“The market benefits profit-seeking individuals and society alike”

That is paraphrasing The Economist on how it explains what they are about. And if it isn’t obvious yet, it is also what the blog is about. [And so that the postings stay true, they all end with the same quotes picked from past articles.] And it applies as much to the Philippines; and why the blog consistently calls out what’s behind our oligarchic economy, i.e., rent-seeking cronies and oligarchies, and political patronage and dynasties.

“The Economist [is] a Friday viewspaper, where the readers, with higher than average incomes, better than average minds but with less than average time, can test their opinions against ours.

“With readers such as these, and aims such as these, The Economist was bound to find it progressively harder to increase its circulation in Britain . . . The Economist has survived, and indeed prospered, by building on the internationalism of its outlook and by selling abroad.

“The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability . . . James Wilson [founder], a hat maker from the small Scottish town of Hawick, believed in free trade, internationalism and minimum interference by government, especially in the affairs of the market.

"If we look abroad, we see within the range of our commercial intercourse whole islands and continents, on which the light of civilization has scarce yet dawned; and we seriously believe that free trade, free intercourse, will do more than any other visible agent to extend civilization and morality throughout the world – yes, to extinguish slavery itself."

It was when the writer read the following article that he went to read (again) what The Economist is about: “The retreat of the global company,” The Economist, 28th Jan 2017. Retreat is not surrender yet it is negative, and the mind can overact to something negative – like to undo decades of efforts to promote interdependence, a manifestation of moral progress as opposed to conflicting claims of moral superiority. Think when we ourselves are driving and how we overcompensate when reacting to unexpected road conditions. Or think Trump when his knee-jerk would become US policy and how it impacts the world.

And the premise of the article and the opening arguments go as follows: “IT WAS as though the world had a new appetite. A Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC) outlet opened near Tiananmen Square in 1987. In 1990 a McDonald’s sprang up in Pushkin Square, flipping burgers for 30,000 Muscovites on its first day. Later that year Ronald McDonald rolled into Shenzhen, China, too. Between 1990 and 2005 the two companies’ combined foreign sales soared by 400%.

“McDonald’s and KFC embodied an idea that would become incredibly powerful: global firms, run by global managers and owned by global shareholders, should sell global products to global customers. For a long time their planet-straddling model was as hot, crisp and moreish as their fries.”

And then the closing arguments: “The new, prudent age of the multinational will have costs. Countries that have grown used to global firms throwing cash around may find that competition abates and prices rise. Investors, who all told have a third or more of their equity portfolios tied up in multinational firms, could face some unpleasant turbulence. Economies that rely on income from foreign investments, or capital inflows from new ones, will suffer. The collapse in profits from British multinationals is the reason why Britain’s balance of payments looks bad. Of the 15 countries with current-account deficits of over 2.5% of GDP in 2015, 11 relied on fresh multinational investment to finance at least a third of the gap.

“The result will be a more fragmented and parochial kind of capitalism, and quite possibly a less efficient one—but also, perhaps, one with wider public support. And the infatuation with global companies will come to be seen as a passing episode in business history, rather than its end.”

What is globalization according to the referenced article? “That global firms should sell global products to global customers.” That is true yet there is the underlying reason why companies go global. To sell is the activity, the desired outcome is to sustain growth and profitability. And the market benefits society beyond profit-seeking individuals.

Why is that a critical qualification? Indeed, the global market offers great opportunity yet it poses greater competition and greater business risk. Globalization is about competition, global competition, not merely “to sell.”

It is, for good or ill, the survival of the fittest. And as Pareto would explain it, the vital few not the trivial many is what generates the bulk of the outcome. And yes, many will fall by the wayside. At the end of the day, it is about the greater good for the greater number, not tokenism or a utopian promise that is unreal; but leveraging the multiplier effect on society of successful and sustainable economic activity.

There is no free lunch. Recall Nokia – and the 10 or so brands that disappear every year as reported by 24/7 Wall St. And it is consistent with what The Economist is about: “It is to the Radicals that The Economist still likes to think of itself as belonging. ‘The extreme center is the paper's historical position.’ That is as true today as when Crowther said it in 1955. The Economist considers itself the enemy of privilege, pomposity and predictability.’”

Yet the article concludes with “the infatuation with global companies will come to be seen as a passing episode in business history, rather than its end.” Try Darwin a.k.a. Evolution?

And what is dictating the evolution? Man! Man’s wellbeing is at the center of humanity. And why innovation is not innovation for innovation’s sake. And Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs is a tool marketers use to understand man’s needs and aspirations. And they are a continuum, dynamic, not static. It is not about consumerism but seeking ways for people to be more efficient and productive and approximate self-actualization.

And so for an enterprise to assume its business model is evergreen is courting disaster. But here is the one caveat that in more ways than one created the backlash against globalization and the free market: The financial engineering behind the collapse of the financial system and the resulting Global Recession of a decade ago fed on greed, and wasn’t meant to raise man’s wellbeing. It is the height of the 1-% phenomenon.

“Learning and innovation go hand in hand. The arrogance of success is to think that what you did yesterday will be sufficient for tomorrow,” William Pollard (1911–1989). [Pollard, physicist and Episcopal priest; in 1944 was asked to join the Manhattan Project and became friends with Einstein – Wikipedia]

Western behemoths are witness to how once underdeveloped nations and markets have moved up the development curve, and their relatively nascent enterprises are giving established MNCs a run for their money. Because they are highly motivated to leapfrog the West and become wealthy as well. And so do small e-commerce firms that the referenced article acknowledged. But then again, the phenomenon isn’t new. Think Gates, Jobs, Zuckerberg, among others. It’s about evolution and progress, a demonstration of man’s genius.

People like Trump make it sound as though they don’t like the idea of lifting all boats globally [to win votes especially of angry white men in middle America?] which was what effectively happened in Asia with globalization – where millions were lifted out of poverty, creating the largest middle class in history. 

But in return, American consumers had a windfall in the form of lower prices, and for the US economy, low inflation (and the 1990s and 2000s saw the longest periods of US economic expansion.) They weren’t complaining then, including the writer’s family being Metro New York residents. Yet when American companies invested in Asia, bringing along money and technology, it wasn’t merely to sell products globally but to sustain growth and profitability.

The writer has firsthand knowledge from the regional role he had in Asia then. And not only the company’s shareholders were happy, but Wall Street too – as was the organization as a whole.

Yet the boom-bust cycle is the law of nature. We have history to learn from. Through the industrialization era in Britain to the industrialization period in America to the rise of Japan Inc. and the Asian tigers and China, people, industries and nations were unnerved. And it is precisely what technology and globalization is doing again in the 21st century.

It is not about the retreat of the global company but the renewal of man’s genius. That is the challenge. From the time Adam and Eve were driven out of Eden, man has demonstrated the capacity to survive. It is when man ceases to be at his fittest that he would have no choice but to retreat.

And that is a lesson that we in the Philippines must take seriously. Today we are the regional laggard. If successful enterprises and nations are confronted with such unnerving challenges, what more of a third-world nation like us?

And, more to the point, we must step up efforts to catch up with our neighbors in FDI, raise investment and the share of agriculture and industry in GDP and look outward not inward despite the tough global environment. But focused on strategic industries that will give the biggest bang for the buck. We have to learn how to compete globally if we are to be a wealthy economy. But we will never get there if we keep to an oligarchic economy. It has done more than enough harm to this nation, if we care to think it through.

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Group think and linear thinking

Or why PHL isn’t synonymous to innovation. “Pinoy abilidad” is classic linear thinking and inside-the-box thinking?

“President Duterte has a valid point. He has the support of many Catholics, especially those who have grown tired of toothless pastoral messages that hardly anyone pays attention to nowadays.” [Can local clergy do more to combat the drug menace (?), Atty. Joey D. Lina, Former Senator, Manila Bulletin, 23rd Aug 2017]

The writer [who as some would know was expatriated to their company’s headquarters three decades ago] has to read on Atty. Lina because he remembers that he was an activist, an out-of-the-box thinker? “We protested against ‘fascismo’ (fascism), ‘militarismo’ (militarism) at ‘asawa mo’ (your wife, referring to the dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ profligate wife, Imelda) . . .

“Despite his years of activism however, Lina’s animosity against Imelda melted away when she attended his concert and praise him for his talent.

“‘Ngayon, kaibigan ko na siya (Now she’s my friend),’ Lina admits with a smile, proving that the adage ‘music gets people together’ is true. ‘In fact, we had dinner a few weeks ago.’” [Dreaming the Impossible Dream in an evening with Joey Lina, Simeon G. Silverio, Jr., Publisher & Editor in Chief, Asian Journal San Diego, Our Life & Times, 3rd Jul 2016]

All’s well that ends well.

Yet, if Juan de la Cruz is to lift himself up from poverty, he has to learn how to think outside the box. With due respect to Senator Lina, what body of knowledge would support Du30’s war on drugs? More to the point, nations tried and failed to combat this menace and the one singular success story – and has become the model and best practice – as far as the UN is concerned is that of Portugal. And which the blog has discussed before.

But our streets feel safer? Like a police state feels safer because tyranny appropriates the rule of law, to paraphrase Garry Kasparov, considered the greatest chess player of all time. And why he became an activist and a symbol of opposition to Putin. Tyrants are accountable to no one yet Juan de la Cruz loves tyranny that he submits himself – first to Marcos, and now to Duterte?

In a police state there is no drug problem. [The writer and wife experienced what a police state is like during their earlier visits to Bulgaria. Within 48 hours of arrival, they report to the police where their dossiers are updated each time.] In Portugal, dictatorship insulated them from the drug culture. Until freedom descended. And freedom is what freedom is – the freedom to experiment . . . be it politics, economics, hard drugs and then some . . . It’s the human condition. Recall how Christ embraced prostitutes, usurers, drug addicts and beyond. It is about growth and development.

But let’s come back to PHL. Because of group think and our hierarchical instincts, we swear by Du30’s war on drugs? And so we view everyone that does not toe the Du30 line as unpatriotic? We like to talk history yet easily forget history? Do we need to be reminded of where a cult of personality can lead? 

“Both Hitler and Mussolini built their empires on a cult of personality with themselves at the center. In Leni Riefenstahl's 1934 film of the Nuremberg rally Triumph of the Will, Hitler proclaims to the assembled masses, ‘Ein Volk, Ein Fürhrer, Ein Reich!’ Under Hitler's leadership, the German fascists added an additional rallying cry--Volksgemeinschaft: a racially pure community purged of decadence. This appeal to the unity of the folk is at the heart of the fascist concept of nation. It conjures up a utopian image of rebirth and regeneration.

“To reach a wider social spectrum, German fascism directed different messages to different audiences: the middle class were told that communism and the Bolsheviks threatened German financial security; the working class were promised jobs and manual labor was elevated to the heroic. This sustained propaganda effort required a complex and coordinated bureaucratic machine--what Ellul calls an ‘apparat’--with full control of the mass media. (According to Ellul, there would be no modern propaganda without mass media and technology.) The Nazis availed themselves of public address systems, radio, cinema, print, and large public spaces (such as sports stadiums) to promote their vision of a regenerated German people.” [http://www.media-studies.ca/articles/fascism.htm]

Yet even the well-informed among us would be forwarding trolls and fake news, wittingly or not, spreading propaganda? It’s called group think and/or our hierarchical instincts?

Let’s get back to the Portugal experience.

“As diplomats gather at the United Nations in New York this week to consider the future of global drug policy, one Portuguese official, João Goulão, will likely command attention that far outstrips his country's influence in practically any other area. That's because 16 years ago, Portugal took a leap and decriminalized the possession of all drugs — everything from marijuana to heroin. By most measures, the move has paid off.

“Today, Portuguese authorities don't arrest anyone found holding what's considered less than a 10-day supply of an illicit drug — a gram of heroin, ecstasy, or amphetamine, two grams of cocaine, or 25 grams of cannabis. Instead, drug offenders receive a citation and are ordered to appear before so- called "dissuasion panels" made up of legal, social, and psychological experts. Most cases are simply suspended. Individuals who repeatedly come before the panels may be prescribed treatment, ranging from motivational counseling to opiate substitution therapy.

“‘We had a lot of criticism at first,’ recalled Goulão, a physician specializing in addiction treatment whose work led Portugal to reform its drug laws in 2000, and who is today its national drug coordinator. After decriminalizing, the first inquiries Portugal received from the International Narcotics Control Board — the quasi-judicial UN oversight body established by the UN drug convention system — were sharp and scolding.

“‘Now things have changed completely,’ he went on. ‘We are pointed to as an example of best practices inside the spirit of the conventions.’ Indeed, Werner Sipp, the new head of the board, said as much at the UN's Commission on Narcotic Drugs in Vienna earlier this year.

'It was the combination of the law and these services that made it a success. It's very difficult to find people in Portugal who disagree with this model.'

“Though often narrowly assessed in reference to its decriminalization law, Portugal's experience over the last decade and a half speaks as much to its free public health system, extensive treatment programs, and the hard to quantify trickle down effects of the legislation. In a society where drugs are less stigmatized, problem users are more likely to seek out care. Police, even if they suspect someone of using drugs, are less likely to bother them. Though at least 25 countries have introduced some form of decriminalization, Portugal's holistic model and its use of dissuasion panels sets it apart.

‘Usually the focus is on the decriminalization itself, but it worked because there were other services, and the coverage increased for needle replacement, detox, therapeutic communities, and employment options for people who use drugs,’ said Fuertes. ‘It was the combination of the law and these services that made it a success. It's very difficult to find people in Portugal who disagree with this model.’

“In the run-up to the UN General Assembly's special session, Goulão cautioned that countries had to consider their own domestic environments first in learning from Portugal's experience.

‘‘We don't assume that this is the silver bullet, but in my view it has been very important because it introduced coherence into the whole system,’ he said. ‘If our responses are based in the idea that we talking about addiction, that we are talking about chronic disease, talking about a health issue — to have it out of the penal system is a clear improvement. It was really important for our society because it allowed us to drop the stigma.’” [https://news.vice.com/article/ungass-portugal-what-happened-after-decriminalization-drugs-weed-to-heroin; 20th Apr 2016]

The blog’s consistent theme speaks to how we as a people and a nation have yet to learn to be forward-looking to undo linear thinking, think beyond “Pinoy abilidad” and overcome group think. We are the regional laggard for a reason, to think outside the box and beyond the cult of Du30's personality?

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

“Begin with the end in mind”

“The national government is keen on growing farm production by 2.5 percent to 3.5 percent annually starting this year until 2022, when the President steps down from office, according to the draft of the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022.” [Piñol eyes 10-year agriculture road map, Jasper Y. Arcalas, Business Mirror, 18th Jan 2017]

That’s the conventional approach to development planning, which is a product of linear thinking. And is consistent with how we measure economic performance. For example, we believe we can be growing at 7% and move up to a high-income nation. At constant prices that means it will take us a generation to get there.

The problem with major undertakings derived from linear thinking is while it may serve the purposes of analysts, it doesn’t put a fire in the belly of a farmer, for example, to fight and win with energy and determination. That is why in this day and age of Big Data and analytics, there is data visualization beyond data analysis.

And successful global enterprises do it all the time – “the how to and the why” – they are able to get the organization singing from the same hymnal. It is called a sense of purpose. And here is an example that can inspire our MSMEs: the writer’s Eastern European friends, when they were an MSME, needed a fire in the belly to believe that they can be a $100 million-dollar enterprise; and then be a $1-billion enterprise.

In other words, an MSME need not limit its worldview to being a livelihood undertaking. Which is not surprising given how we have defined our challenge: jobs . . . and poverty. Instead, try: a competitive economy that produces competitive products and generates increasing wealth. In short, our challenge is to become a wealthy economy.

And then comes “thinking in reverse” which the blog has discussed as the GPS model: Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there?

Where are we? Let’s look at PHL’s economic profile versus our neighbors.

The latest available information says our GDP is in the $300-B range, similar to Malaysia but behind Thailand and ahead of Vietnam (including GDP per person.) And our economy is growing faster than our neighbors. But any positives stop there.

With due respect to analysts that keep giving us credit for our strong economic fundamentals: they are attributable to the free money we get from OFW remittances – and, of course, the contributions of the BPO industry.

Still, the numbers confirm why we’re the regional laggard. It is well-established that our accumulated FDI is a mere fraction compared to our peers. And everything goes downhill from there – after we ceded advantage in investment and technology and, by extension, innovation. We are the only one among the referenced countries that imports more than exports, a stark reminder of our inability to develop and produce competitive products. Yet we can’t seem to recognize the disconnect?

Not if we are bound by linear thinking – which undermines creativity. Recall Steve Jobs defined creativity simply as connecting the dots. And he demonstrated this by pointing out the failure of PARC-Xerox – and by extension IBM – to capitalize the power of the (concept of) the “mouse” that PARC was working on and yet the world will see it first in the Mac.

For many years we gave ourselves credit for an inward-looking consumption economy, that sadly we are still paying a heavy price – for short-sightedness and stunting PH development. All because we very narrowly defined our challenge as “jobs” – and promoted the OFW phenomenon as our mantra.

And not surprisingly, we have the least invested in fixed capital. Without a portfolio of competitive products to market – and export – we have no compelling need to invest in fixed capital. And it explains why we have the least in industry contribution to GDP.

A perfect storm that we brought upon ourselves. And the bottom line is unmistakable: we have the highest unemployment rate and the highest poverty rate. Yet the national conversation is same old, same old. It’s insanity, so says Einstein?

Where we are speaks volumes – that we must step up to the plate and undo our instincts: Parochial. Insular. Hierarchical. Paternalistic. Political patronage and dynasties. Oligarchic. Culture of impunity.

Instead, our instincts must be characterized as: Open. Egalitarian. Free market. Rule of law.

And it starts with the value of transparency. And why the blog maintains that Marcos plus Duterte equals disaster! Transparency is not FOI – which is compelled. Transparency is intrinsic like old-world values – a.k.a. honor system. If Juan de la Cruz cannot internalize transparency, community and the common good will be beyond our reach, ever. Consider how many of us still haven’t figured out how Marcos has wrought this nation.

And why in America more people protested the inauguration of Trump than those who celebrated it. Not surprising given the fluke of the American Electoral College system. Deal-making and brinkmanship go together, and where transparency is not an imperative. It is Trump’s world. Leadership in a democracy is something else, where check-and-balance reigns otherwise it smooths the way for autocracy, and undermines freedom and democracy. And GOP senators like Graham are expressing alarm.

But let’s get back to visualization. 

60% of our GDP comes from services to the tune of $186-B. We want to preserve that and, clearly, to build upon it. Agriculture contributes 10% of GDP which translates to $30-B in income. While industry delivers $95-B at a-31% share.

Where do we want to be? Here is one way to visualize our way forward. In agriculture we can benchmark against Indonesia where the sector contributes 14% of GDP. Which translates to $43-B in income at current PH GDP of $312-B. That means raising agriculture output by 141%.

How do we get there? How do we raise agriculture output from $30-B to $43-B?

Enter Pareto: we must prioritize our plans and efforts according to the potentials of the agriculture subsectors and support them with the requisite investment levels. That is a major caveat, which again means connecting the dots: from understanding market needs, and more precisely human need, to drive product development and R&D, man’s wellbeing being the North Start; to technology and innovation; to people development, education and training, if you will; to market development.

Again: Prioritize. Prioritize. Prioritize. To simply say we must mechanize without visualizing what the endpoint must be is why socialism failed, for instance. Sub-optimizing investments by spreading scarce resources thinly is a race to the bottom – a.k.a. “crab mentality.”

We can do a similar exercise with industry. If we benchmark against Vietnam, we must then drive industry output from 31% to 39% to generate $122-B or an increase of 128%.

If that sounds logical, then we must be . . . an open economy . . . an egalitarian culture . . . a free market . . . committed to the rule of law. It is what freedom and democracy is about, it opens the eyes of Juan de la Cruz to limitless possibilities.

Not the very limited narrow view of, say, inclusion. But even in the developed Western world the mantra is inclusion? That is precisely the point. We want to compare apples and oranges. Being underdeveloped, we should not be comparing ourselves against wealthy nations. They have the means to spread wealth. And we don’t. And think of the tons of money we borrow for CCT, and where are we?

Our dire need is – and what our mantra must be – development. To become a wealthy nation. And we can beat the West in their own game if we leapfrog and rapidly acquire the skills where their educational system failed them: communication, teamwork, critical thinking.

Communication must be qualified as embracing community and the common good and that is facilitated via a sense of purpose. Communication is not false advertising. Or false claims and fake news. They are divisive as demonstrated by the “world” that has been created upon the arrival of Duterte and Trump into the political scene. They are anathema to teamwork. While critical thinking is facilitated by the mantra, begin with the end in mind.

Visualization is forward-looking. It is lateral thinking. It connects the dots . . . it is creative. It puts a fire in the belly.

Sadly, that is not Juan de la Cruz? Where are we? Where do we want to be? How do we get there? Begin with the end in mind!

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]

Our fixed mindset

“WHEN education fails to keep pace with technology, the result is inequality. Without the skills to stay useful as innovations arrive, workers suffer—and if enough of them fall behind, society starts to fall apart.” [“Equipping people to stay ahead of technological change,” The Economist, 14th Jan 2017]

Society starts to fall apart. Can we Pinoys relate to that? “When Satya Nadella took over as boss of Microsoft in 2014, he drew on the work of Carol Dweck, a psychology professor at Stanford University, to push the firm’s culture in a new direction. Ms. Dweck divides students into two camps: those who think that ability is innate and fixed (dampening motivation to learn) and those who believe that abilities can be improved through learning.

“This ‘growth mindset’ is what the firm is trying to encourage. It has amended its performance-review criteria to include an appraisal of how employees have learned from others and then applied that knowledge . . . We want people who are intellectually curious . . . It is better to train and have them leave than not to train and have them stay.” [“What employers can do to encourage their workers to retrain, The Economist, 14th Jan 2017]

“The composition of new jobs is also changing rapidly. Over the past five years, demand for data analysts has grown by 372%; within that segment, demand for data-visualization skills has shot up by 2,574%.” [Lifelong learning is becoming an economic imperative, The Economist, 12th Jan 2017]

Data analysis and data visualization. Those are big words which in this day and age we associate with Big Data and analytics . . . that the blog has discussed before.

Likewise, the blog has talked about Carol Dweck and the ‘growth mindset’ as distinguished from the ‘fixed mindset.’ And the question we Pinoys have to ask is: Does it explain why PHL isn’t synonymous to innovation and competitiveness? And why the writer constantly raises what he considers the elements of our culture: Parochial. Insular. Hierarchical. Paternalistic. Political patronage and dynasties. Oligarchic. Culture of impunity.

But that won’t register with Juan de la Cruz precisely because of our fixed mindset? Where does it come from? Respect for elders and our religion would be the most logical influence? The writer has lived and worked in both developed and underdeveloped worlds and there is no reason for those in poor countries to feel inferior. Which is why he constantly brings up the shortcomings of the US educational system: communication, teamwork and critical thinking. And it is the same message he shares and repeats with his Eastern European friends.

And while not that long ago – 14 years to be precise – they were an MSME, today they are a respected competition to the biggest and the best Western industry behemoths. Of course, the writer has an easier task, working with a private enterprise instead of over a hundred million Filipinos. But he is hopeful that the scores of people he shares this blog would become receptive; and given they belong to our chattering classes if not the elite class, the effort can simulate the NAMFREL mantra: “It is better to light a candle, than to curse the darkness.”

And so in a recent posting, the blog offered for Juan de la Cruz to consider the opposite instincts: Open. Egalitarian. Free market. Rule of law. “We must value transparency and embrace an open economy, an egalitarian culture, the free enterprise system and the rule of law. Because there is no free lunch.”

Of course it is not a walk in the park. Take transparency. Between respect for elders and the Catholic hierarchy, we grew up taking transparency – and paternalism – for granted? When adults are talking the children are expected to disappear. When we say we want to read the Bible, we’re told we aren’t equipped to even open it. And Marcos and Duterte would play on our supposed “ignorance” . . . that when we hear “jump” . . . we ask “how high”?

That is not to say we must be disrespectful of elders. Far from it, but we must discriminate between a fixed mindset and a growth-mindset – and be committed to intellectual curiosity, if you will.

How can we be predisposed to the demands of the 21st-century world like innovation and global competition when we are constantly second-guessing a superior image? 

The writer took many years [looking from the outside as he visited the Philippine subsidiary of his old MNC company, a visiting fireman from headquarters] before he was able to recognize how we’re held hostage by these instincts. And it also explains that while we’re big in talent export, we don’t have a representation in the rarified field of Fortune 500 CEOs to the extent India has. And back home it’s the Chinoys that have come to dominate Philippine industry and by extension the economy. Put another way, we take it for granted that we are a “poor small country” – even when we resent any reference to living in trees? And like a self-fulfilling prophecy, we are?

In other words, we are not even in the game. How can we be expected to lead and talk beyond innovation, like data analysis and data visualization too?

Meanwhile, the writer is witness to how mindful his Eastern European friends are to learn the ropes of these 21st century imperatives. Consider: once held captive by Soviet autocratic rule, it hasn’t been easy for them to discard a fixed- and develop a growth-mindset.

And in our case, what is the national conversation about? The drug war. Federalism. The Marcos resurrection and/or martial law. Fast-tracking key infrastructure projects. Five-six.

Do they reflect intellectual curiosity? Do they consider that we can learn from others – take the Asian tigers, for example? And how do we discard a fixed- and develop a growth-mindset?

When does society start to fall apart? Try: When it is the regional laggard and despite putting together several quarters of 7% growth it still cannot figure if it is coming or going? And so it is clutching at straws like EJKs?

EJKs? Even the writer's Eastern European friends who lived through the gulag era under Soviet rule can’t hide their sensitivities – but to Juan de la Cruz it is leadership to be proud of?

“What did we do to deserve this?”

That's from an editorial of a major paper, quoting “the wife of the South Korean businessman that was kidnapped and killed just steps away from the office of the PNP chief . . . and his official residence, inside the police headquarters.” Should it have instead asked, “Are we in the press or media in our heart of hearts doing our job?” 

In fairness, we all need education: Does Juan de la Cruz know who and what we are? Parochial. Insular. Hierarchical. Paternalistic. Political patronage and dynasties. Oligarchic. Culture of impunity.

Translation: one Marcos is too much; Marcos plus Duterte equals disaster; add another Marcos is cataclysmic?

Consider the parallel: “There had been no process of purification, no trials for the butchers, and no destruction of the KGB machine . . . Jump forward to the beginning of 2015 and Putin is still in the Kremlin . . . I was one of those who thought at the time that sacrificing some of the integrity of the democratic process was the lesser evil . . . Such trade-offs are nearly always a mistake, and it was in this case, as it paved the way for a more ruthless individual to exploit the weakened system.” [Winter is coming: Why Vladimir Putin and the enemies of the free world must be stopped; Introduction, Garry Kasparov, Public Affairs, New York, 2015]

To our religious and the faithful, it is not about our faith (or isms.) It is “Giving to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and to God which are God’s.” And to our elders and oligarchy, it is about community and the common good. The Titanic being a good example.

Why do we have ISIS in Mindanao and the rebels before that? It has nothing to do with another ism like Federalism. It was Deng who was able to square it: “We need Western money and technology if we are to lift our people from poverty.” “It’s the economy, stupid!” What about politics? It is the problem, not the solution!

Finally, if we cannot “give and take” truth to power, then we can talk destiny, that is, PHL being like a South American banana republic!

“Why independence, if the slaves of today will be the tyrants of tomorrow? And that they will be such is not to be doubted, for he who submits to tyranny loves it.” [We are ruled by Rizal’s ‘tyrants of tomorrow,’ Editorial, The Manila Times, 29th Dec 2015]

“As a major component for the education and reorientation of our people, mainstream media – their reporters, writers, photographers, columnists and editors – have an obligation to this country . . .” [Era of documented irrelevance: Mainstream media, critics and protesters, Homobono A. Adaza, The Manila Times, 25th Nov 2015]

“National prosperity is created, not inherited. It does not grow out of a country’s natural endowments, its labor pool, its interest rates, or its currency’s value, as classical economics insists . . . A nation’s competitiveness depends on the capacity of its industry to innovate and upgrade.” [The Competitive Advantage of Nations, Michael E. Porter, Harvard Business Review, March–April 1990]

“Development [is informed by a people’s] worldview, cognitive capacity, values, moral development, self-identity, spirituality, and leadership . . .” [Frederic Laloux, Reinventing organizations, Nelson Parker, 2014]