Oil policies, failed thinking

Watching aghast the latest from Trump theater that has the US Navy preparing to blockade the Strait of Hormuz this Monday to prevent ships “entering or departing” Iran, and unsurprised by Iran’s promise of a “forceful response”. Who is writing this insane script unfolding kayâ? The one thing we can be certain of is that things are gonna get very much worse before they get better. Especially here at home where moves to repeal, or at least amend, the Oil Industry Deregulation Act of 1998, the better to serve public rather than private-profit interests, seem to be at a standstill. “Where’s the problem?” tanong ni Sonny Africa, sabay sagot: “It’s in the skewed priorities. Even amid a massive social crisis, the govt is still most concerned about fiscal targets, credit ratings, investment sentiment. And protecting corporate profits and billionaire wealth.” 

On the other hand, in the same vein, investment banker Stephen CuUnjieng had earlier sounded off on how a balanced and enlightened industrial policy is so very hard to do naman talaga and government just has to try harder: “It requires flexible and responsive policy and execution from the government, plus the private sector not always getting what it wants or having to do certain things to get what they want in exchange for national security and development. We failed at it before 1986, and it is hard to get right. So, what did we do? Instead of working harder to get it right, we gave up. “It is too hard, takes too long, so never mind” could be our national motto. [Oil policies and failed thinking https://www.manilatimes]

Not that anyone was listening? CuUnjieng’s April 10 column calls out the Pontius Pilates in government who wash their hands of oil policies, “chickening out and leaving it to the magical private sector” to deal with. Kasi, nasa “the best government is the least government” pa rin sila, which is so Washington Consensus, na matagal nang na-discredit. CuUnjieng rightly harps on the challenge to government to level up, learn from our mistakes and from the example of other oil-dependent countries that are so much better-prepared to address the needs of their people, especially the poor and middle classes, because of hard work, coordinated response, and critical thinking.

Hamlet’s soliloquy and economic Pontius Pilates
By Stephen CuUnjieng
April 10, 2026

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:/Whether ‘tis nobler in the mind to suffer/The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune,/Or to take arms against a sea of troubles/And by opposing end them.” Hamlet

Substitute “to be, or not to be” with “to think or not to think,” and I think we may capture the problem with more than a smattering of our economists, policymakers, and commentators on any pressing issue. Instead of taking arms against a sea of troubles and by opposing end them, they rely on the old, tried and proven failures like that of an over-40-year-old “Washington Consensus” that Washington has abandoned as “a promise that had not been kept” (Jake Sullivan, National Security Adviser on April 27, 2023), and bromides like, leave it to the private sector, and the best government is the least government (yet complaining where is government when they want something). Add their abandonment of industrial policy for laissez-faire, as it failed in our iteration and is too hard.

That is the equivalent of being an economic Pontius Pilate washing one’s hands of policymaking and execution and taking the lazy and unimaginative way by chickening out and leaving it to the magical private sector, even though it is public policy of the highest order and necessity that we are dealing with.

They lament we are at crisis on cost and availability of oil, fertilizers and more. Their solution is — no surprise — no regulation, as the government is too lousy and our politicians too populist and most naive, run to our taipans to save us? As if governance, rather than profit, is their reason for being. I am happy many taipans do CSR and are responsible players, but they are not policymakers or government! Nor their mission to engage in public policy. It is like asking a cardiologist to be an oncologist. Now what? Nothing except incoherent babble and not worked out thoughts, like defaulting to leave it to the private sector as always on any issue. It is clear that the times transcend the ability of what the private sector is equipped to deal with. We face daunting regional and global issues that even sovereigns are incapable of handling individually and are scrambling to work on collectively. Yet here we want to ask the private sector and taipans to take care of it! It is not easy public policy that is needed, but these are times and issues that demand it.

Yet that is not all, horrible as it is. They all trot out another cliché that a crisis is a shame to waste or some platitude to that effect. OK, what is their prescription of dealing with it? Some vague tired reform dating to the 1980s like open the economy to foreign investment without limits and remove restrictions on land ownership? Ano? How does that provide energy and food security? Didn’t that lead to shutting down of refineries and further imports of food staples? We have even less industry now, but lots of warehouses, cold storage, and logistics companies to feed the families of OFWs who hopefully don’t lose their jobs. The biggest job openings domestically will be delivery personnel in their “hugas kamay” vision for the Philippines. Brilliant.

If we are incapable of original and critical thinking, can our economic Pontius Pilates at least learn from what our immediate neighbors successfully did? And without being the teacher’s pet, to a multilateral panacea of removing any safeguards for local industry, and just open everything to unrestricted foreign investment. I need to remind readers of something I have previously written.

When these teacher’s pets and hugas kamay economic Pontius Pilates say look at say the US, Europe, Hong Kong and Singapore — they say they have no statutory limits on foreign investment and show how naïve and uninformed they are. First, there are limits, like transportation is limited to 40 percent foreign ownership in the US, and within EU to members in Europe. In all of them, regulators are allowed to disallow foreign investment if against national interest. Please look up CFIUS and their record. Even in the all-foreign- investment-allowed Hong Kong, regulators decide on your fitness, for example, to own a bank or open an investment bank or asset manager. When Cable and Wireless sold HK Telecom (their PLDT) in 2000, who could buy was vetted, and it was sold to PCCW (owned by Richard Li, son of Li Ka Shing). In 2006, when a group led by Macquarie wanted to buy it, they were told you are not going to get approval, as we are not convinced of your commitment to Hong Kong, given that you are relatively new to investing in Asia. That is reality versus accepting propaganda and marketing like the limited thinking teacher’s pets are.

On industrial policy, all countries got it partly wrong (even Japan and Korea), but stuck with it and improved as they knew manufacturing had to be developed and nurtured for sustained and broad economic growth and prosperity. You think Japan became successful at cars, appliances and electronics because they left it to the private sector and foreign investment? It was government policy set and implemented by the powerful MITI (Ministry of International Trade and Industry) and its successors. What they did was protect them as they grew, but made them grow to be globally competitive and abandon those which did not measure up, given a timeline to improve quality. You think China just let market forces and foreign investment make it the dominant player it is in processing rare earth minerals, renewable energy, batteries and electric vehicles? If you believe that, let me sell you some VHS tapes and Nokia phones. Or even the EU when they decided to challenge Boeing with Airbus?

To those who worry about capitulation to China on the Spratly Islands, well, what these economic Pontius Pilates are doing with their naivete and lazy reliance on failed over 40-year-old solutions that even its originators have abandoned is to me, the economic equivalent of surrender. Grow up and think critically with love of country and patriotism rather than be Pontius Pilates engaging in economic psittacism*. What a kakistocracy* among many of our supposed thinking class.

The author is an independent director of the state-run Maharlika Investment Corp.

  • Psittacism is the mechanical, repetitive, and meaningless use of speech or writing. Derived from the Latin psittacus (parrot), this term describes repeating phrases or jargon without thought or comprehension. It is often used in a pejorative sense, particularly in philosophy and literature, to criticize empty rhetoric or thoughtless repetition.
  • Kakistocracy is a system of government led by the least qualified, most incompetent, or most unscrupulous citizens. Derived from the Greek words kákistos (worst) and krátos (rule), it represents government by the worst people. It is often used in political commentary to describe corrupt or inept leadership.

 

 

Melania mystifies, distracts from Donald?

While struggling to make sense of government (including legislative) efforts to address the economic crisis brought on by our utter dependence on imported stuff, from petroleum products to essential foodstuff, and while keeping track as best I can of what is really going on with Trump and Netanyahu and the on-again off-again savage war vs. Iran and Gaza and Lebanon, here comes Melania Trump in a suprise press conference denying allegations of any sexual relationship with either the “disgraceful” Epstein or Maxwell, and even calling for Congress to give a hearing to victims of Mr. Epstein’s crimes. This, a few days after Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche said the Epstein Files should not be part of anything going forward.” It is said that Trump knew nothing about it and Fox News and the rest of media are baffled: Why now? And then again, why not now. Something’s coming down, malamang?

Melania Trump’s surprise Epstein statement prompts bafflement
The Guardian

Melania Trump’s surprise statement denying she had any relationship with Jeffrey Epstein sparked confusion about why she had chosen to speak out, and whether Donald Trump knew that the first lady was planning to draw attention to a subject he has called for the public to move on from.

Even normally well-sourced correspondents for rightwing outlets were at a loss to explain why Melania Trump felt the need to issue the seemingly out-of-the-blue statement about her relationship with Epstein, the late sex offender who socialized with her husband for nearly two decades, or his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell.

The Fox News senior White House correspondent Jacqui Heinrich said that she and her team were baffled.

“We’ve been trying to understand why she made it today, if there was something that she is reacting to that might already be in the news that has upset her, or if there’s a story that’s yet to come out, that’s about to drop that she wanted to get ahead of,” Heinrich told Fox viewers. “Because it did feel like it came out of left field for us. … I’ve called every contact in my phone, including the president, and not gotten any answers.”

The New York Post, which, like Fox, is owned by Rupert Murdoch and often acts like an arm of the Trump White House communications team, was also puzzled. “It’s unclear why the first lady chose to hold the press event at a time when the White House is trying to move on from the Epstein saga that has been a drag on her husband’s second term,” the New York tabloid reported.

Marc Beckman, a senior adviser to the first lady, told the Post only that she “spoke out now because enough is enough”.

“The lies must stop,” Beckman added in his cryptic statement. “It is time for the public and media to focus on her incredible achievements as first lady, the lives she has positively impacted, and her commitment to our nation.” Read on

Ituloy ang impeachment

Of course the Duterte camp is again whining against the VP’s impeachment, not just because she’s innocent daw but also because of the economic and energy emergencies that deserve daw the full attention and resources of government. Nakakapagpa-dalawang-isip naman talaga. Except that this is a take-two, nakialam kasi ang Supremes in 2025, and postponing again would be to set an umistakeable and virulent pattern. Former senator and defense chief Orly Mercado is right, “Unresolved scandals breed repetition…. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost.” Nasimulan na rin lang, ipagpatuloy na hangga’t kaya.

THE SWORD ABOVE POWER 
Orlando Mercado

THERE are times when power must be reminded of its limits.

The impeachment proceedings against Vice President Sara Duterte come at an unfortunate moment of global anxiety. With the ongoing war in the Middle East, rising energy prices, and fears of a recession, some now argue that this is not the time. They say that leadership attention should be focused elsewhere, particularly in helping Filipinos navigate volatility.

It’s a convenient argument. It is also a dangerous one.

More than two millennia ago, Cicero retold the story of Damocles, a courtier who envied a king’s power until he saw a sword hanging above the throne by a single thread. In that instant, he understood that power is never without peril. This image endures because it captures a truth that remains unchanged: Authority always carries within it the possibility of its own undoing. That is the Sword of Damocles.

Public office does not insulate one from accountability. It demands it. The higher the office, the sharper the obligation. Delaying the impeachment proceedings because the world is in crisis is a grave misunderstanding of governance. Crises do not suspend the rule of law; they test its resilience and expose its limits. If accountability can be postponed for convenience, then it’s no longer accountability. To pause the process for external events is to suggest fragility where there should be resilience.

History is unforgiving on this point. When justice is delayed in the name of stability, both are often lost. Public trust erodes, cynicism deepens, and institutions weaken. Our own political history offers several reminders of what happens when accountability is deferred in the name of expediency. By the time the next crisis arrives, the damage has already been done, and the state finds itself standing on hollow ground.

We have seen this before, yet we continue to ignore it at our own peril. Unresolved scandals breed repetition. Selective accountability breeds impunity. Over time, the public ceases to expect justice, which becomes the most dangerous erosion of all.

Impeachment, therefore, is a test of institutional character. It tests whether our institutions can function under pressure, whether power remains subject to law, and whether we still believe that no one is above scrutiny — especially those who occupy the highest offices. Addressing economic uncertainty while upholding accountability should not be treated like an extraordinary feat. It is the baseline expectation of a functioning state.

To proceed swiftly is not to ignore global threats. It is to strengthen our footing in facing them. After all, a government that strictly enforces accountability at home commands credibility abroad. Leadership that is bound by law inspires confidence in uncertain times. And in moments of instability, consistency in principle becomes a form of strength. It serves as a tether.

In my years in public service, I have seen how easily institutions bend when convenience prevails. I have also seen how they endure when principles hold. More often than not, the difference lies in decisions that seem small at the time but prove decisive in the long run. The temptation to defer, to wait for calmer waters, can be strong. Yet calmer waters rarely arrive on their own. They are shaped by deliberate action and adherence to rules that remain steady even when circumstances do not.

The lesson of Damocles is simple: Power is never secure. It is always conditional: held in trust, bound by law, and shadowed by consequence. The sword is always there, acknowledged or not.

The more important question is whether we still have the will to let it fall when it must.

Let the trial proceed swiftly, fairly and without fear. Because in the end, democracy is not defined by who holds power, but by whether power is held to account. To wait for a more convenient moment is to risk waiting indefinitely. As Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us, “the time is always right to do what is right.”

Trump & fake news

When I heard him on CNN saying that “productive negotiations” with Iran were ongoing, I decided not to believe him until Iran confirmed it — and Iran didn’t, fake news daw — but stock markets rose and oil prices fell anyway. Nobelist economist Paul Krugman is thinking insider trading. 

ADVENTURES IN FANTASY DIPLOMACY 
Paul Krugman
March 23 2026 

It’s Monday morning. Donald trump has for the time being called off plans to bomb Iran’s civilian infrastructure. He has done so because, according to him, highly productive negotiations are underway involving the government of Iran and an invisible six-foot white rabbit and his Canadian girlfriend.

Hi, I’m Paul Krugman. What I just said is not strictly true. Or it’s not all true. Trump did not say anything about the invisible rabbit or the Canadian… but the gist of it is true.  He said that there’s highly productive talks underway, and shortly afterwards the Iranian government and Iranian state media said no, they aren’t, this isn’t happening.

Not gonna say that Iranian state media is necessarily a credible source but the odds are that they are in fact telling the truth and the president of the United States is either lying or  fantasizing, or both. There’s really no reason at all to believe that anything like what he said is happening is in fact happening.

Why do I say that, aside from the fact that Trump has not exactly been truthful about a lot of things. Beyond that, there are three important reasons to believe he might be making this stuff up.

First, he put himself in a very bad spot with his threat to commit a massive war crime if Iran doesn’t open the Strait of Hormuz, and must be looking for a way out. Another president in another time might say that, on careful consideration we have recalibrated the policy, or something like that. Trump doesn’t do that. Trump is always winning. Never admits that he’s had a setback, never admits that he’s changed his mind. So, saying that, oh, but the Iranians have, you know, come to the table, probably big strong Iranians with tears in their eyes, but anyway, that the Iranians have come to the table and that’s why we’re not doing what I said we would do is a very Trumpian out.

Second, why would the Iranians be making a deal at this point? We can talk a lot about how the war is going, but it’s pretty clear that, as the Iranians are likely to see it, they’re winning. I mean, they’re not winning militarily, but that was never on the cards. They are… they have successfully turned what was supposed to be a lightning decapitation of their government into a protracted contest in relative ability to bear pain. And all indications are that the Iranians are nowhere near cracking. And all indications are that the U.S. — although obviously we’re not losing thousands of people and we aren’t having our whole life disrupted, but the American public really doesn’t like higher gas prices — it does not believe Trump. The clock is ticking for Trump on this in a way that it’s apparently not for the Iranian regime. So Iran has the upper hand here. Very hard to see why they would be wanting to make a deal until they basically humiliated us substantially more.

Finally, consider possible motives. Imagine that you were somebody close to Trump, somebody close enough to actually have an influence on his decisions, as well as inside knowledge. Here’s what you could have done. Really, just between last night and now: you could have sold a bunch of crude oil futures at very high prices. Brent was over $112 over the weekend. Then bought them back immediately after Trump’s announcement of, you know, triumphal progress, but before the Iranians said that it is not happening. And you know you could have turned a very very nice very large profit.

To say that insider trading might be driving US policy would have been outrageous in the past. Who thinks that that’s beyond the realm of possibility now. So all of this could be happening.

Last point to make here. Think about how much America’s position in the world has been weakened not just by apparent failure to subdue a fourth rate power but by the fact that everybody now knows that you cannot trust anything, cannot trust any promises the US makes. You cannot count on the US carrying through with promises [or] with threats. Not just promises, but threats are also not incredible in the sense of not being at all credible. And that the default assumption should be that anything that this administration says is a lie. That is a really really bad thing.

That we’re [a] world power is not simply a matter of missiles and bombs although we seem to be running low on those, too. It’s very much a matter of people taking what you say and what you promise and what you threaten seriously, and we are not ruled by serious people.

Have a great day. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc120RAcx48