Social media and politics

Last month, I was one of three speakers in a lecture sponsored by UP Sapul, one of my three student organizations in UP Diliman in the 80s.

Creating political awareness for less/minimal (not zero) government, free market and individual freedom

Free market – free trade, voluntary exchange, zero to little government intervention in many sectors of the economy. More individual freedom, personal and civil society responsibility.

*  3 types of free marketers:

(1) Anarchist – zero state authority, zero central (and local?) government,

      citizens’ self-government by voluntary organizations and individuals.

(2) Minarchist – small or minimal government, function is mainly to enforce the rule of law, protect the citizens against aggression, their right to private property, right  to liberty.

(3) “Minimax” – one side advocates minarchy, another side advocates more government, more or higher taxes. Confused free marketers.

  

NOT advocating “good governance” under a BIG government

* Advocacy is limited, minimal governance – small government, small and few taxes, few regulations and prohibitions.

* NOT good governance of a big, intrusive, prohibitionist and tax-hungry government. Like “No business, no job creation allowed unless entrepreneurs will first get the signatures and permits of regulators and officials, dozens of permits.”

* Free society: everything is allowed except for a few prohibitions:
No murder, No abduction, No rape, No stealing, No destruction of private property, etc. Drugs, alcohol, gambling, etc allowed so long as none of the NOs mentioned is committed.

* Unfree society: everything is NOT allowed except with government permits. Driving your car, putting up a business, building a house, renovating a house or office, having a pet, etc. – all of them require permits. Relatively easy to comply yet, but moving towards more complicated, more costly permits.

Concluding notes

* Social media provides information competition. Along the lines of anti-oligopoly, anti-central planning and centralized thought conditioning. Even the most well-thought lies and propaganda cannot succeed if they are not shared in social media. Seemingly ordinary fb posts that become viral, shared 5k+, 10k+ and reaching out to tens or hundreds of thousands of readers. (Talo pa ang maraming newspaper stories or columns)

* The free market system can guarantee this type of information competition. Not central planning and big, interventionist government.

* Big challenge now is how a creeping PH dictatorship with little respect for human rights and international rule of law can be countered by vigilant citizens through social media.

Below, the two other speakers were Marielle "Yeng" Marcaida (to my left, white dress) and USC Councilor _____ (sorry, forgot her name; beside Yeng).

The 13-slides presentation is here.

CSOs and State 24, Mark Zuckerberg and Charity

Another civil society and volunteerism in action. Giving away one's own money, not other people's money collected by force.

"Mark Zuckerberg and his wife pledged to give away virtually all of their $46 billion in Facebook Inc. shares, setting a new philanthropic benchmark by committing their massive fortune to charitable causes while still in their early 30s.... promising to donate 99 percent of their stock in the social-networking company "during our lives."

"Mark Zuckerberg announced Tuesday that he's giving away 99% of his Facebook shares — valued at $45 billion today —during his lifetime." http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-giving...

So not entirely by next year or next 5 years. He plans to increase his wealth from the current $45B to perhaps $100B or $300B, then give away 99% of it. Maybe in 20 years. It's all about volunteerism, not coercion.

"Zuckerberg and Chan have already donated more than $1.6 billion to charity in the past decade, including a $100 million gift to the Newark Public School System, a $25 million donation to the CDC to stop the spread of Ebola, and a $120 million commitment to education in the Bay Area." -- from the BI article above.

So there is record already, gave even before announcing this new initiative.

This is a new phase of global capitalism. Those super-super rich, they see that governments are getting more bureaucratic, more coercive and even more stupid, they do not like how their huge tax money is being spent by those governments. So they spend and distribute their OWN money to see more meaningful results.

Politics of envy 1: rich people don't give to charity, damn them.

rich people give to charity, directly or indirectly, still damn them.

like this article. http://says.com/.../what-no-one-is-telling-you-about-mark...

Politics of envy 2. All people, rich and middle class and poor alike, should be disempowered to do charity projects. Only the government, its politicians, legislators and officials/bureaucrats can be trusted. wow.

"It is all just a bad transfer of power from the state to billionaires. So it's not the state that determines what is good for the people, but rather the rich want to decide. That's a development that I find really bad. What legitimacy do these people have to decide where massive sums of money will flow?" http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-skeptics...

Politics of envy 3: Only government central planners can do real charity, wow.

“I applaud their emphasis on ‘promoting equality,’ but that starts with paying one’s taxes,” said Gabriel Zucman, an economics professor at the University of California, Berkeley. “A society where rich people decide for themselves how much taxes they pay and to what public goods they are willing to contribute is not a civilized society.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/.../for-facebook-s-zuckerberg...

"by using an LLC instead of a traditional foundation, we receive no tax benefit from transferring our shares to the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, but we gain flexibility to execute our mission more effectively." Zuckerberg said that if his intentions were to avoid tax, he could've simply set up a charity. "If we transferred our shares to a traditional foundation," he wrote, "then we would have received an immediate tax benefit, but by using an LLC we do not. And just like everyone else, we will pay capital gains taxes when our shares are sold by the LLC."

http://www.theverge.com/.../mark-zuckerberg-explains...

He posted: "This enables us to pursue our mission by funding nonprofit organisations, making private investments and participating in policy debates — in each case with the goal of generating a positive impact in areas of great need.

"Any net profits from investments will also be used to advance this mission."

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

See also:

CSOs and State 20, Gawad Kalinga and Housing for the Poor, June 08, 2015 

CSOs and State 21, Patient Organizations, PAPO and HealthPRx, June 09, 2015 

CSOs and State 22, CIPS' Community Schools Project in Indonesia, June 28, 2015

CSOs and State 23, Financial education and Pidro Sing, October 27, 2015

Birthday 2011: Friends, Family and Facebook

I celebrated my birthday yesterday, not with lots of beer and other high octane drinks plus high cholesterol food that I used to do several years ago, but with replying for hours to many greetings in facebook. So I wrote this today in my fb Note.
-----------

Birthday 2011: friends, family and facebook

by Nonoy Oplas on Tuesday, October 25, 2011 at 4:59pm

Facebook is awesome, or can be cruel, during one's birthday. Since the evening of October 23 to afternoon of October 25 (today), I received close to 300 wall greetings and 20 fb private mails. Last year, I also received nearly 300 birthday greetings both in my wall and in private mails. I'm not sure if I replied to all greetings last year, but this year, I replied to ALL greetings. Just a modest way of thanking all my greeters and well-wishers.

On top of fb greetings, I also received greetings in my yahoo and gmail addresses, by text messages. One friend from the DOH, Mhyanne, greeted me 3x yesterday, 2x in facebook and once in google chat. I told Mhyanne that she's the record holder this year of most greetings from one person.

THANK YOU ALL FRIENDS. You made my day, I felt like a super star even for two days, hehehe.

I am approaching the half century mark next year, meaning leaving the four decades mark. I have some regrets in life, some complaints, but the blessings and good things have definitely outweighed those regrets and complaints. I am happy with having 3 beautiful girls in my life -- my wife Ella and my two young girls, Elle Marie 5 years old, and Bien Mary 1 year old. The two kids were also born in October.

I seldom look back, mainly to reminisce good things and good times with friends and family. It's always better to look forward and leave history behind as footnotes and lessons for our future action. 

I love my current work with Minimal Government Thinkers. It's not financially rewarding and so stable, our funding is very limited, but I find great contentment with what I'm doing there, which is to propagate the philosophy of more personal and parental responsibility in running our own lives, to rely less or nothing on government whenever possible, and for government to focus on promulgating the rule of law and property rights, then it should step back, or step out. Campaign for free market, free trade, small and few taxes.

I only wish one thing in life: good health. With good health, I think many things will follow. One cannot have all the riches and wealth in the world, but one can have contentment with what he's got. I keep a very modest and humble life whenever possible. Whatever extra savings I got, I reserve it for my family, especially for my two young girls.

Most of my friends and acquaintances my age have kids who are already in college, a few have graduated from the university and are working already. My kids are not even in Grade 1, so the challenge for me is big as I'm not getting any younger. The funny thing here is that about 80-90 percent of strangers who see me carrying my 1-year old would ask me, "Sir, apo nyo?" (Is she your granddaughter?). Of course I don't get mad or get angry, it's evident from my face and white hair that I'm not young to be a father to such a young girl. Besides, it's against my personal philosophy to be humble and cheerful whenever possible.

While I can write more about my life and my family, I just find it impossible to get where I am now without my wonderful friends and acquaintances. One lesson  I learned while I reply to all birthday greetings is that some of them are not very close to me, they were friends of friends, some I have not met personally. So I have to click on their profile to get a glimpse of when and where I have met them, or who was our common and mutual friend/s, as they took a few seconds of their facebook time in dropping a birthday wish for me.  

Birthdays in facebook is one cool opportunity to meet up with new and old friends. I thank facebook, I thank my friends, I thank my family, I thank my creator, I even have to thank some of my enemies, personal or philosophical. But as I age, I wish to minimize my enemies or people who think that I am their enemy. I have to change tack in my writing, to be conscious always of criticizing the message, not the messenger. But stopping from criticizing is far out from my agenda for now.

I highly value my personal freedom and the individual freedom of others; I also highly insist on more personal and parental/guardian responsibility in running our own lives. So I shall continue to criticize public policies that want to reduce if not forget or hide such personal responsibilities and push for more "government responsibility" and coerced collectivism.

I look forward to another friends-filled birthday next year. I also wish all my friends, even those who forgot to greet me, a happy birthday, belated or advance, and a happy life. If we find our place under the Sun, we should derive contentment and happiness, somehow.

Cheers my friends and thanks again for a wonderful day. 

Have to correct myself. A really dear friend -- way back from UP in the 80s, friend in UP Sapul, godmother to my 1 year old, Boye Quiambao, is the record holder of greeting me several times, should be at least 4x -- the first to post in my wall (about 3 days in advance), texted me 2x, greeted me again in my yahoogroups, where else...

Friends like Boye make me feel rich and wealthy. Not materially or financially, just emotionally or intellectually rich.

Teka, baka hihirit pa si Ninang Kris ni Bien, sige lang Kris, sister-friend talaga kita :-) 

DPWH, Photoshop and Facebook

At first there was this picture in the facebook wall of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), one of the most notorious for corruption agencies in the Philippine government. This was sometime September 27, 2011, about the visit of 3 high DPWH officials of the battered seawall of Roxas Blvd. after typhoon Nesat (or "Pedring" local name) last week.

Then an engineer-blogger, Pierre Albert San Diego made an analysis of the photo in his blog post, DPWH Photoshop Fail because he immediately noticed that there was something wrong with the photo.

The author concluded his paper with this,

Some say this is a very minor issue, but I see this as a nice sample of DPWH’s lack of integrity. If they can fabricate simple things like this, just imagine what these guys can do to progress billings and acceptance of projects. Also, while relatively mild, isn’t this a classic example of “Utak Wangwang?” While unethical and unnecessary, they thought they could get away with fabricating photos so they tried to.

Amen. And since then, the failed photoshop has become sort of "viral". DPWH officials later apologized for misleading the public -- because they were caught. And so the picture of the 3 officials have also gone to different places. These photos I took from various sources.

The three officials also joined Jesus' Last Supper, hahaha!

And they are also part of Stallone's team of The Expendables.

And they are into boxing too! :-)

Jim Ayson posted more photos in his blog post, The Great DPWH Photoshop Meme Kicks Into Overdrive, where many of the photos here were lifted.

The three officials were also seen behind the DPWH's younger sibling, a giant crocodile caught in Agusan province a few weeks ago.

They were also sighted in the ruins somewhere in Europe, and the UP Pep Squad, the champions in the UAAP competition.

My golly, they also joined the Beatles when the band members were still young, hahaha.

A party with Jollibee, and in the shooting of The Inspection.

Wonder when the real photoshop geeks will stop with their funny imagination?

From the caves -- is this in Callao cave in Cagayan, or in Bohol or somewhere else... to the waves -- in Hawaii or Siargao in Surigao del Norte?

Wait, wait, don't disturb... they are meeting the young saviors of the planet :-)

I'm no geek in photoshop, I haven't done even one photo using that software, but I want to join the fray, how?

I only know copy-and-paste in powerpoint and jpg.

Here is a picture of some of our dogs in the farm more than a year ago. Two of my dogs were looking angrily at them... :-)

And still more images from more photoshop geeks :-)

Lots of new photos are cropping up at the fb page, DPWHERE?

Photo lower left is famous, "Find the cat". Clue: it's on the upper right side of the picture...

Also, more hijacked pics at Pop Culture.

This time, the Public Works officials have become crime investigators...

From DPWH officials to boatmen and flood rescuers :-)

And earthlings who joined the mermaids down under.

Or the new explorers of The Ring....

Haayyy buhay. Pag manloloko ka nga naman at nahuli ka, lagot.

Facebook and the subversiveness of capitalism

Friendster will officially shut down today, May 31, 2011. Nine (9) years of existence (March 2002 to May 2011), was the #1 social networking site around the world (I think) sometime in 2005-2007, and much ahead with facebook then. Then things just collapse, or implode. RIP friendster, or it will be resurrected as a new social network, affiliated with google or youtube or yahoo?

Capitalism showed its ugly face on friendster - and its handsome face on facebook. And this is one more proof that capitalism -- not socialism or communism or fascism -- is the most subversive economic system in the world. When left on their own, private enterprises can be friendly with, or be fierce and ruthless against, one another. And the main partners of the entrepreneurs in their competition with other entrepreneurs, are their workers.

Speaking of facebook, I got these interesting statistics from Resti Reyes' article today, Update: New Statistics on Social Media.

* 23.4 million Filipinos, or 93.7% of all who are actively online, are on Facebook. We are No. 7 worldwide in terms of our Facebook population, but No. 1 in terms of net reach over total internet population. Facebook has quickly overtaken all other forms of social media, almost doubling its Pinoy subscriber base in the past 12 months.

* There are now 667 million people on Facebook worldwide. If FB were a country, it would be the 3rd most populous nation on earth, after China and India. It would be more than double the size of the U.S.

* How busy is Facebook? 25 billion – that’s the amount of content (photos, updates, web links, stories, blog posts, etc.) that is uploaded to Facebook every month.

Here is a good statistics how huge or how invasive social media has become.

Majority of the big newspapers worldwide are suffering from declining sales as people turn to the web to read news. And that's another example of how subversion within capitalism is causing certain industry instability while creating stability in new industries or sectors springing up.

And many people have already declared that "Capitalism is over, it's finished." When? Well every time there is a regional or global financial turmoil. Yeah, they may be right.

Rule of Law 11: RoL Index

It's the first time I've heard of the "Rule of Law Index". I saw it first in a news report today, Philippines slips in Rule of Law. The report said,

THE PHILIPPINES has slipped in terms of providing a strong justice system and addressing corruption, according to a new global index upholding the rule of law.

The World Justice Project (WJP) found the Philippines dragged down by weak justice systems and corruption in the latest version of its Rule of Law Index released in the United States yesterday.

Intrigued by this report, I googled the WJP, searched the index and and I found this 146-pages long report, 3.9 MB pdf, The World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index™ 2010.

This is a very timely research project. The Index is composed of 10 factors:

»» Limited government powers
»» Absence of corruption
»» Clear, publicized and stable laws
»» Order and security
»» Fundamental rights
»» Open government
»» Regulatory enforcement
»» Access to civil justice
»» Effective criminal justice
»» Informal justice

Below is their definition of the "rule of law". A bit long compared to say, Hayek's definition, but this seems more complete too:

The four “universal principles” that emerged from our deliberations are as follows:

I. The government and its officials and agents are accountable under the law.

II. The laws are clear, publicized, stable, and fair, and protect fundamental rights, including the security of persons and property.

III. The process by which the laws are enacted, administered, and enforced is accessible, fair, and efficient.

IV. Access to justice is provided by competent, independent, and ethical adjudicators, attorneys or representatives, and judicial officers who are of sufficient number, have adequate resources, and reflect the makeup of the communities they serve.

If I remember it right, this is Hayek's definition of the rule of law: "The law applies to everyone, no exception. The law applies equally to unequal people."

Very simple and direct.

Now, how did the Philippines ranked out of the 35 countries covered by the study? The cities covered by the survey were Manila, Cebu and Davao. Page 74 showed this Philippines' ranking:

1. Limited government powers: 17th out of 35 (17/35)
2. Absence of corruption: 26/35
3. Clear, publicized and stable laws: 24/35
4. Order and security: 20/35
5. Fundamental rights: 26/35
6. Open government: 19/35
7. Regulatory enforcement: 20/35
8. Access to civil justice: 28/35
9. Effective criminal justice: 20/35
-----

Meanwhile, I wrote these two related papers this year:


1. Laws and the Individuals

February 26, 2010

(This is my article "People's Brigada News", a weekend tabloid circulated in southern Metro Manila)
--------

In judging candidates whether they will become good President or not, one usual criteria that many voters demand, is the number of laws that a legislator-candidate has authored. That is,

More laws authored = good legislator = good President (or Mayor/Governor)

There are practical reasons for this kind of reasoning. One of which is that legislators (Senators, Congressmen/women, Provincial or City Councilors) who were once showbiz and sports superstars, those considered “less cerebral” but got elected because of their popularity, tend to craft the least number of (national or local) laws and were just silent and passive in various debates being considered by the (national or local) legislature.

While this observation is valid, it is also important to ask questions like:

What are laws, in the first place?
Are all laws beneficial to individuals?
Is having plenty of laws good for society?

I offered this approach, or asked those questions, because I want to offer an alternative definition of laws. Here it is:

Laws are prohibitions. They are restrictions that individuals are not supposed to commit; otherwise, there are certain penalties for not obeying the laws.

For instance, there are no laws (no prohibitions) against breathing or flying in the air, but there are laws (and prohibitions) against polluting the air. There are no laws (no prohibitions) against eating, but there are laws against selling expired or poisonous food.

The most famous laws are the laws against killing, stealing and rape. There are harsh penalties for committing such crimes.

Some laws are not outright prohibitions, but more on appropriating a budget or giving subsidies or exempting from certain taxes, fees and regulations. to certain sectors of society. Or issuing price control or profit control of companies in a particular sector. Still, there are penalties for not giving the stated subsidies or exemptions, or not following the price control. So in the end, they still fit in the original definition that “laws are prohibitions.”

So now that we establish the simple definition of laws, is it good and desirable if there are plenty of laws in society? Will people be happy if there are plenty of prohibitions in our communities, schools and offices, more prohibitions in our lives?

It is doubtful that people will desire to have plenty of laws and prohibitions in their lives. Take the case of owners of land and houses. First there is a law on real property tax (RPT). RPT is the government’s way of saying, “all lands belong to the government”, that is why people, including owners of land and small lots, must pay a tax or “rent” to the government. Failure to do so will empower the government to expropriate a private land and use it for its own use, or sell it to other people.

Second, in a few cities and municipalities in the country now, there are prohibitions for people to introduce changes or renovation inside their own house or office, unless they first get a “permit to renovate” from the city or municipal hall. And after they finish the renovation, they need to secure a “permit to occupy” their own house or office. Somehow, this is strictly enforced only in big office buildings. But let us wait in the future for this law to be strictly enforced in our own houses as well, when local governments have better monitoring and spying capabilities.

Another negative impact of having too many laws, both national and local, from more “hardworking” legislators, is that it is becoming more difficult for the ordinary citizens to know and remember all those laws and prohibitions. Is there a law against spitting in the streets? If so, in what cities or municipalities? Is there a law against smoking inside jeepneys and tricycles? Is there a law against drinking outside your house? Is there a law against hitting the butts of children if they violate certain rules set by their own parents? Is there a law against keeping dogs that occasionally bark at midnight?

It is important to keep a few laws that really protect everyone. Like the laws against killing, stealing and rape. But when there are too many laws and restrictions, individual freedom is compromised, and more people will be tempted to evade, if not break laws. And this erodes respect for the rule of law.

So, we go back to the original issue: is a legislator-candidate who has authored many laws, a good and desirable candidate for President, for Mayor, for Governor?

This should be a good mental exercise for voters. But for me, my vote is NO. I will go for a candidate that has crafted the least laws and prohibitions. But this is not to support lazy legislators either, who do practically nothing and hence, enacted nothing. Because such lazy legislators have also allowed and did not block the enactment of new laws and more prohibitions from the more “hardworking” legislators.

Let us support candidates who will give us the least restrictions, the least taxation, the least subsidies and regulations. Because such candidates will give us more leeway to better work and plan for our own lives.


(2) Small act, big message in following traffic rules

July 05, 2010

Some people, including those in government, keep on harping that the President should not stop on red light because of "wasted time", because of security concerns, etc.

They just can't get it. The President or anyone with a driver stuck in traffic will have no idle moment if he/she wants to. If i were rich, I would also get a driver and I will have zero idle minutes. I can work on my computer, read a newspaper or a book, make or receive text messages or phone calls, look around and take pictures of some idiots hanging around, doing nothing and discussing what kind of subsidies the government should give them.

The President already said it over and over again. If he has an important meeting, then he will wake up early, leave early, arrive in meeting on time, and there will be no need for his security escort to shoo away ordinary motorists as if they are a burden to society. Which past administrations, the last 2 especially, have been doing.

And I don't beleive that the President's SUV is not bullet-proof. Plus it is surrounded by armed guards on big SUVs and motorcycles. Security concerns is not much an issue.

Another advantage of the President being stuck on traffic, is that the DPWH, MMDA, DOTC and LGUs will be on their toes ALWAYS. If the President got stuck in traffic because there is a badly-managed road digging under DOTC project, or a local government was lazy in removing those counter-flowing trisikads and tricycles, or MMDA and/or DPWH were lazy in clearing a clogged drainage that causes flooding even for slight rains, they they will get some official reprimand perhaps.

The other day, I rode a jeepney and I was talking to the driver in QC. He started the conversation, noting that "wala na akong naririnig na wang-wang ngayon" (I don't hear those loud sirens now) while smiling. I added, "nabawasan na mga mayayabang sa kalsada" (the braggarts have been diminished) and he added further, "pati mga nagka-counterflow, wala pa akong nakikita" (I havent seen counter-flowing vehicles too). And that's only 3 days from the President's inauguration.

Small acts of no wang-wang, stopping on red light, by the president. Small time "wasted" being stuck on red light. But BIG symbol to the public, to respect the law, ordinary traffic laws.
------

See also:

Rule of Law 1: Entrepreneurship and Government Permits, September 16, 2008
Rule of Law 2: Property Rights and Lefts, March 02, 2009
Rule of Law 3: AIG Bonuses, Government Bail-outs, March 18, 2009
Rule of Law 4: On Thailand Crackdown, April 18, 2009
Rule of Law 5: Lawless State, Corruption and Coercion, August 01, 2009
Rule of Law 6: Discussions in Facebook, January 10, 2010
Rule of Law 7: Property Rights and IPRI 2009 Report, February 27, 2010
Rule of Law 8: Purpose and Supremacy of the Law, June 15, 2010
Rule of Law 9: Laws, Prohibitions and Corruption, June 30, 2010
Rule of Law 10: On Wang-wang and Government Laws, July 04, 2010

Posted on May 19, 2009:
Hayek 1: Liberty and liberties
Hayek 6: Dangers of majority rule
Hayek 7: Rule of law means no exception
Hayek 8: Safeguards of individual liberty
Hayek 12: Rule of law and rule of the lawless

Global Capital 4: Facebook, Capitalism and Liberty

Last August 10, 2009, I wrote and posted this::

Facebook, Google, Yahoo and other free web and social networking services, are among the best examples of the free market system and individual liberty. Zero tax money, zero government borrowings, and no State bureaucracy to create and sustain them....

A Filipina friend now based in UK, Antonia Hopkinson, made these comments (she gave me permission to post her comments here):

"Facebook and liberty...I think you have forgotten the famous econ adage 'there is such thing as free lunch'...

"Actually joining FB and other social networking websites is actually not free...in exchange for the free use we are actually giving them our personal details which they can sell to companies or use to create new products...have you noticed the applications available in FB such as farmville? information we give in the net and patterns of use is also being used to profile us in creating new commodities. 

"its so unfortunate that we fell on the trap of voluntarily giving our personal details disguised as liberty. in the west not only companies benefit from our personal details but aso fraudsters and identity theives." 

Yes, no such thing as a free lunch. But I think people, me included, enter into this networking voluntarily, and can get out or unsubscribe anytime. As long as there is perceived net advantage (advantages are larger than disadvantages), people will stay. When an individual perceives there is net disadvantage, then it is time to get out. So there is fair game there.

Compare that in government, even if our Mayor or Governor or Cong. or President is/are the most corrupt guys around, we still have to sustain them against our will. Zero voluntary arrangement there, unless one will become too radical and call for another "people power" revolution, local or national.

Antonia made another comment. She wrote, 

"Free sites in the web have their own machination to entice people to join to achieve their motive. i remember ebay used to be free. once it got all the information of people buying and selling in its site it gradually introduce fees. now it is very expensive and people dont even realise it. they have been conditioned it's free and even introduced paypal as the only method people could use to pay in the guise that they are protecting the safety of their memebers. but sellers has to pay 10% to take the money buyer had paid out on top of the 10% commission ebay charges from the sale of the item. then there are fees for photos and other special features. 

"It is also very hard now for other businesses to compete with ebay as people have been hooked to ebay now."

On "being hooked", I think it's the same with SM malls here all over the country. Food and shops at SM are not cheap, except when there are bargains, but people still flock to their malls with or without bargains. There are other big malls by big corporations that offer competition to SM malls. There is market competition.

Between being hooked with something (ebay, facebook, SM, a cell phone brand, etc.) and not being hooked due to absence of stable or reliable competitors, many people choose the former.

--------

I wrote this last September 22, 2009:

Facebook and Youtube Capitalism

A friend in facebook posted this trailer,

TRAILER: Michael Moore's 'Capitalism: A Love Story' - OPENS NATIONWIDE OCTOBER 2nd!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IhydyxRjujU

There’s a caption after the trailer, "It's a crime story. But it's also a war story about class warfare. And a vampire movie, with the upper 1 percent feeding off the rest of us. And, of course, it's also a love story. ...”

I commented on my friend’s wall, "Hi, facebook and youtube are a product of capitalism. Also google, yahoo, iphone, starbucks. We all have a love story with facebook here and facebook capitalism.” My friend commented, “hahaha, nonoy, so true.”

I think we should be thankful of capitalism. It depends on pure, voluntary exchange. Youtube, facebook, google, etc. go the extra mile to give excellent services at zero financial cost to us, and still they make big money somewhere. They get the money they wish for, we get the social networking we wish for. There are terms in joining the social networking, zero registration or joining fee, people accept it. Zero taxation and coercion, zero bureaucracies involved.

A guy satirically commented, “thank you capitalism”. I know him, he’s a leader of an anti-globalization, anti-capitalism movement. And Michael Moore’s movie is indeed critical of capitalism. I think Moore is critical of big government capitalism (like Mr. Bush and Mr. Obama administrations), like the recent bail-out capitalism, and not really of competitive capitalism.

Once competitive capitalism is severaly weakened, State capitalism aka socialism, will set in. But the break up of the former USSR, the fall of the Berlin Wall 2 decades ago, are proof that socialism is wrong.

We should be thankful also of airline capitalism. For both jet-setter pro-globalists and jet-setter anti-globalists. Also ipod and iphone capitalism, disneyland capitalism,... :-)

---------

See also:

Global Capital 1: Why Market Turbulence are Necessary, November 19, 2007

Global Capital 2: ICT, Capitalism and Government, December 18, 2008

Global Capital 3: Service Charges and Capitalism, October 25, 2009

Rule of Law 6: Discussions in Facebook

I got an email interview from an academic friend who also works as consultant at the ADB. His 2 questions were,

1. What, in your view, have been the top three impediments to rapid and broad-based (inclusive) growth in the Philippines?

2. If you were the President, what top three concrete measures (i.e., strategic measures which you believe that once achieved, would lead other issues to fall into place) would you implement to achieve rapid and broad-based (inclusive) growth for the Philippines?

I emailed back my answers to him. Then just curious, I posted yesterday morning in my facebook status to see some friends' comments. See those comments below.
-------------

Nonoy Oplas:
A consultant of ADB asked, What's the top impediment to rapid growth in the Philippines? My answer: Lots of laws but no rule of law. Laws and prohibitions (no stealing, no killing, stop on red light, etc.) apply only to ordinary people but those in govt, especially the top leaders, are exempted from the law.

Franklin:
you bet.

Helio:
Love it Nonoy!

Nonoy:
Thanks. Half-implementation of the rule of law means govt. leaders can steal, can change rules and create new prohibitions arbitrarily, discouraging investments and job creation.

Rodney:
you hit the bull's eye, noy!

Norman:
Funny that she started out carrying the motto "Strong republic" 'no. So, does this mean you're vouching for Bayani? ;)

Rodney:
but the worst is colonialism... all the energy of the country is bent on consuming american cultural goods....

Porky:
mismo! :)

Leah:
korek ka jan pareng noy!! happy valentines!!

Jude:
And as somebody asked before, what needs to be done? :-)

John:
My answer was high barriers to entry and lack of competition. But you're right - Philippine government sucks at implementation and is obsessed with mere formalism (i.e. getting an E.O. or R.A. passed)

Nonoy:
Rule of law is a radical idea. No one is exempted from the law, no one can grant exemption from the law, and the law applies equally to unequal people. One implication is that the number of laws should be as few as possible. So, candidates who authored plenty of laws are dangerous.

Porky:
the sad truth is, some are more equal than others... :(

Antonia:
bingo! nothing's changed then eh...

Rica
The ADB Know it themselves. The top impediment to rapid growth is red tape and corruption. Probably even in that order.

Nonoy:
Yes, the ADB knows about the corruption and robbery, the absence of rule of law in the administration of public finance, happening in the countries they're lending to incl. the Phils., but generally keeps silent about it and just keeps lending.
--------

See also:
Rule of Law 5: Lawless State, Corruption and Coercion, August 01, 2009

Socialized Healthcare 2: Discussions in Facebook

Today, at least 7 of my friends in facebook posted this in their status:

“No one should die because they cannot afford health care, and no one should go broke because they get sick.” If you agree, please post this as your status for the rest of the day.

I replied on their respective status with this comment:

“Malabo yan (that’s vague). A poor or middle class person who needs xx million pesos of medical treatment for his/her cancer so he won't die nor go broke, where to get the money? From taxes, where else. Should we kill those living and working in high taxation just to save the dying? Where is the limit or demarcation line between personal vs. government responsibility in health care?”

I think the above requested quote is an offshot of the hot debate in the US healthcare bill.

Then I got the following replies or counter-comments:

(1) Noysky - I construe the message as it is. Who wants to see a poor person die because he has no medical insurance coverage? I am sure you don’t want to see (my 2 kids, one has special needs) in bahay ampunan (adoption house) because we used up all our savings to pay for my medical bills. Whether health care is a personal or government responsibility, I don’t know. I also don't know the demarcation line between them... hehehe Please educate me, professor O+!”

(2) …We should have a health system patterned after UK.That way...patronage politics does not enter into the health care equation. It also avoids future pension and health care headwinds and provides additional incentive in paying of taxes.

(3) Health service is a human right.

To which I made these respective comments:

On (1): Not only poor people but rich people die. Cancer, Alzheimers, HIV, stroke, etc. do not choose their victims. It’s just that the rich can probably prolong their lives. Instead of dying within 6 months of a stage 4 cancer, they may live for 1 or 2 year/s. For people with special health needs (like those with physical and mental disability), I would concede that government should come in to help and provide subsidized health care. Governments should not over-tax parents and over-regulate private healthcare enterprises. Over-taxing the income of parents reduces their disposable income. Over-regulating private hospitals, clinics, pharma and health insurance companies, result in reduced competition and high operating costs that those enterprises will pass on to their patients.

On (2): Health socialism often results in health rationing. Demand will always exceed supply. A person suffering a headache will most likely demand lots of diagnostic tests to ensure that he does not have cancer or tumor or whatever disease. Anyway diagnostic tests and physiciian visits are free. With health rationing, health bureaucrats will determine who needs prompt health care, who should wait 6 months.

On (3): Not all the time. People who drink 7 nights a week, smoke 2 packs or more a day for many years, over-eat fatty food and have sedentary lifestyle, get into frequent fights and rumbles, live promiscuous lifestyle, etc., then when their intestines or lungs get mutilated, they run to the State and demand that "quality healthcare is their right."

Health socialism – like education socialism, housing socialism, or socialism in general where the rich will be over-taxed and the poor will be subsidized, regardless of the circumstances of their poverty – will always remain a populist and emotional issue. Understandably so because once a family member gets sick, especially chronically sick, the rest of the family will be restless and worried. Not only about their health condition but also about the financial drain that sickness will bring.

With health socialism, the most common target of attack are the big companies – pharmaceutical and health insurance companies, hospitals and clinics, diagnostic and lab test centers – and the rich physicians and other health professionals. Governments are seldom seen as a contributor to expensive health care. For instance, people often lambast the multinational pharmas for expensive medicines but they turn a blind eye on high and multiple government taxation of medicines. People attack the private health maintenance organizations (HMOs) for their expensive health premium but turn a blind eye on government multiple regulations and taxation of such companies.

Government does not have the monopoly of providing quality health care to the citizens. There are hundreds of voluntary organizations that provide free health services to the poor: civic groups like Rotary, Lions, Masons; religious groups like CFC and Christian groups. Such groups, professional associations and individuals do it with zero taxes, zero bureaucracies, zero politics.

Nonetheless, I thank facebook for allowing, even encouraging, this kind of spontaneous and unscripted exchanges among people. Information technology is really wonderful. Bureaucratism is not.
-----------


I wrote this last February 24, 2009


Soaring Healthcare Cost in the US

I read today this news report,

Health care costs to top $8,000 per person
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Health-care-costs-to-top-8000-apf-14448776.html

It's from a recent report by the Department of Health and Human Services, and I'm wondering how the US government will respond to the following figures, among others:

* health care costs will average $8,160 this year for every man, woman and child, an increase of $356 per person from last year.

* number of uninsured has risen to about 48 million, according to a new estimate by the Kaiser Family Foundation.

* health costs will reach $13,100 per person in 2018, accounting for $1 out of every $5 spent in the economy.

Since the Obama administration has promised lots of welfare program for the citizens of America, the soaring health care costs should be a very burdensome issue that his government will face.

But is health care entirely government responsibility? I have always believed that only for a few public health issues like epidemics and diseases of babies and toddlers, health care should be personal and parental responsibility.

So when the latter is accepted as public policy, then government should get out over-regulating health insurance, and allow competition among private health insurance companies to provide different services at different terms and prices for different sets of people. Yes, no need to put lots of tax money for health care, and no need to impose high taxes to finance public health care. Because responsible people will take care of their body and avoid alcohol/tobacco/drugs abuse, live sedentary and cough potato lifestyle, and so on. And people will be able to choose which kind of various health insurance packages will fit them given their health condition and personal or household budget.

All of us are going to die anyway. If health care will remain a "government responsibility", then some people will insist that their medically-hopeless condition, or very expensive-to-treat diseases, should be shouldered by the government and the taxpayers at large will foot the bill. This is health socialism and it is counter-productive to society over the long-run.

* See also Socialized Healthcare 1: More Government = Less Health Care, March 29, 2006

Spontaneous Market 8: Facebook and Liberty

Facebook, Google, Yahoo and other free web and social networking services, are among the best examples of the free market system and individual liberty. Zero tax money, zero government borrowings, and no State bureaucracy to create and sustain them. Like most private enterprises, they exist to give utmost service to the public, free services to the majority in fact, and only those who are convinced there is value for their money, place ads and other revenue-making services to them. The whole arrangement is purely voluntary among the service providers and consumers. No coercion, no mandatory subscription, and other forcible arrangements that characterize government service.

Facebook is the world’s top social networking service. It rose to that height at the expense of other private enterprises in their sector. Like Friendster, Multiply, Tagged, and similar online networking services. But that’s the reality in capitalism and the free market system. All real entrepreneurs understand and appreciate that reality. It allows them to be creative, it forces them to become innovative, and it removes complacency and irresponsibility from their work habit. But there are lazy and shrewd capitalists who do not like that arrangement, so they run to the government to create various barriers to competition and protect them.

Currently, millions of Filipinos are hooked up, some are “addicted”, to Facebook. From gamers to hobbyists to advocates of certain public policies, they use Facebook to post the things that occupy their minds or hands at the moment. The most recent example is the death of former President Cory Aquino.

Most Filipino readers of this article can attest that their Facebook accounts were peppered with postings of personal grief, personal reflections, and hope of unity from the day Cory died to the day she was buried. Or any other stuff that are mostly very personal which they wish to blurt out in public, at least to their friends. For me it’s the most effective, most interactive, and most spontaneous communication and networking among people. Zero external censorship, not even by the owners and administrators of the online service. Only the individual can exercise self-censorship, which among his/her ideas and feeling would he/she share with other people, and which ones to keep.

I wrote two personal notes in my Facebook acount about the Cory funeral, one when her body was transferred from La Salle Greenhills to the Manila Cathedral, and one on her funeral march and motorcade to Manila Memorial Park. Both notes are with pictures, and both attracted a number of comments from my friends, even from some people I do not personally know but stumbled on it. One of them later became my friend.

My other friends in the free market and liberty-oriented groups and institutes both here and abroad, use Facebook to post good quotes from respected intellectuals, mostly from the past. One such friend is Larry Reed, currently the President of the Foundation for Economic Education (www.fee.org), a free market think tank in the US. Here are among the quotes that Larry posted, all of which have attracted plenty of comments from among his friends.

• "The state is the great fiction by which everybody seeks to live at the expense of everybody else." -- Frederic Bastiat, 19th century French economist, statesman and philosopher.

• "The only constructive idea that I can in all conscience advance, then, is that the individual put his trust in himself, not in power; that he seek to better his understanding and lift his values to a higher and still higher level; that he assume responsibility for his behavior and not shift his responsibility to committees, organizations, and above all, to a superpersonal state." -- Frank Chodorov, July 1949.

• "The worst evils which mankind has ever had to endure were inflicted by bad governments. The state can be and has often been in the course of history the main source of mischief and disaster." -- Ludwig von Mises, greatest economist of the 20th Century.

• "The natural effort of every individual to better his own condition ... is so powerful, that it is alone, and without any assistance, not only capable of carrying on the society to wealth and prosperity, but of surmounting a hundred impertinent obstructions with which the folly of human laws too often encumbers its operations." -- Adam Smith, The Wealth of Nations, 1776

I made a comment to this posting by Larry. I wrote, “Yes, about 95 percent of all time, laws = prohibitions. More laws, more prohibitions. Rule of law = rule of prohibitions. For rule of law to prosper, there should be very few laws (like laws against killing, stealing). Then humanity will be off to self-driven improvement and growth.” My article last week, “Rule of Law and the Lawless State” is related to this.

Anyone in Facebook can post his/her political and philosophical ideas – libertarian or statist, liberal or conservative, capitalist or socialist – and post good quotes from other authors that summarize those ideas. All of which are expressions of individual liberty.

The big irony though, is that it is those private enterprises like Facebook – receiving zero tax funding and hiring zero government personnel – that allows and encourages those spontaneous expressions of personal opinions and feelings to all people around the world who would bother to read those opinions and feelings. Compare this to government agencies and institutions that live off on tax funding and hire a multitude of personnel and bureaucrats, are engaged in hiding certain public information, and in a number of cases, harrass people and declare external censorship about their ideas and opinions.

And this brings us to one painful realization. Government is force. It is a monster institution of coercion. From taxes that are coercively removed from our pockets and savings account, to bureaucrats and politicians that we were coerced to select and sustain, even if some of us do not believe in the necessity of creating and sustaining the various political offices and agencies that employ and give power to those politicians and bureaucrats.

Why is this so? Read again the quotes from Frederic Bastiat and Ludwig von Mises above.

Meanwhile, a related paper I wrote last month,


Capitalism and Individual Liberty

The profit motive in capitalism in a competitive environment is perhaps the best antidote to global poverty and large-scale personal and governmental irresponsibility.

This is because in an economic environment of level and open competition among private enterprises, individuals and corporations can only make profit if they are able to satisfy certain needs and wants of their customers and clients. If they will not take care of their customers, others will. And their previous customers will make their current competitors become richer and bigger.

In a sense, all other things being equal, the level of profitability of a company is a proxy for its usefulness to society, an indicator of its efficiency and a reward for the hard work of the people working in that company. Looking at the other side, lack of growth if not bankruptcy of a company, is a proxy for its near uselessness in society, an indicator of its wastefulness and inefficiency, and a punishment for the complacency and irresponsibility of the people working in that company. .

Without profit, not a single bus company or airline, shipping line, taxi line, restaurant, barber shop, etc. will survive and continue giving us the services that we need for our daily and long-term existence. Internet giants and big capitalist enterprises Yahoo and Google are themselves driven by profit, they give us free services like free Yahoo Mail and Gmail, free Yahoo Groups and Google Groups, free Google Maps and search engines, and still they become big, rich and successful.

Adam Smith is so correct. It is the pursuit of their own corporate interest, the search for sustained and long-term profit and other civic pursuits which are the “invisible hands" that guide those capitalist firms, big and small, like Yahoo Google and mom-and-pop stores, to provide the various needs of the public, regardless of their nationality, gender, skin color, religious and cultural belief, and geographical location.

Capitalism's hunger for profit can drive capitalists to become greedy. But since our premise is that there is a level playing field and open competition among many enterprises, so other capitalists that may be equally greedy as the incumbent players, will "invade" the market and clients of the previous capitalists by offering better services and/or lower price. The competition among capitalists provides the "invisible hand" that lead to public welfare.

Any private enterprise or non-profit organization can become arrogant and insensitive to the public if it is a monopoly or a member of the oligopoly.

Imagine how arrogant Jollibee staff and how expensive their food products will be if there are no Mcdonalds, Burger King, Mang Donald, Pizza Hut, and other competing capitalist food enterprises, big and small. Imagine how arrogant Toyota people and expensive their cars will be if there are no Honda, Kia, Ford, Hyundai, GM, BMW, Mazda, etc. which are more than willing to provide different car models to different car buyers with different transportation needs and different budget.

Imagine how expensive and arrogant Yahoo will be if there are no Google, AOL, Hotmail, Naver, etc. to provide the public with alternative free online services.

With the "anarchy" of capitalist competition, we consumers benefit. We have the option to use free internet services and live a cosmopolitan life, or to live a hermit life in the mountains, no coercion involved.

Under free market capitalism, consumers do not make any distinction or discrimination between a local and multinational company. Consumers just pursue their own self-interest – finding the best clothing design, the most user-friendly cell phone or laptop, the tastiest pasta or vegetable salad, the most sturdy running shoes, the most durable hand tractor or fishing boat engine, etc., at a particular budget that they can afford. And dozens, if not hundreds, of suppliers from different cities or countries would come to present their products even to the most inquisitive customer who can afford their price.

Instead of demonizing multinationals, we should welcome them. From Coke and Pepsi, McDo and Jollibee, Hyundai and Toyota, Samsung and Nokia, Nike and Fila, Apple and HP, etc. Multinationals expand the range of goods and services that local industries and capitalists cannot sufficiently produce. It's us consumers who effectively dictate what the producers should supply. If local producers cannot supply the things that we need both in quality, marketing and price, multinationals come in. We consumers decide whether we buy from multinationals or not. There is no coercion involved, unlike big State taxation and regulations that thrive mainly on coercion.

Poverty can be eliminated by personal responsibility, ambition and hard work, all other things being equal. A social and economic system that rewards hard work and penalizes laziness is the best antidote to mass poverty. By then, to become poor and remain poor is mainly a matter of personal choice. When a person chooses to just party everyday and work as little as possible, then it is a self-imposed poverty and governments, the UN, the WB, ADB, USAID, and other multilateral or bilateral institutions that dream of “a world without poverty” with full hypocrisy should keep out and shut up.

It is also axiomatic that in a society where individual liberty is fully assured and fully protected by the rule of law, that social inequality will increase and sharpen. Not mainly because “the poor becomes poorer”, but mainly because there is nothing we can do to people who are super-ambitious, super-talented, super-efficient and super-hard worker. If a group of such guys can develop medicines that can kill AIDS virus 100 percent in just one year, the ingredients of their medicines just come from the leaves of the most common trees in a particular continent, then those guys will become super-super-rich. Even if they will bring down the price of their medicines to just 1/5 or 1/10 of the price of the most popular incumbent medicines against AIDS that can only keep the virus at bay but never really kill it.

* See also:

Spontaneous Market 6: Removing Pork Barrel, December 16, 2007

Spontaneous Market 7: Price Control is Price Dictatorship, November 01, 2008