Jop Yap on Trump-Putin connection

Posting with permission Dr. Josef "Jop" Yap's take on the recent US elections. The images are my addition, not part of Jop's paper. My brief comments after his article.
-----------

The Russians Did Influence the Outcome of the 2016 US Elections

Josef T. Yap

Many are stunned and dismayed by the victory of Donald J. Trump as President of the United States. He was a severely flawed candidate, the Republican Party was splintered, and he was behind in the polls.

However, Trump actually obtained less votes than Mitt Romney did in 2012 and is barely ahead of the 2008 total of John McCain. In other words Trump did not win the election; it is more accurate to say that Hillary Clinton lost the election. Another way of putting it is Trump did not break through the Clinton firewall of electoral votes, the latter crumbled under its own weight.

Number of votes for the presidential candidate of each party
	Democratic	Republican
2008	69,498,516	59,948,323
2012	65,915,795	60,933,504
2016 (as of this writing)	60,467,601	60,072,551

Comparing her performance with that of Barack Obama, there was a pool of anywhere between 5-9 million voters that Clinton was not able to motivate to go to the polls. As a matter of fact, the voter turnout in 2016 was the lowest in 20 years. Based on the analysis of FiveThirtyEight and my own rough calculations, if only 1 million of these potential voters had cast their vote for Clinton, she would have handily won in the Electoral College.

The question is what prompted the 5-9 million to not vote? A significant number of the non-voters are likely members of the Bernie or Bust group. This can easily be verified by an appropriate survey. For instance a national exit poll suggests more young adults in 2016 than in 2012 “supported a third-party candidate, did not vote for a presidential candidate, or specifically chose not to answer this poll question,” according to the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE).

It is evident that supporters of Bernie Sanders were miffed by the contents of emails related to the 2016 Democratic National Committee leak.  A collection of DNC emails leaked to and subsequently published by WikiLeaks on July 22, 2016 prompted the resignation of DNC chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz before the Democratic National Convention. There was palpable tension during the convention and this adversely affected party unity. Subsequently, cybersecurity firms and American intelligence officials stated "high confidence" that Russian intelligence services were responsible for the leak.

There are other reasons that discouraged potential Clinton supporters from voting, e.g. a weak message, the private email server controversy, and voter suppression. However, Americans, including Trump supporters, should be very concerned that the Russian intelligence played a crucial role in the outcome of the election. At the very least this gives some credibility to Clinton’s claim that Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin.

- - - - - - - 

I googled "Trump and Russia", I chose these six stories from page 1 or top 10 news of google on the subject. Why these six, well I believe they are among the world's biggest media outlets.

I told Jop that while I subscribe to his suggestion that the low voter turn out especially from the Democrat side was a big factor for the HRC loss, I disagree with his conclusion that Russia and Putin have a big hand in Trump's victory. Especially this sentence, "this gives some credibility to Clinton’s claim that Trump is a puppet of Vladimir Putin."

That's putting too much credit to the Russians even if they do not deserve it. Like the PH left giving too much credit to the US government for the Marcos downfall in 1986. These guys are not sooo bright and American voters, Filipino voters, are not sooo lousy as one may assume.

I believe that Trump's climate and energy policies -- more fracking, more shale gas and oil, more clean coal, opening of Keystone gas pipeline, etc. -- these are sure fire measures to flood the US and global market of more oil, hence cheaper oil, and hence more economic misery for Putin and Russia. HRC would be a good ally for Putin because the lady is for more expensive energy via continued renewables cronyism, more energy subsidies, unfriendly to fracking, etc.

Jop made further comments:

I carefully chose to use "crucial role" in describing the role of Russian intelligence. Indeed there were several factors that disillusioned the 5-9 million (Democrat voters):

1. Weak message of the Clinton campaign;

2. Perception of dishonesty (controversy surrounding private email server)

3. Voter suppression

4. Bernie or bust supporters (who were clearly miffed by the contents of the leaked DNC emails)

Let us assign 2 million votes to each of these factors, which is not a strong assumption. The Russian influence is reflected in item [4]. Yes it is not big but it is crucial in the sense that only a million votes would have tipped the election in Clinton's favor.

Hmmm, Jop got a point there. It is possible that Putin is unhappy with Trump's cheaper energy policies but happy with his non- or less-combative foreign policies towards Russia, the pains from the former are lower than the gains from the latter.

I do not have enough information to confirm or question this hypothesis but for now, it sounds plausible.

-----------

Other papers by Jop here: 
Welfare Economics: Philippine Institutional Issues, November 14, 2011 
Free Trade 33: ASEAN Economic Community 2016, February 16, 2014 
Winners and losers in the 2016 elections, by Dr. Jop Yap, May 10, 2016 
Telcos, Pacquiao and China, by Dr. Jop Yap, July 13, 2016

Winners and losers in the 2016 elections, by Dr. Jop Yap

A friend, Josef "Jop" Yap, former faculty member of the UP School of Economics (UPSE), then President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and now back at UPSE, sent this to me. I like it, I asked for permission to post in this blog, he said Yes. So here it is.

Winners and Losers in the 2016 National Election

by  Dr. Josef “Jop” Yap

May 10, 2016, 1pm

Winner: Leni Robredo

The epitome of a reluctant candidate. The sincerity and candor she displayed during the campaign is refreshing and admirable. Her path to the 2022 Presidential elections has suddenly opened up.

Loser: Jojo Binay

He campaigned for the Presidency as soon as he upset Mar Roxas for the position of Vice-President. Personally, I am more relieved that we avoided such an obnoxious first family.

Winner: Mar Roxas

From the beginning his campaign was beleaguered by an image of non-winnability. This caused a division in the Aquino camp, with some openly supporting Grace Poe. His second place finish demonstrates that the Aquino camp should have put more faith and trust in Roxas.

Loser: Chiz Escudero

His ambition for the Presidency has been oozing from his body language. He convinced Grace Poe to run for President in order for her not to be a threat in 2022. At least we won’t have Heart as first lady.

Winner: Survey firms

The results of the election surveys reflected the actual outcomes fairly accurately. This has become a deterrent against massive cheating operations. Congratulations to Filipino statisticians!

Loser: Liberal Party Campaign Strategy

The last-minute attempt to unite the candidacies of Roxas and Poe was so pathetic. In particular, Mar Roxas looked so presumptuous and arrogant when he called on Grace Poe to meet with him to discuss the possibility of one of them dropping out.

Winner (TBD): Rodrigo Duterte

The candidate who came in from the cold. But it remains to be seen if he emerges a true winner. The Presidency may be way over his head. And with Robredo as VP, the threat of another people power “revolution” will always hound him.

Loser (TBD): Bong Bong Marcos

His strong run for VP shows that the Marcos mystique is still alive. Will Marcos’ loss derail his bid for the Presidency? Will there be Leni-BBM 2? Abangan.

Big Winner: The Filipino People

Voter turnout remains strong in national elections. Filipinos want their voices to be heard.

Big Loser: 1986 EDSA Coalition

For 30 years the Aquino-RAM-Church alliance held power behind the veneer of having instigated a revolution. The victory of Duterte and the strong showing of Bong Bong Marcos have wrecked this fantasy.

Biggest Loser: The Filipino People

When will we ever learn?

---------

I made this small matrix summarizing Jop’s arguments. Then my comments below.

Winners	Losers
1. Leni Robredo. Path to the 2022 Presidential elections opened up.	1. Jojo Binay. Relief that we avoided an obnoxious first family.
2. Mar Roxas. Aquino camp should have put more faith in him.	2. Chiz Escudero. Chance as President in 2022 is drained.
3. Survey firms. Surveys reflected actual outcomes accurately, a deterrent against major cheating.	3. LP Campaign. Attempt to unite Roxas - Poe was  pathetic, Mar looked presumptuous and arrogant.
4. Rodrigo Duterte. Came in from the cold, Presidency may be way over his head.	4. Bong Bong Marcos. Loss can derail his bid for Presidency. Or a Leni-BBM 2 in 2022?
5. Filipino People. Voter turnout strong, Filipinos want to have their voices heard.	5. 1986 EDSA Coalition. Duterte victory and strong showing of BBM  wrecked a fantasy.
	6. Filipino People. When will we ever learn?

Overall, good analysis by Jop. In particular, I agree with his list of winners, except #2. Mar Roxas simply lost. In elections, there are no silver medalists, it’s a winner take all situation. I will add that Jop failed to mention the COMELEC as a big winner here, public trust and respect for the institution is very high now for its conduct of peaceful, credible, and quick-results elections.

For Jop’s list of losers, I agree with all, except #6. The Filipino people overall is a winner here. Generally peaceful elections, except for a few isolated violence and murders. If we have to add a 6^th loser, it is the philosophy of welfarism as a paramount concern for Filipino voters. No, Duterte has shown that the paramount concern for many Filipinos is the fight against criminality, the protection of their lives and private property against murderers, thieves, rapists, drug pushers, etc.

Free Trade 33: ASEAN Economic Community 2016

The ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) will materialize by December 31, 2015. Of course there are no business transactions on a new year, so AEC will start on January 1, 2016 or nearly two years from now. The original target of AEC was January 01, 2015 but since some country-members of ASEAN are "not yet ready" in some sectors, a one-year postponement was the compromise move.

Last Thursday, February 13, I attended a forum on "In Sync: An Evaluation of the ASEAN 2015 Integration" at my alma mater, the UP School of Economics (UPSE), organized by my student organization then, the Economics Towards Consciousness (UP ETC). Speakers were Dr. Josef "Jop" Yap, a Professor at the school and past President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS), and Dr. Lei Lei Song, Principal Economist at the Office of Regional Economic Integration (OREI), Asian Development Bank (ADB).

Below are three of the many slides presented by Jop.

The Philippines lacks more capitalism. Even socialist and late-comer Vietnam is more integrated with global business and capitalism than the Philippines. Of course socialist China is even more integrated with global capitalism with exports of more than $2 trillion in 2012.

This table affirms what Jop has been trying correcting one urban legend, that after WW2, the 50s and 60s, Philippines was "2nd only to Japan" economically, referring to per capita GDP. That is wrong. At least four neighboring countries have larger per capita GDP than the Philippines -- HK, Singapore, S. Korea, Malaysia.

Another table showing that the Philippines is not able to optimize its integration with global business and capital. Even socialist Vietnam has more than double foreign direct investment (FDI) that we got in 2012.

The AEC will have a combined consumer base of around 670 million people, twice the US population. The common market (but no common currency like the EU, thanks) will be composed of three major components:

* ATIGA – ASEAN Trade in Goods Agreement

* AFAS – ASEAN Framework Agreement on Services

* ACIA – ASEAN Comprehensive Investment Agreement

Some key policy measures to be prioritized by 2015 are:

S  Tariff and Non-Tariff Measures;

S  Trade facilitation;

S  Services liberalization and domestic reform;

S  Investment liberalization and facilitation;

S  Connectivity and transport facilitation;

S  Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership

Then after 2015, the priority measures will be:

S  standards and conformance

S  capital market development and financial market integration

S  MRAs on professional services and labor mobility

S  ICT, energy

S  Intellectual property rights (IPR)

S  competition policy

S  agriculture liberalization

S  others (consumer protection, taxation,…)

Before the forum started, photo with Jop and his wife, Dr. Ermi Figueroa-Yap. Ermi was my roommate along with Dr. Butch Lanzona of Ateneo Economics Department, in one room at the school when I was the research assistant of Dr. Florian Alburo in the mid-80s. Jop was finishing his PhD Econ at that time, I think.

The two speakers. A third speaker, Dr. Rafaelita Aldaba of PIDS and also recently appointed as DTI Assistant Secretary, failed to come.

Some of the early birds at the forum.

A common question that free marketers and free traders must grapple: should they support government-initiated free trade agreements (FTAs) or economic partnership agreements (EPAs)?

Some say No, that international trade should be kept out of government hands. This looks sensible because in reality, neither governments nor countries trade with each other. People do, and when people engage in trade and voluntary exchange, the requirements and specifications are simple and unique to their specific needs. When governments come in, some less relevant factors are brought into the equation.

But I recognize that a "zero government in trade" (anarchist position) is impossible, next year or next 20 years or beyond. Having FTAs and EPAs are the second-best choice that free marketers can support.
-----------

See also:
Business 360 8: TPP, RCEP, SAARC and Free Trade, June 17, 2013 
Free Trade 30: BIPOR and APTIR, January 03, 2013 
Free Trade 31: FTAs, EPAs and the Heckscher-Ohlin Theorem, January 10, 2014 
Free Trade 32: Hong Kong's Unilateral Trade Liberalization and John Cowperthwaite, February 12, 2014

Foreign Aid 15: Shrink the IMF

I forwarded my article in interaksyon, Why the IMF is irrelevant in thePhilippines, to Dr. Josef “Jop” Yap, the President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) because it was the PIDS that sponsored the forum where the IMF regional officer, Dr. Anoop Singh, spoke. Jop replied that he shared my article with the PIDS staff, thanks Jop.

He added that the IMF need not be dismantled, that it only has to refocus and should have been done in the past, but the Fund has no clout over the major country credits including the US.

I replied to Jop saying that when the IMF is into solving inequality and ensuring inclusive growth, it is simply feeling hollow and shallow and tries to step into WB and ADB forte just to make itself feel relevant in countries that do not need it. IMF should make its presence be felt strongly in Europe and North America where current account and BOP problems are annual if not daily realities.

When an economy is bleeding in its current account and overall BOP, its monetary and fiscal authorities panic and engage in heavy currency, interest rates, and capital account manipulations, plus tinkering with their taxpayers' level of patience or anger.

So I think the IMF is abolishable, or at least shrinkable. Say, dismantle their country offices even temporarily, in countries like the Philippines and many Asian economies where they are not needed now and in the short term. 

Europe and even North America are staring them in the face point blank. The bank run in tiny Cyprus and public anger over the bailout conditions, a high tax on bank deposits, is challenging the IMF to address problems on huge BOP imbalances. Uncertainty in that tiny European economy (1 million people and now needing $10 B bailout money from ECB and IMF) even has negative repercussions in the PH stockmarket. 

It is simply lousy for the IMF to announce its migration of function to solving inequality and "non-inclusive" growth, when many European economies are wobbly precisely because of their very expensive welfare system to solve inequality and non-inclusive growth there.

In the said interaksyon article, some comments were posted. I am reposting the more substantial comments and my reply to them.

Population Control 7: I am Supporting the RH bill

Yes, I am supporting the government-sponsored population control measure aka the Reproductive Health (RH) bill. PROVIDED that government will also cut or discontinue some of its existing but ineffective social programs.

As of July 2011, there were an estimated 37.11 million employed Filipinos. We assume that all of them are taxpayers, directly or indirectly. This year, interest payment alone (principal amortization not included) of the national government will be P357 billion. This means that each employed person in this country would fork out something like P9,622 of taxes for interest payment alone this year. Then they have to fork out more taxes to sustain the millions of bureaucracies from the local to national government agencies, up to the multilateral and foreign aid bodies like the UN, WB and ADB who all live off on tax money.

I read that with or without the RH bill, the DOH has already alloted some P7 billion for reproductive health-related spending. People are liabilities, the government and the RH bill supporters say, so their number should be reduced by giving couples various "options and choices" to plan their household size. Never mind the taxpayers including those who have no kids, they have no choice whether to support or opt out of these new spending.

Meanwhile, a friend in facebook posted something like this after Pacquiao's split decision victory over Marquez two weeks ago:

Manny Pacquiao, you now believe in "MAJORITY DECISION." Perhaps you know now the statement from the Social Weather Stations (SWS) survey this year, "that 73% of Filipinos want to get information on all legal methods of family planning (FP) from the government and that 68% wants the government to fund all means of family planning." That's majority decision.

And I replied to him, :And if you ask also the people, 'Do you want subsidized or free healthcare and housing, subsidized or free train ride and jeepney fare, subsidized or free cell phones and electricity, subsidized or free farm tractor and fishing boats, etc., government will fully fund those subsidies?', I think 90-100% of them will say Yes. Majority decision too."

Below are some data from Dr. Jop Yap of PIDS. This is part of his paper delivered during the Philippine Economic Society (PES) conference a few weeks ago. I thanked Jop for sharing with me his data.

See the low working age / dependents ratio in Singapore, Thailand, China and Korea? This should be directly or indirectly related to their past population control policies. Soon, their oldies will be needing robots and migrant workers to take care of them as the number of their young population is small in relation to the oldies.

Welfare Economics: Philippine Institutional Issues

There were a number of good papers presented during the Philippine Economic Society (PES) Conference last week, see my previous post here, 11-11-11. Among such papers was the closing presentation by Dr. Josef "Jop" Yap, President of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Jop is also a friend from the UP School of Economics. He quickly sent me his powerpoint presentation when I requested for it -- thanks a lot, Jop.

Jop's presentation was rather comprehensive, from correcting certain misconceptions about the Philippine economy, to institutional issues that keep it from really developing.

My favorite part was his debunking of two such myths which even reach regional and international conferences : (1) that the Philippine economy was "second to Japan" in development after WW II, and (2) the Philippine economy lost a decade during the Martial Law period of the Marcos administration.

Here, Jop said (1) is not true. In the 50s, Thailand and/or Malaysia were more developed or have higher per capita income than the Philippines.

By 1960, the "tiger economies" of Hong Kong, Singapore, Korea and Taiwan, plus Malaysia were already much ahead of the Philippines. We were only richer than Thailand and Indonesia then.

The second myth that Jop debunked was that we "lost" two decades, not just one, from the early 80s to early 2000s. "Lost decades" here mean the absence of growth -- either a decline or a flat -- in per capita income.