Washington DC, meetings and conference

The first time I went to Washington DC in the US was in May 2004. I was one of several International Fellows of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, then based in Fairfax, Virginia (now based in DC), and I attended several conferences in the US. First was the Mackinac Leadership Conference in Michigan, then the Heartland conference + Atlas Liberty Forum in Chicago, then meetings in DC and Virgina area. I stayed in the US for one month.

The second time I went to DC was in November 2009, also for another Atlas event and I was one of several panel speakers. Below, with Cindy Cirquitella of Atlas as panel moderator, Paulo Uebel from Brazil, and about three other speakers from Croatia, Nigeria, and Argentina I think. Thanks again to former Atlas VP, Jo Kwong, who would find funding for my travel scholarship. See Jo Kwong rocks.

Some of my notes during the Atlas events that time are here, Economic freedom means taller people.
I also attended a one-day discussion on several literatures about liberty. Below, Jo Kwong, in red dress, standing and introducing the activity.

Then I visited again the Americans for Tax Reforms (ATR) office. First time I saw their office was in 2004 and it was my first time to meet ATR President, Grover Norquist. Very articulate and intelligent free market leader. Below, with Grover's deputy, Chris Butler and a Russian lady scholar, Victoria Strokova, who authored the International Property Rights Index (IPRI) 2010 Report.

It was a freezing November for me; the locals would wear some not-so-thick jackets while I covered myself with a thick jacket even at daytime.

Soon, I will visit DC again for another conference and some meetings.
-----------

See also:
RIP, Leonard Liggio, October 15, 2014

Mayflower Renaissance Hotel, Washington DC -- I stayed there, Nov. 9-12, 2009

Ronald Reagan National Airport, Arlington, Virginia -- I exited the US from this airport twice, in 2004 and 2009.

2004, MG and LRI Were Born

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI) held its 10th year anniversary Dinner Gala last November 06, 2014, at Harbour Grand Hong Kong, the same venue for the EFN Asia Conference 2014. Among the most memorable photos for me that night is this. From left: Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS) in India, Andrew Work, co-founder of LRI, HK, me, and Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute, India.

Parth, Andrew and me were batchmates at the "Mackinac Leadership Conference 2004", held in April 2004 at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy in Midlands, Michigan, USA. More than ten years have passed and we are still around  fighting for free market, free trade, limited government, rule of law, individual freedom and personal responsibility.

Minimal Government (MG) was only one month old and LRI was possibly two-three months old then. I and Ellen Cain of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), Andrew and a few others, were granted an International Fellowships by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. So  it was my first exposure to the international free market movement. Thanks to Atlas and Priscilla Tacujan who recommended us to Atlas.

Our batch photo, 10 years and seven months ago at Mackinac Center. 

Mackinac President at that time was Larry Reed, VP was Joe Lehman. Around 2007, Larry became President of a bigger free market think tank in NY, the Foundation for Economic Education (FEE) and Joe became Mackinac President. At one of our evening events at Mackinac. The "Asians table" plus our batchmate from Italy (to my left) and Larry Reed, beside Parth.

After Mackinac, we went to Chicago to attend the Atlas Liberty Forum, April 2004. I shared a room in the hotel and my roommate then was Barun Mitra! Barun is perhaps the most veteran (and most prominent) among all Asian free marketers, having been in the movement for about three decades now. When I was still a socialist and a great fan of Marx, Engels, Lenin and Trotsky in the 80s, Barun was already spreading the ideas of Hayek, Mises, Ayn Rand, Friedman, among others.

These are portions of the Atlas Year in Review, Fall 2004. Page 14.

And on page 15.

After the event in Chicago, we went to Virginia, stayed at the Atlas staff house in Fairfax and we started meeting various market-oriented think tanks and research institutes in Washington DC, Arlington, etc. I came back after a month, May 2004.

In October 2004, the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference was held in Hong Kong. LRI was part of the team who helped organized it of course. Out of the eight Asian participants who went to  Mackinac, six of us went to HK as well. From left: Cuoung, Joe Lehman, Ellen, Jargal, Parth and me. Andrew was there of course but we could not  find him as he was moving around when we assembled for this photo.

The group photo of the EFN 2004 conference. Taken from the Atlas 2004 report.

Thanks to Atlas, thanks to EFN and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF), for their support to advocates and fighters for limited government and free market in Asia. 

------------

See also:

Liberty Notes from Larry Reed (1), February 01, 2012

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

Lion Rock 16: 10th Anniversary of LRI, November 07, 2014

RIP, Leonard Liggio

Rest in Peace, Prof. Leonard P. Liggio, Executive Vice President of Academics at Atlas Economic Research Foundation, Washington DC, USA. He passed away October 14, 2014, he was 81.

I met Leonard first time in April 2004 when Atlas granted me an international fellowship for one month to the US, along with Ellen Cain of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF). First in Chicago for the Atlas Liberty Forum, then at the Atlas office in Fairfax, Virginia then. It was my first exposure to other free market-oriented groups, think tanks and individuals from many parts of the world.

Atlas put this brief memoriam for Leonard today in their website:

Leonard’s career advancing liberty spanned seven decades, during which time he served as the President of the Mont Pelerin Society, the Philadelphia Society, and the Institute for Humane Studies, where he later continued to serve as its Distinguished Senior Scholar. He was a professor at George Mason University, a visiting professor at the Universidad Francisco Marroquín, a board member of the Competitive Enterprise Institute, and a Trustee of Liberty Fund. 

Alex Chafuen and the late John Blundell once wrote that, if F.A. Hayek was the great architect of the revival of classical liberalism, then Leonard has been its “great builder, building a worldwide movement… one career at a time.”

Then I met Leonard again in 2005 in Phuket, Thailand, when Atlas and the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) sponsored a round-table discussion on "The Constitution of Liberty in Asia" where we discussed for one whole day Friedrich Hayek's book, "The Constitution of Liberty". He moderated the discussion, assisted by Colleen Dyble, then Director for Institute Relations of Atlas. I learned a lot from that forum. A few months before we went to Phuket, Atlas mailed to us participants a copy of Hayek's book. I remember that I had a hard time understanding Hayek's deep political philosophy then, but it was good that I re-read some of the chapters to appreciate the great Austrian economist-philosopher's thoughts.

Our group photo below. Two names I cannot remember now, I put as (?). Standing from left: Leonard, (? from Malaysia), Hiroshi (Japan), Minh Nguyen (Vietnam), Charu Chadha (Nepal), Nambiar (Malaysia), (? from India), Kang Chandararot (Cambodia), Yongqin (China), Chung-ho Kim (S. Korea).

Sitting from left: me, Mr. You (Japan), Paata Sheshelidze (Georgia), Cuoung Nguyen (Vietnam), Khalil Ahmad (Pakistan), Colleen Dyble (USA), Trupti Meetah (India), and Ellen Cain (Philippines). Liu Junning (China) was also there but he went outside when this photo was taken.

Yesterday, good friend and former VP for Institute Relations of Atlas, Jo Kwong, posted in fb:

Grateful to have the chance to visit Leonard Liggio today, my long time friend and mentor, to tell him how much he's meant to me all these years. Remembering our younger days.

Today, she posted, Rest in peace, Leonard. Could there be a more gentle, knowledgeable, insightful, thoughtful person? A gentle giant, a gentle teacher. How blessed we are to have known him.

I have met again Leonard in 2008 (Atlanta) and 2009 (LA, California) during the annual Atlas Liberty Forum. Jo Kwong looked for extra funding to allow me to travel to the US and attend those events, and met with other free market leaders from other parts of the world. Thanks once again, Jo. I will never your efforts then.

The Institute for Economic Studies-Europe (IES) produced this youtube clip in 2009, also in recognition  of Leonard's role in contributing to the liberty movement in Europe. They posted in fb with this note,

The movement of Liberty has just lost a giant. R.I.P Leonard Liggio. Here is a little tribute (showing just small part of his huge impact) made in 2009 for the 20 anniversary of IES-Europe which wouldn't exist without his help. (Appearing in the video: Jacque Garello, Jo Kwong, Tom G. Palmer, Douglas B. Rasmussen, Pascal Salin, Fred Smith, Tibor Machan, Randy Barnett, Henri Lepage, Victoria Curzon-Price, Douglas Den Uyl, Emmanuel Martin, Mario Rizzo, Gregory Rehmke, Christine Dunn Henderson, Pierre Garello)

Ozlem Caglar-Yilmaz of the Association for Liberal Thinking (ALT) in Turkey posted this photo, with Alejandro "Alex" Chafuen, Atlas President, and  Leonard.

Leonard is known more by North and South American and European classical liberal academics and think tank leaders. He may have not traveled much to Asia, so the Atlas-FNF event in Phuket in 2005 was a great way for us Asians to know him more.

Once again, rest in peace Leonard. It was great to meet you.
------------

See also:
Jo Kwong rocks, February 09, 2010
EFN Asia 2: Hayek in Asia, September 20, 2010

EFN Asia 2: Hayek in Asia

Around late September 2005, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, in partnership with the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) sponsored the historic "The Constitution of Liberty in Asia" roundtable discussion (RTD) in Phuket, Thailand. For one day, around 20 of us, free market leaders and individuals from Asia, discussed half of a thick book -- Friedrich Hayek's "The Constitution of Liberty". The event was held one day before the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference in the same hotel in Phuket.

I say "historic" because of the many conferences that I attended, that one really deepened my perspective and understanding about liberty and the rule of law.

The discussion was facilitated by Atlas VP, Prof. Leonard Liggio, who is himself a scholar on classical liberal philosophy. Good friend Colleen Dyble, with Atlas at that time, provided the technical and administrative support to Leonard. Below was our group picture.

From left to right, standing: Leonard, Toni (Malaysia), Hiroshi Yoshida (Japan), Minh (Vietnam), Charu Rizal (Nepal), Shankaran Nambiar (Malaysia), (forgot the man in blue shirt), Kang Chandararot (Cambodia), Wink Ho (China) and Chung-ho Kim (S. Korea).

Sitting, from left to right: me, Mr. You (Japan), Paata (Georgia), Cuong Nguyen (Vietnam), Khalil Ahmad (Pakistan), Colleen Dyble, Trupti Mehta (India) and Ellen Cain (Philippines).

Some of us there were working in not-exactly free market-oriented think tank, like the Malaysian Institute for Economic Research (MIER) where Nambiar is affiliated, is not exactly a free market think tank, it's a Malaysian government-owned think tank. But I know that Nambiar is a big Hayek fan.

Likewise, the Cambodian Institute for Development Studies (CIDS) is not exactly a free market think tank, but its head, Kang Chandararot, deeply appreciates the value of advancing individual freedom in the course of public policy research work.

The event was 5 years ago now and some of us have worked in various institutes, Including some Atlas staff who already resigned and pursued new careers in other think tanks in the US. The Asian scholars who went there still have a lot of Hayek molecules in their body. Junning was once called the "Hayek of China", Nambiar and Wan Saiful Wan Jan of IDEAS may also be considered the "Hayek of Malaysia."

I missed, or we all missed, Jo Kwong there, VP for Institute Relations of Atlas. Although she put a lot of hours and effort in helping organize that forum from her office in the US, she was not able to join us. It's good that her very friendly and also hard-working deputy, Colleen, was able to join us.

After the Phuket RTD on Hayek, I formed the ARBM2Phuket yahoogroups. Initially we were about 20 there, then it expanded to its current list of 90+ liberty-oriented people we included more like-minded thinkers from Asia and other friends in Europe and the US.

Last nght, IDEAS organized a discussion about Hayek's thoughts on political economy, and it was led by Nambiar. IDEAS is doing that event every third Monday of the month. More details at their website, the Bukit Tunku Society.

Hayek was a great thinker. His ideas permeated into the minds of people who push the ideals of individual freedom and liberty. Among the words that the man wrote, I like this one:

"Freedom and responsibility are two sides of the same coin. People who are afraid of responsibility are afraid of freedom itself."
---------

See also:
EFN Asia 1: From HK to Phuket to KL, September 16, 2006
Jo Kwong rocks, February 09, 2010

Warming Hysteria: Climate Extortion and Mayon Volcano

It is too common. When one cannot argue with data and facts, they attack the people or institutions that bring the idea. That is, they shoot the messenger, not the message.

This practice is very visible in the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW) claims. Many campaigners of such claim are too impatient to hear any opposing idea, so they douse any dissenting voice as "that's big oil lobby" and similar statements.

One article from mother jones has pathetically attacked the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network (IPN), the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC), and other think tanks and coalitions/network that do not agree with the AGW claim, see here.
http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/climate-deniers-atlas-foundation

The author is Mr. Josh Harkinson. The science and data behind AGW claim is highly suspect. I wrote a few papers on this, the latest of which is "Warming lies", http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091201.pdf.

Atlas is helping small think tanks around the world that advance individual liberty, not because they are questioning AGW. Most or all of those think tanks are fighting dictatorships, corruption, trade protectionism, high taxation, private property rights confiscation, among others. Questioning AGW is a small part of their work.

The CSCCC is a big international coalition of independent think tanks and institutes in more than 40 countries that don't believe in ecological central planning. Since there is no consensus yet about the science behind AGW, there should be no global coercion on environment and energy policies.

Talking about money, I think that while it is true that some oil money like Exxonmobil's was mobilized to help some "skeptics" groups, another big oil, Shell, is on the side of the warmers and most likely be giving them money too.

One estimate of lobby is goes like this:
against AGW, about $2m/year.
pro-AGW: $4 billion/year from the US federal government alone.
This is for climate researches that support the man-made warming conclusion. See for instance, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
--------

My related short papers recently:

(1)  Winterstorm and Climate Extortion

December 20, 2009

I saw in my facebook account, pictures just a few hours ago, of my Filipino and American friends in deep snow in front of their houses in DC-VA and NYC. In this picture, my good friend Jo Kwong of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in DC.

That's one day after the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting to "fight unequivocal global warming."

US President Obama was forced to cut his trip in snowy Copenhagen to head back to DC because of the winter storm. But before flying, he and State Sec. Hillary Clinton promised "$100 billion a year starting 2020", all to fight global warming. The agreement in Copenhagen was to "limit global warming to only 2 C". The IPCC AR4 warned of "best case" 4 C rise in global temperature, with worst case of 6.4 C rise by 2100.

I would say that the Copenhagen meeting was an event of irony and hypocrisy. Let me enumerate a few points why I say this.

1. The $100 B/year promise by Mr. Obama will be made long after his term in the White House has ended, by 2020. It's the typical "promise everything" or "scare everyone with scenarios" long after you yourself is gone from your office or from the face of the Earth. The IPCC scientists for instance who predicted in 2007 of "up to 6.4 C rise by 2100" will all be dead by then.

2. Extortion by poor country governments. There was high political heat and bickering among poor country govts. vs rich country govts. vs. big environmental NGOs, in pressuring how much carbon emission cuts by whom and by when. In the end, they talk about money, money, money. European government initially said $10 billion/year, poor country governments said "No, We want $300 to $400 billion/year!"
Haggling and bickering, they end up with $100 B/year promise by Obama, plus contributions by EU and other rich governments. So in a sense, it was a meeting for extortion by poor country govts. But the leaders of those poor countries are ALL rich.

3. Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke in Copenhagen, lambasted the evils of capitalism and how capitalist corporations destroyed the planet. And many government representatives and NGOs applauded and gave him a standing ovation! Last time I checked, it was capitalism which gave them all commercial airlines, private jets, expensive limos and sedans, that brought them to capitalist Copenhagen. And they stayed in capitalist hotels, ate in capitalist restaurants in the city. Capitalist power plants gave them uninterrupted power and electricity for their meeting, and capitalist media outlets broadcasted their meetings and riots all around the world. And those politicians and bureaucrats say "capitalism is evil."

4. Blizzard in Copenhagen and upcoming winter storm in DC and surrounding states while they are meeting to "fight global warming". This time, it's the Earth telling them, "Get real guys. I got no fever. I'm chilling, and so are you."

Readers, feel free to add your list of irony and hypocrisy in all those lies and alarmism.

(2) Mayon Volcano and Climate

December 19, 2009

Mayon volcano, the most active of the Philippines' 21 active volcanoes (and several dozens inactive ones), has been very active recently. In the last century, it was exploding every 10 years on average, I think. This decade and century, this will be it's 3rd explosion. First was February 2000, 2nd on August 2006, and now December 2009. That volcano is contributing lots of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.

Contribute to global warming? No. Exploding volcanoes release lots of gases, CO2 among them; also dust and smoke, into the lower and upper atmosphere. Such gases and particles tend to block sunlight from reaching the Earth's land and ocean surfaces, resulting in cooling.

When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, that event alone caused global cooling by at least 0.4 C for nearly 3 years. Thick volume of ashes, smoke and gases that navigated around the globe several times, blocking sunlight. When it erupted, certains hours of the day in Metro Manila, Pampanga and nearby provinces became dark.

One friend, Winthrop Yu, wondered how much cooling a Mayon eruption would contribute. Should be small, maybe by only 0.0__ C, but cooling, nonetheless.

And we go back to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4). On its "analysis" table, 8 out of 9 factors are anthropogenic (man-made), only 1 was natural, solar irradiance.

Whaaattt??? Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) don't contribute to the earth's climate? Volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, biosols, pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), other natural factors, do NOT contribute to the EArth's climate?

PDO cycles of cooling and warming average about 25 years. The warming phase is over, we're now entering the cooling phase.

Last September, NASA reported that there were 19 percent more GCRs in the Earth's atmosphere than last year. GCRs come from exploding stars from across the universe, within and outside our galaxy. They help create aerosols that become the "seeds" for more clouds.

The IPCC relied 100 percent of their climate predictions for the next 100 years on their global computer models (GCMs).

Seriously, anyone believes those computer models' predictive capacity of what will happen in the Philippines' weather, US weather, Europe weather, the world's weather, 1 or 2 weeks from now? For instance, the temperature range of hi-low, by Dec. 31, 2009? Because the IPCC's GCMs say they CAN predict the Earth's temperature range 90 or 100 years from now! And they have the figures, "best case" prediction of 4 C rise, max range of up to 6.4 C, by 2100!

Free Trade 12: Trade and World Peace

Last April 02, 2009, I wrote this:

Today, leaders of the world’s largest economies, both rich and developing, will meet in London to "save" the world economy in general, and their respective economies in particular.

The G20 summit is a high profile meeting; there are lots of demands and expectations, lots of lobby interests to be resolved and pleased. Among such groups are the protectionists and anti-free trade interests.

This group reasons out that since the economy is bad and lots of jobs have been lost and are threatened to be lost further, consumers should patronize locally-made products and services. The group further posits that governments should reduce, if not prevent, huge importation of competing goods and services made from other countries. This way, local jobs will be preserved and/or created, and the economy will recover.

There is one huge fault in this kind of reasoning: It does not recognize that people trade with each other voluntarily because they realize there are "net gains" for them. By choosing the best quality product (raw material or final consumer item) at the lowest price possible, a consumer benefits. By having huge number of potential buyers, a producer continuously improves on his product or service to please consumers who want the “best product at the lowest price possible”.

The International Policy Network and the Atlas Global Initiative teamed up to launch the Freedom to Trade Coalition (F2T) and the Free Trade Petition to pressure G20 leaders not to give in to strong protectionist moves in their respective countries and regions.

When the Petition was launched in London yesterday, it has attracted more than 2,000 signatories from many countries around the world. The Petition categorically declares the following, among others:

“Trade’s most valuable product is peace. Trade promotes peace, in part, by uniting different peoples in a common culture of commerce – a daily process of learning others’ languages, social norms, laws, expectations, wants, and talents.

Trade promotes peace by encouraging people to build bonds of mutually beneficial cooperation. Trade unites the economic interests of the peoples of all nations who trade with each other.

A great deal of rigorous empirical research supports perhaps the most tragic example of what happens when the proposition that "trade promotes peace" insight is ignored is World War II.

International trade collapsed by 70% between 1929 and 1932, in no small part because of America’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs of other nations. Economist Martin Wolf notes that "this collapse in trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan."

The most ghastly and deadly wars in human history soon followed.”

A number of leaders of member-institutes of the F2T Coalition – including this writer – believe that for free trade to succeed, it should be done unilaterally. Problems arise when people accept the idea that countries should first restrict trade, and then negotiate for some alleged reciprocal benefits, because this legitimizes the role of the State in trade. Countries and governments do not trade with each other; people do. So governments have no legitimate role in restricting or negotiating trade.

Unilateral free trade means that business and political leaders of an economy simply declare, "We want more choices of goods and services from anywhere. Come bring them here, zero (or near-zero) tariff, zero or near-zero non-tariff barriers, and very little bureaucracy (trade facilitation)." Hong Kong does that. North Korea and Myanmar do not do that.

Meanwhile, the US President, the British Prime Minister, and other G20 leaders are busy convincing each other and the public that the world needs now more deficit spending, more borrowings, and more government debts, to "save" the world economy. Huge debts of the past were not enough; they need even bigger debts and bail-outs.

But some European leaders prefer equally threatening moves like the creation of a new global financial regulation framework or mechanism. One such mechanism is large-scale harassment of so-called "tax havens". The US, EU, Japan, and other rich countries that are on the "more-debts-more-bail-outs" train know perfectly that they are heading to the "more-and-higher-taxes" direction, to pay past and present debts. Hence, economies that offer some "tax relief" to global corporations should be pounced. Everyone should pay the high cost of "saving" the global economy, now and in the future.

At the end of the day, people around the world only need free trade, bigger choices of which products and services they will buy or not buy, of which type of employment arrangement they can accept or reject, and of which technology they will need or ignore. People do not need more deficit spending and more debts by governments. They do not need more financial and economic regulations. They do not need more aid or government-to-government transfer of taxpayers’ money.

People need greater control of their own lives. They need global peace to allow them to pursue their professions, to pursue their business and consumer interests, with the least taxation, regulation and intervention by governments and bureaucrats possible.

-------

Today, writing this in Los Angeles, California, USA. 

Free Trade and Liberty Forum

Trade is the process or mechanism by which people can sell their extra output of goods and services, use the money from such sale to buy the extra goods and services by other people that they need for their household and work needs. Thus, a rice or chicken farmer can sell their extra rice or chicken to other people, they use the money proceeds of such sale in order to buy fuel or spare parts for their hand tractors or fertilizers or animal feeds, to buy new dress, shoes and school supplies for his children, to build a new or repair and old house, to buy beer and pork barbecue, and so on. This important and common sense function of trade and voluntary exchange, is the main reason why trade should be left unrestricted, why trade should be as free as possible. 

Unfortunately this thinking is not shared by certain sectors of our societies. There are many alibis against free trade, foremost of which is that it steals local jobs. By buying goods made abroad and imported into the country, local manufacturers are deprived of additional revenues, some of them will close shop, resulting to job lay-offs and hence, higher unemployment, higher poverty.

Fighting trade protectionism is among the panel discussions tackled in the recently concluded “Atlas Liberty Forum” held at Hyatt Regency Century Plaza, Los Angeles, California, April 24 to 25, 2009. It was sponsored by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation. Atlas gave me a travel scholarship and hotel accommodation, that is why I was able to attend this event, and I was the only Filipino among nearly 300 participants from more than 30 countries around the world. 

The speakers from this panel were Alec van Gelder from International Policy Network (IPN) in London, Dan Grisworld from Cato Institute in Washington DC, and Seyitbek Uzmanov from Central Asia Free Market Institute (CAFMI) in Kyrgyztan. The panel moderator was Tom Palmer, the new Atlas VP for the Atlas Global Initiative.

Mr. van Gelder talked about the global campaign for free trade initiated by Atlas and IPN, the Freedom to Trade coalition that has attracted the participation of about 70 independent institutes and think tanks from nearly 50 countries, among others. Mr. Grisworld talked about the various tariff and non-tariff barriers that the American protectionists have put up against certain imported commodities, to the disadvantage of American consumers who have to pay higher for otherwise cheaper goods made abroad. And Mr. Uzmanov talked about the free trade coalition they are building in Kyrgyztan with a single mission: to make their country the “Dubai of central Asia” within the next 2 to 3 years. 

This goal by CAFMI is indeed laudable and ambitious, despite the fact that it is a very young think tank and its two top leaders are young too, only in their mid-20s. I asked them why they chose Dubai as their model for free trade when Hong Kong is more famous in having a unilateral free trade policy, they replied that many people in their country do not know Hong Kong much while Dubai is more known to them. Hence, the “Dubai inspiration” for a unilateral free trade project.

There were many other interesting panels in the Atlas Liberty Forum, like “The financial crisis and the attack on sound money” and “Fund raising” for free market think tanks. 

Trade protectionism is one aspect of dictatorship. The protectionists and their implementers in government dictate to the consumers what goods and services they can or cannot buy from abroad, if allowed to import, by how much quantity, from where and at what price. People just do not realize the dictatorship aspect of trade protectionism.

There is a new shade of protectionism that is recently shaping up: green or eco-protectionism. This type of protectionists argue that while rich countries keep their environment clean and refrain from using dirty and highly polluting technologies, the producers from poorer countries do not. Thus, the goods are produced cheaply there because they are using old and dirty technologies, they do not strictly control air quality in manufacturing plants, and such production processes emit plenty of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, which contributes to greenhouse gases (GHGs), which contributes to global warming and climate change. 

The solution therefore, is to impose a “carbon tax” on imported manufactured goods from poorer countries that do not strictly limit their carbon emission. This tax is meant to “compensate” for the use of dirty manufacturing technologies that “contribute to global warming”, resulting in lower amount of importation (since the imported goods have become more expensive), lower amount of carbon emission in the world.

This reasoning is faulty on two counts. One, it is wrong to restrict international trade because it reduces or kills the right of choice of the local consumers. And two, it is wrong to blame carbon dioxide as the “cause” of global warming. See my article last week on this, “Cooling reality vs Warming politics.”

It is important that Atlas continues holding its annual Liberty Forum because the forum helps not only to discuss and clarify certain issues that affect the world, issues that affect the individual liberty of people around the world. The forum also allows liberty fighters to network with each other, to learn from each other.
----------


See also:
Free Trade 6: Counterfeit Drugs Worldwide, December 21, 2007
Free Trade 7: Class War, Eco-protectionism and Climate, April 02, 2008
Free Trade 8: Global RIce Price, May 13, 2008
Free trade 9: Parallel Importation of Medicines, May 22, 2008
Free Trade 10: More on Unilateral Trade Liberalization, July 15, 2008
Free Trade 11: Global Petition, Keynes, March 19, 2009

Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP

Liberty is a philosophical concept often associated or deemed synonymous with freedom, democracy and sovereignty. But while freedom can be a close synonym of liberty, democracy and sovereignty may not be. This is because liberty has two wide connotations: collective liberty and individual liberty. Democracy (the will of the majority) and sovereignty (freedom from foreign colonialism or domination) therefore, connotes more of collective (national, regional, community) liberty and cannot be a substitute for individual liberty.

This distinction is very important because most -- if not all -- public policies and institutional or organizational tools and rules that oppress or harass the individual, are done in the name of the collective, in the spirit of “country/nation first before self” or “community first before the individual”.

There is one case though, when collective liberty can be equivalent to or synonymous with individual liberty: when the collective is done or aggregated in a voluntary way, and not forcibly imposed. Examples of voluntary collectivism are civic organizations, sports clubs, neighborhood associations, among others. Here, individuals join voluntarily, or were invited and sponsored by their close friends or associates, and individuals have the option or freedom to get out of such collective. And the voluntary organization or collective can possibly die when it no longer enjoys the support of its members. This is also the essence of “civil society”.

When a collective is done forcibly, ie, individuals are mandated or coerced to belong to a collective, this is considered “forced collectivism” and cannot be considered as synonymous with individual liberty. The single biggest example of forced collectivism is Government (local or national). There are plenty of public policies that assert or impose forced collectivism, foremost of which are the various taxes and regulations, restrictions and prohibitions unless those regulated will first secure the approval and signatures of the regulators.

In many lectures, symposia and conferences on economics, business and politics, the primacy of individual liberty and the dangers of imposed collectivism are hardly mentioned, or none at all. The mere absence of this reminder or distinction already reflects the triumph of forced collectivism in the minds of the public.

Thus, if one finds a symposium or conference where the primacy of individual liberty is often mentioned, if not made a central theme of the activity, one is considered very lucky.

The annual “Atlas Liberty Forum” by the Atlas Economic Research Foundation (www.atlasnetwork.org) can be considered as one of those very few conferences around the world were individual liberty and the importance of free market is a constant central theme. Some panel discussions that mention collective liberty refer to the voluntary collectivism strand.

When I and a few friends in Manila formed “Minimal Government” around February 2004, we knew that we were free marketers, we knew that we believed in “minimal government = minimal taxes = minimal bureaucracy”, but we did not realize much the distinction between individual and collective liberty, we did not know much about the free market and liberty movement around the world, we barely knew any free market-oriented think tank or institute outside of the Philippines.

These all changed, almost abruptly, when Atlas offered me an international fellowship in April 2004. There were several activities for an international fellow, one of which was attend the “Atlas Liberty Forum”. It was the 4th liberty forum and held in Chicago. That was my first “baptism” of what a liberty forum looks like, and a wide world of free market-oriented independent think tanks from many countries and continents around the world slowly unfolded before my eyes.

The forum and various panel discussions were very helpful and educational, but the most important aspect of the activity that I later realized, was the “liberty networking”. First, my roommate in the hotel would turn out to be among my closest friends in the liberty movement, Mr. Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute in Delhi, India. Second, a number of new friends and allies that I met there five years ago, especially those from Asia, I would meet in other succeeding international and regional conferences and meetings; or at least correspond regularly by email. And third, collaborative work and campaigns among ally think tanks would soon be initiated and sustained.

(With JTR President Mr. You, and Atlas President Alex Chafuen, Atlanta, 2008)

My second attendance of the Atlas Liberty Forum was in Atlanta, Georgia, April 2008. This time, I was a confident participant who knew a number of other international and American participants and speakers. And this time, my interest was more on the panel discussions on fund-raising, though the discussions on liberty issues, like the panel on “Promoting freedom in difficult countries”, were also very informative.

Any serious liberty-oriented think tank or political movement needs substantial financial resources, for obvious reason. But a more specific reason not known to many people, is that more serious free marketers do not solicit or accept any government money (local, national or inter-governmental/multilateral) or funding from any political party, to keep and sustain their full independence from governments and political parties. Whereas most think tanks and political groups, including many NGOs and civil society organizations (CSOs) get substantial funding from governments, inter-governmental or multilateral institutions, and political parties.

Thus, fundraising is a recurrent topic in every annual Atlas Liberty Forum. This coming Liberty Forum will be held in Los Angeles, California, April 24-26 of this year.

Participants of this forum, as well as symposia, training and conferences by allied think tanks and institutes, are constantly reminded, explicitly or implicitly, that they are fighting for a society, they are envisioning a world, where the individual is not taken for granted or oppressed, in the pursuit of collective freedom and economic development.
---------

My recent short paper on liberty and liberalism,

Liberal Tradition and the Liberal Party

A relatively known political strategist and blogger discussed the question, "What's the matter with Mar?" to refer to the low popularity as a Presidential candidate in the Presidential elections next year of Liberal Party President, Sen. Mar Roxas. The author, Mr. Lito Banayo (http://litobanayo.blogspot.com/2009/02/whats-matter-with-mar.html), asked, "How come he ranks low, even behind his fellow senator Ping Lacson, who has not bothered to move around the country nor advertise his wares yet?"

I think Mar and the LP need to reassert the classical liberal agenda. The primacy of individual liberty, the limits and some dangers of (forcible) collective liberty like nationalism, protectionism and property rights confiscation.

This is because almost ALL political parties in this country, big and small, are warped in the semi-socialist slogan, "country/collective over the individual". Isn't the progress and growth of society ultimately measured by the freedom and progress of the individual?

There are many negative implications of forcing collective liberty over the individual: the individual should not become very rich, he cannot be allowed to become super-rich, his income, his cars, his house/s and properties, his company, his savings, his travels, his consumption, his estate to his children and grandchildren, etc. need to be over-taxed and over-regulated. And the "guardians" of the collective -- the government and its thick army of politicians and bureaucrats -- will get the confiscated incomes and savings to force equality in society, even to the point of rewarding and subsidizing the lazy and irresponsible -- after putting huge share of such resources for the salaries and perks of the "guardians".

This is not to say that LP and Mar should strictly embrace that classical liberal philosophical tradition, but anything closer to that tradition, and away from the populist, collectivist, if not confiscatory mindset, will make Mar and the LP unique. Too many businessmen and entrepreneurs want a break from the choking bureaucracies, taxes and fees that all administrations in the past, regardless of their political parties, have instituted and/or maintained. This group of entrepreneurs will be a huge army of supporters and allies for the party.

---------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 1: Minimal Government Manifesto, October 18, 2005

Pol. Ideology 2: Evolution of Market and State, October 25, 2005

Pol. Ideology 3: Liberal vs. Libertarian, November 06, 2005

Pol. Ideology 4: Comments to Minimal Government Manifesto,  December 05, 2005

Pol. Ideology 5: Have Movements for Liberty Progressed? June 26, 2006

Pol. Ideology 6: Quotes from Adam Smith, February 04, 2007
Pol. Ideology 7: Individualism, Entitlement and Freedom, April 30, 2007
Pol. Ideology 8: Ideas on Liberty, September 15, 2007
Pol. Ideology 9: Liberty and Choice, Atlanta and HK Conferences, June 09, 2008
Pol. Ideology 10: Joe Stiglitz and the Market, December 16, 2008

Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009

Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009

Free Trade 11: Global Petition, Keynes

Yesterday, I wrote this:

There is an on-going global campaign against the wave of protectionism. An international coalition composed of individuals and institutes or think tanks, explicitly free marketer or not, will be formed. This campaign and coalition has been initiated by the International Policy Network (IPN) and the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, two of the closest friends of MG Thinkers.

May I encourage readers to sign this petition, below.

http://atlasnetwork.org/tradepetition/
http://freedomtotrade.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=4a59832f04a5d6164a0b81a24&id=6cdd6e9f9d

This petition will be presented in London during the G20 summit (2-3 April).

Free trade is freedom to trade and exchange.
Zero coercion or restriction.
Period.

regards,

Nonoy Oplas
-----------

Petition:

Free Trade Is the Best Policy

The specter of protectionism is rising. It is always a dangerous and foolish policy, but it is especially dangerous at a time of economic crisis, when it threatens to damage the world economy. Protectionism’s peculiar premise is that national prosperity is increased when government grants monopoly power to domestic producers. As centuries of economic reasoning, historical experience, and empirical studies have repeatedly shown, that premise is dead wrong. Protectionism creates poverty, not prosperity. Protectionism doesn’t even “protect” domestic jobs or industries; it destroys them, by harming export industries and industries that rely on imports to make their goods. Raising the local prices of steel by “protecting” local steel companies just raises the cost of producing cars and the many other goods made with steel. Protectionism is a fool’s game.

But the fact that protectionism destroys wealth is not its worst consequence. Protectionism destroys peace. That is justification enough for all people of good will, all friends of civilization, to speak out loudly and forcefully against economic nationalism, an ideology of conflict, based on ignorance and carried into practice by protectionism.

Two hundred and fifty years ago, Montesquieu observed that “Peace is the natural effect of trade. Two nations who differ with each other become reciprocally dependent; for if one has an interest in buying, the other has an interest in selling; and thus their union is founded on their mutual necessities.”

Trade’s most valuable product is peace. Trade promotes peace, in part, by uniting different peoples in a common culture of commerce – a daily process of learning others’ languages, social norms, laws, expectations, wants, and talents.

Trade promotes peace by encouraging people to build bonds of mutually beneficial cooperation. Just as trade unites the economic interests of Paris and Lyon, of Boston and Seattle, of Calcutta and Mumbai, trade also unites the economic interests of Paris and Portland, of Boston and Berlin, of Calcutta and Copenhagen – of the peoples of all nations who trade with other.

A great deal of rigorous empirical research supports the proposition that trade promotes peace.

Perhaps the most tragic example of what happens when that insight is ignored is World War II.

International trade collapsed by 70 percent between 1929 and 1932, in no small part because of America’s 1930 Smoot-Hawley tariff and the retaliatory tariffs of other nations. Economist Martin Wolf notes that “this collapse in trade was a huge spur to the search for autarky and Lebensraum, most of all for Germany and Japan.”

The most ghastly and deadly wars in human history soon followed.

By reducing war, trade saves lives.

Trade saves lives also by increasing prosperity and extending it to more and more people. The evidence that freer trade promotes prosperity is simply overwhelming. Prosperity enables ordinary men and women to lead longer and healthier lives.

And with longer, healthier lives lived more peacefully, people integrated into the global economy have more time to enjoy the vast array of cultural experiences brought to them by free trade. Culture is enriched by contributions from around the world, made possible by free trade in goods and in ideas.

Without a doubt, free trade increases material prosperity. But its greatest gift is not easily measured with money. That greatest gift is lives that are freer, fuller, and far less likely to be scalded or destroyed by the atrocities of war.

Accordingly, we the undersigned join together in a plea to the governments of all nations to resist the calls of the short-sighted and the greedy to raise higher the barriers to trade. In addition, we call on them to tear down current protectionist barriers to free trade. To each government, we say: let your citizens enjoy not only the fruits of your own fields, factories, and genius, but also those of the entire globe. The rewards will be greater prosperity, richer lives, and enjoyment of the blessings of peace.

Sign the Petition
http://freedomtotrade.list-manage.com/subscribe?u=4a59832f04a5d6164a0b81a24&id=6cdd6e9f9d
------

Today, I received a comment from a Filipino friend based in Europe. He wrote,

I just read an interesting passage from John Maynard Keynes on his 'National Self-sufficiency' , which could be interpreted as his proposition that 'de-globalisation' (or a certain degree of protectionism) or national self-suficiency or nationalisation of finance - and not free trade actually promotes peace and development. Keynes wrote:

I sympathize, therefore, with those who would minimize, rather than with those who would maximize, economic entanglement among nations. Ideas, knowledge, science, hospitality, travel – these are the things which should of their nature be international. But let goods be homespun whenever it is reasonably and conveniently possible, and, above all, let finance be primarily national. Yet, at the same time, those who seek to disembarrass a country of its entanglements should be very slow and wary. It should not be a matter of tearing up roots but of slowly training a plant to grow in a different direction.

'For these strong reasons, therefore, I am inclined to the belief that, after the transition is accomplished, a greater measure of national self-sufficiency and economic isolation among countries than existed in 1914 may tend to serve the cause of peace, rather than otherwise. At any rate, the age of economic internationalism was not particularly successful in avoiding war; and if its friends retort, that the imperfection of its success never gave it a fair chance, it is reasonable to point out that a greater success is scarcely probable in the coming years.' (Keynes 1933/1972).

My friend added, "I think your ranks or 'the big names' themselves should come back debating the ideas of Keynes, especially that this crisis moment when 'we all seem to be Keynesian now' as the Financial Times put it a few months ago."

It's good that Keynes recognized the internationality or globalized character, of knowledge, science, travel, etc. I think if he were alive today, he will also recognize the globalized character (hence, must not be "caged" in any national boundary) of sports, culture, music, adventure, online networking (facebook, friendster,...).

So why would he propose to "cage" goods to national territories and not be internationally exchanged and traded freely? Is it wrong for my HP laptop, your (probably Nokia) cellular phone, someone's Ford expedition or Toyota Avanza, other people's gadgets, appliances, cars, shoes, salmon, Australian beef, etc. to be traded internationally? I cannot see any point why it is wrong.

Protectionism for me, is dictatorship.
The protectionists are dictating us to whom we can sell, to whom we can buy, at how much quantity, at what price and tax rates, when we can buy or sell, etc.

Under free trade, there is zero restriction, zero coercion.

A Finnish cell phone manufacturer can offer us their best models, but we can say "No, we're not buying from you, we prefer Korean or Japanese cellphones, or we want Taiwanese or Chinese copycats..."

A carinderia (streetside foodshops) owner can say "it's good to patronize onions and vegetables from the Cordilleras (mountain provinces in northern Philippines), but my customers are ordinary folks and jobless people who want the cheapest food possible, and imported onions and vegetables from Taiwan or Vietnam are a lot cheaper than those coming from the Cordilleras..."

A free trader ideologue (like me) can theorize from that carinderia owner's statement that "free trade of onions and veggies will help enable the poorest of the urban poor in the Philippines to deal with the current global economic turmoil and high unemployment. "

Talking about "free trade = peace", maybe the best examples will be Hong Kong and North Korea. HK being the epitome of free trade in Asia, has zero external threat of war (even if one will remove the "China's army" factor). The biggest banks, the biggest clothing and apparel manufacturers and distributors, the biggest hotel chains, the biggest food chains, etc. of the US, Europe, Japan, Canada, Korea, etc. have offices in HK. Any country that dare invade and attack HK will face the most modern fighter planes and armies of those countries mentioned.

In contrast, North Korea, autarkic except limited trade with neighboring China and S. Korea, is suspected by many countries around the world, in Asia especially, of possibly starting a war, or inviting a war, partly because of the absence of free flow of goods and services across its borders, absence of the internationality of the wwweb and the information it brings, etc.

"We're all Keyneysians now" were uttered by people who love more government, more borrowings and taxes, more intervention and regulations, more politicians and bureaucrats. I dont think the owners of yahoo, google, facebook, linux, etc. would ever desire and hope for such kind of a business environment. And yet these are among the companies that make lots of money with almost zero government subsidy and "support".
--------

See also:
Free Trade 1: Estonia's Free Market, Globalization, May 09, 2006
Free Trade 2: Unilateral Trade Liberalization, May 17, 2006
Free Trade 3: Protectionism Perpetuate Poverty, September 05, 2006
Free Trade 4: FTA in APEC, July 09, 2007
Free Trade 5: Business , Rock Music and Cycling Globalization, July 17, 2007
Free Trade 10: More on Unilateral Trade Liberalization, July 15, 2008