GET REAL POST
We beg to differ.


Last weekend Governor Joey Salcedo of the Philippine province of Albay issued what on the surface looks to be a ludicrous proposal — that Filipinos “boycott” Chinese-made products. Salcedo made this call to Filipinos to “hurt [China] where it counts” in light of recent military and diplomatic tension between the Philippines and China over the disputed Spratly Islands. Salcedo’s statement (and any other similar call made by others) was largely dismissed by Malacañang presumably amidst fears of further exacerbating already hairy relations with the regional superpower.

Even the infamously Maoist orgainisation, the League of Filipino Students chimed in with its chair Terry Ridon highlighting Salcedo’s words as describing an “unrealistic proposition.”

“It would essentially render most of us naked with meager foodstuff and no appliances at home and in the workplace,” said Ridon.

The LFS leader said he was “betting [his] bottom peso that even (Salceda’s) office would cease to function in such a boycott.”

Indeed, it likely would. Almost everything from nail clippers and plastic pails to computers and heavy machinery now bears the label “Made in China.” The better question to ask, therefore is this:

How did we come to be so dependent on Chinese imports?

We, and much of the rest of the world, are dependent on Chinese goods. Even “fresh” vegetables and seafoods are imported from China. The scale of this dependence is astounding. Products that can otherwise be manufactured by applying even the primitive industrial technology of Filipinos are shipped hundreds of miles from the Middle Kingdom.

The irony that escapes most of those who now seek to demonise the Awakening Giant in our midst is that all of us created the monster that is today’s China. It is a story not too different from the one where America and the insatiable appetite for stylish personal transport that it exported to the rest of the world created the global nightmare called Arab politics. This is our version of the story in the Far East. China is the Creature from the Black Lagoon that was roused by our perverted notion of what it means to be a “prosperous” society — larger and larger numbers of us being able to “afford” more and more nice but disposable things.

If our idea of “prosperity” is to keep consuming and disposing and keeping that orgy of waste “affordable” by “outsourcing” our supply to countries like China who are able to churn out mountains of products “cheaply,” then we are headed for trouble. Already, the United States, not to mention the Philippines, are racking up trade deficit upon trade deficit in favour of China. And in societies like ours and the U.S. where capital flow had long ago been delegated to the devices of the “free market”, it is the interests of the primary channels of this flow — multinational corporations — that now trump all the rest. And China is reaping the rewards offered by this current world order even as its own government reserves key control over that same flow of capital to itself (in an affront to the very system that created its new-found global power).

Multinational corporations have only two objectives — to sell stuff at a profit and sell larger amounts of it every year. To whom they sell these and how they parcel out the cost-incurring facilties to produce this stuff across the world is merely incidental — whatever works. The key message to its customers to convince them to buy all this stuff is also quite simple: you can afford it.

The amount of stuff people can ‘afford’ nowadays has grown. Take airfare, for example. In the past, frequent air travel used to be accessible only to relatively wealthy people. Now with budget airlines and all, even lower middle class people in advanced societies are able to take overseas holidays more than once a year, or fly for domestic travel instead of taking the roadtrips that used to be more of the norm in the past. Trouble is, aviation accounts for a disproportionately large amount of greenhouse gases added to the atmosphere annually. It delivers a bigger impact to the environment than land transport on a per passenger-kilometre basis.

In any case, more people are able to afford cars now as well. Households with an almost one-to-one ratio of vehicles per household member are now common in advanced economies. The decline of public transport in many U.S. cities, particularly in California is the result of the lobbying power of the auto industry which practically coerced politicians to channeling funds into road building rather than on public transport infrastructure such as rail. More affordable cars resulted in the public caring less about the decline of public transport services.

I have nothing against rich people being entitled to luxury. But I have an issue with ordinary people being led to believe that they are entitled to own unnecessary stuff and consume excessively. Corporations have all but convinced people that they can have things right here and right now. There is something not right about a society that believes in that philosophy. Self-importance seems to be a human condition that shrewd marketing has so effectively exploited nowadays. There is of course a price to pay for getting things fast and cheap. And we are seeing the effects of our fast and cheap way of life today.

Then there is our ballooning numbers. Was it right for us to multiply to the numbers we see today? The U.S. for example is fed using super-species of corn that is grown using artificial fertilisers that are manufactured from fossil fuels and the runoff of these fertilisers is contributing to the degradation of water supplies. The sheer size and production volume of U.S. farms are made possible by industrialised farming techniques and machinery that burn large amounts of fossil fuel as well.

These farming technologies did contribute to reducing hunger in the U.S. but then it also contributed to an increase in population to the point of complete dependence on almost irreversibly petroleum-fuelled agriculture. Softdrinks and other sweetened drinks are cheap because they are sweetened using byproducts of industrial corn production (fructose I think it is).

It’s like the way computerisation promised the advent of the paperless office. But look around today’s offices. People are not only printing and copying documents more, we are also starting to get addicted to colour printing, which consumes far more and produces larger volumes of waste products.

I don’t think there are any hard figures that tell us when consumption is excessive. But there are several principles at work around which the concept of “consumption” may be regarded:

(1) Consumption as driver of economic indicators

Exchanging goods for profit (i.e. trading in the original sense) adds value to the product of an economy (as measured by, say, the GNP or GDP). Every dollar earned in a transaction adds favourably to the Gross National Product (GNP) statistic of an economy. A person who buys a sack of rice for $5 then sells it for $8 adds $3 in “value” to the economy.

So in a sense, when lots of people are buying and selling in large quantities, as when “consumption” is said to be “healthy”, it is good for economic indicators because those activities contribute “value” to the economy. But then, what exactly is the substance behind that “value” I described above. Does the $3 in “added value” to the economy in that sack-of-rice transaction I used in the example above actually represent something tangible actually produced out of that transaction?

Multiply that a thousand fold into the aggregated way we measure “economic performance” and you will see that economies that merely exchange goods and gain profit but add little actual substance to what’s been exchanged can have as much chance to look good statistically as those economies that actually produce tangible stuff.

(2) Consumption in terms of what motivates it

Just because something is cheap or free, doesn’t mean we should wantonly consume it. Chairs and tables were once highly prized because the labour that went into building them was very tangible — you either built them yourself or you bought them from the village furniture maker who you personally know. Today, chairs and tables are manufactured by the millions in highly mechanised factories somewhere in China. They can be bought for just a hundredth of the cost of the furniture that our great grandparents used.

Whereas our great grandparents cherished their furniture and used them for years (even passing them to the next generation), we see ours today as mere fashion statements at worst. They last a few years and even if they are still good enough to use, we don’t think much of disposing of them to buy a the latest trendy set when it suits us. That’s because we can. But the question is, should we?

Today’s chairs and tables come cheap because our financial/monetary system tells us they are cheap. Trouble is, the financial system has been found to be incomplete as a scorekeeper of value and cost. It fails to account for the cost to the environment that our ability to manufacture stuff by the millions levies on Mother Nature. Because these millions of tables and chairs are “cheap” we dispose of them in larger quantities after shorter and shorter times of use. Our ability to manufacture in great quantities is enabled by our dependence on fossil fuels and our lack of accounting for the cost of disposing these throw-away products. Compare that to a time when no such manufacturing prowess existed and people had to hand-make stuff only in quantities that meet their needs.

So are we really improving our lot overall? Or are we simply improving the efficiency at which we consume — and waste?

(3) Consumption as an inherent property of our civilisation

No one element in the overall economic system is to blame for our predisposition to consume excessively. Indeed, it is not something we can pinpoint to one entity in our civilisation. Rather, this characteristic is the heart of the very nature of our civilisation itself.

In other words, what we see is the emergent behaviour of the whole system. All the individual properties and characteristics of each individual component come together to contribute to an overall set of behaviours and properties that don’t necessarily link back in a straightforward manner to any particular component.

But then there are basic relationships that we can isolate (but not necessarily use as an oversimplification of the issue):

(1) corporations’ goal is to make a profit and enrich its shareholders;

(2) consumers want nice things and status on top of the basic necessities they need to live; and,

(3) corporations respond to what consumers want and consumers respond to how corporations influence their tastes.

The challenge for us is to see this vicious cycle of consumption for what it is and somehow step out of it to the extent that we do not subsume ourselves into the behaviour of the system excessively.

To some extent, there are already regulations in place to curtail corporate power (e.g. false advertising laws, disclosure requirements, etc.) so that the thin line between influencing and misleading in their marketing campaigns is not crossed. However, there are no such regulatory frameworks to govern consumer behaviour, and corporations are getting more creative at designing their ad/marketing campaigns to work around regulations or exploit loopholes. So the onus is on us as individuals to develop a more ethical regard to the way we consume.

* * *

In my article Why “globalisation” is a big lie that is now coming back to bite its proponents, I made the following observation:

Much as the United States laments the havoc that the Chinese economic juggernaut is causing its people’s way of life, the rise of China along with the wealth that puts teeth in the “belligerence” of these Arab desert kingdoms are creations of the American Way. Americans’ glutinous appetite for oxymoronic economic constructs — cheap luxuries, mass individualised mobility, and commodity manufactured goods — drove industry and government to find ways to (1) make people wealthier so they could buy more of them and (2) make these things cheaper so that more of them could be bought.

Wealthier and wealthier people buying more and more of increasingly cheaper stuff.

Doesn’t that sound so wrong? It does when worded that way. But it is the course we have currently set for ourselves. Politicians and marketers have simply become so good at coming up with euphemisms to mask this underlying but very real rot. Where it not for these realities, none of these geo-politico-economic monsters — Big Bad Third World countries taking away American jobs and then flooding their malls with their “affordable” trinkets and “personalised” services — would exist as the risks they now pose to the American way of life. Hats off too to clever marketers who made credit addicts out of Americans by making them believe they “deserve” the latest iPod model and five bedroom McMansion. So addicted, in fact, that they’d just as soon send their sons and daughters to three desert wars to secure the “world order” required to ensure a steady supply of these “essentials” unloading at their docks.

That China and India now make the viability of the way of life of the creators of their prosperity precarious is the biggest irony that will define the 21st Century.

These oxymoronic economic constructs have become addictions precisely as a result of the illusion of value that our present monetary system propagates. Affordable access to these makes the average schmoe today far wealthier than, say, any one of any number of ancient Egyptian Pharaohs you can name. But are these things truly affordable? Have we counted the real costs of all this stuff that we enjoy today? We evaluate their value on the basis of how much it “costs” to mass-produce these things in volumes that allow them to be sold to us at “affordable” rates. But think for a moment where this ability to mass produce them comes from. It comes from mechanisation. And what ultimately powers mechanisation? You guessed it. Fossil fuels.

When we think of mechanisation, think beyond the machines that power our factories to the machines that power the ships and trucks that transport raw materials and finished products to and from production and consumption sites. The trinket that comes together with a McDonalds “Happy Meal” — a product that would have come across as an artefact of exquisitely precise craftsmanship to an ancient Egyptian Pharaoh — was churned out in a factory somewhere in China and shipped thousands of kilometres so that it could give amusement to the average attention-deficited Western kid for all of five minutes. We produce them in vast numbers and give them away for free because our machines and systems of machines (our “supply chain” as that often-quoted euphemism goes) make it “economically viable” — even “profitable” — to do so. We do so because we can.

That need to be more responsible and self-sufficient extends to the quesiton of how much more we wish to broaden our landscape of dependency across entities that we exert very little control over — overseas multinational corporations, foreign employment, foreign-sourced capital, and China. The choice, as always, is ours.

[This is article includes passages lifted from the article “Change the way we consume and save the environment” published on the 15th October 2009 by the same author.]

benign0

benign0 is the Webmaster of GetRealPhilippines.com.

More Posts - Website - Twitter - Facebook

20 Comments

  • Joe America says:

    Indeed, the great beast in the US, consuming all there is, for the sake of excessive comfort, fun and showing off, is more destructive than filching thousands of hectares of Philippine coral. If the economy is a train on ice, the societal value of “having lots of stuff” is the Titanic on land, fundamentally immovable. A few people get it, and are focused on simpler, green lifestyles. But the beast is enormous and ravenous.

    Much consumption in the Philippines is for essentials. How many buckets do you see with tape to paste over the holes? Or tables that will barely stand up, much less look nice. I rather think that boycotting Chinese goods would have the impact of a gnat chewing on an elephant’s ear, but it would feel really good.

  • BenK says:

    I knew someone (in the US) who actually tried it: the challenge was to boycott the purchase and/or use of any Chinese-made product for one month. Couldn’t be done; I think they gave up after 5 or 6 days, because they literally could not function at anything above basic survival level (not to mention that neither one could actually go to work without breaking the rule, too).

    Why do you think that Chinese economic planners are so frantic to steer growth into domestic markets? Because they know what a knife-edge their current prosperity is balancing on.

  • Hyden Toro says:

    China was the economic power in the ancient times. Just look at the ruins of the Silk Trade Route, a camel caravan road; from China to Middle East…It’s merchant ships, laden with goods, also prowls the Pacific Ocean, and other Oceans. Bringing goods to other countries, during the Ming Dynasty..China is just re-emerging…
    It is ironic that a communist country; became the most capitalist country of the world…
    The Philippines and the world are addicted to cheap Chinese goods…we are a throw-away; short attention specie. We buy, what we don’t need. We are confused, from our needs, and from our wants.

  • Benjamin F. Cardinez says:

    there was a time, not too long ago, when most countries, particularly u.s. and europe, moved mountains to prevent themselves from being a dumping ground for cheap goods from asia, where labor is dirt-cheap. i remember as a kid when “made in japan” was synonymous to poor quality, much like chinese imports are generally regarded these days.

    i believe the “world trade” agreements and the formation of the world trade organization (essentially ensuring the free flow of products among member nations) have a lot to do with the proliferation of cheap goods and commodities in the world. the traditional right of nations to control the influx of foreign products into their territories in order to protect their own, has been curtailed.

    • Aegis-Judex says:

      And personally, one could consider that beneficial… seeing as it forces local companies to up their standards and countries to open thier markets when they realize that they’re missing out on the economic development of their neighbors.

  • Dr. Noh says:

    I do wonder if the good governor would take the first step and get rid of all the “Made in China” stuff he has in his home and office.

    In comparison however, majority of the the locals in China would never buy Japan-made products out of the long-time resentment from the Sino-Japanese wars of old.

  • Proud Pinoy says:

    We just deployed our destroyer, the BRP Rajah Humabon, to the area. Watch out China! Don’t mess with Pinoy steel.

    • jem says:

      Ah yes, with the WWII-era frigate (the only one in our inventory) patrolling the Spratlys, the Chinese Navy must be trembling in fear huddling in a corner inside one of their 72 frigates and destroyers.

      Thank you for providing me my daily dose of laughter for today. :)

    • jem says:

      Ah yes, with the WWII-era frigate (the only one in our inventory, mind you) patrolling the Spratlys, the Chinese Navy must be trembling in fear huddling in a corner inside one of their 72 frigates and destroyers.

      Thank you for providing me my daily dose of laughter for today. :)

  • May i suggest 2 topics even if they're not ethnic Filipinos? says:

    Even though they’re not ethnic Filipinos, would you please discuss the tiger mother and her father who once studied at Mapúa? Thanks in advance.

  • SalingKetket says:

    we pinoy don’t have to be negative about it,
    we can still depend on our own product
    wala lang kasi tumatangkilik sa sarili nating produkto, bigyan nyo lang chance at magiging world-class din ang mga produkto natin

    nasa isip nyo lang na hindi kayo mabubuhay ng walang produkto ng ibang bansa, tigilan nyo na yan

    when there’s a will there’s a way

    • MidwayHaven says:

      I’d buy Filipino if the quality of the our products were of a quality on par with imports. As an example, people are totally clueless of the fact that Philippine peanut butter has bad percentage of dangerous trans-fat in its ingredients–something that imported peanut butter doesn’t have. Regardless of the standards tha the government imposes on local peanut butter, no local producer seems to care about the transfat content of their products.

      SalingKetKet, you forget the fact that much of what we wear, eat and use everyday is imported. The very computer which you used to post your message is imported. Your isolationist views on Economics are not only impractical, but also dangerous.

      • Ronald Montemayor says:

        Sus SalingKetket,

        Sabihin mo nga sa akin kung saan ako makakakita ng Pinoy-made na kotse (yung lahat Pinoy-made pati makina) para maipagmalaki natin aber? Kahit nga mga jeepney natin makinang banyaga ang ginagamit eh. :P

        We have been a nation of consumers for far too long, and now we’re paying for it. Too bad it’s happening while I’m still alive :-(

  • shieldwolf says:

    Don’t under estimate the BRP Rajah Humabon. It’s like the uss Missouri in Battleship movie..China is the Alien…hahaha!

  • Hubris says:

    oh no! look what i found out. BRP Rajah Humabon is not second-hand, but a third-hand scrap iron from a japanese junk-yard:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRP_Rajah_Humabon_(PF-11)

  • Eligio says:

    Economic boycott might be a little but gradually these communist criminals will feel it.
    It’s slow but definitely effective if we only be collective in voice and in struggle.
    BOYCOTT ALL THE WEAK-POOR-FAKED china-MADE PRODUCTS!!!! Ride on!!!

  • Bob Couttie says:

    The Philippines became dependent on China for similar reasons to why it became dependent on the US for its national defence. China committed itself to becoming an economic giant, the Philippines did not. Just as the Philippines, from the day of independence, decided to depend on the US rather than build a credible national defence capability.

  • John says:

    It was tried by a journalist in the UK, to try and not buy imported goods. It failed, but that does not mean people should be responsible when they buy things. If there is a choice, do not buy the Chinese version. Simple as that! It WILL make a difference. Personally I have had that policy for quite a few years and I do not suffer in any way. Clothes, good alternatives made throughout Asia. Food? For health reasons that would be a risk no matter. Electronics? Well that is more difficult but do not buy Chinese home products, but those from another country even if assembled in China. At least you know they are not getting all the profit. But this cannot be at a political level or the Philippines would be breaking international agreements. Just try it and know you are making a small difference. Otherwise the profit the Chinese make on you will make them another gun to fire at your fishermen!

  • Peter Julian says:

    Have done some information dissemination re China-made products in two stores in Laoag, one located at the ground floor of the former Life movie theater. Lot of customers in the area because the products are dirt-cheap.
    Yet, I will do my thing, anyway.

2 Trackbacks / Pingbacks

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

150 queries in 0.737 seconds.