EGALITARIAN| The social cost of the free market

FEDERALISM simply means governing with due respect for autonomy. Government rightfully serves the public using fewer but functioning bureaucracies. It is a very near government. It is a system of governance which ensures that what the public legally need is appropriately provided by their government. This includes healthcare protection, public safety and order, proper infrastructures, rightful pricing of commodities. These are outcomes of a system. Yet, we know that the substance is not enough. There is the requirement of the form. The form of government that will maximize federal system is parliamentary, or by twist of fate, a mixed of parliamentarism.

Parliamentary is representation of the people. The members of the parliament are direct representatives of the people through their political parties. Here, the design of the government is the design of the ruling party of the parliament. The formula is in effect very simple. Seek the concern of the people through the political party and translate it as the agenda of the government. Again, the political party here need be mature political parties based on clear principles and vision for the country. To be a true political party, each member should be imbibed with principles, are dues-paying members, and the party is agenda-based.

Then again, these are desired forms of a government. The bottom line will always be economic abilities.

Here, federalism in the Philippines needs to make a pivotal decision. This country cannot free itself from the cycles of poverty unless the political economic structure is changed. Throughout history, the concentration of the nation’s wealth is convoluted but grossly favored the oligarch. The oligarch controls both politics and economics. Unless wealth is re-distributed, shift to federal Philippines won’t change the fate of the 20 million hungry Filipinos. Therefore, capitalism must not be pursued else, education, health, social care will be made private. That is the nature of capitalism.

Lying on the other end is communism where ownership is solely made by the government. No private property, no incentive to work hard, no return to investments. The government will decide who will enjoy food and who will not. In communism, satisfaction resides in knowing that you survived a day.

In between is the new economic order. It is a tempered capitalism and a loosen communism. It is social market economy. It is the social side of the free market economy. In a nutshell it is like this. Not everyone is given the talent, the skills, and the capital. The government needs to provide a scaffold for them to participate in the market. Core to this is human capital.

Studies reveal that what plugs the leak of social fragmentation is quality of human capital. It will always be people. The social in the free market of the Philippine economy will target health, education, employment and dwelling. Common to these mentioned areas is the food access. Hunger in the country is not supply side, it is demand side. People have the money but cannot buy commodities. The products become prohibitively expensive not due to effective value but because of undue market control. The prices are wedged so widely from the producer price to final market price. This is pure capitalism. This has to be tempered in order to protect the public. This has to be tempered in order to allow the public go gain access of the market; this is making value of their income. This is social market economy.

Posted in Opinion