Oh, I wasn't able to jog this morning. And I hate my pants for doing it to me. Anyways, I love to share some thoughts on socialism, the Philippine government, and Margaret Thatcher.
I. Margaret Thatcher is a leader.
Margaret Thatcher is a divisive leader. That's why some love her and some hate her with words of vengeance. She's a Methodist and I believe she understood that Christ is also a divisive one. Instead of unifying families, He broke them; and He is the reason why sons would go up against fathers, daughters against mothers. Christ is a divisive leader, so does Margaret Thatcher.
I admire her political will for "the Lady's not for turning". Indeed, she is the Iron Lady whose determination and will exceeds her frail body of a woman (as Queen Elizabeth I) would say. Margaret knew that her policies would plunge her popularity into the mire, but she pursued her policies. It is POLITICAL WILL. I like the story of her being the "milk snatcher" of public schools kindergarten. It gained such a moniker of criminal, I believe. But such protests against her were nothing compared to her will to do things.
On her death, the UK was divided into half. Others jeered that she was dead, that finally that evil woman of the 20th century is dead. But others were greatly saddened for the loss of a great leader who changed the course of UK and who gave back the meaning of Great Britain.
II. Socialism.
The policy of Thatcher was simple: no to socialism, yes to free enterprise; no to dependency of the people, yes to self-determination. And this policy was the Waterloo of Thatcher but was the Nagasaki of the United Kingdom. She wrote in The Path to Power:
"As Prime Minister between 1979 and 1990 I had the opportunity to put these convictions into effect in economic policy - We intended policy in the 1980s to be directed towards fundamentally different goals from those of most of the post-war ear. We believed that since jobs (in a free society) did not depend on government but upon satisfying customers, there was no point in setting targets for 'full' employment. Instead, government should create the right framework of sound money, low taxes, light regulation and flexible markets (including labour markets) to allow prosperity and employment to grow."
It is breaking the chain of government policies and regulations for the improvement of the country and allowing the market to work its own way. The truism of this is taking away subsidies of the government on housing and other basic needs. Thatcher took away these subsidies to allow the market to work and for the people to determine. As a result, the people arose into power and gained tremendous results. The economy grew, and the UK citizenry acquired their properties, their own homes, and they became more independent.
III. The Philippine Government Heads Downward.
The recent Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program or 4Ps is a direction of socialism of our free market. The government allocates big amount of money to subsidize thousands of Filipino that they consider below or in the poverty line. I don't have anything against help, but I am against poorly planned program.
One, instead of using the government's money to support basic infrastructures that would improve the country's status or would generate employment, the government uses the taxpayers' money to have a good look. This government loves grooming. They are just after to what the masses will say, and what the poll survey will tell on the poverty index of this country. This policy would make Thatcher to rise from her grave.
Second, socialism is characterized by the sharing of the people's wealth across the board. And this is what 4Ps is all about. It is sharing people's wealth to all. After all, why should we not get a share of the government's money when we are the one paying for its survival through our taxes, right? But sharing the wealth of the country is socialism and not a true direction for success.
Third, socialism dictates that those in the elevated sections of the society should help those in the lowest section. (Why am I not getting any help? Discriminatory!) But this does not foster growth. Instead, it fosters dependency on the government and it causes too much weight for this country to advance.
Fourth, this act of socialism encourages mediocrity. You may not agree with me, or hate me, but this is true. I have seen those who have been subsidized taking care of gambling cards and dices all day long and not looking for work or doing something that would benefit the nation's progress. This just develops society ills. Why should one should work if one is subsidized? (Evil thought.)
Fifth (and last, I am tired typing), 4Ps and the introduction of cash to the populace increases flow of the economy as the people have the power to purchase. But the question is until when will we experience this bubble growth? Que horror, another collapse of the economy.
There, I love Thatcher, but the Philippine government failed. (And don't tell me I am wrong for this my opinion; you have yours, go your way.)
