Weekend Fun 62, The invisible hand

I got this from an economist friend's fb wall. Brilliant humor.

“By directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention.” -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations

This slide I got from an Indonesian friend presented at the EFN Asia conference 2004 in HK.

On another note, it will be the UPSE annual alumni homecoming later today. I will attend, as usual.

These 5 political personalities, either UPSE alumni or faculty member, will come today, except Ben Diokno whom I heard is abroad this weekend.

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

See also:
Weekend fun 23: Economist Jokes, September 24, 2011

Weekend Fun 59, Laglag bala extortion at PH airports, November 06, 2015

Weekend Fun 60, Equality vs. equity, sameness vs. fairness, justice vs. laziness, January 30, 2016 

Weekend fun 61, Math jokes, March 13, 2016

Climate Tricks 54, Forcing the linkage between climate change and dengue

A friend from UP, Oggie Arcenas, wrote this discussion note at the UPSE website. In  his concluding notes, he  wrote,

"La Niña phenomenon is positively (and significantly) associated with dengue cases. La Niña, as widely known, is “cooling” of surface water temperature, inducing an abnormal cycle and intensity of dryness and wetness in different parts of the world. Although La Niña does happen naturally, its increasing frequency is attributed to general global warming."

Some brief comments here.

1. "La Niña, as widely known, is “cooling” of surface water temperature" Vague. La Nina (and El Nino) is cooling (and warming) of Pacific Ocean's Nino Region 3.4 only. Nino Regions 1, 2 not included, Atlantic Ocean or Arctic or Indian Oceans not included. So it is not just any "surface water temp."

2. "La Nina... increasing frequency", Wrong. La Nina and El Nino happen in cycles, each occur every 5-6 years on average.

3. "general global warming." If you mean "unprecedented, unequivocal warming", Wrong. Global warming-global cooling happen in cycles, natural climate cycles, with or without humanity's SUVs or bicycles. The medieval warm period, Roman warm period, Minoan warm period, produced a planet that was much warmer than the modern (or past century's) warm period.

4. "government action, in this regard, would have to be in the form of climate change-proofing the country." ????

Government, the UN, environmentalists, etc. can prevent or control less rain or no rain or more rain? They can control and fight less flood, no flood or more flood, that happen naturally in cycles since millions or even that past 4.6 billion years ago? weird.

A good reminder but many militant environmentalists and planet saviors oppose until now. From WUWT, Zika and Climate, 

"A good start to controlling mosquito borne diseases, might be to remove the pointless bureaucratic obstacles to spraying DDT, one of the most effective anti-mosquito chemicals ever developed.

Use of DDT was almost outlawed after vigorous scare campaigns by green groups, but this much maligned chemical is harmless to humans. Professor Kenneth Mellanby, who campaigned for the use of DDT in the 1940s, used to eat a substantial pinch of concentrated DDT as part of his demonstration. Mellanby did not suffer any health problems from his massive consumption of DDT – he died in 1993, at the age of 85 years." 

An economics study on malaria, Average Household Size and the Eradication of Malaria by  Lena Huldén, Ross McKitrick and Larry Huldén, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, October 2013. 

The paper's findings can apply to dengue, other mosquito-borne diseases. With 4 charts and 2 tables.

I can understand the "climate leaning" of studies from UP and many other colleges and universities. These are mostly USAID, UN, ADB, WHO-funded research projects and all of these institutions peddle the "man-made" CC only. Do not insist the natural or cyclical nature of CC, the "nature-made"CC, there is zero funding from these institutions. So peer-review process will be very limited.

I do not blame Oggie or many other UP economists. The mother of all corruption in the planet is the UN, at least on the climate and energy policies. The corruption and political science aka as UN climate science permeates down to all multilateral and foreign aid agencies, from the WB and IMF down to ADB and regional banks; from UNEP and FCCC to WHO, UNDP, etc.

Paano ba naman, sabihin nila, no nature-made CC, only man-made CC. No global cooling, only global warming. Since it is "man-made" problem, then there are lots of "man-made solutions", doon na papasok sila UN with their global ecological central planning.

Everything in this planet is about natural cycles: day-night cycle, wet-dry cycle, El Nino-La Nina cycle, winter-spring-summer-fall cycle, hydrologic cycle, carbon cycle, nitrogen cycle, solar cycle, lunar cycle,... Tapos walang climate cycle, only "unprecedented, unequivocal man-made warming", 100% political science na.

----------

See also:

Climate Tricks 51, The CCC, Greenpeace and fossil fuels, February 01, 2016 

Climate Tricks 52, Counting temp. change only from the end of LIA, April 23, 2016 

Climate Tricks 53, Paleo-climate data to help counter climate alarmism, June 18, 2016

Climate Tricks 48, Denying climate cycles

Yesterday, I participated in the two-days Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP) Conference 2016. I was one of the panel speakers in the simultaneous discussions and I talked on this subject.

My Outline

I.  Climate change as natural  and cyclical events, not anthropogenic

II. But “man-made” CC means more rains and less rains, more flood and less flood…

III. Renewables to “save the planet”, Germany and UK cases

IV. Expensive electricity + mandatory renewables, Philippine case

V. Towards cheaper, reliable energy sources

VI. Summary and recommendations

I will post only Section I in this article.

Yes, nature including humanity, is about cycles. Birth, procreation, death, creating another generation that will repeat the cycle. Day-night cycle, El Nino - La Nina cycle. The current big El Nino has peaked, so La Nina is coming soon.

The PDO, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) cycle...

Climate changes from warming-cooling-warming-cooling... in endless natural cycles.

CWP was milder compared to MWP and RWP.

There are various types of solar cycles, from  the short-term, average 11-years cycle to multi-decades and hundreds of years cycle. The little ice age (LIA) about two centuries ago occurred during very weak total solar irradiance (TSI), during solar cycle (SC) 4 and 5.

There is also the very long-term Milankovitch cycles.

In one estimate made by systems engineer Dr. Ira Glickstein, he estimated that out of the 0.6 C warming that happened during the CWP that peaked more than a decade ago, "man-made" warming  contributed around 0.1 C while nature-made warming contributed some 0.5 C.

So if people say there is no climate cycle, there is no global cooling, only global warming, they are being dishonest, or duped by the anthropogenic or "man-made" global warming (AGW) alarmism. As I argued in the past, the purpose of climate alarmism is to have more government, more regulations and taxation, more energy favoritism, more costly travel and lifestyle, unless the source of power are the new renewables.
-------------

See also:

Climate Tricks 44, Scary predictions in 2009, August 11, 2015 

Climate Tricks 45, On "vanishing" snow and "Godzilla" El Nino, November 13, 2015 

Climate Tricks 46, More alarmism --> more climate money expectation --> more disappointment, December 12, 2015
Climate Tricks 47, Severe UK flooding due to "man-made" warming, climate change? December 30, 2015

Inequality 23: On Poverty, Agriculture and Motorcycles

Last month, I attended the UPSE-Ayala Corporation Lecture on the Philippine Economic Performance, with NEDA Director General and my former PDE teacher, Dr. Arsenio Balisacan as main speaker. The event was held at Intercon Hotel in Makati, it was an SRO crowd.

The panel of reactors were also high profile, like former NEDA chief Dr. Ciel Habito, former DOF UnderSecretary Romy Bernardo, WB-Philippines chief economist Dr. Karl Chua.

Romy wrote his piece about that forum in BWorld, There’sroom to grow some more, if..., March 08, 2015. 

He also showed these three charts with these notes:

Graph 1: Our investments-to-GDP ratio is still lower than our neighbours’ by far.

Graph 2: Savings vs. Investment -- this makes me cry. We have the domestic resources to put in investments, but instead are going out of the country. The mirror image of the positive current account over a decade.

Graph 3: Net Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) inflows, there’s a slight uptick but a lot of catching up to do vis-à-vis our ASEAN neighbours.

Good observations, Romy. 
But one thing I noticed in that forum were these two mantra, "poverty is still high", "inequality is worsening".

I believe there is deception in these mantra because of the end-goal -- more government welfarism and subsidies, more foreign aid, more taxation to confiscate the income of the rich and "fight inequality", to have forced equality (modern socialism?) if possible.

let me cite some anecdotal stories and proof why I said this.

1. In a rice farming village that  I regularly visit in  Bugallon, Pangasinan (I manage an agro-forestry farm there), before, the poor ride carabaos or cows. Now, the poor ride motorcycles. Almost all houses there have one motorcycle or tricycle. The luckier ones have a 2nd hand car.

2. A big cause or contributor to poverty in villages and areas like this is accidents. People party and drink especially at Fri and Sat nights, and endless accidents happen every week. Household savings can be wiped out in just one accident. The population control advocates were perhaps wrong in legislating for more taxpayers-funded condoms and pills. They should have advocated for cheaper motorcycles and more alcohol, these two are perfect combination  to reduce population, weekly.

3. Agriculture, modernization  is coming rather fast, actually. The use of rural labor with ever-rising government-mandated minimum wage  for rice harvesting is declining. Why? There are now rippers, a small machine operated by just one  person, that can do  the job of 10-15 people in rice harvesting, at a much faster rate, lower cost. To get one rural labor for rice harvest, the going rate is P200 per day with meals, or P250 w/out meals.

The ripper/harvester however, still  requires rich threshing, which means additional cost for the rice farmers. Now there are combiner machines (harvesting + threshing + bagging). Zero labor cost, zero meals cost, zero uncertainty if the workers might go home early and not finish the work. These combiners get around one sack for every 10 sacks of palay harvested, threshed and bagged. Big savings for farmers, meaning higher income. In that town alone, I  heard that there are seven combiner machines or tractors for hire.

4, Inequality is NOT a problem. The poor used to live up to 40 yrs life expectancy, now the poor can live up to 70, 80 years or longer. That means longer, productive life. If inequality is a problem, then any envious or socialist-leaning person can demand that his salary should be at least 10 percent of the monthly pay of Gokongwei or Henry Sy, even if he works only 5 hours a day and party 6 hours a night, every day.

To conclude:

1. As government intervenes more to  "protect labor" (from capitalist exploitation?), entrepreneurs (big and small) hire less labor. Thanks to endless capitalist innovation in technology including farm mechanization.

2. Inequality is not a problem. Poverty is. To reduce poverty, allow the middle class and the rich to create more jobs, to produce more goods and services so that their prices stabilize if not decline, and thus become more affordable to the poor. Or allow the poor to become micro, then small-medium entrepreneur themselves, via less business taxes and bureaucracies. 

-----------

See also:

Inequality 19: Notes and Quotes on Globalization and Inequality, July 18, 2014

Inequality 20: The Top 50 Richest Filipinos, September 01, 2014 

Inequality 21: Marx, Keynes and Pikkety are ideological soulmates, December 01, 2014  

Inequality 22: Ten Men Eating Equally but Paying Unequally, February 27, 2015

UP Hooligans, Part 4

This article by Prof. Antonio “Tonton” Contreras was widely shared in facebook yesterday. It looks cool, well-written, but not necessarily well-argued. An open letter to the UP Hooligans a.k.a. enemies of UP

Among the urban  legends propagated by this article are,

For some, your act was so abominable to a point that 23 members of the faculty of the School of Economics of your University, my Alma Mater, rushed to defend Abad and condemn you in strong words…

In calling you as enemies, they took the side of Abad. In declaring your act as pure hooliganism, they became instruments for a closure of the dynamics of resistance.

Defend (DBM Sec.) Abad? Took the side of Abad?

The statement of the UPSE faculty members is 11 paragraphs long. Nowhere in that statement it said, explicitly or implicitly, that they are “defending Abad” or “taking the side of Abad”. The opening statement was very clear what they were attacking – violence.

We deplore in the strongest terms the violence perpetrated last Wednesday, September 17, by a group of protesters against Secretary Florencio B. Abad outside the U.P. School of Economics auditorium.

In the statement, they were defending only one thing – freedom of expression without physical violence.  Anyway, I posted this generic comment to my friends who posted Tonton’s articles in their  walls:

I am sure many of those UP students who went inside the UPSE auditorium to listen to Sec. Butch were also activists. They listened, they watched, when they went out, they made an academic paper, or blog post, or posted in their fb or twitter their critical observations or disagreement with the Sec. They can hit the Secretary -- with words and ideas, not with coins and plackards and other forms of physical attacks. I call the former "bold, wild and wise" activists whereas the STAND UP activists are "bold, wild and idiot" activists.

Supporters of the 2^nd type of activists did not like it, of course. Here is one exchange. I did not  get his permission to use his comments, so I just refer him here as “Mr. M.” Some readers may be interested to see the other side of the argument, so I  am posting the exchange unaltered, unedited.

--------

Mr. M: Mababait pa nga mga bata ngayon! Kung panahon natin yan Bato, Bote, Bugok na itlog, Bulok na kamatis or baka may kasama pang pillbox , molotov cocktail or granada( if available) ang ipupukol kay Sec. Abad!

Nonoy: Pag govt official like Sec. Abad ang binabato, justified. Pag mga idiot activists ang binabato or ginugulpe, unjustified na kasi human rights violation na; repression of peaceful assembly na. Double talk lang para sigurista.

Mr. M: Sec.Abad should know better than to go to a UP campus and not get some Flack! He got off lightly and unhurt. Just his Pride! For a man with no sense of Honor and Delikadeza! He surely is onion skinned! He should have resigned and not stay on as a cabinet member. His Arrogance like his boss Pnoy and his Lap Dog Perasima are doing more harm than good in the last 2 years of Pres. Pnoy's term. And I voted for Pres.Pnoy, but ano nangyari sa Tuwid na Daan ! Bumaluktot na yata!?

Nonoy: Palusot. The issue is the act of violence by the STAND UP activists. Is it justified? UPSE faculty members said No. UP Pres. said No. Both camps did not say, explicit or implicit, that they are siding with Abad or PNoy or whoever. What they are saying or implying is that people can discuss in UP and advocate same sex marriage, humans and animals marriage, legalization of drugs and prostitution, privatization or further expansion of UP, abolition or further expansion of govt, anything else under the Sun. Do it, speak it, argue passionately -- except using violence. Anyone using violence are low-level minds, have low intellectual caliber for rational debate. By resorting to violence, they show they are plain idiots.

Mr. M. Parang hindi ka naging bata! Mainit ang dugo, mapusok at walang takot! Feeling immortal until the shit hits the fan! Pero Defiant to the end! Yan ang UP student! Yan ang mga Iskolar ng Bayan! You do not agree with what those students did to Sec. Abad!? Being violent for you is low level minded!? You call that Violence!? Parang hindi ka yata napasama sa mga rally noong UP days na truncheon, tear gas, nakulong or hold for 48 hours etc. That is the enviroment of UP not La Salle, UST, Ateneo! But UP! Or you never join any anti government rally or activity nung estudyante ka? Kung panahon nga namin yan for sure some students would be arrested and Sec.Abad would need to go to the E.R? So for you we are low level minded and idiots? UP student ka ba talaga?

5 mins · Like

Nonoy: People are free to do what they want, provided they are accountable for their action or inaction. If those STAND UP activists and their apologists think it was the right thing to do, fine. But other people who do not share their violence mentality are also free to lambast and attack their emotionalism and idiocy. That is what the UPSE faculty members did. They were saying, "Hooligans, do your thing outside of UP, or at least outside of UPSE grounds." If they have to be violent idiots, they should show it elsewhere, not in UPSE grounds.

Mr. M: Then I am a hooligan! And UP hooligan! Am Darn Proud of it!!! : )

Nonoy: Good, That is the right thing to do. Be accountable for one's words and actions.

It's also cool if activists will sing insulting songs while smiling and clapping, as bureaucrats like Butch Abad come out. Another gimik is that the activists will have a group photo with him, all smiling, but at the back there are plackards attacking him, then post in fb or youtube, I think that trick will go viral. No mess, no violence, no controversies, and still effective in attacking him.

I am no fan of Butch myself and the fiscal irresponsibility of this admin -- and all other admins before it. But I can attack them with words and ideas. If thousands of UP students will do the same, many govt bureaucrats will melt.

Mr. M: Sometimes or most of the time, ACTION not words will be more effective for change.....

Nonoy: kanya-kanyang trip yan. People can shoot or stab other people that they dislike actually. So long as people are accountable to their actions, fine. Face the consequences, no running away, no double talk. Pwedeng manggulo or manggulpe ng ibang tao, justified, pero sila hindi pwedeng gulohin at gulpihin, unjustified, kasi human rights violations, kasi abridging freedom of assembly, kasi there is pol. repression, kasi....

---------

To summarize, I am against the use of physical violence and aggression in settling disputes for the following reasons:

1. It is a low-level-mind way of expressing ideas and emotions.

2. It further expands government. It is used as an excuse by the government to keep expanding its armed forces and police and the armaments they wield.

3. Inferior ideas and  dishonest people can be hurt and shamed by truthful and independent analysis. These people use government armed and coercive forces or private armies to harass and terrorize those who  will expose them  and  their  lousy ideas. Thus, the use of violence by the  government or by the activists and/or political opposition in stifling freedom of expression is unjustified. 

--------

See also:

Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad, September 20, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 2, September 20, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 3, September 22, 2014

UP Hooligans, Part 2

This is a continuation of Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad  earlier.

From the Inquirer,  Palace, Abad blast UP campus mob, September 19th, 2014,

“Once I began approaching the Stand UP group, however, the protesters—who were around 50 to 60 strong—did not engage me in dialogue. Instead, they surrounded me aggressively as I made my way toward the vehicle. I had objects thrown at me, and one student even attempted to grab me by the collar.”

Abad was also pelted with coins and the collar-grabbing incident happened as he was getting into his car, according to other accounts gathered by the Inquirer. 

The Secretary was still lucky because he was protected by UP's private security guards. Otherwise, he may have been dragged and punched. The event was organized by the UP Student Council (USC) and venue was the UPSE auditorium. The hooligans are reportedly from the Student Alliance for the Advancement of Democratic Rights in UP (STAND UP).

These minority violent activists -- the majority are non-violent, listened to his presentation, asked questions and more questions, and that's it -- maybe they were trained precisely for violence and stupidity.

Again, I am no fan of Sec. Butch Abad and the fiscal irresponsibility of this and past administrations, But these things can be shown and exposed in public fora, peacefully and with civility, no shouting with invectives nor resorting to violence. 

I like this opinion by Atty. Mel Sta. Maria.

A friend, Prof. Bong Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department, tagged me his facebook comment, "Aren't violating the Constitution and hooliganism crimes? And the former is the graver crime? The much graver crime?So why is A Bad Baby crying and complaining?"

 .

I commented that the Secretary was not "crying and complaining." It was the UPSE faculty members who issued the strong statement indirectly saying, "Hooligans, do your thing outside UP, or outside UPSE. He was formally invited, he agreed to come, treat him as a guest like you treat a guest in your house or party."

If one is invited in a forum to speak on his controversial, "politically incorrect" position, and some guys dislike his ideas and start shouting and throwing things at him, drag and punch him if possible, one would not be happy with it.

Two of Bong's friends came to defend the hooligans. I did not ask for their permission to use their comments, so I will not give their names. Nonetheless, I think  their arguments are worth posting so readers can see another side of the coin.

(1) HD said, 

Abad was no ordinary "guest." He is one of the country's most powerful public officials, with apparent control over P3 trillion pesos and a huge say in how the entire apparatus of the state, which has relative monopoly over the legitimate use of violence in the country, is run. More than that, he is responsible for crafting a scheme which the Supreme Court has found unconstitutional and which many people consider undemocratic at best and immoral at worst. He is therefore accountable to the public and to the people wherever he goes.

But to use the inappropriate analogy, is it really true that we should always and everywhere treat guests with respect? Doesn't it depend on the context--on who the guest is and what he has done? Suppose, to use an analogy that is extreme but that drives home the point, Hitler or Stalin or Bin Laden or Marcos were invited to UP? Should we just bow down to them in respect and treat them like "guests"? No, we have every right, even a moral obligation, to make them feel anything but welcome.

As for being invited to a forum and then suddenly being accosted by my audience, does it not again depend on the context: on what you say during the forum or what you've done before it? If, to use another extremely analogy, I suddenly started yelling 'Kill all the Jews" or "Kill all Muslims", or for that matter if I tell outright lies misleading my audience, then I think my audience have every right--even a moral obligation--to be angry at me and denounce me. If, to use a closer analogy, before coming to the forum I orchestrated a scheme that effectively trashed democracy by usurping the power to decide how to spend hundreds of billions of people's money--then got away with it with impunity, should I really expect my audience to be nice to me or to kiss my feet?

(2) RV said,

"Why the sudden regard of UP Econ faculty on courtesy in exchange of ideas in pious solicitude with Sec. Abad? They were dead silent when then President Gloria Arroyo was mobbed by UP activists when she attended a UP workshop. Not a whimper was heard from this group when then AFP Chief of Staff Esperon was shouted out and hit with hard paper balls by UP students. What is bad for Abad is good for those they loath and dislike? Is this not selective vigilance on civility if not plain hypocrisy?"

#1 is garbage. If Sec. Butch Abad forced his way to UP saying, "I will go to UP even uninvited and lecture on those activists and if they misbehave, I have a platoon of soldiers to deal with them" with arrogance, then he deserves to be treated with arrogance.

Suppose we  replace Butch Abad as the invited guest in the UP forum that day, say it was House Speaker Belmonte, or Sen. JP Enrile or Sen. Jinggoy Estrada, or Jaime Ayala or MV Pangilinan or any other known political and business personality in the country. Some student activists do not like him even before he steps in UP grounds. Does this justify the acts of violence?

#2 is misguided. The UPSE faculty members reacted with strong words because the hooliganism occurred on UPSE grounds. If other faculty members from other colleges have tolerance for physical attacks, or they were shy to confront the hooligans when these student goons disrespect guests in their colleges, that is another issue. The SE faculty members said, "No, we cannot tolerate such hooliganism in our grounds."

Now, see this statement justifying the UP hooligans, 

That statement shows that this group Contend-UP are cowards and misguided. In the UPSE statement, the professors gave all their names, they did not say, "Faculty of UPSE" and not a single name was given. In this statement, zero name, no one is brave enough to own up to such lousy statement.

See their sloganeering, and my commments:

Uphold campus freedom! -- Yes, anyone with a brain and willing to stand by his/her statements are welcome to speak in UP.

Uphold the rights of students to protests and assemblies! -- Yes, but their "rights" do not include the right to physically attack people whom they dislike.

No to campus repression! -- Who repress whom? Any government policeman attacked and arrested any of those hooligans?

Secretary Butch Abad resign now! -- Fine, say it. Loudly, 1,000x, 1M x, but such freedom of expression does not include the "freedom" of physical aggression.

Oust President Aquino! -- same as above.

Make all persons and parties involved in DAP and PDAF accountable! -- same as above.

Down with bureaucrat capitalism! -- Is this the CPP above ground speaking? Very likely, yes.

Emotionalism, Violence and Stupidity: the Attack by UP Student Activists on Sec. Abad

I am not exactly a fan of DBM Secretary Butch Abad. If I have the chance to question him face to face, I will come prepared with lots of numbers and data, but will never do or plan any physical harm. Unfortunately, emotionalism, violence and stupidity has ruled the minds of some idiot activists in UP. Shame on you, mga bobo. If you dislike a person or his/her ideas, hit hard on data and logic, never do physical attacks. The use of physical attacks is among the indicators of mentally sick people.

Reposting this. The photos I added myself and not part of the original statement.

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

Statement from Faculty Members

of the University of the Philippines

School of Economics

We deplore in the strongest terms the violence perpetrated last Wednesday, September 17, by a group of protesters against Secretary Florencio B. Abad outside the U.P. School of Economics auditorium.

Secretary Abad was leaving a just-concluded forum organized by the University Student Council. His way to a waiting vehicle, however, was blocked several times by protesters, who not only shouted slogans and invectives—par for the course at U.P.—but actually assaulted him by throwing placards and metal coins and physically laying hold of him, grabbing his clothing to prevent him from leaving.

What is worse, some student “leaders” thought nothing of gloating about the incident and celebrating their hooliganism in mainstream and social media, as if it were some kind of victory. This incident is not a victory but a blow to UP’s honor.

By participating in these events the protesters have declared themselves enemies, not of Secretary Abad, but of the University itself. As an invited guest, Secretary Abad was covered by the same blanket of academic freedom and safe passage that the University guarantees to all who set foot on campus. The purpose of that high privilege is to guarantee a free traffic in diverse ideas—and of the diverse people who espouse them—which is the lifeblood of a liberal academic institution. Those who violate that security and privilege by resorting to physical threats and violence sow apprehension and fear among bearers of contrary and unfashionable ideas, who would henceforth shy away from participating in the University, resulting in an impoverishment of intellectual life and a reduction of debate to a monologue among the already-converted.

The acts of Wednesday’s protesters, therefore, not only violated decency and courtesy, they were an assault on the University itself.

To remove this blot on the University’s reputation:

We enjoin those who participated in the dishonorable events of last Wednesday—but who were possibly misled or sincerely unaware of the gravity of their acts—to come forward, own up to their participation, and proffer a public apology to Secretary Abad and to the University.

We call upon the University Student Council and other student organizations responsible for organizing the event to publicly dissociate themselves from the actions of Wednesday’s hooligans;

We enjoin the University authorities to begin an inquiry to identify those ultimately responsible for the violence, and who cynically staged the incident, applying penalties, wherever necessary;

We call on the University authorities henceforth to enhance the security provided to invited visitors of the University to prevent a repeat of the said incident.

Finally, we call for a renewed discussion and clarification among faculty, staff and students, of the University’s unwritten rules of free speech and safe passage, to ensure that the University remains a free and fearless field for ideas, where debates are won not by assault but by argument, not by shouting down but by speaking up.

SIGNED

Prof. Rosa M. Alonso i Terme

Prof. Maria Joy V. Abrenica

Prof. Ruperto P. Alonzo

Prof. Agustin L. Arcenas

Prof. Romeo Matthew T. Balanquit

Prof. Joseph J. Capuno

Prof. Fidelina N. Carlos

Prof. Ramon L. Clarete

Prof. Rolando A. Danao

Prof. Sarah Lynne S. Daway

Prof. Emmanuel S. de Dios

Prof. Emmanuel F. Esguerra

Prof. Raul V. Fabella

Prof. Aleli D. Kraft

Prof. Cielo D. Magno

Prof. Maria Nimfa F. Mendoza

Prof. Solita Collas-Monsod

Prof. Toby Melissa C. Monsod

Prof. Marjorie C. Pajaron

Prof. Stella Luz A. Quimbo

Prof. Majah-Leah V. Ravago

Prof. Renato E. Reside

Prof. Gerardo P. Sicat

Free Trade 30: BIPOR and APTIR

Many national and multilateral agencies are known for being Bureaucracies Instigating Protectionism, Outings and Revelries (BIPOR). For instance, to have real free trade as in freedom to trade by the people, there is little or no need for endless negotiations if economies will declare unilateral trade liberalization, like what Hong Kong has done. Just open the borders to various goods and services from many countries at zero tariff, zero regulations except the trading of guns, bombs, fake and substandard medicines and food products, poisonous substances and a few others that can harm public health and safety.

With protectionism, trade negotiations can take 20, 50, 100 years or more. There are dozens or hundreds of reasons and alibis why some government agencies want explicit protectionism via high or multiple tariff, or an implicit one through non-tariff barriers (NTBs) like health and sanitary restrictions, labor and gender regulations, environmental and ecological regulations. So for various national governments and multilateral trade negotiators, prolonged negotiation means prolonged outings, international revelries and galas. BIPOR is ugly.

This coming Tuesday afternoon, 7 January 2014, there will be a forum, the Philippine launch of the Asia-Pacific Trade and Investment Report 2013 (APTIR), at the UP School of Economics (UPSE) Auditorium, Diliman campus, Quezon City. The event will be jointly sponsored by the Center for the Advancement of Trade Integration and Facilitation (CATIF) and the Philippine Center for Economic Development (PCED).

APTIR is an annual publication of the United Nations Economic and Social Commission for Asia and the Pacific (UNESCAP). This year’s report is entitled  “Turning the Tide: Towards Inclusive Trade and Investment.”

Here is the tentative program, the speakers and panelists.

As I am no fan of the UN and its various attached agencies, the report’s title, “inclusive trade” – addition to inclusive growth, inclusive development, inclusive democracy, inclusive business, inclusive environment,… -- reminds me of what governments and the UN never ever mention explicitly but is very clear and implicit in their minds, inclusive pockets. All those “inclusive ______” require more taxes and borrowings to finance.

The UN and many governments never fail to highlight income inequality rising, at the national, regional and global levels. Thus, the repeated use of "inclusive _______."

The main purpose of more international trade is to give the people more choices. Consumers and users of finished or intermediate products or capital goods like machines and trucks, are better off if they can compare prices and quality across many producers and manufacturers worldwide. And producers worldwide are forced to keep innovating and improving their products and services at more affordable prices to keep pace with innovation by their competitors.

As productivity and innovation keep rising, the income and asset share of the hardworking and efficient people rise fast relative to the income and asset share of the less industrious, less ambitious people in society, and that is how inequality rises as an inevitable phenomenon. 

I browsed through the web about APTIR and I saw this report, http://www.unescap.org/tid/projects/epti-day1.pdf

I think it is wrong to say that (trade-led) "growth is not benefiting the very poorest". Would non-growth or very slow growth benefit the very poor? Definitely not. Growth, no matter how perceived to be "very inequal" has the potential and actual effect of uplifting the condition of the poor. A rich household that has become richer because of more international trade will soon have two or more big houses. Each additional big house will require new construction workers, electricians, plumbers,carpenters, architects and other skilled laborers and professionals. When the big house is finished, it will require new house helpers, gardeners or other maintenance workers. The kids will have a driver each, possibly a nanny each and so on. Which creates new jobs for the poor, even for the unskilled ones.

More questionable statement by the UN ESCAP paper, that international trade has "little impact on employment opportunities."

At least the paper has recognized the role of information and communications technology (ICT) to reduce poverty. Until about three decades ago, only very rich people could afford to have a mobile phone. These days, even ordinary farmers, jeepney and taxi drivers, have mobile phones. The gadget helps improve their productivity in terms of getting information re their products/services' pricing and customers availability.

BIPOR and APTIR, we need free trade, as in our freedom to trade, to buy and sell with the minimum restrictions, regulations and taxation that contribute to higher prices of internationally-traded goods and services.

----------

See also:
Free Trade 27: Proposed EU-PH FTA and TRIPS Plus, September 24, 2012
Free Trade 28: Exports and Prosperity, March 11, 2013 
Free Trade 29: ASEAN and Education Competitiveness, November 16, 2013
Business 360 8: TPP, RCEP, SAARC and Free Trade, June 17, 2013

The Pope and Capitalism

A friend from UPSE alumni association, Mike A. wrote me in our SEAA yahoogroups and asked my views on   Pope  Francis, as  he  has  made a critique  on the Free  Market  ideology, and the Social Darwinian "survival of  the fittest" philosophy. Below is portion of a news report from theblaze.com.

Pope Francis Made Some Pretty Big Comments on the Global Economy: Here’s What You Need to Know

Nov. 26, 2013 1:26pm  By  Becket Adams

Pope Francis rebuked the culture of profit at any cost as he issued a 224-page mission statement for his papacy Tuesday, saying that mankind is called first to care for his neighbor and the poor….

The document also denounced the survival of the fittest theory of economics “where the powerful feed upon the powerless” and the poorest in society are excluded….

Unsurprisingly, as is the norm for this particular pontiff, some media outlets chose to present Francis’ words as an attack on yet another traditional pillar of “conservative” ideology: the free market.

Today Pope Francis blasted capitalism as "the new tyranny" that "kills" people.

--------- 

Well, a religious argument is based on faith, on belief and morality not so much on hard facts. No one asks for graphs, charts, tables and regression analysis to believe that a God exists, people just believe and have faith in a God.

To disappoint some people’s obsession with central planning and critique of free market, now invoking the Pope to strengthen their weak and lousy belief, here are some quickies.

1. The free market system, the capitalist economic system, gave us yahoo, yahoogroups, google, facebook, youtube, twitter, linkedin, Samsung, Apple, iPad, HTC, Starbucks, McDo, Mang Inasal, Aling Karing Carinderia, Toyota, GM, BMW, Vespa, Suzuki, Shimano bikes, etc. They are all useful. If people do not find any of them as useful, then they don't use or buy it. There are still people in fact who don't have facebook until now, it should be fine, no one coerces them to get one. In addition, no one was also coerced via taxation to finance the start up of those private enterprises.

2. The non-free market, the non-voluntary exchange, the force and coercion sytem, gave us what? Thousands of bureaucracies, local-national-multilateral, and tens or hundreds of thousands of central planners, very often their plans contradict or duplicate the plans of other bright boys and bureaucracies. 

There is also "state capitalism" where an institution of coercion tries to enter the world of voluntary exchange. But such state capitalism is possible only via rule of men, not rule of law. Certain requirements and polices on taxation, business registration and other regulations that normally apply to private enterprises do not apply to government- or state-owned enterprises (SOEs).

3. "Survival of the fittest" economic theory is a wrong term. The appropriate term is "expansion of the efficient" and "non-expansion of the inefficient", or Yes, “bankruptcy of the inefficient.” Mr. A puts up a bakery shop in a corner lot, it was doing well initially. Then Mr. B and Mr. C also put up a competing more glitzy, more fanciful bakery shops nearby and draw in many customers of A. Does this mean the death, non-survival of bakeshop A?

Maybe yes, but maybe No. People are rational, they innovate and adjust as much as possible. Those who do not adjust and innovate are likely to go bankrupt. So bakery A can focus on cheaper (and smaller) pandesal at P1 per piece while B and C sell fancy pandesal at P3 or more a piece. They serve certain markets, certain consumers, over the same locality, and they can all survive, no one dies. Instead of A prospering to become a big bakery shop, it just retained its small size in that area, and can plan an expansion elsewhere, in another village or municipality where it can innovate in its products, pricing and marketing.

Market segmentation, product and pricing differentiation. These are the key for enterprise innovation, market competition and economic freedom. Even people who took Economics for their college degree forget their Econ 102 or Micro Economics course. They may consider reading old books on microecon, or have a sit down in one undergrad lectures at UPSE.

Instead of listening to the Pope on economics, perhaps people should consider listening to undergrad lectures at UPSE or other universities. They will learn more. But if they want to hear stories for enrichment of the soul, then they should listen to the Pope.

---------- 

See also: 

Welfarism 26: John Mangun on Economic Decline of the West, July 31, 2013 

Inequality 16: Inclusive Growth and Central Planning, October 21, 2013 

EFN Asia 32: Day 2 of Conference 2013 in Bangkok, November 09, 2013

Election Watch 2: On Celebrities as Politicians

For many people, politics and government is a serious topic that only those academically and politically trained enough should enter politics. The showbiz guys, sports superstars, should keep out of politics and running for political offices because they are less trained or less prepared for the rigor of legislation and political-economic debates.

My former organization when I was still an undergrad student at the UP School of Economics in the mid-80s, will hold a round table discussion on this subject next week, on Wednesday afternoon. Early this week, they invited me as one of the speakers, I said Yes. It is free and open to the public, no need for pre-registration.

Depending on the flow of the discussion, especially if I will be among the last speakers, these will be my main messages.

1. We have made the government -- national and local -- BIG and interventionist enough. So many people want to become bleeding heart central planners to regulate and tell people how they should behave and run their own lives. For instance: you cannot drive your car on this day, you cannot smoke there, you cannot put up a shop unless..., you cannot drive your motorcycle unless..., you cannot pedal your trisikad for passengers unless... The list of regulations and prohibitions by government, local and national, is getting longer.

2. The showbiz guys, the comedians and action stars, the songbirds and drama queens, the sports superstars, are just like any ordinary mortals among us who have been enamored into politics, and into believing that they can indeed change the world by regulating if not controlling how people should manage their own lives.

3. The democratic or republican form of government allows anyone who passes the minimum qualifications like age limit, a Philippine national, has no pending criminal records, etc. to for public office. This makes the government and its coercive powers be open for capture by anyone, from serious to comedians, from democrats to despots, so long as they get the majority of those who cast their votes.

4.  Since the list of prohibitions by government is getting longer, we should endeavor to reduce this list, or at least stop this long list from becoming even longer.  So that whoever will sit in government, showbiz or not, lawyers or not, their capacity to over-regulate or over-prohibit our lives will be limited.

5. From my initial observations, my hypothesis is that the showbiz guys tend to be less interventionist and less prohibitionist, than the non-showbiz legislators and politicians. Partly because the showbiz guys are more timid in introducing more legislative proposals that will subject them to possibly intense committee and plenary debates and questions.. Whereas the lawyers, the NGO guys who went to government, tend to have oodles of new regulations and "reform" measures to introduce, and they are not timid or ashamed to create more regulations, more prohibitions.

I have to dig data to see if the above hypothesis holds water or not.

* See also Election Watch 1: Anti Epal Photos, June 29, 2012

Pol. Ideology 29: Raison d 'Etre of Government

In my UPSE alumni association yahoogroups, the back cover of a new book written by a fellow UPSE alumni, Dr. Armando "Mandy" Armas Jr., Impeachment Quagmire: Is the JPE Senate Court Legitimate? was posted.

I commented on it, and another alumni, Gary Makasiar, posted several questions. Here is our exchane, from May 17 to 20, 2012. Posting this with implicit permission from Gary as he has given me such privilege in our previous exchanges.
----------

I like Mandy Armas' point on

Justice is of higher law than of national defense and the economy... The raison d'etre of the State is to render "No injustice to anyone.

This is the essence of the rule of law. I agree with Mandy that this is the main function of government -- promulgate the rule of law -- plus protect private property rights and civil rights (freedom of expression, freedom from aggression) of the people. All other functions like to give endless subsidies and welfare, to run state universities (like UP), govt hospitals, casino and sweepstakes, other govt corporations, to "save the planet" are secondary if not non-essential functions of government. But I digress.

On the corona trial, I personally believe that CJ Corona is corrupt, he should have resigned early on. Or he should have not accepted the offer of being a CJ during the last few weeks of the Gloria government. But government being an institution of coercion, is full of hypocrisy, both the accused and the accusers actually have dirt on their faces. Just to simplify the matter, the impeachment proceedings I think, are going along the rule of law, the law as stipulated in the 1987 constitution....

-- Nonoy

Noy, we may have to make a distinction between two activities. It is one thing for the State to apply and enforce the Law equally or equitably on everyone. That surely sounds like it meets the ;no injustice to anyone' principle. Though even here, not all states are able to comply impeccably.

It is quite another thing for the State to adopt only fair and equitable laws so that there is 'no injustice to anyone'. Here, many states seem to fail miserably. Even representative governments. Especially states where lobbies are legally recognized.

So which activity were you referring to as the state's main function?

-- Gary

Climate Tricks 3: Solid Waste Management to Save the Planet

One of the by-products of climate alarmism is the legislation and enactment of new laws to "save the planet". These include the Clean Air Act, Solid Waste Management Act, Forestry laws, etc. When given the chance, I try to expose these.

Yesterday, I was one of four speakers in the UP Economics Towards Consciousness (ETC) forum on "Greening the Economy and Solid Waste Management". The three other speakers were Atty. Cuna, Director of the Environmental Management Bureau (EMB, DENR), Prof. Perry Ong, Director of the Institute of Biology, College of Science, UP; and Prof. Oggie Arcenas of the UP School of Economics (UPSE).

The three speakers have lots of things to say, being teachers or govenment officials, they spoke for 30 minutes. Being the last speaker, I spoke for only about 10 minutes, below is my presentation.

I showed here photos of the "Smokey Mountain" before and after the reclamation on a portion of Manila Bay.

And argued that in many Asian countries and elsewhere, "lack of land" is a problem, whether real or imagined. So creating land at narrow parts of the sea has been done in many places around the world.

Christmas Notes 2: Econ. Songs + Christmas

It's officially December today, the last of the "ber" months. I am re-posting two compositions, one made in December 1998, the other made in December 2008. Hope you'll like them.
---------

Econ songs for Christmas

December 13, 2008

Ten years ago, we were doing our Diploma and Masteral degrees at the UPSE's Program in Development Economics (PDE). I and some male classmates composed these 2 songs, and we sang this during our Christmas party.

Econ 201 is macroeconomics, Econ 202 is microeconomics, Econ 251 is public finance.
Econ 231 is Econ Statistics.

Herewith was our composition (slightly revised) :-)

Econ. 201, 202, 251
(Tune: Jingle Bells)

201, 201
Aggregate demand
Y = C + I, G + X - M!
IS curve, LM curve
Modelong Keynesian
Inapply sa Thailand
Bumagsak naman.

Doon sa 202
Andon și Pareto
May monopoly
MR = MC
Perfect competition
And price equilibrium
Isoquant and isocost
Compliments, substitute.
Hey!

251, 251
Dornbush and Fischer
Kung may market failure
Meron government fai-lure
Government borrowings
Crowding out effect
Mabigat na debt payment
1/3 na ng budget.
Hey!
----

One of our professors then was citing a lot of his studies on population and health economics in teaching the subject. This was our song for him.

Econ 231
(Tune: Joy to the world)

Prof. ____
There's regression
Auto-correlation
Multi-collinearity
Heretoskedasticity
Complex equation
Causes confusion
May we ask for some condom!
------

This was my composition last December 23, 2008, reflecting on the US financial turmoil.

Recession is coming to town
(Tune: Santa Claus is coming to town)

A business cycle
Corporate failures
Selected bail-outs
More regulations
Recession is coming to town.

Bear Sterns AIG
Freddie and Fannie
Keep safe the Citi
And Detroit’s Big 3
Tax money is bailing the town

The State sees when you’re too big
It says you should not fail
Support risky mortgages
So be irresponsible.
Hey!

A trillion dollars
One year deficit
A trillion dollars
Economic “jolt”
Obama is coming to town.