Our caste system consigns us to mediocrity.

Why? It comes from our value of hierarchy and paternalism.

We in the Philippine elite and chattering classes enjoy rank and privileges. And shielded from our underdeveloped economy. [Recall Argentina went from wealthy to laughingstock.] Unsurprisingly, our instinct is to pander to populist sentiments. And that’s how we attain “social equilibrium.”

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: Consider: Singapore’s debt ratio is over 100% against our 60+% yet has a triple A credit rating. Moreover, Singapore’s GDP per capita is $93,400 against our $8,000. And their exports are $600 billion against our $80 billion. And their forex reserves are $280 billion to our $82 billion.

Why are we between “a rock and a hard place”? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; ours is a culture of impunity.

But are we rejecting “mediocrity”? “Marcos said his administration would conduct sound fiscal (taxing and spending) management and tax reforms, although he was silent on tax and ill-gotten wealth issues raised against him and his family.

“He mentioned measurable targets such as 6.5 to 7.5 percent real gross domestic product growth in 2022; 6.5 to 8 percent real GDP growth annually from 2023 to 2028; 9 percent or single-digit poverty rate by 2028; 3 percent national government deficit to GDP ratio by 2028; less than 60 percent national government debt-to-GDP ratio by 2025; at least $4,256 income (GNI) per capita and the attainment of upper-middle-income status by 2024.” [“SONA as meterstick for grading Marcos,” Federico D. Pascual Jr., POSTSCRIPT, The Philippine Star, 28th Jul 2022]

That is not the first time we proudly expressed that we will be an upper middle-income economy – that translates to $4,256 GNI per capita. Note that in the above, we used GDP as the base metric – or total output. But then we turn around and invoke GNI – or income earned. They are the same, yet we like to compare apples and oranges.

What is the point? Juan de la Cruz produces or earns less than half of his Thai counterpart and not even a third of the Malaysian.

And if we want to overcome mediocrity, we will figure out how to forward-think. It is the difference between “analysis” and “analytics” that the blog never tires of discussing.

For example, in 2014, we celebrated a “manufacturing uptick,” oblivious of the context. We are a service-consumption economy, and no amount of manufacturing uptick will address our structural problem, i.e., we are nowhere near attaining an industrial and investment economy.

In other words, the “context” is to be an industrialized and developed nation. And in this century, that means “innovation and global competitiveness” – not reliant on remittances and call centers.

“Analysis” is logical yet linear and incremental. “Analytics” is forward-looking, lateral, and creative thinking. It is “inspiring” – like a vision – and ignites transformation efforts.

And the blog expresses it simply as the GPS model: Where are we; Where do we want to be; How do we get there?

Consider: The standard metric in economic development that we like to use is the 6%-7% GDP growth. Yet, we know that achieving the metric over ten years did not prevent Vietnam from overtaking PH. We are still the regional laggard, with Juan de la Cruz mired in abject poverty, while Vietnam no longer speaks to poverty as the be-all and end-all.

And the blog never ceases to raise Lee Kuan Yew’s memoir, i.e., taking Singapore from third-world to the first world.

Why can’t we forward-think? We’re stuck in what Daniel Kahneman calls System 1 – intuitive yet biased “fast” – thinking that we can’t move up to System 2 – conscious or “slow” thinking.

For example, we have to recognize that “nation-building” is beyond economics in the same manner that “innovation” is beyond R&D. Our backwardness explains why “innovation” is foreign to us. How many times has the blog spoken to “design thinking,” which captures the innovation culture of Silicon Valley?

It’s cross-discipline thinking – and rapid pro-typing. In other words, ideas by themselves don’t guarantee successful execution. That is why real-world experience matters. And it can come from “test markets,” for instance.

How often does the blog discuss that most dissertations never “see the light of day”?

Let’s pause – and ponder.

The above is a throwback to democratic principles, i.e., the imperative of personal responsibility to pursue the common good. Recall that Edison pioneered modern R&D by moving research from individual- to team-driven, i.e., no one individual has the onus of personal responsibility.

It reflects the oneness of creation — manifests in the photosynthesis phenomenon, the “Universe” that is dynamic – in constant motion and expansion, or the modern math concept of sets and subsets.

Recall that at my old MNC company, I made the split-second unilateral decision to buy a “hot” technology from the outside. That, in many ways, catapulted our biggest brand into a dominant global brand. [Disclosure: Since then, the company has aggressively acquired high-margin brands while rapidly elevating innovation efforts.]

Yet, it was not, in reality, a split-second or unilateral decision. It was building on the process of “forward, lateral, and creative thinking.”

The three top global industry competitors were working on the latest science-based technology. But none of the respective R&Ds have yet produced it. It’s like the race to develop the covid vaccine. It so happened that a couple of professor-entrepreneurs were ahead in their efforts.

Consider: We had over a thousand scientists. The two competitors are much bigger enterprises than ours and would have more.

And over the dozen years of the blog’s existence, it has shared a few other real-world encounters I had: (a) with my old MNC company and (b) with my Eastern European friends in an MSME setting. But the latter has already become a formidable global player – having “killed” a brand from the industry’s most significant player.

Then think of why we Filipinos can’t learn from our neighbors.

We are the regional laggard. Yet, we can only see as far as being a middle-income economy – while Lee spoke about moving Singapore to a first-world economy.

We need a leadership that can “take us from where we are to where we have never been before.”

Recently, the blog lauded the efforts of pre-eminent economist Ciel Habito and business pundits Boo Chanco and Tony Lopez to raise the red flag.

It doesn’t take rocket science to figure out that until we match the export prowess of our neighbors, abject poverty shall be with us.

And decades of confining PH within a limited paradigm – of fiscal and monetary policies – didn’t turn us into an Asian Tiger. Unsurprisingly, the rest of the world praised our neighbors for being contrarians – and economic miracles.

The magic? Beg for Western money and technology. And Mahathir shared that with us, too, not only Deng.

I wish for Ciel, Boo, and Tony to keep the challenge front and center – which is what the blog is doing at the risk of being repetitious; otherwise, we shall again fall into the trap of complacency.

We know how we dropped the ball on Arangkada. We cannot keep dropping the ball of industrialization.

And we can’t be stuck at System 1 per above c/o Daniel Kahneman.

For example, driving export does not come from over 300 export processing zones – of which we are proud. Yet, that’s what the blog keeps saying, akin to the “trivial many.” We must learn to distill the “vital few” from the “trivial many.”

Here’s a quote from an earlier posting: “The economic development of the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone took off explosively. The region’s GDP grew from just over US$8 billion in 1980 to more than US$89 billion in 2000 and US$221.2 billion in 2005. During that period, the average real GDP growth rate in the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone exceeded 16 percent, well above the People’s Republic of China’s national figure of 9.8 percent.

“Since the onset of China’s reform program, the Pearl River Delta Economic Zone has been the fastest-growing portion of the fastest-growing province in the fastest-growing large economy in the world. In the process, a region that was once largely agricultural has emerged as a manufacturing platform of global importance. It is a world leader in producing electronic goods, electrical and electronic components, watches and clocks, toys, garments and textiles, plastic products, and various other goods.” [Wikipedia]

“Why is that over our heads? Answer: Our caste system – expressed in our value of hierarchy and paternalism – consigns us to mediocrity.”

In other words, because we instinctively pander to populist sentiments, we like to spread investment equally but not equitably. We don’t recognize Pareto. Instead, we demonstrate a socialist bias. Those familiar with the blog know that I’m in Eastern Europe because of the plea of my friends who lived through socialism under Soviet rule – and its infamy, the poorest nation in Europe.

Where is the misperception in our worldview? We are yet to grasp the distinctions between (a) logical yet linear and incremental thinking and (b) forward, lateral, and creative thinking. And it explains why we can’t move from “analysis” to “analytics.”

Recall the blog’s recurring themes. For example, see above; the oneness of creation, the “Universe” that is dynamic, or the modern math concept of sets and sub-sets. And why “innovation” is beyond R&D or “nation building” is beyond economics.

Consider: “Enlightenment 2.0: We need another Age of Reason to save our civilization,” Marcelo Gleiser, Enlightenment 2.0: A new Age of Reason to save civilization - Big Think, 27th Jul 2022. [Gleiser is a theoretical physicist and public intellectual at Dartmouth College working on basic research ranging from cosmology and applications of information theory to complex phenomena to history and philosophy of science and how science and culture interact.]

“Our current project of civilization is failing and needs a new direction. Learning about life in the Universe highlights the uniqueness of our planet and life here. This knowledge should pave the way for a new Enlightenment to rescue civilization.

“The “light” in Enlightenment is the light of reason — where the truth, so bright that it could blind you, can only be reached through the diligent exercise of reason. Philosophers, natural scientists, artists, and political scientists fiercely defended an individual’s freedom to reason — without the influence of politics and religion — and to use that reason in pursuing a society based on equal rights for all men. Thought was a person’s ticket to intellectual and political freedom.

“For sure, many Enlightenment philosophers would nowadays be deemed racists who placed the “civilized” European white man at the apex of society. But the core message of the Enlightenment Project was the need to create a global civilization with moral values, shared and universal, that prevailed over monarchic and ecclesiastical powers. The Enlightenment declared war on the excesses of religion and blind nationalism. That, we can use.

“Adam Smith, for example, defended patriotism not only for one’s country but as part of the great society of humankind. Immanuel Kant called this “global patriotism.” We can identify the influence of these ideas on no less a 20th-century thinker than Albert Einstein, who often defended the need to abolish international borders. “There is no other salvation for civilization and even for the human race than creating an international government with the security based on law.”

“Moving forward to the 21st century, we can revisit these ideas within our reality. That is a reality where globalization is driven not by the removal of political borders but by easy access to information and new scientific discoveries about our planet and our place in the Universe. Given that the United Nations alone cannot keep order in a highly fractured world driven by greed and resource scarcity, it is time to rethink the ideals of the Enlightenment and propose a new direction for humanity.

“But which direction is this? A first step is undoubtedly to move beyond the tribal notion of borders. We need a new vision [for our future] anchored on the science of our time. And even if that is different from the traditional mechanistic ways of thought that drove the original Enlightenment.

“I have suggested elsewhere that modern astronomy offers a new vision for humanity, which I called Humancentrism. This form of human-centric thinking has nothing in the slightest to do with any assumed superiority of the human species, nor does it hold that we are central to the Universe.

“Humancentrism is an inversion of Copernicanism, which states that the more we learn about the Cosmos, the less critical we become. Copernicanism is a doctrine of human insignificance in the grand scheme of things. Humancentrism states the opposite. Its central goal is to push humanity to find and embrace a new moral imperative. As we scan the skies in search of other Earth-like planets, and as we understand better the history of life on Earth, we learn something new and essential about our world, the nature of life, and who we are.

“Indeed, Humancentrism is deeply linked to Biocentrism, which defends the central importance of life in the Universe, and more specifically, on this planet. The link is unavoidable because we are deeply codependent with all other life forms on the “planet.” All forms of life are deeply codependent “with” the planet. There is a delicate systemic balance based on feedback loops that regulate the dynamics between “planet” and life, and we attack it relentlessly. Until we embrace a new life-centric perspective, our project of civilization will not be sustainable. So, Humancentrism is a branch of Biocentrism focused on what we can do as a species to guarantee our collective future.

“The philosophers of the Enlightenment viewed intelligent, complex life on other worlds as a given. Voltaire’s Micromegas is a great and fun example of this assumption, exploring human hubris from the perspective of vastly superior aliens. But our current perspective on life should be different. A complex living creature capable of wondering about its existence should also celebrate and respect its existence. And since we are here only because Earth allows us to be — no teleology implied here, only a reference to dynamic geophysical conditions — we must also celebrate our planet as being unique. Human reason and curiosity, which allow us to comprehend our place in the Universe, should lead us toward a new moral imperative, universal in its values: the equality of all creatures, and the preservation of life and this planet.” 

Let’s get back to Juan de la Cruz.

Does our caste system explain our confused and damaged culture? We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy; our is a culture of impunity.

Ergo: Our caste system consigns us to mediocrity.

Gising bayan!