Two months ago, a friend and fellow UPSE alumni asked me to respond to his ideas, below.
Indeed, the economic buzzwords these days is how to achieve "inclusive growth". I'm just wondering why we always get fixated with the decades-old mantra towards “FREER MARKET" or the need to break down further "Institutions" to achieve freer markets.
While it is true that there are still institutional bottlenecks and bureaucratic inefficiencies (i.e., red tapes, corruption, etc.) that need to be scrapped, I think we are losing sight of what true economics should mainly be all about----Production and not fixation with freer markets and consumption.
If I am not mistaken, almost 80 percent of the total economy is consumption driven. In short, we are producing much less through the years as a percentage of total GDP.
If less and less people are creating physical wealth, there is indeed some basis to the analysis that the economy is mainly being bailed out by the OFW money that is circulating around and helping boost consumer and service industries like the malls and food chains.
Many people indeed have that "uncontrolled itch to control others".
Consider here: A taxi driver or jeepney driver would wish to have the freedom, the choice, where he can eat lunch cheaply and with parking at the same time. But those with "uncontrolled itch to control" would wish that such freedom should be curtailed. If some of those carinderias that give cheap lunch do not pay taxes and city hall business permit, sanitation permit, etc., then they better be closed down. Control people's freedom of choice. Attack free market, onwards with the command and control thinking.
His fixation with "Economics = Production" is lousy. Remember Econ 11 again, Economics is about WHAT to produce, WHEN and WHERE to produce, HOW to produce it and for WHOM. Economics is about production and consumption and non-consumption (savings, investments). What's so hard to understand here?
It is impossible for micro units (individuals, households, micro and big firms) to answer all the "what, when, where, how and for whom" if there is no free market. Can central planners, whether products of UPSE or Ateneo or Harvard or Timbuktu University, foresee how many rubber shoes, what color, design and sizes, would be needed in village or municipality A, and in other areas and cities? What if there was an over-production of color blue, size small rubber shoes but under production of color pink, size medium and large rubber shoes? How fast can central planners respond to such consumer demand who will be in shoe stores today or tomorrow?
Only the free market -- producers who are free to produce what/when/where/how/for whom, consumers who are free to buy what/when/where/how/from whom -- can have the flexibility and foresight to see those things.
About "inclusive growth", new terminologies, and perhaps new rackets. Notice that it has already evolved into "inclusive development", "inclusive democracy", "inclusive business", "inclusive politics", what else.
The framers and inventors of such "inclusive _____" are careful that the people will not see them as ultimately gunning for "inclusive pockets" and "inclusive savings". That is, your money in your pocket or savings account is not yours and yours alone. It belongs to the collective, other people have a "claim" and "entitlement" to it already. These "other people" include the poor (regardless of the causes of their poverty), the politicians, the bureaucrats and the various poverty fighters.-------------
Inequality 12: Billionaires and the UN Politics of Envy, July 11, 2012
Inequality 14: 99 Percent to Support the 1 Percent, October 20, 2012
Inequality 15: SM, Henry Sy and Class Envy, October 20, 2013
Post a Comment