Mark Nicko E.
Paquibot
Pol Sci 85 – A
Law/Policies Program Mercantilist
A mercantilist would somehow disagree to
the Oil Deregulation law. This law allows
state-intervention in the economy, which
is allowed by a mercantilist. However, this
law only encourages the state the entry of
new participants in the downstream oil
industry and introduces adequate
measures to ensure the attainment of
Oil Deregulation Law these goals. The idea of the law that
encourages free competition might
contradict to the idea of a mercantilist
that prohibits domestic competition and
would rather lean to promote monopoly
and protectionism on a particular industry
the state is producing. Therefore, this law
might not work out for a mercantilist.
On the early period of the Bell-trade Act,
the Philippines and the US practiced free
trade for 8 years. With this reason, a
mercantilist would somehow disapprove
this idea because Mercantilism practices
Bell-trade Act state-intervention and zero-sum game.
Wherein, one country accumulates more
wealth while the other losses the same
value of wealth. However, for the next 20
years. The Bell-trade Act set quotas and
gradual application of protective tariffs,
which can be seen as features of
Classical Liberal
A Classical liberal would somehow agree to
the Oil Deregulation law. This law allows
the state to intervene that might contradict
to the idea of a Classical liberal to promote
an unhampered market economy.
However, this law is leaning for a free
competition for new entry of participants in
the downstream oil industry that might
agree to the idea of a Classical liberal of
allowing free competition and advocating
private property in the market. Therefore,
this law might work out for a Classical
liberal.
A Classical Liberal would agree to the
practice of the Bell-trade Act’s free trade
for both partnership of the Philippines and
the US for 8 years. However, the practice of
quotas and protective tariffs for the next 20
years is a clear example of protectionism
and state-restrictions that is practiced in
Mercantilism in contrast with free trade
and limited state intervention of Classical
Liberalism.
1
January 24, 2018
Keynesian
A Keynesian would somehow see this
law differently from a mercantilist and
a Classical liberal’s point of view. Entry
of new participants in the
downstream oil industry means new
projects to spend that will increase
the expenditures of the government
on the said industry. Increased in
government expenditure will generate
income for workers. Generated
income for workers means increase
for the capacity of workers to pay for
demand. This will bring a ripple effect
in the growth of the economy.
Therefore, this law might work out for
a Keynesian.
The practice of free trade for 8 years
on Bell-trade Act is somehow
disapproved by a Keynesian. One
must understand that a Keynesian
advocated for a national self-
sufficiency of the State that will take
responsibility for the economy and
can do this by supporting demand or
in the other words, is responsible to
make decisions which mostly means
regulating. The self-regulating
government can be seen for next 20
 Mercantilism.
This policy primarily practiced
protectionism and nationalism wherein it
promoted and protected its domestic
industry and locals investors from foreign
competitors and wherein it also helped
Filipino entrepreneurs to make ventures in
Filipino First Policy industries and may gain more than the
earnings of foreign competitors because of
the given privileges and incentives of the
government. Basically, these practices can
be considered as features of mercantilism.
Therefore, the Filipino First Policy might
work out for a mercantilist.
Basically, Deficit Financing is all about
government funding spending by
borrowing. However, one must understand
that Mercantilism discourages excessive
spending and less revenue. This
contradicted the idea of a Keynesian in
connection to deficit financing that is
Deficit Financing advocating increase in its government
expenditures by borrowing money to boost
the economy. Primarily, mercantilism
encourages more sell/export of the country
rather than expenditures/imports for it to
able to accumulate more gold and silver.
Mercantilism primarily wanted to
A Classical liberal viewed the Filipino First
Policy differently from a Mercantilist’s
point of view. Through protective tariffs
and quotas, a Mercantilist protects its
domestic industry and serves right the
policy of Filipino first. In Classical liberalism
however, it promotes free exchange,
wherein both sides trading become better
off. Therefore, the Filipino First Policy
which is somehow hardly influenced by
Mercantilist features might not work out
for a Classical Liberal’s point of view.
Primarily, Deficit Financing is all about
government funding spending by
borrowing. The idea of a Keynesian in
increasing government expenditures
contradicted the idea of a Classical liberal
that government spending is not the major
force and too much spending takes away
valuable economic resources needed by
individuals and business. One must also
understand that government spending can
retard a nation’s economic growth by
increasing the public sector and decreasing
the private sector which also contradicted
the idea of Classical liberalism of
2
years on the Bell-trade act by enacting
protective tariffs and quotas between
two countries.
Filipino First Policy primarily practiced
protectionism and nationalism,
wherein a Keynesian can see it
favorable to his side. A Keynesian
primarily advocated for national self-
sufficiency of the state and a self-
regulating state by restricting trade.
Therefore, Filipino First Policy might
work out for a Keynesian’s point of
view.
Deficit Financing has a big role in
Keynes economics. A Keynesian
primarily advocated for increased
government expenditures. Now the
question is, how and where will the
government accumulate its funding if
it continues its spending without a
primary source of funding? As a
Keynesian, he has the option of
borrowing money so that it can
continue its government
expenditures. And by this, the
government can allocate its money to
projects that will result to added
 accumulate more gold and silver, not spend
it. Therefore, Deficit Financing might not
work out for a Mercantilist.
Mercantilism primarily opposed the idea of
Asset Privatization. Mercantilism
encourages monopoly of industries under
the national control. Monopolizing the
industry under the national control means
strict control of what, how much, and who
Asset Privatization will produce the goods on the said industry.
And by said reasons, they can reach their
goal without competition not only from
foreign competitors but also from
domestic. Therefore, Asset Privatization
might not work for a Mercantilist point of
view.
encouraging asset privatization. Therefore,
Deficit Financing might now work out for a
Classical liberal’s point of view.
Classical liberalism primarily advocated for
Asset Privatization. By allowing its
properties to be privatized, it can generate
competition from private companies. And
private companies will generate more
supply because of competition. When an
individual worker works to produce the
supply, he or she gets paid for their work,
and is then able to pay to demand other
goods and services. Hence, it will have an
effect in the economy. Therefore, Asset
Privatization might work out for a Classical
liberal’s point of view.
business activity and even more
spending that will boost the economy
for good. Therefore, the Deficit
Financing Policy might work out for a
Keynesian.
Asset Privatization plays a big role in a
Keynesian government. A Keynesian
believes that aggregate demand is
often influenced by public and private
decisions. Private decisions include
individuals and business in the
economic marketplace. Therefore,
Asset Privatization might work out for
a Keynesian.