The Ultimate Poverty Framework™
November 17th, 2008 by benign0Recall back in mid-October where I describe an elegantly simple take on Pinoy poverty:
Poverty in the Philippines is a simple issue to me as it comes down to this simple textual equation:
We locked ourselves into commitments beyond any inherent ability in us to honour them.
I go further and enumerate four key parameters around which we can describe and measure the overcommitments that contribute to our poverty.
;) Population
;) Consumption
;) Production
;) Capital
And now the great news folks!
I’ve since developed the above into a full-blown framework that is, of course, utterly elegant in its simplicity!
It’s so great, in fact, that I think I’ll call it:
The Ultimate Poverty Framework™.
Fear not, as I will later on describe it in all its groundbreaking detail in a proper GRP-grade article in my excellent website (watch that space!).
But for now I provide a sneak preview of its diagrammatical form:
Using the above visual tool, we can now easily see why a chronic inability to get ALL FOUR parameters right results in the basket-case rash-from-hell-like quality of poverty that afflicts Third World countries like Ours Truly. Erase one of the four pillars and you end up with an unstable structure and an unavoidable erasure of the single line that leads to that golden spot at the top where winners take ALL.
A society whose “strengths” lie primarily in population and consumption (bato-bato sa langit…) is DOOMED. When we lack scalability (i.e. disengagement of the volume of productive output from the volume of labour input), we doom ourselves to a no-results economy pathetically dependent on labour-added-value.
It’s that simple. Really™.
When we highlight the really really simple reality that the road to sustainable wealth is uncompromising, one would hope that we waste less time on irrelevant jibber jabber about our mediocre politics and the posturings of the even more mediocre actors in that theatre.
Full treatise on The Ultimate Poverty Framework, coming soon here. Stay tuned! :D
============
Join us on Facebook!
November 17, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Dude,
I do not know if I will congratulate you because of your framework, or because you’ve just posted the MOST.SHAMELESS.SELF.CONSUMED.PLUG.EVER in Filipino Voices. :p
Nonetheless, even when you do finish that treatise of yours, I’ll beg to ask: now what?
November 17, 2008 at 1:28 pm
I go further and enumerate four key parameters around which we can describe and measure the overcommitments that contribute to our poverty.
I think capital and production comes under the undercommitment category. You written about lack of creativity and imagination before. I do believe this is all pervasive in the capital-and-production category.
November 17, 2008 at 1:29 pm
Benigno,
Let’s go back to basic. Supply and demand- We have oversupply of labor and yet demand is low.
It’s simple really, we need employers :) maybe we should revisit the employers: the private sectors.
Private Sector Perspectives
and Solutions-An Economic Reform
November 17, 2008 at 1:37 pm
ha ha!
Jon, nice to know you are torn between no less than two routes that both lead to congratulating moi. ;)
As I always used to tell my friends: hindi nakakain ang hiya.
With regard to the “Now what?” part, well, maybe we can use such a framework to come up with more specific issues to bring up with our politicians beyond the tired old campaign tag lines of “wars against corruption” and crap like that (which is why we always get distracted by shawarma topics).
Unless the electorate and, specially, the politician-watchers who make up the bulk of the Pinoy blogosphere come up with some structure around what we should be expecting of our politicians, the communication flow will be one way — from them to us, and guess what: all of it will be bullshit.
November 17, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Jeg, actually in the previous article (Poverty is a simple issue), I referred to population and consumption as the commitment part and to capital and production as the means to honour these commitments.
Every child born is a commitment that its parents should honour. And said parents need to either produce and/or build value-yielding capital to honour the commitment.
And yes, creativity and imagination accounts for much of the capital created by humanity since fire was first discovered.
This leads us to this “need for employers” leytenian mentions.
I think a promise from politicians to “create employment” is an empty promise. Unless this “employment” comes from taxpayers’ money spent on creating work for the sake of work, one cannot simply pull employment out of one’s arse.
Government need to create an environment that private individuals find conducive for imagining, creating, and, yes, investing in turning what they imagine and create into something that will yield $$$ (i.e. the capital around which a system of harvesting value out of it — a business enterprise — can be built).
November 17, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Government need to create an environment that private individuals find conducive for imagining, creating, and, yes, investing in turning what they imagine and create into something that will yield $$$ (i.e. the capital around which a system of harvesting value out of it — a business enterprise — can be built).
I agree. There are however differences in how government can do that. IIRC, there are those who think government can do that by eliminating risk, like guaranteeing bailouts for corporations like the US is doing. I lean more towards the ‘government should get out of the way’ school. As always, the proper course of action in the Philippine setting probably lies somewhere in between.
November 17, 2008 at 2:44 pm
I meant, “IIRC, there are those in FV who think…”
November 17, 2008 at 2:46 pm
i think this idea of yours is the most important in dealing with poverty:
“We locked ourselves into commitments beyond any inherent ability in us to honour them.”
but what is inherent ability? what are ‘commitments’? who makes these commitments, who locks us in them? what determines inherent ability? does inherent mean immutable? if not, how can we influence ability?
lastly, i read ur shawarma article. how is that concept connected to governance? you mention ‘wars against corruption’, and call this an example of the shawarma mentality (does shawarma mean fad?) why? isn’t corruption important to temper? doesn’t corruption affect the ‘commitment’ issue, or the inherent ability issue, u identified?
November 17, 2008 at 3:16 pm
benign0,
I’m not sure I fully comprehend what structure you speak of. For one, the blogosphere itself is not structured in any way — it’s comprised by individuals with individual opinions. Second, there is no inherent structure itself on the government, unlike in the US where the party delineations are well cut, around which bloggers identify themselves (primarily, as a Republican or a Democrat, as a conservative or a liberal, etc).
If by structure you mean structured efforts against politicians, I believe the intervention to the impeachment complaint filed by mlq3 et al would be an example of such. To call that effort a “shawarma” effort would be at the very least unfair — they’ve upped the ante far beyond what those of us who hind behind our keyboards and monitors do.
November 17, 2008 at 3:33 pm
actually our favorite social darwinist and online onanist does have a glimmer of gold in all his dross: the winner-take-all system that leaves no room for compromise much less building or maintaining anything other than an increasingly-refined system for shaking down the system for private gain.
but that’s obvious. the lack of any controls, formal or informal, to moderate greed is the problem, and one being faced not just by us but in malaysia and thailand and singapore where much of the informal moderating influences have stopped working, leaving only highly susceptible formal controls that can’t work because the ones who craft them have a vested interest in their not working -while those on the outside whose interests are served by having some sort of rational limits on plunder find they really have no hold on the powers that be.
which then leads to the proposal to forget politics, essentially to try to leapfrog the political pros because playing by their game is always a losing proposition. fair enough though as jon asks, how do you leapfrog over the pros?
November 17, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Benign0 for President in 2010.
November 17, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Jon, I refer to structure in the way we stitch our ideas together. If we as an electorate do not properly and coherently frame our ideas, we open ourselves to the onslaught of platitudes and bullshit that has become the currency of political campaigns.
We keep complaining about politicians’ bullshit but for our part fail to step up and provide a coherent alternative to it.
I believe mlq3 has further clarified what I am saying to some extent:
Every type of political activity we engage in — even “rebellious” ones like ocho-ocho revolutions — are orchestrated by politicians.
We latch on to “alternative” personalities, “alternative” processes, and “alternative”voices.
When are we gonna come up with alternative ideas?
Too hard, when you are a society not known for world-class thinking.
November 17, 2008 at 5:27 pm
benign0,
I would argue that the ideas are there.
The problem is that there’s just too much chaff. How does a needle in a haystack reveal itself?
November 17, 2008 at 11:53 pm
well, benign0’s answer: be a prick, make someone bleed.
November 18, 2008 at 3:22 am
Jon, true, the ideas may be there. But if you’ve ever tried picking the brains of clients in order to understand what kind of system they want built, you’ll know what I mean.
Coming up with a proper structured Business Requirements Analysis as opposed to a mere Wish List is what separates a truly expert consultant from a mediocre analyst.
November 18, 2008 at 5:44 am
There is nothing new under the sun. There are only rediscoveries and innovations.
Like energy that possesses the property of being transformable from one form to another, ideas also are changeable or modifiable from one concept to another. (Many of Albert Einstein’s ideas were “rediscoveries” and improvements of some old works of “unknown” scientists that lived much earlier than him.)
The conceptual presentation of the author of his “trademarked” treatise, and the way he attempts to frame his ideas, and the aggressiveness of his terminology, are all but typical of an idealistic mind.
In their hope of finding alternative ideas, idealists generally frame existing complex ideas in simplistic contexts, and existing simple ideas are restructured into complex concepts.
It is very much inherent in young minds (than in the older ones) to aggressively seek for “alternative” modes of understanding the world around them, and to enthusiastically look for “new” ways of doing things.
Many of our leaders nowadays seem to have lost their gift of idealism. This is one reason why many of them succumbed to different kinds of failures and mistakes in leadership — such as: corruption, incompetence, injustice, etc.
When the people no longer adhere to the idealism of morality, their nation falls into immorality. When leaders fail to adhere to the idealism of proficiency, their leadership degenerates into incompetent governance. When the idealism of justice is neglected, injustice will rule the land.
The gift of idealism, when properly channeled, can be a very significant force for change. But when abused or channeled improperly, it can be a destructive force and can be a counter-productive agent of change.
To effect a change to a sustainable desired situation, idealism alone is not sufficient. Idealism alone could lead to perfectionism. If the only approach to change or reform is idealism, that method will fail because idealism tends to rigorously reject the reality of the limitations of human beings.
Idealism needs realism to be balanced — in some way similar to the harmony of faith and reason within the inner being of a living soul.
Nations are not born just yesterday — so are the world’s experts and professionals. There is no need to discover “alternative ideas”. The treatise presented above is not new, it is basically just a model of a portion of the complex economic structure but framed in a simplistic context (some basic elements are even left out).
If it helps someone to view things in his/her “new” way of understanding, then so much better. Yet it doesn’t mean that just because one has found an alternative idea that things will simply work fine. Really, things are not that simple. In fact, they are more complex than we think.
When it comes to reforming a nation, the treatise presented above represents only a portion of an aspect of a nation. It does not even lie near the very foundations of its basic structure. Our nation’s problems do not only lie in that framework presented above. Most of the problems lie in very foundations that supports that “Ultimate Poverty Framework” treatise.
What do we do then? Many things need to be done. One is: Let us practice the ideals of our true heroes and adhere to the right idealisms while maintaining balance with the right realisms.
Of course that solution is framed in a simplistic context — because I’m an idealist too in my own vague way.
To reform a nation, it is more logical to start doing it from its weakened foundations, lest the whole structure could collapse if started somewhere else.
But do we know what and where are the very foundations of our nation? Now this is really basic — and perhaps simple.
November 21, 2008 at 1:51 pm
What in the hell are you talking about? Your stupid framework doesn’t even fit anything. Have you read anything about Economic Development? And puleeez… don’t be too narcissistic about your works that sounds as if you have THE SOLUTION to the state of “unrealistic” Philippines.
Anak ng pitong kuba oo… Hindi nangangahulugan na maayos ang pagkakaingles mo at parang mga haypaluten ang pinagsasabi mo, ikaw na ang may “authority” to say what you say… ano ka si Batman? Katulad na lang nung lintek na solusyon mo tungkol sa pagpapalit ng bigas para sa staple food ng pinoy… kung di ba naman ginagawa mong eng eng ka, kaya nagkakaroon ng shortage ay dahil maraming factors. andyan ang oversupply ng grains sa US of ey. at yung pagnanakaw ni joke joke bolante ng pang subsidy sa mga farmers.
sino ba ang nag popondo sa propaganda mo?
biro mo ha… ni walang ka logic logic yang framework mo… ano ang relationship ng mga yan sa isang development framework. buti pa mag alaga ka na lang ng aso. pati ba naman kami dito pinagloloko mo.
November 21, 2008 at 2:26 pm
hi benign0,
what do you mean exactly when you refer to shawarma?
November 21, 2008 at 4:16 pm
joma, I write a short background on the “Shawarma effect” in a recent article.
Specifically:
November 21, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Thanks and I see what you mean.
November 21, 2008 at 5:39 pm
ewwwwww… that makes you an authority again… defining shawarma effect. so mr. benign00 the propagandist of the gloria administration. what is your personal interest? magkano ang funding mo? laman ka ng mga iba’t ibang forums. you were able to produce a multimedia presentation of videos posted on youtube. meron kang website na getrealphilippines and you can even afford a book or even do your stupid psuedo development framework. you must be gaddamn rich! balato!!! wooo balato!!!
you sound intellectual pero walang sense ang sinasabi mo. you are just parroting the issues pero walang concrete na solusyon.
November 21, 2008 at 7:33 pm
winnie joy,
wag ganiyan, hinde ka seseryosohin nila and you will be seen as what you accuse them to be.
Do not attack the person, attack his idea, demonstrate that his writings are farce and show him how things should be done, otherwise dadami lang ang taga central market dito.
November 21, 2008 at 9:19 pm
i’m not attacking the person. i’m attacking his values. tsaka paano naman dadami ang tao dito. this is not even a popular site. it is obvious that he is working for someone else. he is wasting his energy on people with less credibility and has done so much damage to this country. his website has been there for about four years yet walang pumapatol sa kanya dahil he has a hidden agenda. now he is recruiting unknowing student activists bloggers to join him. pathetic.
i don’t care whether this benign00 person or persons will take me seriously or not but the point is for you and less than six readers of this site that he cannot fool people all the time. another point is that my valid point has been rammed through his pointless psyche. so chill out and mind your own argument with him.
November 21, 2008 at 9:45 pm
Yun na nga, you are just ranting that he has agenda and that he is working for someone else. That is a serious accusation without proof. Of course, I am interested to know kung may basis ang sinasabi mo, because that means a lot to me and to those whom he appear believable.
He has defined what he meant by Shawarma effect – you have to offer an argument that he is not an authority by destroying what he explained – in a civil and intelligent manner.
You have to show proofs that funded propagandist sya ni Gloria, that he is rich and you want a balato from it. If there is no proof, then that will equate to malicious personal attack.
Kung, if it is the case na hinde mo lang kursunada ang mga sinasabi nya, then just say so and hinde na kailangan ang ebidins.
Dont worry, hinde nga dadami ang tao dito but at least hinde tayo mapagkakamalan na tindera sa NepaQmart.
November 21, 2008 at 11:44 pm
like what i’ve said. mind your own argument joma. ano ka? I’m not even interested in what your interests are. May crush ka ba kay benign00? at gusto mong marinig sa akin ang mga “proofs ng accusations” ko. uyyyyyyy… aminin. or… nagpapansin ka lang katulad ni benign00. tsaka baket ko kelangang i prove sa ‘yo? sino ka? si batman?