The 5.5% Q2 GDP Mirage: How Debt-Fueled Deficit Spending Masks a Slowing Economy

National product statistics have been used widely in recent years as a reflection of the total product of society and even to indicate the state of “economic welfare.” These statistics cannot be used to frame or test economic theory, for one thing because they are an inchoate mixture of grossness and netness and because no objectively measurable “price level” exists that can be used as an accurate “deflator” to obtain statistics of some form of aggregate physical output. National product statistics, however, may be useful to the economic historian in describing or analyzing an historical period. Even so, they are highly misleading as currently used—Murray N. Rothbard 

 

In this issue: A brief but blistering breakdown of the 5.5% GDP mirage. 

The 5.5% Q2 GDP Mirage: How Debt-Fueled Deficit Spending Masks a Slowing Economy

I. Q2 GDP: A Mirage of Momentum

II. The Secondary Trendline: Pandemic’s Lingering Scar; GDP: A Flawed Lens, Still Worshipped

III. Economic Wet Dreams, Statistical Kabuki and Confirmation Bias

IV. The GDP Illusion, Poverty Amid Growth: Cui Bono?

V. Policy Theater, the Real Economy and The Credit–Consumption Black Hole

VI. Jobs Boom, GDP Drag

VII. Policy Vaudeville: July .9% Inflation, MSRP and the Php 20 Rice Rollout

VIII. Core vs Headline CPI: A Divergence Worth Watching

IX. Deflator Manipulation, GDP Inflation

X. Inflation-GDP Forecasting as Folklore

XI. The Official Narrative: A Celebration of Minor Gains

XII. The Real Driver: Government Spending, Not Households

XIII. The Consumer Illusion: Retail as a Misleading Proxy

XIV. Expenditure Breakdown: Only Government Spending Beat the Headline

XV. Inconvenient Truth: The Rise of Big Government—Crowding Out in Action, The Establishment’s Blind Spots and Tunnel Vision

XVI. More Inconvenient Truths: Debt-Fueled GDP—A Statistical Shell Game

XVII. The Debt-Deficit Trap: No Way Out Without Pain—Sugarcoating Future Pain

XVIII. Tail-End Sectors Surge: Agriculture and Real Estate Rebound

XIX. The Policy Sweet Spot—and Its Expiry Date: Diminishing Returns of Stimulus

XX. Conclusion: Narrative Engineering and the Keynesian Free Lunch Trap

XXI. Post Script: The Market’s Quiet Rebuttal: Flattening Curve Exposes GDP Mirage 

The 5.5% Q2 GDP Mirage: How Debt-Fueled Deficit Spending Masks a Slowing Economy 

Beneath the headline print lies a fragile economy propped up by CPI suppression, statistical distortion, and unsustainable public outlays.

I. Q2 GDP: A Mirage of Momentum 

The Philippines clocked in a Q2 GDP of 5.5% — higher than Q1 2025’s 5.4% but lower than Q2 2024’s 6.5%. 

For the first half, GDP posted a 5.4% expansion, above the 5.2% of the second half of 2024 but still below the 6.2% seen in the first half of 2024.

Figure 1

While this was largely in line with consensus expectations, what is rarely mentioned is that both nominal and real GDP remain locked to a weaker post-2020 secondary trendline — a legacy of the pandemic recession. (Figure 1, topmost graph) 

II. The Secondary Trendline: Pandemic’s Lingering Scar; GDP: A Flawed Lens, Still Worshipped 

Contra the establishment narrative, this lower secondary trend illustrates a slowing pace of increases—a theme we’ve repeatedly flagged. 

GDP now appears to be testing its own support level, underscoring the fragility of this fledgling trendline and the risk of a downside break. 

Though we’re not fans of GDP as a concept, we analyze it within the dominant lens—because everyone else treats it as gospel. 

But let’s be clear: GDP is a base effect—a percentage change from comparative output or expenditure figures from the same period a year ago. 

III. Economic Wet Dreams, Statistical Kabuki and Confirmation Bias 

When pundits claim GDP will breach 6% or that the Philippines is nearing “upper middle class” status, they’re implying that aside from seasonal Q4 strength, the rest of the year will recapture the original trendline and stay there. What a wet dream! 

These forecasts come from either practitioners afflicted by the Dunning-Kruger syndrome or sheer propagandists. 

The PSA’s national accounts data offer contradictory insights. But this isn’t just about statistics—it’s about confirmation bias. The public is told what it wants to hear. 

IV. The GDP Illusion, Poverty Amid Growth: Cui Bono? 

GDP is a quantitative estimate—built on assumptions, inputs, and econometric calculations. It hopes to objectively capture facts on the ground, but in aggregate, it overlooks individual preferences, distributional effects, financing mechanisms, and policy responses. 

Worse, its components (from rice to cars to Netflix) are averaged in ways that can distort reality. Aside, input or computational errors, or even manipulation, are always possible. 

Yes, GDP may be 5.5%, but SWS’s June self-rated poverty survey still shows 49% of Filipino families identifying as poor, with 10% on the borderline. While this is sharply down from December 2024’s 63%, the numbers remain considerable. (Figure 1, middle image) 

So, who benefits from the recent inflation decline that distilled into a 5.5% GDP? 

At a glance, the 41%—but even within this group, gains are uneven. Or, even within the 41% who are “non-poor,” gains are concentrated among larger winners while most see only modest improvements (see conclusion) 

V. Policy Theater, the Real Economy and The Credit–Consumption Black Hole 

The real economy doesn’t operate in a vacuum. It is a product of interactions shaped by both incumbent and anticipated socio-political and economic policies. 

The BSP began its easing cycle in 2H 2024, delivering four rate cuts (the fifth in June), two reserve requirement ratio cuts, doubled deposit insurance, a soft peg defense of the peso, and a new property benchmark that eviscerated real estate deflation. 

Theoretically, the economy ought to be functioning within a policy ‘sweet spot’. 

Despite blistering nominal growth and record-high universal-commercial bank credit—driven by consumer lending—real GDP barely budged. (Figure 1, lowest pane) 

Interest rates were hardly a constraint. Bank lending surged even during the 2022–23 rate hikes. Yet the policy transmission mechanism seems blunted: credit expansion hasn’t translated into consumer spending, rising prices or real GDP growth. 

Banking sector balance sheets suggest a black hole between credit and the economy—likely a repercussion of overleveraging or mounting balance sheet imbalances. 

More financial easing won’t fix this bottleneck. It’ll worsen it. 

VI. Jobs Boom, GDP Drag

Figure 2

We’re also treated to the spectacle of near-record employment. In June, the employed population reached its second-highest level since December 2023, driving the employment rate to 96.3% and lifting Q2’s average to 96.11%. 

That should be good news. But is it? If so, why has headline GDP moved in the opposite direction? (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

This labor boom coincided with over 25% credit card growth—normally a recipe for inflation (too much money chasing too few goods). (Figure 2, middle visual)

Instead, CPI fell, averaging just 1.4% in Q2. Near-record employment met falling prices, with barely a whisper from the consensus about softening demand. (Figure 2, lowest diagram)

VII. Policy Vaudeville: July .9% Inflation, MSRP and the Php 20 Rice Rollout

Authorities reported July inflation at 0.9%—approaching 2019 lows. But this is statistical kabuki, driven by price controls and weak demand.

Figure 3

Rice prices, partly due to imports, were already falling before January’s MSRP. The Php 20 rice rollout only deepened the deflation. (Figure 3, topmost diagram)

July saw rice prices drop 15.9%. Despite earlier MSRP, meat prices remained elevated—9.1% in June, 8.8% in July.

Because rice carries an 8.87% weight in the CPI basket, its deflation dragged down Food CPI (34.78% weight), driving July’s headline CPI to 2019 lows.

This divergence reveals the optics. MSRP failed on pork, so it was quietly lifted. But for rice, it was spun as policy success—piggybacking on slowing demand, punctuated by the Php 20 rollout even though it simply reinforced a downtrend already in motion.

VIII. Core vs Headline CPI: A Divergence Worth Watching

The growing gap between core and headline CPI is telling. The negative spread is now the widest since June 2022. Historically, persistent negative spreads have signaled inflection points—2015–16, 2019–2020, 2023. (Figure 3, middle window)

Moreover, MoM changes in the non-food and energy core CPI suggest consolidation and its potential terminal phase. An impending breakout looms—implying rising prices across a broader range of goods. (Figure 3, lowest graph)

IX. Deflator Manipulation, GDP Inflation 

Here’s the kicker: statistical histrionics are inflating GDP by repressing the deflator.

Real GDP is not a raw measure of economic output—it’s a ratio: nominal GDP divided by the GDP deflator. That deflator reflects price levels across the economy. Push the deflator down, and—voilà—real GDP pops up, even if nominal growth hasn’t changed. 

Q2’s 5.5% real GDP print looks better partly because the deflator was suppressed by statistical and policy factors: rice imports, price controls, Php 20 rice rollouts or targeted subsidies, and peso defense all helped drag reported inflation to multi-year lows. Rice alone, with an 8.87% CPI weight, deflated nearly 16% in July, pulling down the broader food CPI and, by extension, the GDP deflator. 

If the deflator had stayed closer to its Q1 level, Q2 real GDP would likely have landed closer to the 4.5–4.8% range—well below the official figure. This isn’t economic magic; it’s arithmetic. The “growth” came not from a sudden burst in output, but from lowering the measuring stick. 

Q2 GDP is another "benchmark-ism" in action. 

X. Inflation-GDP Forecasting as Folklore 

Amused by media’s enthrallment with government inflation forecasts, we noted at X.com: "Inflation forecasting is the game of ‘pin the tail on the donkey’ — a guess on a statistical guess, dressed up as science. The mainstream reinforces an Overton-window narrative that serves more as diversion than insight" 

The real economy—fragile, bifurcated, and policy-distorted—remains unseen.

XI. The Official Narrative: A Celebration of Minor Gains 

The establishment line, echoed by Reuters and Philstar, goes something like this: 

"Slowing inflation also helped support household consumption, which rose 5.5% year-on-year in the second quarter, the fastest pace since the first quarter of 2023" … 

"Faster farm output and strong consumer spending helped the Philippine economy expand by 5.5 percent in the second quarter"

Figure 4

But beneath the headlines lies a more sobering truth: a one-basis-point rise in household spending growth has been heralded as a “critical factor” behind the GDP expansion. 

While the statement is factually correct, it masks the reality: household spending as a share of GDP has been rangebound since 2023, showing no real breakout in momentum. 

XII. The Real Driver: Government Spending, Not Households 

The true engine of Q2 GDP was government spending, which rose 8.7%, down from 18.7% in Q1 but still dominant. (Figure 4, topmost window) 

Over the past five quarters, government spending has averaged 10.7%, dwarfing household consumption’s 5.1%.  

This imbalance exposes the fragility of the consumer-led growth narrative. When per capita metrics are used, the illusion fades further: Real household per capita GDP was just 4.5% in Q2, barely above Q1’s 4.4%, and well below Q1 2023’s 5.5%.

This per capita trend has been flatlining at secondary trendline support, locked in an L-shaped pattern—inertia, not resurgence—and still drifting beneath its pre-pandemic exponential trend.  The per capita household consumption “L-shape” shows spending per person collapsing during the pandemic and never meaningfully recovering — a flatline that belies the GDP growth narrative. (Figure 4, middle graph)

XIII. The Consumer Illusion: Retail as a Misleading Proxy

Despite the BSP’s promotion of property prices as a proxy for consumer health—and the Overton Window’s deafening hallelujahs—SM Prime’s Q2 results reveal persistent consumer strain: (Figure 4, lowest chart) 

• Rent revenues rose only 6.3%, the weakest since the pandemic recession in Q1 2021.
• Property sales stagnated, up just 0.2% despite new malls in 2024 and 2025 

So much for the “strong consumer” thesis. 

XIV. Expenditure Breakdown: Only Government Spending Beat the Headline 

In the PSA’s real GDP expenditure table, only government spending exceeded the headline:

• Household: 5.5%
• Gross capital formation: 0.6%
• Exports: 4.4%
• Imports: 2.9%
• Government: 8.7% 

Notably, government spending excludes public construction and private allocations to public projects (e.g., PPPs). Due to the May mid-term elections, real public construction GDP collapsed by 8.2%. 

XV. Inconvenient Truth: The Rise of Big Government—Crowding Out in Action, The Establishment’s Blind Spots and Tunnel Vision

Figure 5

The first half of 2025 exposes a structural shift the mainstream won’t touch:  Government spending’s share of GDP has surged to an all-time high! 

Meanwhile, consumer driven GDP continues its long descent—down since 2001. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

As the public sector’s footprint swells, the private sector’s relative role contracts. This isn’t theoretical crowding out. It’s empirical. It’s unfolding in real time. (Figure 5, middle image) 

Importantly, this is not a conspiracy theory—these are government’s own data. Yet the establishment’s analysts and bank economists appear blind to it. 

Proof? 

Banks are shifting focus toward consumer lending, even as the consumer share of GDP trends lower. 

The “build-and-they-will-come” crowd remains locked in a form of tunnel vision, steadfastly clinging to a decaying trend. 

XVI. More Inconvenient Truths: Debt-Fueled GDP—A Statistical Shell Game 

Government has no wealth of its own. It extracts from the productive sector—through taxes, borrowing (future taxes), and inflation. 

As Big Government expands, so does public debt — now at Php 17.3 trillion as of June! 

The June debt increase annualizes to Php 1.784 trillion — eerily close to the Php 1.954 trillion NGDP gain over the past four quarters (Q3 2024–Q2 2025). (Figure 5, lowest visual)

Figure 6 

That’s a mere Php 170 billion gap. Translation: debt accounts for 91.3% of NGDP’s statistical value-added. 

The 91.3% “debt as share of NGDP increase” means almost all of the year-on-year nominal GDP expansion came from government borrowing, not private sector growth — in other words, strip out the deficit spending, and the economy’s headline size barely moved. 

Yet this spread has collapsed to its lowest level since the pandemic recession. (Figure 6, upper pane) 

This isn’t growth. It’s leverage masquerading as output — GDP propped up almost entirely by deficit spending! 

This also reinforces the government’s drift toward centralization—where state expansion becomes the default engine of the economy. 

XVII. The Debt-Deficit Trap: No Way Out Without Pain—Sugarcoating Future Pain 

It’s unrealistic for the administration to claim it can “slowly bring down” debt while GDP remains tethered to deficit spending. 

Debt-to-GDP ratios are used to soothe public concern—but the same debt is inflating GDP through government outlays. It’s a circular metric: the numerator props up the denominator. 

According to the Bureau of Treasury, Debt-to-GDP hit 63.1% in Q2 2025—highest since 2005! 

Ironically, authorities quietly raised the debt-to-GDP threshold from 60% to 70% in August—an implicit admission that the old ceiling is no longer defensible. 

This is a borrow-now, pay-later model. Short-term optics are prioritized, while future GDP is sacrificed. 

Even the PSA’s long-term trendline reflects this drag—confirming the trajectory of diminishing returns. 

And we haven’t even touched banking debt expansion, which should have supported both government and elite private sector financing. Instead, it’s compounding systemic fragility. 

We’re no fans of government statistics—but even their own numbers tell the story. Cherry-picking to sugarcoat the truth isn’t analysis. It’s deception. And it won’t hide the pain of massive malinvestments. 

XVIII. Tail-End Sectors Surge: Agriculture and Real Estate Rebound 

From the industry side, Q2 saw surprising strength from GDP’s tailenders: 

Agriculture GDP spiked 7%, the highest since Q2 2011’s 8.3%. Volatile by nature, such spikes often precede plunges. 

Real estate GDP nearly doubled from Q1’s 3.7% to 6.1%, though still below Q2 2024’s 7.7%. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

Yet initial reports of listed property developers tell a different story: 

-Aggregate real estate sales: +4.1% (Megaworld +10.5%, Filinvest -4.96%, SMPH +0.02%) 

-Total revenues: +5.23% (Megaworld +9.6%, Filinvest -1.2%, SMPH +3.83%)

These figures lag behind nominal GDP’s 7.9%, suggesting statistical embellishment aligned with BSP’s agenda. 

Benchmark-ism strikes again!  

XIX. The Policy Sweet Spot—and Its Expiry Date: Diminishing Returns of Stimulus 

Technically, Q2 and 1H mark the ‘sweet spot’ of policy stimulus—BSP’s easy money paired with fiscal expansion. But artificial boosts yield diminishing returns. 

A 5.5% print reveals fragility more than resilience. 

Once again, the entrenched reliance on debt-financed deficit spending inflates GDP at the expense of future stability—while compounding systemic risk.  

XX. Conclusion: Narrative Engineering and the Keynesian Free Lunch Trap 

GDP has been sculpted to serve the establishment’s preferred storyline: 

• CPI suppression to inflate real GDP
• Overstated gains in agriculture and real estate
• Escalating reliance on deficit spending 

Repressing CPI to pad GDP isn’t stewardship—it’s pantomine. A calculated communication strategy designed to preserve public confidence through statistical theater. 

Within this top-down, social-democratic Keynesian spending framework, the objective is unmistakable: Cheap access to household savings to bankroll political vanity projects. These are the hallmarks of free lunch politics. 

The illusion of growth props up the illusion of competence. And both are running on borrowed time. 

Yet, who benefits from this GDP? 

Not the average household. Not the productive base. As The Inquirer.net reports: "The combined wealth of the country’s 50 richest rose by more than 6 percent to $86 billion this year from $80.8 billion in 2024, as the economy got some lift from robust domestic demand and higher infrastructure investments, according to Forbes magazine." 

GDP growth has become a redistribution mechanism—upward. A scoreboard for elite extraction, not shared prosperity. 

Without restraint on free lunch politics, the Philippines is barreling toward a debt crisis. 

XXI. Post Script: The Market’s Quiet Rebuttal: Flattening Curve Exposes GDP Mirage 

Despite headline growth figures and establishment commentary echoing official optimism, institutional traders—both local and foreign—remain unconvinced by the Overton Window of managed optimism rhetoric. 

The market’s posture suggests skepticism toward the government’s narrative of resilience.

Figure 7 

Following a Q2 steepening (end-June Q2 vs. end-March Q1), the Philippine Treasury curve has flattened in August (mid-Q3), though it remains steep in absolute terms. While the curve remains steep overall, the recent shift reveals important nuances: 

Short end (T-bills): August T-bill yields are marginally lower than June Q2 but still above March Q1 levels. 

Belly (3–5 years): Rates have been largely static or inert, showing no strong conviction on medium-term growth or market indecision 

Long end (10 years): Yields have fallen sharply since March and June, suggesting softer growth expectations or rising demand for duration. 

Ultra-long (20–25 years): Rates remain elevated and sticky, reflecting structural fiscal and inflation concerns. 

After July’s 0.9% CPI print, the peso staged a brief rally, yet the USDPHP remains above its March lows. Meanwhile, 3-month T-bill rates softened slightly post-CPI, hinting at the BSP’s intent to maintain its easing stance. 

Q3’s bearish flattening underscores rising risks of economic slowdown amid stubborn inflation or stagflation. 

The divergence between market pricing and statistical growth exposes the mirage of Q2 GDP—more optical than operational, more narrative than organic.

  

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock

In the final analysis, it’s just central banks printing money, reducing its value and causing inflation as they support dishonest governments that refuse to be fiscally responsible and continually run massive deficits. Such policies flow from the “elite’s” greed and their insatiable thirst for power, benefiting themselves at the expense of the middle class and working poor… When a society loses its moral foundation, it’s only a matter of time before the economy and currency deteriorate and the wealth gaps between the rich and poor increase dramatically—Jonathan Wellum  

In this issue

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy 

June 2025 Deficit: A Countdown to Fiscal Shock 

When deficits become destiny: the fiscal countdown accelerates—a convergence of easy money and political overreach

I. A Delayed Reckoning: Anatomy of a Fiscal Shock 

A fiscal shock rarely emerges from a single misstep. It crystallizes from compound misalignments across policy, ideology, and behavior. It’s the law of unintended consequences—unfolding in real time. Where economic orthodoxy meets political convenience, stability is hollowed out. And just as critically, it’s a delayed consequence of systemic denial. 

Here are the five pillars of this reckoning: 

1. Easy Money–Financed Free Lunch Politics 

A regime of entitlement—fueled by populist spending and post-pandemic ultra-low rates—fostered a seductive illusion: 

Deficits don’t matter. Debt is painless. 

Years of stimulus, subsidies, and politically popular transfers hardened into fiscal habit— habits that now resist restraint, and are rooted in beliefs that are difficult to dismantle. 

2. The Political Cult of Spending-Led Ideology: Trickle-Down by Government Fiat 

At the heart of the Philippine development model lies a flawed political-economic ideology: that elite consumption and state expenditure will "trickle down" to the broader economy. 

Massive infrastructure programs, defense outlays, and subsidy-heavy welfare budgets may deliver short-term optics—but they also crowd out private investment, misallocate capital, and accelerate savings erosion. 

The result: an economy that becomes top-heavy, brittle, and structurally vulnerable. 

This heavy-handed, statist-interventionist, anti-market bias is what Ludwig von Mises called "statolatry"—the worship of the state. 

3. Chronic Policy Diagnostic Blindness 

In the social democratic playbook, populist tools dominate. And with them comes a dangerous neglect of structural realities:

• Crowding out is ignored
• Balance sheet mismatches are waved off
• Price distortions go unexamined
• Resource misallocations are dismissed
• Economic trade-offs are neglected 

Intervention becomes the default—not the diagnosis. The result? Mispriced assets, distorted capital structures, and risk narratives untethered from fundamentals. 

The same statolatry—elevating state action above market signals—undergirds this blindness. It promotes interventionist reflexes at the expense of incentive clarity and institutional coherence. 

Fragility escalates—masked by the optics of populist-driven fiscal theatrics. 

4. Econometric Myopia: Forecasting the Past 

The establishment clings to econometric models built on frangible assumptions—historical baselines, linear extrapolation, and trend mimicry. These tools overlook what matters most: 

• Nonlinear disruption
• Inflection points
• Complex feedback loops
• Tail risks and structural breaks 

With ZERO margin for error, fragility festers beneath the surface. 

That fragility was laid bare by a maelstrom of paradigm shifts: 

• The pandemic rupture
• Deglobalization and trade fragmentation
• Raging asset bubbles
• Debt overload
• Mountains of malinvestments
• Hot wars and geopolitical shockwaves
• Inflation surges
• Financial weaponization 

This isn’t noise—it’s a new architecture of global and domestic uncertainties. And econometric orthodoxy isn’t equipped to model it. 

5. Behavioral Fragility: The Psychology of Denial 

Heuristics shape policy—and not in ways that reward foresight. Beyond populist signaling and econometric hindsight, cognitive distortions rule: 

• Recency bias
• Rear-view heuristics
• Political denialism masked as institutional confidence 

Years of perceived “resilience” dulled vigilance: 

• Every deficit was shrugged off
• Every peso slide deemed temporary
• Every fiscal blowout “absorbed” by the system 

This cultivated an expectation: past stability ensures future resilience. It doesn’t. That assumption—embedded deep within policy reflexes—has left institutions blind to volatility and ill-equipped for disruptions and rupture. 

II. Countdown to Fiscal Shock: The Hidden Story of June’s Blowout

Figure 1

In May, we warned that if June 2025's deficit merely hits its four-year average of Php 200 billion, the six-month budget gap would surge to Php 723.9 billion—surpassing the pandemic-era record of Php 716.07 billion. (Figure 1, upper window) 

Inquirer.net, July 25, 2025: The Marcos administration exceeded its budget deficit limit in the first half of 2025 after narrowly missing both its spending and revenue targets. This happened amid a gradual fiscal consolidation program. Latest data from the Bureau of the Treasury (BTr) showed the government logged a budget gap of P765.5 billion in the first six months, which it needed to plug with borrowings. This was 24.69 percent bigger compared with a year ago. (italics added) 

Then came the payload: Php 241.6 billion in fresh red ink last June!   

The government’s first-half deficit reached Php 765.5 billion—24.69% higher than last year and larger than even our most aggressive baseline x.com forecast (Php 745.18–Php 756.53 billion). (Figure 1, table)

Figure 2 

Bullseye! Our projections weren't just close—they were surgical. And the final blowout went further still. (Figure 2, topmost chart) 

Curiously underreported, June’s deficit marked an all-time high, driven by expenditure growth of 8.5% outstripping revenue growth of 3.5%. (Figure 2, middle graph) 

• BIR Collections: Up 16.24% YoY—a strong bounce from 10.71% in May and 4.71% in June 2024.
• BoC Collections: Recovered 3.23% YoY, compared to –6.94% in May and 0.67% in June 2024.
• Non-Tax Revenues: Plunged 43.25% YoY—from 40.93% in May and 81.7% in June 2024. 

Behind the aggregate improvement lies deeper fragility: June’s revenue outperformance was narrow, uneven, and ultimately insufficient to contain the programmed spending expansion—a predictable artifact of the conventional socio-democratic ochlocratic political model. 

Populist instincts override structural diagnostics. And the fiscal narrative remains hostage to crowd-pleasing interventionism rather than incentive discipline or institutional coherence.

III. Q2 Slowdown, Q1 Surge: Anatomy of the Half-Year Blowout—From Past Binge to Present Reckoning 

Despite June's record deficit, Q2 posted just Php 319.5 billion, the second slowest since 2020. That means the bulk of the six-month deficit—Php 446.03 billion—was frontloaded in Q1. 

Even then, authorities revised March spending down by Php 32.784 billion, artificially narrowing the Q1 deficit. Adjustments may mask the underlying magnitude but not the fiscal trajectory. 

This six-month outcome validates what we’ve long emphasized: programmed spending vs. variable revenues is no longer an assumption—it’s a structural vulnerability, a primary source of instability 

Importantly, this wasn’t an emergency stimulus. Unlike 2021, there’s been no recession nor one in the immediate horizon—per consensus. 

Yet the deficit beat that year’s record—despite BSP’s historic easing:

• Policy rate cuts
• Reserve requirement reduction
• USDPHP cap
• Liquidity injections
• Deposit insurance expansion 

Behind the optics: a quiet financial bailout, not of households or industries, but of the banking system. 

IV. Technocratic Overreach, Authorized Expenditures, Congressional Irrelevance 

As we earlier noted: the government continues to use linear extrapolation in a complex environment. Even with declared economic slowdown, the BIR posted 14.11% growth, buoyed by May–June outperformance. (Figure 2, lowest image) 

But has "benchmark-ism" inflated performance claims? Have authorities padded the numerator (tax data) to rationalize a fragile denominator (spending data)?

Figure 3

Non-tax revenue was the Achilles’ heel—its 2024 spike became the baseline for 2025’s enacted spending binge. The result: forecast miscalibration leading directly to fiscal shock. Beyond mere overconfidence, it was technocratic hubris that helped trigger today’s blowout. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

Again, an underperforming economy—whether a below-target GDP, sharp slowdown, or even recession—would only reinforce this SPEND-and-RESCUE dynamic, repackaged and sold as stimulus. 

Meanwhile, authorized expenditures: Php 3.026 trillion. Remaining balance: Php 3.3 trillion, implying a floor monthly average of Php 550.05 billion. 

Budgets have been breached 6 years in a row—highlighting a redistribution of budgetary power from Congress to the Executive. 

Whether through creative reinterpretation or technical loopholes, these breaches signal a quiet transfer of fiscal power from Congress to the Executive. 

V. Deficit Forecasting: Averaging Toward a Crisis 

Looking at pandemic-era averages:

• Q3 deficits averaged Php 374 billion
• Q3 2024 hit Php 356.32 billion (–5.7% below average)
• Q4 averaged Php 537.9 billion Q4 is typically the largest—as government drops all remaining balance and more
• Q4 2024 deficit: Php 536.13 billion (–0.4% deviation)
• 2H Average: Php 911.6 billion
• 2H 2024: Php 892.45 billion (–2.6% vs trend) 

If 2025 follows this pattern, the full-year deficit could hit Php 1.677 trillion—Php 7 billion above prior records. 

But averages conceal real-world volatility, political discretion, and data manipulation—can skew results. 

Once again, it bears emphasizing: all this unfolded as the BSP eased aggressively—through rate and RRR cuts, doubled deposit insurance, capped USDPHP volatility, and expanded credit (mostly consumer-focused). 

Despite the stimulus, vulnerabilities not only persist—they’re escalating. 

If so, the DBCC's revised deficit-to-GDP target of 5.5% would be breached, necessitating another substantial upward adjustment. (Figure 3, middle table) 

Authorities would be mistaken to treat this as mere statistical noise; its implications extend far beyond the ledger into the real economy

VI. Financing Strain and the Debt-Debt Servicing Spiral 

Treasury financing soared 86.2%, from Php 665 billion to Php 1.238 trillion in H1 2025. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

Even with record high cumulative cash reserves of Php 1.09 trillion, June alone posted a residual cash deficit of Php 90.09 billion—evidence that surplus buffers are already depleted.

Figure 4 

As such, in June, public debt spiked Php 1.783 trillion YoY (+11.52%) or Php 348 billion (+2.06%) MoM to reach a historic Php 17.27 trillion! (Figure 4, topmost pane) 

Critically, this growth has outpaced the spending curve, suggesting potential deficit understatement or an acceleration of off-book liabilities. (Figure 4, middle image) 

Despite this, external debt share rebounded in June—a pivot back to foreign financing amid domestic constraints. (Figure 4, lowest graph)

Figure 5

Meanwhile, total debt servicing fell 40.12% YoY due to a 61% plunge in amortizations, even though interest payments hit a record. (Figure 5, topmost diagram) 

Why?

Likely causes:

• Scheduling choices
• Prepayments in 2024
• Political aversion to public backlash 

But the record and growing deficit ensures that borrowing—and debt servicing—will keep RISING. This won’t be deferred—it will amplify. 

As we warned last May

• More debt → more servicing → less for everything else.
• Crowding out hits both public and private spending.
• Revenue gains won’t keep up with servicing.
• Inflation and peso depreciation risks climb.
• Higher taxes are on the horizon 

VII. Tax Dragnet, CMEPA’s Forced Financial Rotation: The Economic Asphyxiation Tightens 

Debt-to-GDP hit 62%, triggering a quiet revision: Malacañang raised the ceiling to 70%. 

To accommodate this, authorities imposed a hefty tax on interest income via the Capital Markets Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA), engineering a forced rotation out of long-dated fixed income into leverage-fueled speculation and spending— (see previous discussions) 

This fiscal extraction dragnet is poised to widen—ensnaring more of the economy and constricting what little fiscal breathing room remains. 

VIII. Bank’s Fiscal Complicity, Liquidity Strains, Treasury Market’s Mutiny 

Banks continue to stockpile government securities through net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 5, middle image) 

Yet despite BSP’s easing, treasury yields barely moved—fueling further Held-to-Maturity (HTM) hoarding and deepening the industry's liquidity drain. 

At end of July, despite dovish guidance: (Figure 5, lowest graph) 

• Yields across the curve stayed above ONRRP, muting or blunting transmission
• Curve flattened unevenly: front and long ends softened, belly firmed—signaling hedging against medium-term risk
• T-bill rates remained elevated —signaling inflation fears and short-term funding stress 

Despite rate cuts, the treasury market refused to follow. Monetary policy faces bond mutineers. 

IX. Mounting USDPHP Exchange Rate Tension

Figure 6 

Following the June fiscal report, the USDPHP surged 1.29% on July 31, wiping out prior losses to post a modest 0.52% year-to-date return. 

With wider deficits on deck, foreign borrowing becomes more attractive—and a weaker dollar, further incentivized by the BSP’s soft peg, adds fuel to that pivot. But beneath the surface, this dynamic strain long-term currency stability. 

While global dollar softness might offset domestic fragilities, the USDPHP’s recent breakout hints at further testing—possibly probing the BSP’s 59-Maginot line, a psychological and tactical policy threshold. (Figure 6 upper chart) 

Should that line give, external financing costs and FX volatility could surge, exposing cracks in the peg architecture. (Figure 6, lower graph) 

X. Conclusion: The Structural Fragility of Deficit Philosophy

The Php 17.27 trillion debt—and growing—isn’t the cost of failure. It’s the price of consensus under a soft-focus ochlocratic social democracy. 

These systems don’t just elect leaders—they ratify an ethos: that deficit-fueled expansion is not only moral but inevitable. Redistribution becomes ritual. The annual SONA pipelines new spending schemes, boosting short-term political capital—but the structural anchors are threadbare. 

Compassion without discipline sedates policy. Voters misread rhetoric as reform, empathy as capability, largesse as virtue, and control as stewardship. Time preferences spiral, gravitating toward the instant dopamine hit of political dispensation. 

Alas—the tragedy is not merely fiscal. It’s intergenerational erosion. Each electoral cycle mortgages future agency, compounding fragility over time. 

What’s swelling isn’t just debt. It’s a philosophical incoherence—subsidizing dysfunction and labeling it 'development.’ 

When such convictions are deeply embedded, a disorderly reckoning is inevitable. 

____

References 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Philippines’ May and 5-Month 2025 Budget Deficit: Can Political Signaling Mask a Looming Fiscal Shock? Substack July 7, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Is the Philippines on the Brink of a 2025 Fiscal Shock? Substack June 8, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, Philippine Fiscal Performance in Q1 2025: Record Deficit Amid Centralizing Power, Substack May 4, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design, Substack, July 20, 2025 

Prudent Investor Newsletter, The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback, Substack, July 27, 2025

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback

As the cycle nears its end, a country is typically beset by chronic fiscal deficits. Low domestic savings and current account deficits render it dependent on foreign lenders. As lenders become wary, the average maturity of the public debt shortens. The central bank finds it impossible to set interest rates at the level which balances the needs of both creditors and borrowers. Once interest rates rise, governments’ debt servicing costs become increasingly onerous. Government finances come to resemble a Ponzi scheme, with new debt being issued to service old borrowing—Edward Chancellor 

In this issue

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback

I. Introduction: Evading the Real Issue

II. The Fallacies Behind the CMEPA’s Defense

A. False Equivalence

B. Red Herring

C. Categorical Error

D. Begging the Question

E. Ignoring Second-Order Effects (Bastiat’s “Seen and Unseen”)

F. Appeal to the General (Overgeneralization)

III. The Diminishing Role of Time and Savings Deposits in M2 and Bank Liabilities

IV. Defective Gross Domestic Savings, Near Record Savings-Investment Gap

V. Financing the ‘Twin Deficits’ with Record Systemic Leverage

VI. State-Driven Financial Repression: Time Deposits vs. RTBs & Pag-IBIG MP2

VII. Inflating Stock Market Bubbles: CMEPA’s Savers Lion’s Den

VIII. Conclusion: Sovereignty over Speculation, Economic Blowback 

The CMEPA Delusion: How Fallacious Arguments Conceal the Risk of Systemic Blowback 

Logical fallacies aren’t harmless—they shape policy narratives. In CMEPA’s case, they obscure financial repression and pave the way for systemic economic backlash. 

This is a follow-up on my original piece: The Seen, the Unseen, and the Taxed: CMEPA as Financial Repression by Design 

I. Introduction: Evading the Real Issue 

The Capital Market Efficiency Promotion Act (CMEPA) has stirred significant debate, not merely because of its tax provisions but because of what it signals about the evolving relationship between the state and citizen savings. 

While defenders of CMEPA claim it merely modernizes financial taxation and expands savings options, these arguments often rest on flawed logic and misleading equivalencies that mask the deeper issues: the erosion of true savings, the rise of speculation, and creeping state control over private capital.

Besides, in classical economic thought, savings is deferred consumption—a temporal anchor against uncertainty, a moral wager on future stability. Time-bound, low-risk instruments like term deposits have long served this function. They do not aspire; they buffer. When the state flattens the tax incentives protecting this buffer, it doesn’t merely tweak an equation—it alters the meaning of saving. 

II. The Fallacies Behind the CMEPA’s Defense 

CMEPA's defenders lean on several logical fallacies to support their case: 

A. False Equivalence: By equating time-bound savings with speculative financial assets such as stocks or REITs, proponents confuse two fundamentally different financial behaviors. Savings are deferred consumption; risk assets are bets on volatility. 

B. Red Herring: Arguments pointing to alternative investment vehicles like Pag-IBIG MP2 or Retail Treasury Bonds distract from the core concern: CMEPA disincentivizes bank-based, low-risk savings that traditionally fund long-term development. 

C. Categorical Error: To assume that financial markets can substitute for savings systems ignores the institutional role of savings in capital formation, stability, and intermediation. 

D. Begging the Question: CMEPA defenders assume what they must prove: that taxed savings instruments still count as savings (tax = savings or 1-1=2), or that savings will simply shift outside time deposits without consequence. This begs the question. 

It presumes that risk assets and government-managed schemes are natural substitutes for time deposits. It conflates taxation with neutrality, ignoring how incentives shape behavior.

In reality, aside from extraction, tax is a signal, not a passive overlay. And when the signal penalizes duration, it redefines savings itself. 

Worst, it also treats financial repression as benign without examining its structural damage to intermediation, capital formation, and systemic liquidity.

E. Ignoring Second-Order Effects (Bastiat’s “Seen and Unseen”) 

Defenders highlight only the seen—that capital might shift to “alternative” instruments like stocks or Pag-IBIG MP2. 

What is seen:

1. Lower taxes on REITs and stocks = more investment.

2. Flat tax on deposits = not new, fairness 

But they ignore the unseen: 

1. weakening of bank intermediation via the erosion of long-term bank funding,

2. The crowding out of private credit channels, and

3. The behavioral shift toward liquidity-chasing speculation, which gives rise to

4. increased market and economic volatility 

Policy must be judged not just by its immediate effects, but by its downstream damage. This is the classic Bastiat fallacy—what is unseen—the fragility, the distortion, the systemic cost—often matters more. 

F. Appeal to the General (Overgeneralization) 

CMEPA’s defenders argue that because some financial instruments like stocks, REITs, or Pag-IBIG MP2 exist, they can generally serve as adequate substitutes for traditional savings. 

But this overlooks key details: liquidity risk, volatility, transitional frictions or tensions, accessibility, ceilings, investor profile and behavioral inertia that constrain real-world reallocation. 

Not all instruments serve the same function—especially for households that need capital preservation over yield. 

This fallacy blurs crucial distinctions between risk assets and true savings vehicles. By appealing to broad categories, it sidesteps the very real limitations and risks of reallocating savings. In policy, the details are the difference between resilience and fragility. 

Policy design and evaluation demands specificity: Without disaggregated data on household savings patterns, bank funding structures, and instrument uptake, differentiating between resilience and fragility, the defense becomes narrative and rhetoric, not analysis. 

III. The Diminishing Role of Time and Savings Deposits in M2 and Bank Liabilities 

Since the BSP’s structural easing cycle began in the early 2000s, both the savings and time deposit shares of M2 have steadily declined. 

This erosion has profound implications for the liquidity foundations of the Philippine financial system. 

Figure 1 

Notably, time deposits briefly surged during two critical junctures: first, when the BSP’s policy rates hit record lows during the pandemic, and again when aggressive rate hikes resumed in 2022. Yet this rebound proved short-lived. (Figure 1, topmost pane) 

Subsequent M2 growth increasingly leaned on more liquid components—such as demand deposits and currency in circulation—rather than long-term savings. 

In effect, liquidity transformation has shifted away from stable deposits toward more volatile sources: demand-driven credit expansion and the banking system’s financing of government liabilities, as evidenced by the surge in net claims on the central government (NCoCG). (Figure 1, middle graph) 

The CMEPA tax will likely accelerate this liquidity vacuum by further penalizing traditional savings vehicles. 

This structural shift presents a systemic challenge. As deposits decline, credit expansion becomes increasingly unanchored from genuine savings. In tandem with both implicit liquidity support (via bank balance sheets) and direct quantitative easing (via the BSP), this dynamic becomes inherently inflationary and destabilizing. 

The dilemma is mirrored in bank balance sheets. 

The time deposit share of total bank liabilities has collapsed—from over 32% in 2008 to just 17.5% by mid-2022, before rebounding modestly in response to BSP’s tightening cycle. (Figure 1, lowest diagram) 

This plunge coincides with a decade of financial repression: persistently low real rates, high inflation, and the rise of state-directed instruments like RTBs, MP2, and PERA accounts. 

As traditional deposits dwindled, banks turned increasingly to borrowings to fill the liability gap. 

The share of bank borrowings from capital markets has been rising since 2015, ironically peaking just before the pandemic recession in 2019. This share temporarily declined to 5.4% by Q3 2023, as ‘tighter’ policy conditions set in. 

Yet as liquidity stress intensified, bank borrowing surged anew—hitting 7.9% in March 2025—before moderating after the BSP’s second leg of RRR cuts. 

In this context, what CMEPA promotes as capital market reform in practice amounts to an escalation of the erosion of the deposit base. It trades long-term stability for short-term borrowing, redirecting household savings away from private financial intermediation and into state debt. 

The result? A more fragile banking system, less private capital formation, and greater macro-financial risk. 

Moreover, these bank borrowings now compete directly with government financing needs and private sector credit demand—exacerbating the crowding-out effect and tightening liquidity conditions for the broader economy. 

This fragility is amplified by the growing concentration of liquidity within a handful of dominant players.

Figure 2

As of May, Philippine banks controlled 82% of total financial resources or assets, with universal-commercial banks accounting for 76%. (Figure 2, topmost image) 

Meanwhile, even as the M2-to-GDP ratio soared from 63% in 2019 to a pandemic-era peak of 76.2% in 2021, it dropped sharply to 66.3% by Q1 2025—a sign that not only has GDP become dependent on liquidity, but, importantly, money creation is no longer translating into real economic or savings growth. (Figure 2, middle chart) 

Taken together, as banks increasingly monopolize liquidity while time deposits diminish, the financial system becomes more fragile. It is precisely this growing instability that forced the BSP to roll out confidence-boosting measures—including the doubling of deposit insurance coverage and the second phase of the RRR cut. These are not signs of strength. They are signs of deepening systemic stress.

IV. Defective Gross Domestic Savings, Near Record Savings-Investment Gap 

At first glance, gross domestic savings (GDS) might seem useful for assessing national savings conditions, but its use to account for real savings conditions is generally misleading. 

First, as a derived indicator—not a strict accounting identity—it suffers from definitional inconsistency. 

For instance, the World Bank reports it at 9.3% in 2024, while Trading Economics, citing the same source, shows 29.24%. Same source, vastly different realities. (Figure 2, lowest window) 

Second, it is calculated as: 

GDS = GDP – Total Consumption (private + public). 

But GDP itself is indifferent to distributional nuances. As we always ask here: Cui bono or Who benefits? 

Is the savings outcome driven primarily by genuine productivity gains—or by increasing dependence on leverage? What is the quality of the growth? What ratios of cost, allocation, and extraction were involved? 

Third, the GDS measure masks household savings weakness—especially during capital flight or high profit repatriation. 

Fourth, how are these "savings" reflected in the banking system? 

Even when elevated GDS suggests high aggregate capacity, the reality is that available savings for productive intermediation—such as long-term deposits and investible capital—are scarce. CMEPA threatens to worsen this distortion by tilting incentives toward consumption and speculation. 

Put differently: while 2024 GDS appears deceptively high at over 29% of GDP, net national savings—after accounting for income and transfer leakages—is a mere 9.3%, per World Bank estimates. 

This reveals a deep structural fragility in the country's true capacity to accumulate capital. By penalizing savings and redirecting flows into speculative capital markets, CMEPA threatens to widen this gap and exacerbate the very vulnerabilities it claims to address.

Figure 3

Yet—and this is key—BusinessWorld recently produced a chart based on Philippine Statistics Authority (PSA) data showing the second widest gap between saving rates (apparently from the World Bank) and investment rates —which we discussed last March. (Figure 3, topmost visual) 

If savings were truly robust, why does this gap persist? What finances this chasm? 

V. Financing the ‘Twin Deficits’ with Record Systemic Leverage 

Cherry-picking numbers to defend the law ignores that the savings-investment gap has been manifested through ‘twin deficits’—fiscal and external trade. Despite supposed normalization post-pandemic, the Philippine economy remains at pandemic-level dependency on credit. (Figure 3, middle graph) 

Here’s the key: public spending is part of those investment rates. 

Bureau of the Treasury data revealed that the 2025 first-half fiscal deficit hit a record Php 765.49 billion—even without a recession! This confirms earlier warnings, which we’ll expand on in another post. (Figure 3, lowest diagram) 

So, who finances this? Domestic banks and foreign lenders are now absorbing this growing imbalance. 

As previously noted: 

"A shrinking domestic savings pool limits capital accumulation, increases dependence on external financing, and exposes the economy to risks such as debt distress and currency fluctuations."— Prudent Investor, March 2025

Figure 4

As of May, public debt hit a record Php 16.918 trillion, with June data expected to breach Php 17 trillion —the all-time high deficit will accelerate its increase. Didn’t the administration hint at pushing up the debt-to-GDP corridor from 60% to 70%? (Figure 4, upper graph) 

Meanwhile, combined with total bank credit expansion, systemic leverage reached a new record of Php 31.225 trillion, or 118% of 2024 nominal GDP. (Figure 4, lower chart) 

And that figure excludes: 

• Capital market debt issuance (corporate bonds, CMBS)
• FDI-linked intercompany loans
• Informal debt (pawnshops, personal lending, unregulated finance)

Think of the costs: this credit buildup means rising debt servicing burdens, declining real incomes, and growing risks of delinquencies and defaults. 

More importantly, in the absence of productivity-led savings growth, the Philippine economy is running on borrowed money—and borrowed time.

VI. State-Driven Financial Repression: Time Deposits vs. RTBs & Pag-IBIG MP2 

Defenders of CMEPA point to alternatives like RTBs or Pag-IBIG’s MP2 as substitutes for taxed time deposits. 

But these are neither comprehensive nor scalable: 

MP2 has annual ceilings and requires Pag-IBIG membership. 

RTBs are state-managed, episodic, and offer limited liquidity.

Figure 5 

Latest BSP data: (Figure/Table 5) 

• Total time deposits in the PH banking system: Over Php 5 trillion
• Long-term deposits (>5 years): ~Php 500–Php 700 billion
• RTB retail uptake: ~Php 175 billion
• MP2 inflows: ~Php 30–Php 50 billion/year 

Combined, RTBs + MP2 absorb just 5–10% of the capital displaced by CMEPA’s flattening of tax incentives. The rest sits idle, chases risk, or exits the formal system. 

More critically, these instruments are not substitutes for a diverse, open savings ecosystem. They represent state-controlled pipelines—a form of financial repression where household capital is diverted into funding public consumption, and paid for by the diminishing purchasing power of the peso. And this is supposed to ‘encourage’ savings growth? Really?

This contradicts the narrative that these flows remain as ‘savings outside’ time deposits. On the contrary, it is a narrowing of financial autonomy. 

VII. Inflating Stock Market Bubbles: CMEPA’s Savers Lion’s Den 

As previously discussed, the policy-induced gambling mentality has migrated to the equity markets. Instead of encouraging true savings, CMEPA will foster boom-bust cycles that further erode wealth and fuel capital consumption. 

This week’s coordinated pre-closing and afternoon pumps illustrate how institution-dominated markets manage the main index for optics—what we might call "benchmark-ism." (Figure 5, lower graph)

Though it escapes the Overton Window, this behavior—like CMEPA—distorts the price signal function of capital markets, leading to the misallocation of capital goods in the economy. 

By stoking gambling instincts, markets become casinos where savings and credit—someone else’s savings or bank-issued liquidity—is converted into house profits. 

When capital markets are manipulated for non-market goals, the effect is the same: momentum cloaking a wealth transfer. 

CMEPA leads savers straight into the lion’s den. 

VIII. Conclusion: Sovereignty over Speculation, Economic Blowback 

In an age where reform rewards liquidity and penalizes patience, true saving becomes a philosophical—and revolutionary—act. It’s no longer just economic prudence. It’s resistance to engineered ephemerality. 

The ideology driving CMEPA whispers: Be fast. Be fluid. Be speculative. Be extravagant. Be taxable. Be subservient to the state. 

The public must reply: Be steady. Be real. Be cautious. And above all—be sovereign. 

This is not academic critique—it’s a warning. When incentives distort prudence, the fallout is material, not theoretical. 

CMEPA does not act alone. It fuses with a wider architecture of distortion:

• BSP’s redistributionist easing cycle
• Record deficit spending
• An implicit USDPHP soft peg
• Accelerating bureaucratization and economic centralization 

Together, they form the scaffolding of financial and social maladjustment. 

And when crises surface—households hemorrhaging stability, banks scrambling for duration, systems unraveling under engineered fragility—the reckoning will be felt everywhere. 

In that moment, accountability will matter. 

We must remember: Who authored this distortion? Who rationalized it as progress? 

And we must prepare—for its backlash. 

___

References

Prudent Investor Newsletter, 2024’s Savings-Investment Gap Reaches Second-Widest Level as Fiscal Deficit Shrinks on Non-Tax Windfalls March 9, 2025, Substack