MilitaryWank the Phillipines

[Namayan]

They are a different case.

I'm afraid I'll agree with Delta Force here. Marcos actually tried to pull a Lee Kuan Yew stunt, only to find out later that a single medicine cannot cure every ailment.

I agree on this. If you look at Marcos reign, his total work may be greater than each other Philippine president's total reign. But he had 20 years to do it while the others had only 4/6 years. However, if you look at his average economic growth in OTL, of all Philippines presidents, he only outshone Estrada and almost at par with Cory and Ramos in average per year economic growth while the rest outshines Marcos' economic growth. To simply put it, Marcos came into power with a first rate military and a prosperous economy. He ended his presidency with a third rate military and a poor economy.

South Korea, Taiwan and Singapore,etc. dictators started with a third rate military and a poor economy and ended up with improve versions of each.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

One thing that I wanted to ask: how is that Chile improved its economy during the reign of General Pinochet? I mean, I don't know how the Chilean military's condition was before and after Pinochet came to power, though that might be something the Philippines could analyze.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

They are a different case.

I'm afraid I'll agree with Delta Force here. Marcos actually tried to pull a Lee Kuan Yew stunt, only to find out later that a single medicine cannot cure every ailment.

Also, Lee Kuan Yew didn't blatantly use the national treasury as his personal account.

And Pinochet, at best, is a complicated case. Many of his policies (whether the dubious Chicago ones or his later moderations) would have been more effective under a democratic government. Then there's the increased inequality bit, too.

 

[Namayan]

One thing that I wanted to ask: how is that Chile improved its economy during the reign of General Pinochet? I mean, I don't know how the Chilean military's condition was before and after Pinochet came to power, though that might be something the Philippines could analyze.

Also, Lee Kuan Yew didn't blatantly use the national treasury as his personal account.

And Pinochet, at best, is a complicated case. Many of his policies (whether the dubious Chicago ones or his later moderations) would have been more effective under a democratic government. Then there's the increased inequality bit, too.

Chile had a bad economy in 1973 before Pinochet took over. Pinochet made it stable compared before he took over.

Marcos on the other hand took over on a prosperous economy and advanced military. He ended his presidency with a poor economy and third world military.

Dictators mentioned here started with low baseline both economy and military but ended up with an improvement since they took over, Marcos being the exception.

 

[Delta Force]

Dictators mentioned here started with low baseline both economy and military but ended up with an improvement since they took over, Marcos being the exception.

If dictatorships led to improved economic growth, then they probably would be a more popular style of governance. There are a lot of factors that go into economic growth, but there's nothing inherent to a dictatorship that makes growth better. If anything, they make growth lower than it otherwise would have been by because they tend to siphon away large amounts of money to sustain the kleptocratic powers that be and their disproportionately large police, military, and intelligence services.

 

[sciscisciortino]

Chile had a bad economy in 1973 before Pinochet took over. Pinochet made it stable compared before he took over.

No, the economy of Chile was in terrible shape until the mid-late 1980s and right before Pinochet was deliberately sabotaged by US policy.

Chile, historically, was always wealthier than the average Latin American country *except* when the sabotage occurred and through the majority of Pinochet. It took the relaxing of Chicago Boys policy to bring the economy back.

 

[Richard V]

If dictatorships led to improved economic growth, then they probably would be a more popular style of governance. There are a lot of factors that go into economic growth, but there's nothing inherent to a dictatorship that makes growth better. If anything, they make growth lower than it otherwise would have been by because they tend to siphon away large amounts of money to sustain the kleptocratic powers that be and their disproportionately large police, military, and intelligence services.

I brought up the East Asian dictatorships as examples not because this form of government guarantees growth but rather as rebuttal to your claim that "dictatorships don't corollate with economic growth".

Clearly there are lots of economically disastrous dictatorships, and there have been some spectacularly successful ones. There's no way to make sweeping generalizations about dictatorships and the economy. Singapore is a kind of dictatorship and it is not a kleptocracy while there are Democracies that are completely corrupt.

This is the problem I'm talking about. People are so set on labels and dogma that they don't even bother trying to understand what actual policies led to economic failure.

Why did an American colony that was an understudy of American Democracy end up being becoming a dictatorship? Why did this dictatorship fail to bring economic growth when other regional dictators succeeded. Why did the post Marcos Democracy also perform below par? Marcos has been gone for decades now.

 

[brokenman]

If dictatorships led to improved economic growth, then they probably would be a more popular style of governance. There are a lot of factors that go into economic growth, but there's nothing inherent to a dictatorship that makes growth better. If anything, they make growth lower than it otherwise would have been by because they tend to siphon away large amounts of money to sustain the kleptocratic powers that be and their disproportionately large police, military, and intelligence services.

And here we go again. Ataturk at the start led a Turkey that just survived WWI, being invaded by the Allies, and eventually a civil way that wrecked entirely the country's economy. By his death, Turkey is one of the ME's regional powers, a secular and more prosperous state than the Ottoman Empire.

Furthermore, if any, the Philippine economy still steadily worsened after Marcos, and we have not regained our regional standing before him.

 

[Namayan]

Furthermore, if any, the Philippine economy still steadily worsened after Marcos, and we have not regained our regional standing before him.

It hasnt worsened. Philippines just hasnt taken back its regional standing comparable to the 50s. Regaining the same regional standing in the 50s, in OTL present day requires Philippines to have the economic size and military sophistication of OTL Japan present day. That was the level of difference between Philippines vs its neighbors like Singapore, Taiwan, etc. pre Marcos.

 

[brokenman]

To answer the OP's question, a military expansion of the Philippines can be achieved if there is an immediate credible threat to the nation's sovereignty (i.e. very early tensions in the SCS, Sabah, Indonesia, massive southern rebellion) and only if both Houses ratify the expansion and continuation of the US military bases here.

 

[Mercenarius]

Why did an American colony that was an understudy of American Democracy end up being becoming a dictatorship? Why did this dictatorship fail to bring economic growth when other regional dictators succeeded. Why did the post Marcos Democracy also perform below par?

Because, as history had proven, adapting American political system in a Hispanic society was a big mistake.

 

[Francisco Cojuanco]

And here we go again. Ataturk at the start led a Turkey that just survived WWI, being invaded by the Allies, and eventually a civil way that wrecked entirely the country's economy. By his death, Turkey is one of the ME's regional powers, a secular and more prosperous state than the Ottoman Empire.

Furthermore, if any, the Philippine economy still steadily worsened after Marcos, and we have not regained our regional standing before him.

Well, Ataturk, for all his flaws, wasn't robbing the national treasury blind. Also, that prosperous state came at a cost - just ask the Pontic Greeks. Or the Kurds, for that matter. And that secularism, remember, was by gunpoint.

Marcos, essentially, was had the secular nationalism and autocracy of Ataturk, without the restraint to not raid the national treasury (at the eve of the Revolution, for example, the treasury in the City of Manila was near bankrupt.)

As for why it worsened in the Nineties before making a comeback in the 2000s and beyond - a) we had the Asian financial crisis, and b) it takes decades if not centuries to build a tradition, but only a few years to destroy it.

 

[Namayan]

To answer the OP's question, a military expansion of the Philippines can be achieved if there is an immediate credible threat to the nation's sovereignty (i.e. very early tensions in the SCS, Sabah, Indonesia, massive southern rebellion) and only if both Houses ratify the expansion and continuation of the US military bases here.

Your assumption is a pod after Marcos. There was no need to expand the military in the 50s or 60s. The Philippines during that time can stand on its own military wise, with or without the US Bases.

Sabah was a choice for Marcos not to pursue via jabiddah massacre which led to the modern Moro rebellion and MNLF. Communist armed rebellion didn't exist from magsaysay upto the first few years of Marcos.

These tensions that you are saying that will happen earlier won't exist since Philippines both military and economically stand head above her neighbors just like otl of the timeperiod.

Because, as history had proven, adapting American political system in a Hispanic society was a big mistake.

That is not necessarily true. What made Philippines a failure is when Marocs changed the American system into his own system. Philippines had a successful American system before Marcos.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Because, as history had proven, adapting American political system in a Hispanic society was a big mistake.

Your assumption is a pod after Marcos. There was no need to expand the military in the 50s or 60s. The Philippines during that time can stand on its own military wise, with or without the US Bases.

Sabah was a choice for Marcos not to pursue via jabiddah massacre which led to the modern Moro rebellion and MNLF. Communist armed rebellion didn't exist from magsaysay upto the first few years of Marcos.

These tensions that you are saying that will happen earlier won't exist since Philippines both military and economically stand head above her neighbors just like otl of the timeperiod.

That is not necessarily true. What made Philippines a failure is when Marocs changed the American system into his own system. Philippines had a successful American system before Marcos.

I would almost tend to agree with El Maestro in this case, simply because the Philippines shares the same trait as most Latin American nations in the fact that they crave for a Caudillo. Even in the post-Marcos years, you'd get a minority that was nostalgic for Marcos.

 

[Namayan]

I would almost tend to agree with El Maestro in this case, simply because the Philippines shares the same trait as most Latin American nations in the fact that they crave for a Caudillo. Even in the post-Marcos years, you'd get a minority that was nostalgic for Marcos.

Yes, there are still some Filipinos gullible enough to believe in Marcos type of governance. But thats what happens to nations who have millions of their workforce not having even graduate high school or grade school.

Philippines after 1900 already diverge from its Latin American counterparts since it was colonized by the Americans. The American system worked under the Philippines at a certain point in time. When you are achieving average of double digit economic growth rate and military sophistication head above the region, I do not see it as a failure.

 

[MarshalBraginsky]

Yes, there are still some Filipinos gullible enough to believe in Marcos type of governance. But thats what happens to nations who have millions of their workforce not having even graduate high school or grade school.

Philippines after 1900 already diverge from its Latin American counterparts since it was colonized by the Americans. The American system worked under the Philippines at a certain point in time. When you are achieving average of double digit economic growth rate and military sophistication head above the region, I do not see it as a failure.

It still didn't stop most of us from wanting to bring back Spanish as an official language of the Philippines.

 

[Namayan]

It still didn't stop most of us from wanting to bring back Spanish as an official language of the Philippines.

Having a Spanish or not as an official language doesn't equate a successful or unsuccessful country.