The Same Contribution, Different Dues

Capital is the part of the wealth of a country which is employed in production that is necessary to give effect to labor. Developing countries are exerting all their best efforts to attract foreign investors. However, there are investors who are not paying what is due of them. Given that there there are those who are paid below the minimum wage, what will happen to those small industries and enterprises owned by the locals? For sure, not all of them can compete in the market.

If different industries apply different amounts of capital per laborer, then the rate of profit will also differ across industries. What does this mean? The "labor-embodied" theory of value would only work if the degree of capital-intensity was the same across all sectors?

If the natural price of labor depends on the price of food, necessaries, and conveniences required for the support of the laborer and his family, then why is it that a manager has a different wage from an ordinary employee?

Men Versus Machines

Free market principles are evident in Asian economies. However, isn't it also true that some Asian countries - Japan, for example – ascribe to an approach to economic development that emphasize government action to stimulate industry? Japan has had its economic troubles in recent years, as all countries do, but does its general success give credence to the theory that government should actively work to stimulate industry?

It is stated in Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations that the invention of machines facilitated and abridged labor. Does this not also degrade man power and at the same time removes the opportunity for the laborer to develop skills in performing the task?

If every laborer has only one task to perform and specialized with, what if a situation comes that there is a need for a new man to perform such task isn't it that it will be more convenient to have a man who is already part of the company who could have learned the skill than to hire a new one?

Humans Aren't Robots

Why do people have different incomes? Why do farmers get the least of benefits and regarded as the lowest class when they are the ones producing our basic necessities - food?

Following Smith's idea, shouldn't the government allot a bigger part of the tax to education and to our farmers? A huge bulk of our taxes only goes to the pockets of our corrupt officials who contribute nothing but plunder. How about a reform for the distribution of government capital (tax) to government employees, say a "sky scraper" raise for our beloved public school teachers?

Adam Smith offered that one of the solutions to improve and increase the speed of production is to apply the division of labor, and it seems to be true because the skill of the worker will be focused in what he/she always does. But humans by nature are bound to be creative and will always divert themselves to other things, what would be the effect of this to their work? and what can be done to satisfy their cravings for diversion?

United We Stand, Divided We Fall

In The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith, the improvement of the laborer is also the improvement of the country. Is this true? Or does this still remain a theory? If yes, what are the countries that delve on the improvement of the laborer? If no, why not?

Also, Adam Smith (in the same book) discussed something about a scenario saying than even if wage is increased, there is a point that it will no longer benefit the workers (Iron Rule of Wages). Do you believe that this is a sound hypothesis?

The assembly line introduced by the Americans follow the observation of Adam Smith that division of labor yields a lot of advantages. But does division of labor imply specialization of work at all times? The division of labor leads to convenience for men, but not always to the progress of the society. To what extent of the division of labor favorable to progress?

The Other Side Of The Coin

The Filipino people have already learned their lesson. When it comes to Philippine politics, its not anymore about the 3+1 Gs: gold nor goons nor guns not even glamor. The Filipino people have turned to be matured citizens of their country – this is what the world realized after their 2007 national and local elections.

In the said national event, people no longer were deceived with their candidates' 3+1 Gs. Rather, they are more vigilant in choosing who they will vote to sit in the government. The administration's line up was composed of famous celebrities in the fields of media, show business, and sports while on the opposition side they had a line up who were bartering “genuine service” in lieu with the people's votes. Whatever genuine service means to the Filipino people, it only showed one thing – that most probably the service offered by the opposition is the ultimate kind that the Filipino needed as shown in the results of the election. It's now the opposition's turn.

Save The Pearl Of The Orient

The results of the national elections in the Philippines in 2007 showed that the Filipinos have learned from their series of elections that brought no good to their country and to its people. It can be recalled in their country's history that candidates seek position in the local or national government very easily. There had been no standard judgment that would serve as the basis for its qualification to run in any seat. Although, their Commission on Elections had presented the eligibility rules but still, it had made no effect. Basically, everyone can run even if this means defying the set rules. There's always a way because there's a will from these aspiring officials. And as I have said, this brought no good to the whole country because those who ran and made it to the government seats were no way public servants. These people were selfish people and all they have been doing to the Philippines is put the country into a very unstable economic condition.

You know what I'm saying? Read more about the Philippines' economic status.

Nice Try Pacman!

It can be remembered that the world-famous, boxing hero, Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao “gave in” to the desire of those people who requested him to run for a post in the Philippine elections, second monday of May 2007. There were two positions he was choosing: the mayoralty and the congressional posts. Yet before the deadline of the filing of the Certificate of Candidacy, the “Pambansang Kamao” (National Fist) had decided to vie for a seat in the Philippine Congress.

There had been hundreds, if not thousands, of news and blogs by Filipino people expressing their sentiments to Manny. All of these boiled down to one message: “Please don't run.” Despite the negative feedback of the people, he insisted to run and and compete against the incumbent congressman in their district. As expected he lost; and take note, vote discrepancy was very significant. It was like Manny only got 10 per cent of the total voting population and the rest went to this opponent.

Nice try Manny! Maybe you're only for boxing!

The Iron Fist Of Machiavelli

I should say that Machiavelli is a genius. Machiavelli said that it is better for the prince to be feared by his people than to be loved, pointing out that man is selfish and deceitful and would only be loyal to his master because he doesn't want to be harmed or punished. Why does he think so negatively with man's nature? Furthermore, if we live in fear with our master, aren't we susceptible into hating him and acting against him?

The idea, "he'd rather be feared than loved", is a good one I think because if the ruler is feared in that way, it is unlikely for his people to disobey the laws. Furthermore, a ruler who is loved by the people must be tolerant of law breakers. What i'm tryin to ponder on right now is: are humans really selfish by nature? When are they selfish and when are they not?

The Saints Plus Machiavelli

Unlike Socrates, Plato, Aquinas and St. Augustine, Machiavelli seems to be playing the bad cop here. Machiavelli's book “The Prince” is a good read because it lets us see the idea of a 'perfect' ruler in both points of view: the good and the bad.

When you think about it, Machiavelli's ideas really do make sense, they are practical and logical, but the only thing is that it cannot be applied to every state in general and it is 'bad'. He thinks that this prince who has these qualities knows how to be not good, a good feigner and dissembler, one more likely to be feared than loved.

If everybody in a community is good, then be good, but what if you're the only one being good and you totally know that it may cost you your life, will you still live up to your kindness and be ready to die? Maybe for some, it is possible. This may be really rude to hear but people can err. So it's like a pratical way to also learn and be 'bad' if it is necessary.

I'm now wondering, if all these thinkers that I mentioned had the opportunity to be together and discuss their ideas, what should the outcome be? Most especially St Augustine and Aquinas as opposed to Machiavelli. Chaotic, isn't it?