Finite milieus generate finite thinking.

In other words, the Philippine caste system imposes limits and bounds on Juan de la Cruz.

Thus, 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.

Consider: “Social environment or milieu refers to the immediate physical and social setting in which people live or in which something happens or develops. It includes the culture that the individual was educated or lived in and the people and institutions they inhabit. The interaction may be in person or through communication media, even anonymous or one-way, and may not imply equality of social status. The social environment is a broader concept than that of social class or social circle.” [Wikipedia]

Here are examples that the blog has picked on over the years:

Recall how often the postings raised that Lee and Mahathir told Deng to “Beg for foreign money and technology – to lift China’s people from poverty.” And to Juan de la Cruz, Mahathir explained: “We don’t have to love former colonizers. But we are poor nations and cannot go it alone, and we need their money and technology.”

Why can’t we figure that out? The limits and bounds we impose on ourselves reflect our worldview, our finite thinking.

It’s been over a dozen years, and like a broken record, the blog keeps raising its two cents.

Consider: The JFC presented Arangkada to then newly elected president Aquino. A dozen years later, after another president (Duterte) is about to end his term, where is Arangkada? That is why the blog asked, “Where is Philippine media?”

We cannot put industrialization on the back burner and keep celebrating poverty programs. As the blog pointed out, the industrialization gap between us and Vietnam puts that laser-like focus on poverty all for naught.

And that is not rocket science.

In other words, what we call patriotism – and Christian charity – is a euphemism. We cloak our parochialism and insularity and our value of hierarchy and paternalism.

And that explains why we can’t stop drooling that we created a handful of dollar billionaires that are kindhearted, ready, and able to dole out goodies even before the pandemic. And side by side with oligarchy is political patronage, as in “ayuda.”

To add insult to injury, we celebrated the OFW phenomenon and then the uptick in manufacturing. Why?

We measure everything against our instincts expressed by our caste system that imposes limits and bounds on Juan de la Cruz.

Consider these two articles that appeared two days apart: (a) “Vietnam's VinFast eyes over $200-M capital investments in California,” Reuters, 5th Nov 2021; and (b) “Saving what’s left of our forests,” EDITORIAL, Philippine Daily Inquirer, 7th Nov 2021.

“VinFast said Friday it will make over $200 million in capital investments and place its US headquarter in California as part of its plan to expand operation in North America.

“VinFast, the automobile arm of Vietnam’s largest conglomerate Vingroup, became the country’s first fully-fledged domestic car manufacturer when its gasoline-powered models built under its badge hit the streets in 2019.

“It is aiming to debut in the US with two battery-electric SUVs and inaugurate 60 showrooms across the country next year, the company said.

“VinFast has said it will keep an eye on the possibility of a manufacturing facility in the US.”

Recall that the blog kept raising that our top eight companies can’t match the revenues of one Vietnam enterprise, Samsung Vietnam. And to add insult to injury, Vietnam also lured Apple AirPods.

And now they are planting a significant industrial stake in America.

And where are we?

“The country’s massive deforestation has already resulted in the loss of 151,000 hectares (1.5 billion square meters) of humid primary forest, making up 12 percent of the Philippines’ total tree cover loss, from 2002 to 2020. In terms of tree cover, the country lost 1.29 million hectares (12.9 billion square meters or about the size of more than 22,000 Rizal Parks) from 2001 to 2020, equivalent to a 6.9-percent decrease since 2000.

“GFW data also show that 11 regions were responsible for 51 percent of tree cover loss, led by Palawan, with 163,000 hectares (1.63 billion square meters) lost. The other top areas in terms of tree cover loss were Agusan del Sur (116,000 hectares or 1.2 billion square meters), Zamboanga del Norte (59,700 hectares or 597 million square meters), Davao Oriental (48,800 hectares or 488 million square meters), and Quezon (44,200 hectares or 442 million square meters).”

Those familiar with the blog may recall that it has raised the Swedish forestry model a few times before. And here’s another version.

But as we go through the model, let’s keep in mind how it may fit into our instincts, i.e., We are parochial and insular. We value hierarchy and paternalism and rely on political patronage and oligarchy that ours is a culture of impunity.

“The Swedish forestry model can be described as shaped by the country’s natural conditions and constraints, its history, the knowledge and experience of the forest owners, and the tradition of consensus policies based on mutual respect, understanding, and compromise.

“The Swedish forestry model is about the regeneration of forests, and as the old forest goes, a new forest comes.

“The model has a long history: (a) the government developed the model, (b) threw many regulations, and (c) improved it, till it reached its current form.

“A small number of large industrial forest enterprises own some 25% of all forest land in Sweden. Most of the state forest belongs to a state-owned company, accounting for 14% of all forest land. The rest of the public-sector-owned ‘forests’ account for 5% of the forest land, of which 3% is state-owned and 2% owned by other public bodies, mainly the church.

“About half of all forest land in Sweden is family-owned, and most holdings pass on from one generation to the next. Family enterprises have different objectives and priorities, leading to a rich diversity of forestry practices. However, one traditional goal is common to all: sound long-term management of the forest.

“The best implementation results of government regulations were achieved, not by strict law enforcement, but through counseling, education, and persuasion.

“The Swedish government introduced County Forestry Boards in 1905 to help implement forest-related law. It also included providing forest owners grants. The government increasingly used economic incentives to motivate forest owners to produce more and cheaper wood to ensure a steady supply of raw material to the expanding forest industry. State subsidies peaked in the 1980s.

“But when forest owners gained greater freedom to manage their land, there was a strong legacy of a highly production-oriented forest policy. They improved environmental conditions while maintaining high wood production, a ‘policy’ known as ‘freedom with responsibility.’

“But Swedish forests are not only in the hands of the state. Because there are about half of all forests in ownership by family enterprises, government policy is critical to sustainable management.

“The forest governance system has changed significantly in recent decades. The Swedish forest management system is now unregulated, and strong regulations have been replaced by ‘freedom with responsibility.’

“This approach represents two prominent distinct but linked frames: (a) ‘strong sectoral’ responsibility and (b) freedom with responsibility.

“The sectoral-responsibility-frame is rooted in the Swedish system of public administration, in which the regulatory authorities are independent organizations. Accordingly, each sector (e.g., the forest, agricultural, and energy sectors) is responsible for implementing environmental policy within the corresponding authorities’ mandate and power.

‘Freedom with responsibility’ means that forest owners have wide-ranging discretion to manage their forests. In the case of freedom with responsibility, the authorities’ role is to use soft legal instruments, such as support, advice, information, education, and dialogue.

“The importance of responsibility in this model is essential, primarily the responsibility of owners. Owners can manage their forests per authorities’ soft regulations, and nobody can foster them to do it, only teach them and motivate and throw various incentives.

“State authorities and forestry actors share responsibility for implementation. So, the role of the state and owners complement each other.

“The Swedish forestry model is in large part a result of government control. But reasonable owners who respect government regulations and are responsible although they have freedom are also important parts of this model.” [“THE IMPORTANCE OF THE GOVERNMENT IN THE SWEDISH FORESTRY MODEL,” Science Direct, 12th Jan 2017]

Do we wonder why the blog keeps speaking to the “common good”?

For example, the blog discussed Juan de la Cruz, Uncle Sam, and my Eastern European friends earlier.

To reiterate, freedom and the free market are not about rules but principles, and neither are they about the ideology of the left or the right. And it applies even to the US Supreme Court, such that its approval rating is down to 40%.

In other words, whether we are speaking to the wealthiest nation or the poorest one in Europe or even the regional laggard like us, the North Star is the common good.

And that is consistent with the story of creation and this universe.

On the other hand, name the best “ism,” and it will still be a human construct – from the Vatican to the Soviet regime to China to Vietnam – and cannot claim perfection.

Consider: This blog is not preaching socialism, yet the Eastern Europeans did not chase me away. Instead, they offered me citizenship. And as those familiar with the blog may recall, my old MNC-company obtained by blue passport – representing the forefront of liberty and the free market – for business reasons, not because I migrated as millions do. I would have had three citizenships if I had agreed with the Eastern Europeans.

The moral of the story: No human construct can afford to be static.

But that means, for starters, Juan de la Cruz must toss our caste system. How egregious can a caste system be?

“The caste system in India as it exists today is thought to result from developments during the collapse of the Mughal era and the rise of the British colonial government in India. The failure of the Mughal period saw the rise of powerful men who associated themselves with kings, priests, and ascetics, affirming the regal and martial form of the caste ideal, and it also reshaped many casteless social groups into differentiated caste communities.

“The British Raj furthered this development, making rigid caste organization a central mechanism of administration. Between 1860 and 1920, the British formulated the caste system into their system of governance, granting administrative jobs and senior appointments only to Christians and people belonging to certain castes. Social unrest during the 1920s led to a change in this policy. The colonial administration began a policy of positive discrimination by reserving a certain percentage of government jobs for the lower castes. In 1948, negative discrimination based on caste ceased by law and further enshrined in the Indian constitution; however, the system continues in parts of India.” [Wikipedia]

We may not represent the Indian system, yet tyranny and impunity aren’t foreign to us – and why Rizal called us out, he who submits to tyranny loves it.

In other words, we are what we make of Juan de la Cruz. For example, our denuded forests reflect what we are.

See above the Swedish forestry model – it represents two prominent distinct but linked frames: (a) ‘strong sectoral’ responsibility and (b) freedom with responsibility.

Consider: “What makes you make the universe,” Maria Popova, The Marginalia, 7th Nov 2021.

‘To face what makes us who we are with courage, lucidity, and fulness of feeling is to face, with all the restlessness and helplessness this stirs in the meaning-hungry soul, the elemental fact of our ‘choicelessness’ in the conditions that lead to our existence.’

“That is what the Nobel-winning founding father of quantum mechanics Erwin Schrödinger (12th Aug 1887–4th Jan 1961) addresses in some exquisite passages from My View of the World (public library) — the slender, daring deathbed book containing two long essays penned on either side of his Nobel Prize, thirty-five years apart yet united by the unbroken thread of his uncommon mind unafraid of its capacity for feeling, that vital capacity for living fully into the grandest open questions of existence.”

Consider: “Quantum mechanics arose gradually from theories to explain observations unreconciled with classical physics, such as Max Planck’s solution in 1900 to the black-body radiation problem, and the correspondence between energy and frequency in Albert Einstein’s 1905 paper which explained the photoelectric effect. These early attempts to understand microscopic phenomena, now known as the ‘old quantum theory,’ led to the full development of quantum mechanics in the mid-1920s by Niels Bohr, Erwin Schrödinger, Werner Heisenberg, Max Born, and others.” [Wikipedia]

In other words, finite milieus generate finite thinking – and beyond classical physics is the “less finite” quantum mechanics.

Question: Haven’t we been stuck in a finite metric of a 6%-7% GDP growth rate?

Answer: That’s why the blog raised the challenge, a less finite metric – think $200 billion in additional GDP.

Given that it is “less finite,” it requires shifting our mindset from “reflex” mode to “reflection” mode.

And we can start with benchmarking against Vietnam – if we did it before, we should have benchmarked against the Asian Tigers – and figuring out how they lured (a) Samsung and (b) Apple AirPods. That is the industry that brings in a quantum leap in national income – not incremental, which has been our mindset for the most extended time.

And so, we need (a) the economics discipline, (b) our economic managers, (c) legislators, and (d) even tycoons to switch to “reflection” mode.

Of course, that is not a cakewalk.

And even America falls into the cakewalk trap.

“One of the Democratic Party’s core problems is that it still regards itself mainly as the party of the underdog. But as the information-age economy matures, the Democratic Party has also become the party of the elite, especially on the cultural front.

Democrats dominate society’s culture generators: the elite universities, the elite media, the entertainment industry, the big tech companies, the thriving elite places like Manhattan, San Francisco, and Los Angeles.

“In 2020, Joe Biden won roughly one-sixth of the nation's counties, but together those counties generate approximately 71 percent of the nation’s GDP.

“As the Democrats have become more culturally and economically dominant, many people at tippy-top private schools and super-expensive colleges have flamboyantly associated themselves with the oppressed. Thankfully, that has moved society to pursue social and racial justice more aggressively. Unfortunately, a tacit ideology — sometimes called wokeness — has been grafted on to this pursuit.

“It includes the notions that society is essentially a zone of conflict between oppressor and oppressed groups, that a person’s identity is predominantly about group identity, and that slavery is the defining fact of American history.

“Because they dominate the commanding cultural heights, including some departments of education and the most prominent teachers’ unions, progressive views permeate schools, museums, movies, and increasingly the public stances of large corporations.

“The Republican Party, like many right-populist parties across the Western world, has become a giant vessel of resistance against cultural, urban, and information-age elites. Glenn Youngkin, the Republican who was just elected governor of Virginia, expressed that resistance when he said, ‘I believe parents should be in charge of their kids’ education.’

“When Democrats seem to be magnifying the education establishment’s control of the classroom and minimizing the role of parents, there’s going to be a reaction. Some of the response is pure racism, but a lot of it is pushback against elite domination and the tacit ideology.

“The results of Tuesday’s elections show again that resistance against the elites can be a powerful force propelling Republicans to victory. In the final weeks leading up to Youngkin’s win, education became one of the top issues for Virginia voters.

“The results also put the Donald Trump phenomenon in a new perspective. Trump was necessary to smash the old GOP and turn the party into a vanguard of anti-elite resistance. But by 2020, with his moral degradation and all the rest, he was also holding back Republicans. If Republicans can find candidates who oppose the blue oligarchy, but without too much Trumpian baggage, they can win over some former Biden voters in places like Virginia and New Jersey.” [“Democrats Need to Confront Their Privilege,” David Brooks, The New York Times, 4th Nov 2021]

Resistance against the elites can be a powerful force even in the Philippines. Isn’t that how we created Duterte?

And the elites live in their own confined, finite world. Recall how the wife didn't even want to accept the assignment in New York. The company had to wine and dine her – but was smart enough to offer a temporary job. They perhaps knew that the young daughter would want a less finite world that is America.

Finite milieus generate finite thinking.

In other words, the Philippine caste system imposes limits and bounds on Juan de la Cruz.

And Juan de la Cruz pays a heavy price.

Thus, 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.

Gising bayan!