Is our hubris beyond the pale?

Consider this quote from an earlier posting: “How the ‘Bobos’ [bourgeois bohemians] Broke America.” [David Brooks, The Atlantic, Sep 2021]

“The bobos didn’t set out to be an elite, dominating class. We just fit ourselves into a system that rewarded a certain type of achievement and then gave our children the resources that would allow them to prosper in that system too. But blind to our power, we have created enormous inequalities—financial inequalities and more painful inequalities of respect. The task before us is to dismantle the system that raised us.”

“And to paraphrase David Brooks, the task before us is to toss our caste system. Yes, the system that raised us.”

The bottom line: If we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are blind to our power, what can spark “Eureka” in Juan de la Cruz?

For over a dozen years, the blog has spoken to our instincts: We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

In other words, the magic of the GPS model is lost to us because we can’t define where we are.

Why the “magic”?

Recall the blog’s continual reference to Steve Jobs. The GPS model reflects Jobs’ instincts: forward- and lateral thinking – aka creative thinking. And it is something mere mortals like us struggle to internalize.

Consider how “sabog” we are.

Even Philippine economists would build on the superiority of “happiness” as a measure of nation-building despite our pathetic GDP per capita.

Let’s hold it right there.

There are two things to note: (1) As the blog has raised repeatedly, beyond “analysis” – or the tactic – is “analytics” – the big picture; and (2) Do we or don’t we feel the pain of Juan de la Cruz?

Consider: “How Data Literate Is Your Company (?),” Rasheed Sabar, Harvard Business Review, 27th Aug 2021.

“A growing body of research has made clear that algorithms created by non-representative groups have resulted in AI that perpetuates the inequities already prevalent in our society. As more companies rely more heavily on data and AI, these problems of algorithmic discrimination may only become worse.

“How can they avoid becoming yet another bad example? The short answer is, thinking critically about the data you’re collecting and how you’re using it needs to be everyone’s job. Expanding the circle of who is in the room helping to question, build, and monitor algorithms is the only way to develop responsible AI. Doing that work requires data literacy — the ability to parse and organize complex data, interpret and summarize information, develop predictions, or appreciate the ethical implications of algorithms. Like math, we can learn data literacy in beginner and advanced modes – it spans multiple disciplines and is often more practical than academic.”

For sure, the above applies to the economy. In other words, “big data” only helps if people are at home in “analytics,” which is beyond analysis. It presupposes forward- and lateral thinking. And the ability to leverage the GPS model: Where are we; Where do we want to be; How do we get there.

For example, over a dozen years ago, when the blog came into being, it took only a handful of metrics in my search to ask the question: How do we reinvent ourselves? At that time, Vietnam was already cornering the FDIs coming to the region.

And what were we Pinoys celebrating? The rising OFW remittances and the growing BPO industry.

In the process, our GDP grew by the Western laudable metric of 6%-7%.

But what did we sweep under the carpet? That we remained the regional laggard. Our GPD per capita still lagged the region – except Vietnam, but that was short-lived. Still, we bragged about the uptick in manufacturing.

That is classic hubris.

Consider: “The government can no longer rely on the protectionist instruments of the past and must now muster more positive, enabling measures.

“The focus on industrial catch-up is motivated by the prolonged stagnation of the Philippine industry and its profound impact on the country’s labor market.

“Unlike developed countries whose workers have primarily transitioned away from agriculture to industrial and high-skilled services employment, workers in developing countries such as the Philippines have been moving out of low-productivity agriculture towards low-skilled jobs.

“The services sector account for 61% of gross domestic product and six out of 10 workers, but a third in low-paying jobs.

“Meanwhile, elements of its exports sector with a competitive advantage and the number of exporting companies have been declining, making the Philippines a ‘market of consumer goods rather than a hub for manufacturing exports.’” [Diversification, Jobs and the COVID-19 Recovery.pdf (un.org)]

Question: Do we or don’t we feel the pain of Juan de la Cruz? Why did over 10 million Filipinos choose to be OFWs?

The wife and I have chatted with scores of OFWs on cruise ships, and their stories don’t vary much. It all boils down to our failure as an economy to feed our people. What more of “tubig” and “kuryente”? Or medical care?

There are two reasons why the blog often speaks to Maslow’s hierarchy of human needs.

The first is that we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are way beyond the basics of “physiological” needs. Unwittingly, we talk about our need for “self-actualization” – as in “happiness.”

We cannot project our needs to Juan de la Cruz. Tens of millions of Filipinos are undernourished and – worse – suffer abject poverty.

That is our reality. That is where we are.

And that’s why the blog never fails to discuss the GPS model: Where are we; Where do we want to be; How do we get there.

In short, the challenge of Juan de la Cruz is not happiness per se. He cannot even put body and soul together.

The second reason the blog speaks to Maslow is that it is the bedrock of “innovation.”

The hierarchy of needs equips humankind to thrive in this dynamic universe. Otherwise, we would still live in caves, exposed to the elements, and with very little ability to extend the human lifespan.

Then consider the failure of Philippine education?

“The failure of Philippine education is to develop the ability to think, meet new situations, and solve problems one encounters in real life.”

In other words, are we equipped to be the fittest per Darwin? How come we haven’t internalized the demands of innovation?

How come we are still into the mechanics or the “how-to” of human undertakings? Can we bring to bear the three brains – or are we stuck at the intellectual level and yet to leverage our heart and gut brains?

How come we lack the requisite instincts while having an abundance of the negative ones? Take parochialism and insularity and the value of hierarchy and paternalism.

Recall that innovation is not technology per se. It is beyond R&D. It is multidisciplinary and multidimensional. It is a grand display of the egalitarian ethos.

And the starting point is to respect humankind’s need to raise one’s well-being. 

That is why the bedrock of innovation is the hierarchy of human needs. Recall the mantra that “innovation” is not for “innovation’s” sake. It is to move up the value chain to raise one’s well-being. 

And that is why “innovation” migrates across the shores. Take the vaccine against Covid-19, for instance.

And that is consistent with Christian theology: “In reality, there is a single integral community of the Earth that includes all its component members whether human or other than human. In this community, every being has its role in fulfilling its dignity, its inner spontaneity. Every ‘being’ has its voice. Every ‘being’ declares itself to the entire universe. Every being enters into communion with other beings. This capacity for relatedness, for ‘presence’ to other beings, for spontaneity in action, is a capacity possessed by every mode of being throughout the entire universe.” [Richard Rohr’s daily meditation, Center for Action and Contemplation, 27th Aug 2021]

Does that explain our value of hierarchy and paternalism — and reliance on political patronage and oligarchy — goes against the grain?

For example, why did we fall into the trap of serving the bottom of the pyramid? We forget its implied condescension because respecting human needs presupposes lifting all boats. 

In other words, given our forebears were free to abandon their caves and aspire to live in good homes, why would Juan de la Cruz be consigned to the slums?

Disclosure: Many postings ago, the blog related that my old MNC-company worked with the guru that codified the mechanics of product architecture modeling. And he then preached the rewards of serving the bottom of the pyramid. 

But then again, this is a dynamic universe, and knowledge generation never ceases. And particularly for global marketers dealing with emerging and developing markets, the hierarchy of human needs is a continual challenge.

The evidence? How can our top eight companies — combined — not deliver as much economic benefit as one Vietnam enterprise? 

Because they seek local dominance and are unrivaled, they take the path of least resistance — and forego global competition.

And who pays but Juan de la Cruz. Yet, we turn around proud that our economy creates dollar billionaires. How much more insult do we want to add to injury?

The task before us is to toss our caste system. Yes, the system that raised us.

How come our MSMEs aren’t globally competitive? Yet, we keep harping that close to 99% of Philippine enterprises are MSMEs. That is irrelevant if we keep to our value of parochialism and insularity.

Yet, because of our crab mentality, we cannot leverage the laws of physics. In other words, we can’t ignore Pareto or the “vital few” versus the “trivial many.” 

Sadly, it explains our failure to define and forge a “common good.”

Consider that the pursuit of freedom and the promise of prosperity hinges on “self-government.”

Let’s hold it there.

Have we ever asked why we have a bias for LGUs? When the central government is inefficient and ineffective, the “analysis” will confirm said bias.

That’s why the blog keeps going beyond “analysis” and into “analytics” — the big picture as in strategic thinking. There are fundamental givens, as in the laws of physics, that we can’t ignore. It also applies to economics, i.e., the economies of scale.

Hold it right there so we can digress a bit.

Those familiar with the blog will recognize that the postings illustrate Steve Jobs’ definition of creativity, i.e., connecting the dots. It comes from his instincts of “forward- and lateral thinking.” Sadly, for us mere mortals – because daily life and education teach us otherwise – we are confined to logical yet linear thinking.

See below; the blog raises the challenge for Philippine education to embrace Einstein and Jobs. 

And a good exercise is to incorporate the timelines of different disciplines in our syllabus. For example, how, why, and when did modern math come into being. And what is “pure math,” and what is “applied math”? It is not history for history’s sake.

For example, we won't straightaway connect the “universe” to Apple products if we don’t do the exercise of tracing how things evolved. Why did Jobs want to make a dent in the universe? What did he mean when he said he wanted to create a product that will feed on people’s creativity?

And the photosynthesis phenomenon is an excellent example of connecting the dots.

When I introduced my Eastern European friends to the Pareto principle, I started with the Great Commandments – because they would remind me that they were not godless from the beginning. The Soviets made them, but they were Eastern Orthodox Christians.

Or why is Maslow's hierarchy of human needs critical to understanding how innovation evolves?

Consider how the Americans had to turn the tide after Japan Inc. upended their manufacturing prowess.

It was reminiscent of the exercise post-Pearl Harbor via the development of the atomic bomb – with a bit of help from Einstein, who had turned against his country and ensured Hitler’s comeuppance – and with Hiroshima and Nagasaki paying the price.

In a separate track, because of the trauma of WWI, Churchill had to cajole Roosevelt. He wanted to shift the American mind – i.e., Uncle Same had turned “isolationist” – to overturn Nazi Germany and save Europe and the world.

Relate that then to the Biden debacle in Afghanistan.

Biden, like Trump, wanted to trumpet his “populism” – with an eye for the Democrats to preempt a Trump second act – that he took bits and pieces of the Trump soundbites, e.g., “Make America Great Again” (MAGA.) And Biden translated that to “Build back better.”

The genius of Trump is he instinctively knows – yet it took social scientists great pains to postulate – that in any country, a sliver of the population would have an authoritarian disposition that he could tap. And the 6th Jan insurrection in the Capitol demonstrated that – aka as an attempted coup. And Trump’s defense? Deny. Deny. Deny.

Still, Biden forgot that Trump is a phony, i.e., unprincipled. He was born with a silver platter yet had to declare bankruptcy half a dozen times. And he turned the art and science of marketing into a laughingstock – a dismal discipline.

He fooled the church too, but not the ghostwriter for his bestseller. Late as it was, the latter saw through the sham: Financial institutions won't touch him with a ten-foot pole, the Trump University had to settle claims from poor Americans in the millions, and the Trump charity foundation had to shut down. Still, his hands are full – of suits, including criminal ones.

On the other hand, Biden fell to the trap of the brain’s “automatic” operating system – and missed the conscious one.

Biden’s analysis to end the war was incomplete because he did not go into the big picture – or the analytics: Where are we; Where do we want to be; How do we get there.

America’s challenge – once more – is to turn the tide. And the world is waiting.

Let’s get back to economies of scale.

Many postings ago, the blog quoted from The Economist, that in more ways than one, Europe won’t equal the size and reach of American enterprises despite the EU because it’s a collection of “island” nations, i.e., parochial and insular.

On the other hand, why does the blog share the story of my Eastern European friends? Because they saw beyond their shores — they set their sights to the bigger market, regional and then global, to attain scale — and did not cower under the onslaught of competition from Western behemoths.

Of course, they had minimal capital and were untrained in the free market. Yet, these former socialists turned from an MSME that was a losing proposition into Europe’s model — of commercial success, innovation, and business ethics in eight years.

There is no free lunch. The pursuit of freedom and the free market isn’t for Juan Tamad or Bondying. Translation: We cannot be stuck celebrating oligarchy and rent-seeking.

Sadly, it explains our failure to define and forge a “common good.”

Do we wonder why we failed miserably to become a first-world nation?

Recall the UN policy brief: “Workers from developed countries have transitioned from agriculture to industrial and high-skilled services employment. On the other hand, workers in developing countries such as the Philippines have been moving out of low-productivity agriculture towards low-skilled jobs.”

We cannot rely on our caste system and pull rank. We must figure out the reality of Juan de la Cruz.

“No human formulation of ‘reality,’ no philosophical explanation of human experience can say: ‘I have grasped its entirety and meaning.’ Reality is too rich and is continuously changing; it can’t fall under a set of categories.” [George Gorospe, SJ]

That explains why we can’t internalize the dynamism of reality – and the universe!

And why “innovation” is foreign to us.

Consider: We are the regional laggard, yet we can’t learn from others because of our inward-looking bias. We can’t even recognize the milieu we live in – aka the universe.

If there is one thing Philippine education must embrace, it is to teach the youth about the reality of this universe.

For example, should we teach them about Einstein and Jobs?

Their superior minds recognize this universe’s reality – as in its dynamism.

Even Apple cannot sit on its laurels.

“Apple has had a successful decade. The next one looks tougher. As Tim Cook celebrates his tenth anniversary at the helm, the world’s most valuable company faces fresh challenges.

“How could someone with so little dazzle inspire Apple employees to continue creating ‘insanely great products,' in Jobs' famous formulation?

“It turned out Mr. Cook could. As he celebrated his tenth anniversary as Apple’s boss on 24th Aug, no one made a peep. And for a good reason. He has staged what is arguably a tremendous succession success in tech, an industry littered with managers who failed in the effort to follow in the founders’ footsteps. 

“No chief executive in history has created as much overall shareholder value as Mr. Cook. When he took over from Jobs, the company had a market value of $349bn. Today it is worth $2.5trn, more than any other listed firm ever. 

“Given such achievements, Mr. Cook could retire amid gushing tributes around now (and with a spot in the billionaire club). Instead, he will likely stick around until 2025, when his current stock grant will fully vest. That, in turn, raises the question of how long he can keep Apple on its stratospheric trajectory. The short answer is that it will be much more challenging than in his first decade. Many of the global tailwinds that have lifted Apple to such dizzying heights are now reversing.

“Three challenges stand out: growth, geopolitics, and competition. 

“At some point, Apple will need another keystone innovation like the iPhone.

“Mr. Cook’s second big challenge is geopolitics. Apple has so far escaped the mounting tensions between the West and China. And it is in China where they assemble and sell many of their products. And the pugnacity with which the Chinese government has gone after its technology giants must be making some in Apple’s futuristic headquarters in Cupertino, Silicon Valley, nervous.

“The rivalry is heating up in its principal hardware business. In America, the iPhone remains dominant. Globally, however, iPhones account for one in seven smartphones sold. Earlier this year, Xiaomi, a Chinese firm, overtook Apple as the world’s second-biggest smartphone-maker by volume.” [“The great successor’s second act,” The Economist, 28th Aug 2021]

Let’s get back to the Philippines.

If we in the Philippine elite and chattering classes are blind to our power, what can spark “Eureka” in Juan de la Cruz?

We cannot rely on our caste system and pull rank. We must figure out the reality of Juan de la Cruz.

Consider how “sabog” we are.

Even Philippine economists would build on the superiority of “happiness” as a measure of nation-building despite our pathetic GDP per capita.

Let’s hold it right there.

Is that because we don't feel the pain of Juan de la Cruz? Why did over 10 million Filipinos choose to be OFWs?

Tens of millions of Filipinos are undernourished and – worse – suffer abject poverty.

Is our hubris beyond the pale?

Gising bayan!