|
Some
experts continue to question government statistics
indicating unprecedented economic growth in 2007. They
express disbelief that the economy was actually in a
position last year to record an above-7-percent
expansion in the gross domestic product, or GDP.
Some
have also expressed concern such growth, if at all it
was true, failed to trickle down and actually reduce
poverty, which should be the logical conclusion of any
economic improvement, slight or otherwise. After all,
prosperity should be for all and not just for a
privileged few. Otherwise, the ensuring disparity in
incomes may just result in social disorder.
Obviously, such doubts on government reports leave one
with the impression that economics and statistics—as
mapped out by government agencies—are not exact sciences
and are invariably open to subjective interpretation,
but not necessarily to say that government statistics
are unreliable and should, therefore, be simply thrown
out the window.
Whether
the glass is half-full or half-empty will always depend
on one’s point of view and perspective. While an
optimist may say one thing, a pessimist will surely say
otherwise. In the same manner, an administration ally
will always sing praises to his benefactors, while
administration critics will always disagree; for that is
the nature of democracy.
In my
experience, a roundabout way to establishing some
semblance of truth is benchmarking. While not
scientific, nor truly exact, benchmarking or
trend-spotting are still helpful analytical tools.
Personally, I am not one to quickly believe government
data, either. But if the same data, when matched against
data from fairly reliable institutions such as the Asian
Development Bank and World Bank, indicate similarities
in figures and trends, then I am willing to accept any
slight window-dressing.
After
all, even as the economy supposedly grew, it does not
necessarily mean that such growth should actually
benefit everybody—and thus, such should not be expected.
In any scenario, there are always winners and losers.
Often enough, growth or prosperity is mutually
exclusive. One gains at the expense of another:
smugglers profit at the expense of legitimate
businesses, and corrupt officials earn from overpriced
contracts at the expense of better public service; for
that is the way of the world.
But even
casual observation of things, events, incidents and
happenings around can help one gauge whether there is
truth, even only slightly, in the government’s claim of
economic prosperity. However, one may end up thanking
smugglers—those who promote free and unrestrained trade
in imported goods via undue tax privileges—and the
increasing number of bodyguards in the employ of the
rich and powerful, including smugglers and corrupt
politicians alike.
Smuggling, given the very nature of import substitution,
obviously takes away jobs from manufacturing and even
agriculture. But it can also create jobs in the retail
and logistics sectors, particularly transportation.
Moreover, it helps maintain the supply of cheap imported
goods in the local market—making basic goods more
affordable particularly to the poor. Nowadays, even the
rich are not averse to patronizing cheap imported goods
as long as they can perceive an extra value for
money—without realizing that prices are kept low only
because of taxes and duties avoided.
Perhaps
some may argue that such taxes and duties will just be
lost, anyway, to either corruption or because of the
government’s wasteful use of resources. Thus, it may be
better for the people to benefit in a more direct manner
by enjoying the tax privilege themselves through the
steady supply of cheap, “duty-free” imported goods
courtesy of their friendly neighborhood smuggler and his
equally resourceful cabal of friends at the ports.
And for
manufacturers, what will be the point in continuing to
manufacture items that can be imported at just half the
price? Ultimately, the goal of production is to address
the demand for goods. If such need can be addressed in a
manner more cost-effective than self-production, then by
all means one should adopt the cost-effective approach.
Ironically, smugglers are now the ones seemingly
addressing the needs of the community—much like Robin
Hood stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. And
with the influx of cheap imported goods at dumping
prices, consumption remains high even as incomes have
not exactly increased.
But
while they are all laughing on their way to their banks,
smugglers and corrupt regulators and politicians in
cahoots live under a veil of threat. Illicit actions
usually attract the wrong kind of attention, along with
friends who are most likely your enemies. This gave rise
in recent years to the bodyguard economy—an economy
driven by growth in consumption mostly by people in
service industries like armed personal security.
A tour
of shopping malls during weekends will easily reveal
that a good fraction of patrons are actually service
people, i.e. maids, nannies, valets, drivers or security
detail waiting on their employers. A family of four can
have as many as four to six service people waiting on
them at any given time, and these service people will
obviously consume while attending to their bosses. One
can just imagine the exponential growth in consumption:
a family of four and six service people will need two to
three vehicles at any given time; food, clothes, and
shelter for 10 people; salaries for six service people
and shopping money for four family members; purchases of
firearms, ammunition and other security paraphernalia;
fuel for at least vehicles (usually gas-guzzling SUVs);
etc.
And,
obviously, all the money spent on these things by either
the smuggler or the corrupt politician is mostly
undeclared income, and is, therefore, tax-free. Most of
their purchases and payments for services may likewise
lack receipts. And while their business and personal
activities all contribute to economic growth, none is
reflected in any official record. Talk about government
statistics capturing the true essence of economic
activity.
E-mail: matort@yahoo.com |
