President Eisenhower on the conditions of economic progress

Title

Identifier

Editorial

Language

English

Source

The American Chamber of Commerce Journal Volume XXX (Issue No. 6) June 1954

Year

1954

Rights

In Copyright - Educational Use Permitted

Fulltext

Editorials “ Jo promote the general welfare” The fact that, as reported, the entire foreign diplomatic corps in Manila has registered, with President Magsaysay, its opposition to the Retail The Retail Trade Nationalization Bill and Nationalization Bill has asked him to veto it, is and “Embarrassment” of a significance which it is to be hoped will not be lost upon the Philippine Government. It is generally believed that the President is opposed to the type of “legislation” which the Bill represents but that he was prevailed upon to certify this Bill (supposedly a “compromise” bill in which the more radical provisions of other similar bills were watered down) as “urgent” in order to get the Budget Bill through Congress. It should be clear that the President can not lawfully approve a measure which is so obviously in contravention of the Constitution and of various treaties with other nations, as well as of all ideas of democracy and even of ordinary humanity. The fact that, under the terms of the Bill, foreign retailers would be given a number of years to get out of business, does not alter its basic meaning,— that of a death sentence. These provisions merely sub stitute for a quick hanging, a slow garroting. The unlawfulness of the proposed “law” must have been obvious to many of the more experienced members of the Senate and House who voted for it, and the suspicion naturally arises that some of these men, at least, backed the Bill for no other purpose than to embarrass the President in his handling of both foreign and domestic affairs. This, as was pointed out in last month’s issue of this Journal, is an old game and it is to be regretted that the President made the error of aiding those who are hostile to him by agreeing to certify this “compromise bill” as urgent. Further embarrassment now seems unavoidable, and it is to be hoped that the President will realize that the embarrassment incident to a veto would be nothing com pared to the embarrassment he would suffer in approving it. The matter goes far beyond the mere embarrassment of any one. This type of legislation if persisted in would destroy any hope of progress and greatness for the Philip pines. The Philippine Government has for some years taken very seriously its own role in the promotion of economic President Eisenhower on the Conditions of Economic Progress progress and has resorted to various ways and means to accomplish this,—with what success is a matter open to debate. President Eisenhower’s statement with respect to the role of government in economic progress, incorporated in the famous Economic Report of the President, delivered to Congress early this year, contains some very valuable suggestions. As to the actual goal and the means of achieving it, he stated: “Our economic goal is an increasing national income, shared equit ably among those who contribute to its growth, and realized in dollars of stable buying power. To achieve this goal, the dynamic forces of our society must be fully released. Accordingly, Government programs must be designed to help maintain reasonable stability during periods of readjustment and to encourage long-term growth. The mandate of Congress as set forth in the Employment Act must always be kept before us: ‘To promote maximum employment, production, and pur chasing power. .. in a manner calculated to foster and promote compe titive enterprise and the general welfare.’ ” As to the “conditions of progress”, the President said that while there is no formula that will guarantee economic progress, “progress can be nurtured by wise public policy, just as it can be impeded by careless or shortsighted policy.” “Above all things,” he said,— “public policy should recognize that the atmosphere in which people pursue their productive activities is as important to progress as the physical resources they employ." Under “conditions of progress”, he spoke, first, of individual freedom, and then, in order, of adequate incen tives, effective competition, savings and capital formation, research and development, and maintenance of economic stability. His remarks on individual freedom in relation to economic progress hold special significance for us in the Philippines. “Our history”, he said,—that is, United States history,— “provides abundant proof that a basic condition of economic progress is an environment in which the individual can, within wide limits, pur sue his interests according tc his own lights. American culture is an 211 expression of economic as well as political freedom, and of the inter dependence of the two. Traditionally, our Government has sought to create and maintain a democracy of opportunity in which indivi duals have the general freedom and the specific opportunities to work, to. spend, to save, to invest, and the incentive to pursue these oppor tunities to the fullest extent." This concept, he said, “has not been made obsolete by the events of the last few decades.” “Two world wars and a world-wide depression brought a broaden ing of the scope of governmental activities, but this does not justify the oft-made assumption that the range of federal activities must con tinue to grow.” How by the touchstone of the Eisenhower statement, do the policies adopted by the Philippine Government test? What sort of atmosphere is being created? Is a democracy of opportunity being maintained? Is competitive individual enterprise being protected and fostered? Or are we playing ducks and drakes even with what little economic stability has been achieved? Some two years ago, in the April, 1952, issue of this Journal, there appeared an editorial entitled “The Increasing Share of Filipino Filipino Traders Traders in Philippine Foreign in Philippine Foreign Trade”. It was illustrated by a Trade graph which showed this trend during the years. from 1948 to 1951, inclusive. The present editorial, illustrated by a number of graphs, covers the years from 1948 to 1953, inclusive,—or two additional years. Graph No. I shows the peso values of the annual imports and exports and the total trade during these 6 years. It will be seen that the lines are jagged, seemingly almost erratic, and that the total trade shows a general over-all decrease rather than an increase. Of course, the high prices both of imports and exports during the first few years should be taken into consideration. The annual export values show an upward trend, which is as it should be, but the import values show a generally downward trend, which is not as it should be, as, with a natural increase in population, increased pro duction and earnings, and a rising standard of living, im ports should increase. The jagged angularity of the lines for the total trade and for imports reflect in part the effect of the import controls which went into effect in January, PHILIPPINE FOREIGN TRADE By the traders of the principal three nationalities engaged in it (in millions of pesos') Year 1948................. American Chinese Filipino Total Trade Imports Exports 1,774 1,136 638 660 319 341 542 438 104 384 260 124 1,646 1,134 512 589 333 256 495 423 72 359 263 96 American Chinese Filipino American Chinese Filipino 1,378 712 666 556 227 329 337 221 116 318 197 121 American Filipino Chinese 1951............................................................. 1,790 959 831 639 275 364 528 354 174 393 257 136 American Filipino Chinese 1,557 852 703 554 252 302 454 286 168 333 237 96 Filipino Chinese 1953............................................................. American 1,696 895 801 579 248 331 560 ■ 357 203 343 220 123 Source: Annual figures published by the Bureau of the Census and Statistics 212

pages

211-212

Media