates. Ashmore is an off-shore investment firm which was built solely to be the conduit between foreign companies wanting to own lands in the Philippines and a real estate firm called “Alphaland”, which, again, is owned by a hotelier associate of the First Golfer.

The insider said that what the First Golfer and his associates intend to do is, make profit selling Philippineproperty to these foreigners using Ashmore and that Alphaland will be the authorized seller of these properties. They intend to get billions out of this.

What the First Golfer and his associates intend to do is monopolize the selling of prime Philippine property (including agricultural lands) and make a quick buck from it. Bad? Not entirely except that this smucks of bad odor and immoral since most of those behind this scheme are living inside the palace.

And you know who is helping the First Golfer and his associates build a veritable fiefdom in the Philippines? Reportedly, that person is Roberto Ongpin. (Ongpin used to be an associate of the late Ferdinand Marcos. His brother, that Ongpin during Cory’s term, reportedly committed suicide because he’s ashamed of what his brother did).”

so please, utang na loob, kalimutan na for good yang pagbabago ng economic provisions ng saligang batas.   the restrictions have been there since quezon’s time at least.   even marcos did not have the heart to delete them, knowing that to do so would not bode well for the country.

besides, foreigners are already doing good business here.   they can lease land for 50 years, extendable for another 25.   but why are we still poor?   among other things, because foreigners are allowed to repatriate all profits home.   nothing is plowed back into the economy, which says a lot about our economic fundamentals.    i’ve said this before in a letter to the inquirer editor published back in july 2005 and i’m saying it again:

There’s nothing sound about our economic fundamentals.  Nothing sound about the endless borrowing.   OFW remittances are the only thing that’s been keeping the economy afloat for many many years now, at such cost to our families, marriages, the children.  That’s fundamentally sound?  What would be sound would be if the elite, the rich, who invest their millions in China, Vietnam, the U.S., start investing here at home.  What would be sound would be if the elite were to start plowing back business profits into the local economy instead of piling it up in foreign banks or behaving like foreign investors quick to pull out their money at the first sign of unrest.”

professor benjamin diokno agrees.    invest heavily here, he urges big business.

FILIPINO businessmen should invest heavily in the country in order to generate jobs and not wait for the government to shield the country against the ill effects of the global economic meltdown, economist Benjamin Diokno said over the weekend….

He said many Filipino businessmen have invested heavily in neighboring countries and even deposited their money in Switzerland and the Cayman Islands.

Instead of letting their money sleep in the banks, Diokno said they can use at least the interest of their money to put up business in the country and help fellow Filipinos to get a decent job as well as keep the economy working.”

only when the rich-who-say-they-love-their-country start putting their money where their mouths are will this country have a hope of making it through the global slump.

feeling the fall of america

wow.  who would have thought that we would see the american economy collapse like a house of cards, bringing the whole world down with it.  diyata’t hindi pala invulnerable ang superpower na ito.   diyata’t nagkakamali rin, pumapalpak, bumabagsak.  at ngayo’y nangangapa, ikot ang puwet, trying to figure out how to reboot a financial-economic system that has crashed.

to get a handle on what happened and why, read
francis fukuyama’s the fall of america, inc.
john gray’s a shattering moment in america’s fall from power
walden bello’s a primer on the wall street meltdown
nobel laureate joseph stiglitz’s how to get out of the financial crisis

the question is: tayong mga bilib na bilib sa amerika — we who allow america to dictate our economic policies — what lessons should we be taking away from this?   it’s not enough to breathe a sigh of relief that our banks are relatively sound — that’s only because praning na sila after having been burned by the asian meltdown in 1997.

at the very least we should be seeing, and acting on the fact, that america’s kind of deregulated and globalized and greedy free-market capitalism is no longer the appropriate model for li’l 3rd world us, not if we truly aspire for economic recovery and stability and prosperity for the majority of filipinos.

otherwise, things are just going to get worse.  those foreign investments that government expects to come in from middle east now that america and europe are in financial doldrums are, as usual, not going to make that much difference to the poor, not in the long run, if the same discredited rules and systems continue to apply.

economic growth will continue to be a myth, except for the already-rich.  what will grow for sure lang besides would be the population, hunger, joblessness, and the diaspora, which is the saddest of all.  we’re a country of broken families, broken hearts, no thanks to economic policies that serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many.

what to do to turn things around?  said john bellamy foster, editor of the socialist-anti-imperialist monthly review, when asked by pagina/12 what kind of policies the u.s. government should implement to sort out the crisis, how to bail out the people and not just the banks:

I don’t think anyone knows how to “sort out” or stop this crisis. What we are seeing is a lot of improvising while the house is falling down around us. There is no possibility of avoiding a very severe world economic crisis at this point….

My own view is that the sole object at this point — though it is hard to imagine this in the United States at present due to the weakness of labour and of working-class organisations in general — should be to reorganise social and economic priorities to meet the needs of those at the bottom. It is a fact that the US economy over decades has drastically weakened the conditions of the wider population, which is at the root of the whole problem. So addressing those conditions is the real key.

But even if that were not the case, the goal of those who identify with the great majority of the population, with the working class, the propertyless, the poor, should be clear: to put the employment, food, nutrition, housing, health, education, environmental conditions of those at base of society first. This is simple humanity and justice.

Why flood the financial world (which means first and foremost the rich, the near-rich and corporations) with trillions of dollars ultimately at taxpayer expense, probably to no avail, when something might be done for the greater population?

Marx said, in one of his ironic moments, that the only part of the national wealth that was held in common amongst all the people was the national debt.

If the wealth is not shared, why should the public take on more debt, supporting the opulence at the top while the great majority of the people are seeing their basic conditions deteriorate?

Let the system take care of itself; let us devote our public resources to the people. More good would be accomplished that way. Of course what this means is a reactivation of class struggle from below; something we haven’t really seen in the United States in a long time.”

interesting.  now that america is down, we’re so like america.