There's a report today saying that students (about 13 years old) from Singapore, Taiwan, S. Korea, HK and Japan -- the "Confucian Asians" (China should be part of this group) -- are the best in math and science around the world. Below:
http://www.iht.%20com/articles/%202007/11/15/%20asia/students.%20php
East Asian students shine in study of math and science scores
By Sam Dillon
Published: November 15, 2007
”Students in Singapore, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong and Japan significantly outperform American students on math and science tests, according to a new study from a U.S. nonprofit organization. But U.S. students, even in low-performing states like Alabama, do better on math and science tests than students in most other foreign countries, the study found. "In this case, the bad news trumps the good, because our Asian economic competitors are winning the race to prepare students in math and science," said the study's author, Gary Phillips, chief scientist at the American Institutes for Research, a nonprofit independent scientific research firm….”
--------
I wonder why Chinese students are not in the top list. I am among those who believe that "Confucian ethics" is one of the important factors why many East Asian countries experience veryfast economic growth. The ethics are simple, like "hard work and frugality is a virtue". You compare that with the growing "entitlement mentality" in many developed countries today.
The neighboring countries of these Confucian Asians, mainly the Malay Asians -- Thailand, Malaysia, Philippines, Vietnam, Indonesia, etc. -- are somehow "infected" with these ethics and discipline by virtue of closer proximity. It's just that many governments of these Malay Asians have tried and got burned, with socialist or dictatorial governments, which explains for their slower economic growth than their Confucian neighbors.
Friday, November 16, 2007
Spontaneous Market 5: Limits to Free Market?
A friend, Geronimo "Indian" Sy, wrote in his column in Manila Times last week, a paper entitled “Face control”. He noted that
For instance, if I put up a pizza house, the food are soooo great at a good price, then I attract hundreds of customers everyday, I can make my own rules whom I can allow entry or whom I can refuse. This attitude might turn off other people, so they also put up a rival pizza house nearby, they also attract plenty of customers, and they make their own rules that are different from mine. Fine, that is free market and competition. Nothing wrong, right?
Problem would arise if my pizza house is a government corporation, funded by tax money, and I am just an appointed bureaucrat, a crony in short, and I make rules that exclude other taxpayers while allow entry to other taxpayers. This is wrong. But if my pizza house owes nothing from tax money, then I have the freedom to set my own rules.
Indian replied that while I got some good points, he believes that there is “inherent limit to free markets”.
Yes, there is a limit to free markets -- competition. Competition makes sure that players behave well in dealing with their customers, with the public in general. Because if they don't take care of their customers, others will, and that can be the end of their business, the end of their job creation capacity.That is why policies that limit competition, like government-created monopolies and oligopolies (through franchise, whether by congress or by certain national government agencies or local government units), in the name of "protecting the public", actually works against the public.
Another friend, Rica, wrote that “there is an inherent limit to private enterprise being free, that point is where you infringe upon human dignity or human rights. This face control is similar to someone’s policy of physically banning a caddy from the private compound which is indirectly managed by him, and he does not even own the property. Although they are "free" to do this because it is private property, there is a point of human dignity.”
Yes, there will be some abuses or disrespect of human dignity elsewhere, somewhere, but such incidents don't invalidate the freedom that humanity enjoy under a free market system.
A father spanks his son for saying words the father does not like, the mother fights her husband. One can call this abuse of human dignity of the son by the father, or a mother consenting with the bad attitude of her son who abuse the dignity of his father.
Micro cases, household level cases, firm or company level cases, school or church level cases, you will find millions of different cases like these. But they do not invalidate the freedom that individuals enjoy under a free market system. That is why there are rules and laws that apply to individuals, even rules that apply to members of a household or family (like no wife or husband battering), to preserve order in society.
In the case of that guy who bans a caddy, if that golf course is owned by the state, and that guy is a cabinet minister or big-gun Party official of a dictatorial government, not only that he can ban the presence of that ordinary caddy, he can even kick and punch the caddy for no reason at all, and that caddy nor civil rights groups will have no power to punish any bureaucrat for his abusive behavior. And the caddy may not be able to find other golf courses to work for because all golf courses are owned by the state and all are managed by cronies and state bureaucrats.
------
My two related papers in recent weeks:
(1) Beelzebub and Government DNA
October 30, 2007
(2) Advancing Property Rights and Liberty
November 07, 2007
* See also Spontaneous Market 4: Entrepreneurship, Community and Property Rights, October 23, 2007
In the land of equality, liberty and fraternity, I find the strangest thing—face control. In certain places in Paris, notably in bars and party places, there are gatekeepers—bouncers in our parlance—who allow people in or exclude them not based on anything except how they look…. The face control is not based on science. Neither is it based on logic. My friends tell me the ones who are turned away are usually Middle Eastern-looking…. To top it all, the queues are long, snakelong. The crowds continue to jostle in and be counted. In a democracy, can one really do that?I wrote him and argued that in a free society, or where there is a "rule of law" (unfree society only have "rule of dictators and bureaucrats"), people are free to set their own limited rules, so long as such rules do not result in harming other people's lives and property.
For instance, if I put up a pizza house, the food are soooo great at a good price, then I attract hundreds of customers everyday, I can make my own rules whom I can allow entry or whom I can refuse. This attitude might turn off other people, so they also put up a rival pizza house nearby, they also attract plenty of customers, and they make their own rules that are different from mine. Fine, that is free market and competition. Nothing wrong, right?
Problem would arise if my pizza house is a government corporation, funded by tax money, and I am just an appointed bureaucrat, a crony in short, and I make rules that exclude other taxpayers while allow entry to other taxpayers. This is wrong. But if my pizza house owes nothing from tax money, then I have the freedom to set my own rules.
Indian replied that while I got some good points, he believes that there is “inherent limit to free markets”.
Yes, there is a limit to free markets -- competition. Competition makes sure that players behave well in dealing with their customers, with the public in general. Because if they don't take care of their customers, others will, and that can be the end of their business, the end of their job creation capacity.That is why policies that limit competition, like government-created monopolies and oligopolies (through franchise, whether by congress or by certain national government agencies or local government units), in the name of "protecting the public", actually works against the public.
Another friend, Rica, wrote that “there is an inherent limit to private enterprise being free, that point is where you infringe upon human dignity or human rights. This face control is similar to someone’s policy of physically banning a caddy from the private compound which is indirectly managed by him, and he does not even own the property. Although they are "free" to do this because it is private property, there is a point of human dignity.”
Yes, there will be some abuses or disrespect of human dignity elsewhere, somewhere, but such incidents don't invalidate the freedom that humanity enjoy under a free market system.
A father spanks his son for saying words the father does not like, the mother fights her husband. One can call this abuse of human dignity of the son by the father, or a mother consenting with the bad attitude of her son who abuse the dignity of his father.
Micro cases, household level cases, firm or company level cases, school or church level cases, you will find millions of different cases like these. But they do not invalidate the freedom that individuals enjoy under a free market system. That is why there are rules and laws that apply to individuals, even rules that apply to members of a household or family (like no wife or husband battering), to preserve order in society.
In the case of that guy who bans a caddy, if that golf course is owned by the state, and that guy is a cabinet minister or big-gun Party official of a dictatorial government, not only that he can ban the presence of that ordinary caddy, he can even kick and punch the caddy for no reason at all, and that caddy nor civil rights groups will have no power to punish any bureaucrat for his abusive behavior. And the caddy may not be able to find other golf courses to work for because all golf courses are owned by the state and all are managed by cronies and state bureaucrats.
------
My two related papers in recent weeks:
(1) Beelzebub and Government DNA
October 30, 2007
Last October 24, 2007, the International Policy Network (http://www.policynetwork.net/) announced the winners of the 6th Annual Bastiat Prize for Journalism. There were 5 finalists -- Mr. Clive Crook of Atlantic Monthlymagazine, Mr. Jonah Goldberg of National Review, Mr. A. Barton Hinkle ofRichmond Times Dispatch, Mr. Dominic Lawson of The Independent, Mr. Patrick Mcllheran of Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, and Mr. Amit Varma of Mintnewspaper in India.
First prize winner got $10,000, wow! Second prize got $4,000 and third prize winner got $1,000. The winner, Mr. Varma, has a witty writing style. The 3 papers he submitted were, "Where's the Freedom Party?", "A beast called government", and "The devil's compassion". The latter is about a speech given by the devil Beelzebub at the convention of demonic beings.
Remember The Queen's song, "Bohemian rhapsody"? There's a part there where Freddie Mercury sang,
"Mama mia, mama mia
(mama mia, let me go)
Beelzebub has the devil put aside for me,
for me, for me..."
In "A beast called government", Mr. Varma argued that wastes in government is not an aberration, but it is written in its DNA, because government bureaucrats (a) want to multiply subordinates, not rivals, and (b) officials make work for each other.
Second prize winner, Mr. Crook, has a more formal writing style. His 3 articles were: "The fruitful lie"(about lies that trade protectionism benefits the poor), "MiltonFriedman's unfinished work" and the "The Ten Cent solution" (aboutprivate schools that educate the poor).
For 6 straight years, IPN has attracted more journalists and columnists from around the world who write about the principles of a free society -- including free market, rule of law and property rights -- to join the competition.
First prize winner got $10,000, wow! Second prize got $4,000 and third prize winner got $1,000. The winner, Mr. Varma, has a witty writing style. The 3 papers he submitted were, "Where's the Freedom Party?", "A beast called government", and "The devil's compassion". The latter is about a speech given by the devil Beelzebub at the convention of demonic beings.
Remember The Queen's song, "Bohemian rhapsody"? There's a part there where Freddie Mercury sang,
"Mama mia, mama mia
(mama mia, let me go)
Beelzebub has the devil put aside for me,
for me, for me..."
In "A beast called government", Mr. Varma argued that wastes in government is not an aberration, but it is written in its DNA, because government bureaucrats (a) want to multiply subordinates, not rivals, and (b) officials make work for each other.
Second prize winner, Mr. Crook, has a more formal writing style. His 3 articles were: "The fruitful lie"(about lies that trade protectionism benefits the poor), "MiltonFriedman's unfinished work" and the "The Ten Cent solution" (aboutprivate schools that educate the poor).
For 6 straight years, IPN has attracted more journalists and columnists from around the world who write about the principles of a free society -- including free market, rule of law and property rights -- to join the competition.
(2) Advancing Property Rights and Liberty
November 07, 2007
A friend from Singapore, Pin-quan Ng, wrote an essay on market solutions to developing world health care access issues. His paper has been published in the 'Young Voices in Research forHealth 2007' compilation for the 11th Global Forum for Health Research in Beijing.
Compilation pdf can be found here: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Site/002__What%20we%20do/005__Publications/012__Young%20Voices%20in%20Research%20for%20Health.php
Yes, we need to assert more market solutions, not more government solutions, to health care -- and pension, housing, education, infrastructure, food production, etc. -- issues. Markets are driven by real service; you don't serve well your clients and consumers, others will, and you lose your business and your shirt. No forced revenues (aka taxes) that will subsidize or bail you out.
Another friend from Sri Lanka, Atty. Mala Gunasekera, got a new website --
http://www.wcicsl.org/index.php
It's the site of Women's Chamber of Industry and Commerce, empowering women in business (not in bureaucracies) . The site is cool and easy to navigate.
Mala is also busy doing research and legal work on forgery of title deeds in Sri Lanka, other Asian countries. In short, she is busy making private property rights work in her country.
Meanwhile, Asia is really a place of irony. Our continent has the fastest growing economies in the world. Three of the 4 largest economies in the world (size of GDP expressed in PPP values) are Asians -- China, Japan, India. The tallest buildings in the world, the longest buildings, etc. are in Asia. Yet in our midst are also some of the notorious dictators in the world. People like Gen. Tan Swe of Myanmar, Gen. Musharaff of Pakistan, and Kim Jong il of North Korea. Less notorious but also prince and princess of treachery and public deception are also with us, including the Philippine President.
Advocating collective freedom is already hard. Advocating individual freedom and liberty is much harder. But we're in the midst of this fight already, we need to persist.
Compilation pdf can be found here: http://www.globalforumhealth.org/Site/002__What%20we%20do/005__Publications/012__Young%20Voices%20in%20Research%20for%20Health.php
Yes, we need to assert more market solutions, not more government solutions, to health care -- and pension, housing, education, infrastructure, food production, etc. -- issues. Markets are driven by real service; you don't serve well your clients and consumers, others will, and you lose your business and your shirt. No forced revenues (aka taxes) that will subsidize or bail you out.
Another friend from Sri Lanka, Atty. Mala Gunasekera, got a new website --
http://www.wcicsl.org/index.php
It's the site of Women's Chamber of Industry and Commerce, empowering women in business (not in bureaucracies) . The site is cool and easy to navigate.
Mala is also busy doing research and legal work on forgery of title deeds in Sri Lanka, other Asian countries. In short, she is busy making private property rights work in her country.
Meanwhile, Asia is really a place of irony. Our continent has the fastest growing economies in the world. Three of the 4 largest economies in the world (size of GDP expressed in PPP values) are Asians -- China, Japan, India. The tallest buildings in the world, the longest buildings, etc. are in Asia. Yet in our midst are also some of the notorious dictators in the world. People like Gen. Tan Swe of Myanmar, Gen. Musharaff of Pakistan, and Kim Jong il of North Korea. Less notorious but also prince and princess of treachery and public deception are also with us, including the Philippine President.
Advocating collective freedom is already hard. Advocating individual freedom and liberty is much harder. But we're in the midst of this fight already, we need to persist.
* See also Spontaneous Market 4: Entrepreneurship, Community and Property Rights, October 23, 2007
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
Oil Politics 3: $100/barrel Oil Price and Petroleum Taxes
Below is my article published in Business Mirror(http://businessmirror.com.ph/) last Friday, November 9, 2007, page 10,Opinion section. Can't get the url for that day though.
Why a $100/barrel oil price and various petroleum taxes don’t mix
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. *
November 7, 2007
Oil price, like the price of any other commodities and services, is driven mainly by the dynamics of supply and demand. High demand relative to supply means prices will go up. High supply relative to demand means prices will go down. And there are dozens of factors that determine both supply and demand. For instance, when millions of newly-riched Chinese and Indians, plus other people around the world buy new cars, then demand goes up. When oil producing-countries (OPEC or non-OPEC member-countries alike) pump more oil, and there are no supply disruptions (meaning no oil refinery or oil pipeline is blown up by bombs or knocked down by hurricanes), then supply goes up. But even if crude supply increases but oil pipelines are blasted, like the attack on pipelines in Yemen the other day, then supply can still go down, adding fears to oil consumers and traders, which further push prices up.
On Wednesday, world oil prices hit $97 a barrel, or just $3 away from the symbolic 3-digit level of $100 a barrel. This is partly due to the fact that despite continuing world oil price hikes in the past few months, world demand does not decline, staying at 85 million barrels a day on average.
Should oil prices finally reach $100 a barrel and stabilize there for say, one month, if not rise further, then it should be the right time for governments to cut petroleum taxes. In the Philippines there are at least 3 direct taxes slapped on petroleum products -- import tax (3%), excise tax (more than P5/liter for gasoline), and value-added tax (12%). Not included here are taxes slapped on companies that refine, distribute, and sell (wholesale and retail) oil.
The Philippine government says it is lukewarm to reduce or abolish the import duties. The DOE and DOF leadership say doing so will deprive the state of some P450 million/month in revenues while the people will only save around P0.23/liter. But what if a motorist, say a taxi driver, is consuming 60 liters a day or more, that’s a savings of around P14 a day. And there are more than 35,000 taxi units in Metro Manila alone. Another way of looking at this is that if the government will abolish the import duties, then the Filipino people will have P450 million/month of additional money in their pockets.
The continued imposition of excise tax on petroleum products is a callous decision. Excise tax is slapped on so-called “public bads” – petroleum (causes pollution), tobacco and alcohol products (can cause diseases to people). But is petroleum a “public bad”? People who do not want pollution from petroleum products should ride carabaos, horses or bicycles. A few people do this, but the majority can not. The use of petroleum to power vehicles that move people and their goods and services over far away places, is as necessary as food, clothing and shelter. Thus, abolition, or at least drastic reduction, of excise tax on petroleum products should be another measure that government should consider if it is honest in saying that it cares for the people.
The 12% VAT on oil products is possibly the only tax that can be retained. A zero import tax, zero excise tax, and 12% VAT, should be the best compromise between the public and the state to cushion an ever-increasing world oil prices without depleting the state’s coffers.
-------
“Then your point is to reduce if not eliminate big government taxes on petroleum. While this would be an immediate salve to our economic problems, i disagree. :) For the reason that fossil fuels are a fixed and diminishing resource. We can argue about when "the oil will run out", but run out it will.
Thanks Lorrie for the additional information. Yes, $100 a barrel might be "expensive" for some people, especially the car owners. But other people who have never driven a car all their lives, they have been riding horses or bicycles only (like the millions of Chinese and Indians), now own a car, so what if the price of oil is $130 a barrel or more? The freedom of moving anywhere one wants to, along with his family and/or friends, can be priceless. Besides, they don't intend to use their car everyday, they can take the public transpo or their bicycles for their weekdays use. But on weekends or holidays or on special occasions, they need their car to tour their family, relatives or friends.
So it's not so much the price of oil as a result of supply-demand dynamics that's the issue. It's the hypocrisy of oil taxes, because the government that says it wants to help the price of oil "affordable" to the people, is the same institution that makes the commodity more expensive.
As I have argued in my paper, a 12% VAT on oil and leaving import tax and excise tax at zero should be fair to both the state and the Filipino consumers. But listen to what government officials will say -- they will not forego collections from import tax and excise tax, because they need the money to "help the people". So you can see the hypocrisy.
Why a $100/barrel oil price and various petroleum taxes don’t mix
Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. *
November 7, 2007
Oil price, like the price of any other commodities and services, is driven mainly by the dynamics of supply and demand. High demand relative to supply means prices will go up. High supply relative to demand means prices will go down. And there are dozens of factors that determine both supply and demand. For instance, when millions of newly-riched Chinese and Indians, plus other people around the world buy new cars, then demand goes up. When oil producing-countries (OPEC or non-OPEC member-countries alike) pump more oil, and there are no supply disruptions (meaning no oil refinery or oil pipeline is blown up by bombs or knocked down by hurricanes), then supply goes up. But even if crude supply increases but oil pipelines are blasted, like the attack on pipelines in Yemen the other day, then supply can still go down, adding fears to oil consumers and traders, which further push prices up.
On Wednesday, world oil prices hit $97 a barrel, or just $3 away from the symbolic 3-digit level of $100 a barrel. This is partly due to the fact that despite continuing world oil price hikes in the past few months, world demand does not decline, staying at 85 million barrels a day on average.
Should oil prices finally reach $100 a barrel and stabilize there for say, one month, if not rise further, then it should be the right time for governments to cut petroleum taxes. In the Philippines there are at least 3 direct taxes slapped on petroleum products -- import tax (3%), excise tax (more than P5/liter for gasoline), and value-added tax (12%). Not included here are taxes slapped on companies that refine, distribute, and sell (wholesale and retail) oil.
The Philippine government says it is lukewarm to reduce or abolish the import duties. The DOE and DOF leadership say doing so will deprive the state of some P450 million/month in revenues while the people will only save around P0.23/liter. But what if a motorist, say a taxi driver, is consuming 60 liters a day or more, that’s a savings of around P14 a day. And there are more than 35,000 taxi units in Metro Manila alone. Another way of looking at this is that if the government will abolish the import duties, then the Filipino people will have P450 million/month of additional money in their pockets.
The continued imposition of excise tax on petroleum products is a callous decision. Excise tax is slapped on so-called “public bads” – petroleum (causes pollution), tobacco and alcohol products (can cause diseases to people). But is petroleum a “public bad”? People who do not want pollution from petroleum products should ride carabaos, horses or bicycles. A few people do this, but the majority can not. The use of petroleum to power vehicles that move people and their goods and services over far away places, is as necessary as food, clothing and shelter. Thus, abolition, or at least drastic reduction, of excise tax on petroleum products should be another measure that government should consider if it is honest in saying that it cares for the people.
The 12% VAT on oil products is possibly the only tax that can be retained. A zero import tax, zero excise tax, and 12% VAT, should be the best compromise between the public and the state to cushion an ever-increasing world oil prices without depleting the state’s coffers.
-------
I got 3 comments from 3 friends on my article above.
(1) From a friend working in Saudi Arabia
”You are correct Noy, Reduce taxes, reduce the number of congressmen, reduce the number of government employees!
”On supply and demand stats on oil, I remember between 1982 and 1985Saudi Arabia Saudi Arabia
”Saudi Arabia's target production is 12 million barrels per day by 2009, and other middle east countries are drilling more oil wells too to increase their share of the oil supply. But I will predict that it will not take another decade before oil price will cross the 150 dollar per barrel mark.”
”On supply and demand stats on oil, I remember between 1982 and 1985
”Saudi Arabia's target production is 12 million barrels per day by 2009, and other middle east countries are drilling more oil wells too to increase their share of the oil supply. But I will predict that it will not take another decade before oil price will cross the 150 dollar per barrel mark.”
(2) From Ron:
“Noy, how about substituting petrol with nat gas or other 'green' alternatives? seems that phils do not consider this. jakarta has been using nat gas in some public transport, particularly their controversial busway system.”
(3) From Wyn:
(3) From Wyn:
“Then your point is to reduce if not eliminate big government taxes on petroleum. While this would be an immediate salve to our economic problems, i disagree. :) For the reason that fossil fuels are a fixed and diminishing resource. We can argue about when "the oil will run out", but run out it will.
Given that, i'd tend to support heavy penalization (thru taxes) of use of petroleum. Sure, it's *very* painful in the short run, but either we learn to curb our "oil appetite" gradually, or get a really rude shock sometime in the future.
Despite its immediate impact on our people, i believe that a stringent, penalizing energy regime is the way to go. It will teach us to pay attention to the (non-renewable) energy that we use and encourage development and use of renewable sources.”
Below are my reply to them.
(1) For Lorrie:
Thanks Lorrie for the additional information. Yes, $100 a barrel might be "expensive" for some people, especially the car owners. But other people who have never driven a car all their lives, they have been riding horses or bicycles only (like the millions of Chinese and Indians), now own a car, so what if the price of oil is $130 a barrel or more? The freedom of moving anywhere one wants to, along with his family and/or friends, can be priceless. Besides, they don't intend to use their car everyday, they can take the public transpo or their bicycles for their weekdays use. But on weekends or holidays or on special occasions, they need their car to tour their family, relatives or friends.
So it's not so much the price of oil as a result of supply-demand dynamics that's the issue. It's the hypocrisy of oil taxes, because the government that says it wants to help the price of oil "affordable" to the people, is the same institution that makes the commodity more expensive.
As I have argued in my paper, a 12% VAT on oil and leaving import tax and excise tax at zero should be fair to both the state and the Filipino consumers. But listen to what government officials will say -- they will not forego collections from import tax and excise tax, because they need the money to "help the people". So you can see the hypocrisy.
(2) To Ron:
Substitution is always a possibility under a free market environment. For instance, I contract a consulting work with A Consulting, Inc., I'm not happy with the outcome, so I go to (substitute you with) B Consulting, Inc., simple. Problem is no matter what substitute you make -- green substitute, brown substitute, black or pink substitute, if the mentality in government is "tax and tax and tax", the price of whatever substitute to petroleum or other "non-green" commodities will still go up much higher than the equilibrium price of that commodity if plain supply-demand dynamics was left alone.
(3) To Wyn:
(3) To Wyn:
My point in advocating the drastic cut, if not abolition, of import tax and excise tax on petroleum products, while retaining the value-added tax on the same, is because Malacanang, the DOE, DSWD, Congress, and every bleeding heart policy-makers and NGOs in this country say they care for the people who complain of high oil prices. So they think of various measures to "cushion" the impact of high world oil prices. In short, everyone in the above-mentioned category think of the price of oil, and not so much about oil depletion (or "peak oil") in the long-term.
So, if high oil prices is the main problem, as those guys have defined it, then one solution to bring down oil prices is those tax cuts on oil products. They can retain the excise tax on beer, wine, gin and brandy, cigarettes and tobacco, fine, but they should cut the excise tax on oil products.
I have anticipated earlier that some guys who trumpet too much about global warming and energy conservation would come forward and say that one solution to reduce global warming (and oil conservation) is the retention, if not the doubling, of current oil taxes. And I don't like that scenario. If governments want to encourage substitutes to petroleum products, those "green" energy, they don't have to trumpet cute slogans. They just abolish (or at least drastically reduce) all direct taxes and regulations to companies that develop wind energy, solar energy, nat-gas, geothermal, hydro, other "renewable" energy sources. But have we heard any government in the world brave enough to do this? So far, it's 100-100, or 587-587, nada, nothing.
* See also
Oil Politics 1: Bush vs. Chavez? March 12, 2007
Oil Politics 2: Oil prices and climate change, October 30, 2007
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
WHO is trampling freedom of expression?
A few friends in our Asian Liberty Forum (ALF) ygroups, Alec vanGelder of IPN (London) and Barun Mitra of Liberty Institute (Delhi) were barred by WHO bureaucrats from attending the WHO meeting in Geneva. Only NGOs, sometimes more aptly called government-funded organizations (GFOs), who are in favor of weakening (if not abolishing) intellectual property rights in health and medicine innovation, were allowed and heard.
Pretty soon, it is possible that we'll have some private medicine innovators shifting to innovating new skin whitening, new shampoo, new bath soap, new toothpaste, new fat burners, but not new and more effective medicines to cure human diseases. Why? Your IPR in developing new shampoo is respected. But your IPR in developing more effective medicines to cure AIDS or respiratory disorder or hypertension is weakened. Thanks to the health socialists, manygovernments and the WHO!
Below is a note from Julian Morris in the November 2007 issue of IPN Newsletter:
FREEDOM of speech is a fundamental human right. It also underpins liberal democracy. When the state intimidates, imprisons, or murders journalists solely for what they have written or might write, it gives up the pretence of both liberty and democracy. The list of states that engage in such vile acts is, sadly, long. Russia and Iran are among the most egregious, but Burma and Egypt have been doing their bit to catch up. This Friday, a second series of rallies are being held around the world for Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a 22-year-oldEgyptian blogger who last year was imprisoned for four years for things he wrote on his blog. I believe that those of us able to speak freely have an obligation to defend those denied that freedom. So I encourage you to take part in the Free Kareem rally near you – if you are able.
Meanwhile, as I write this, freedom of speech, private property and the rule of law are all being undermined by the World Health Organisation. At its headquarters in Geneva, the WHO is holding a meeting to discuss plans to create a new global treaty that would transfer medical research and development from the private sector to the government. IPN has arranged for several people to be at the WHO to explain why it would harm human health and hold up progress. Unfortunately, Alec van Gelder and Philip Stevens from IPN, as well as Barun Mitra from the Liberty Institute in New Delhi, Tom Giovanetti from the Institute for Policy Innovation, and Jerry Norris from the Hudson Institute, have all been barred not only from observing the meeting, but from entering the Palais in Geneva where the meeting is taking place. By contrast, the many NGO proponents of health socialism have been allowed in; some are in the drafting room ... This selective denial of voice to legitimate representatives of civil society highlights the lack of democratic legitimacy of organisations such as the WHO.
Pretty soon, it is possible that we'll have some private medicine innovators shifting to innovating new skin whitening, new shampoo, new bath soap, new toothpaste, new fat burners, but not new and more effective medicines to cure human diseases. Why? Your IPR in developing new shampoo is respected. But your IPR in developing more effective medicines to cure AIDS or respiratory disorder or hypertension is weakened. Thanks to the health socialists, manygovernments and the WHO!
Below is a note from Julian Morris in the November 2007 issue of IPN Newsletter:
FREEDOM of speech is a fundamental human right. It also underpins liberal democracy. When the state intimidates, imprisons, or murders journalists solely for what they have written or might write, it gives up the pretence of both liberty and democracy. The list of states that engage in such vile acts is, sadly, long. Russia and Iran are among the most egregious, but Burma and Egypt have been doing their bit to catch up. This Friday, a second series of rallies are being held around the world for Abdul Kareem Nabeel Suleiman, a 22-year-oldEgyptian blogger who last year was imprisoned for four years for things he wrote on his blog. I believe that those of us able to speak freely have an obligation to defend those denied that freedom. So I encourage you to take part in the Free Kareem rally near you – if you are able.
Meanwhile, as I write this, freedom of speech, private property and the rule of law are all being undermined by the World Health Organisation. At its headquarters in Geneva, the WHO is holding a meeting to discuss plans to create a new global treaty that would transfer medical research and development from the private sector to the government. IPN has arranged for several people to be at the WHO to explain why it would harm human health and hold up progress. Unfortunately, Alec van Gelder and Philip Stevens from IPN, as well as Barun Mitra from the Liberty Institute in New Delhi, Tom Giovanetti from the Institute for Policy Innovation, and Jerry Norris from the Hudson Institute, have all been barred not only from observing the meeting, but from entering the Palais in Geneva where the meeting is taking place. By contrast, the many NGO proponents of health socialism have been allowed in; some are in the drafting room ... This selective denial of voice to legitimate representatives of civil society highlights the lack of democratic legitimacy of organisations such as the WHO.
Tuesday, October 30, 2007
Oil Politics 2: Oil prices and climate change
The first time I read about world oil prices hitting $100 a barrel or higher was sometime April or May this year. The projection then was that price will be reached sometime in February or March 2008, based on certain assumptions. But the $93/barrel has been touched already over the weekend, and it's not even end-October 2007 yet.
Oil price, like the price of any other commodities and services, is driven mainly by the dynamics of supply and demand. High demand relative to supply means prices will go up. High supply relative to demand means prices will go down. And there are dozens of factors that determine both supply and demand. For instance, when millions of newly-riched Chinese and Indians, plus other people around the world buy new cars, then demand goes up. When oil producing-countries (OPEC or non-OPEC member-countries alike) pump more oil, and no supply disruptions (meaning no oil refinery or oil pipeline is blown up by bombs or knocked down by hurricanes), then supply goes up.
When supply keeps increasing (both petroleum and petroleum-substitutes) and yet demand outpaces the growth of supply -- resulting in higher prices -- then it means one thing: the world (or a big portion of the world) is getting richer. Of course the number of poor people also expands, but the number of people who graduated themselves from poverty has expanded much bigger, and these people have bought new cars, or travelled more often in public transportations, which explains for the big growth in world demand for petroleum products.
Some environmentalists complain though when the world gets richer. Because this means more cars and buses, which means more petroleum consumption and more pollution, which worsens global warming. Thus, higher oil taxes can be a good thing so that oil consumption will be partly discouraged, and governments will have more money to fight global warming -- through more international meetings and conventions? more speeches? more tree planting? more subsidies to wind energy farms? Maybe, I usually do not buy governments' various alibi.
What I know is that when people are richer, they themselves find ways and have the resources to adjust to climate change. For instance, richer people tend to buy houses away from cities, in suburban areas where they are surrounded by trees and gardens. Or they buy idle lands and convert these into new real estate projects that have plenty of trees and open areas for outdoor recreation, entertainment that don't need huge air-con systems that require lots of power that require more power plants.
Should oil prices finally reach $100 a barrel this year and stabilize there, if not rise further, then it should be the right time to campaign for drastic cut, if not abolition, of petroleum taxes. In the Philippines for instance, at least 3 direct taxes are slapped on petroleum products -- import tax, excise tax, and value-added tax. Not included here are taxes slapped on companies that refine, distribute, and sell (wholesale and retail) oil.
Savings by households and motorists from lower pump-price of oil as a result of oil tax cut or oil tax abolition, can be used to buy new cars that are more fuel efficient (those cars that run 15 kms or more per liter). Or buy a new house or condo unit in those high rise buildings in the city center so that they will not travel far from their offices and their kids schools and hence, consume less oil. The options for households are unlimited as each household has unique needs and priorities. The bottomline is that petroleum taxes must come down, if not altogether abolished later, and let the households prioritize how they should spend the fruits of their hard work, especially in determining how they should cope with climate change.
* See also, Oil Politics 1: Bush vs. Chavez? March 12, 2007
Oil price, like the price of any other commodities and services, is driven mainly by the dynamics of supply and demand. High demand relative to supply means prices will go up. High supply relative to demand means prices will go down. And there are dozens of factors that determine both supply and demand. For instance, when millions of newly-riched Chinese and Indians, plus other people around the world buy new cars, then demand goes up. When oil producing-countries (OPEC or non-OPEC member-countries alike) pump more oil, and no supply disruptions (meaning no oil refinery or oil pipeline is blown up by bombs or knocked down by hurricanes), then supply goes up.
When supply keeps increasing (both petroleum and petroleum-substitutes) and yet demand outpaces the growth of supply -- resulting in higher prices -- then it means one thing: the world (or a big portion of the world) is getting richer. Of course the number of poor people also expands, but the number of people who graduated themselves from poverty has expanded much bigger, and these people have bought new cars, or travelled more often in public transportations, which explains for the big growth in world demand for petroleum products.
Some environmentalists complain though when the world gets richer. Because this means more cars and buses, which means more petroleum consumption and more pollution, which worsens global warming. Thus, higher oil taxes can be a good thing so that oil consumption will be partly discouraged, and governments will have more money to fight global warming -- through more international meetings and conventions? more speeches? more tree planting? more subsidies to wind energy farms? Maybe, I usually do not buy governments' various alibi.
What I know is that when people are richer, they themselves find ways and have the resources to adjust to climate change. For instance, richer people tend to buy houses away from cities, in suburban areas where they are surrounded by trees and gardens. Or they buy idle lands and convert these into new real estate projects that have plenty of trees and open areas for outdoor recreation, entertainment that don't need huge air-con systems that require lots of power that require more power plants.
Should oil prices finally reach $100 a barrel this year and stabilize there, if not rise further, then it should be the right time to campaign for drastic cut, if not abolition, of petroleum taxes. In the Philippines for instance, at least 3 direct taxes are slapped on petroleum products -- import tax, excise tax, and value-added tax. Not included here are taxes slapped on companies that refine, distribute, and sell (wholesale and retail) oil.
Savings by households and motorists from lower pump-price of oil as a result of oil tax cut or oil tax abolition, can be used to buy new cars that are more fuel efficient (those cars that run 15 kms or more per liter). Or buy a new house or condo unit in those high rise buildings in the city center so that they will not travel far from their offices and their kids schools and hence, consume less oil. The options for households are unlimited as each household has unique needs and priorities. The bottomline is that petroleum taxes must come down, if not altogether abolished later, and let the households prioritize how they should spend the fruits of their hard work, especially in determining how they should cope with climate change.
* See also, Oil Politics 1: Bush vs. Chavez? March 12, 2007
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
Spontaneous Market 4: Entrepreneurship, Community and Property Rights
Entrepreneurship and free market, in the words of Adam Smith, Friedrich Hayek, and countless other intellectuals, lead to human welfare. People who want to be useful to society and at the same time become rich, invent things and services -- or facilitate the introduction and marketing of those inventions and innovations -- that improve human lives. From new rice varieties that can improve nutrition to new cellphones with cameras that improve communication among people, to new cars that are more fuel efficient, to new medicines that are more effective in fighting diseases.
We can add therefore, that only useful things get the attention of the people, and they buy those things and services, making the inventors and sellers of those things rich. Useless things like nuke bombs and more powerful killing machines are bought mostly by governments and military generals. If you have doubt about this, you can ask the Myanmar generals or Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro, etc. why they bought hundreds of thousands of assault rifles for their troops.
One example of the fruits of entrepreneurship, is a first ever Oceanarium in the Philippines, that will open up less than 2 months from now. This means that Filipinos who want to see different marine animals and fishes need not go to Singapore or Hong Kong -- and pay thousands of pesos in travel tax, petroleum tax, terminal fee, security fee, to the state -- to see these marine creatures in style.
There is also an ocean park in Subic, about 130 kms. north-east ofManila, but there is corresponding or additional travel costs in going there. This oceanarium will be right in Metro Manila.
When people, children especially, can see live fishes and other marine creatures in front of them, and not just on Discovery or Animal Planet or National Geographic channels, or other documentaries, their appreciation of the marine environment will increase. Because who would want the destruction of marine environment if they will know that those colorful and beautiful, not to mention gentle, marinec reatures, will also be destroyed and killed?
(See the news report here,
http://businessmirror.com.ph/10232007/headlines013.html
First Philippine Oceanarium to open in December
By Louise M. Francisco
MANILA Ocean Park (MOP), the P1.1-billion joint oceanarium project ofChina Oceanis Philippines Inc. (Copi), and Singaporean and Malaysian investors, has set the opening of the first phase of its live aquarium facility on December 15, unveiling plans to exhibit more than 20,000 marine inhabitants of approximately 300 marine species. The oceanarium is divided into six sections named to evoke national pride....
--------
My two related papers in recent months:
(1) Markets, Government and Community
(2) Property Rights = Freedom
See also:
Spontaneous Market 1: Profit, Trade and Personal Responsibility, May 22, 2006
Spontaneous Market 2: Market Failure vs. Government Failure, June 07, 2006
Spontaneous Market 3: No Nurses' Brain Drain, June 21, 2006
We can add therefore, that only useful things get the attention of the people, and they buy those things and services, making the inventors and sellers of those things rich. Useless things like nuke bombs and more powerful killing machines are bought mostly by governments and military generals. If you have doubt about this, you can ask the Myanmar generals or Robert Mugabe or Fidel Castro, etc. why they bought hundreds of thousands of assault rifles for their troops.
One example of the fruits of entrepreneurship, is a first ever Oceanarium in the Philippines, that will open up less than 2 months from now. This means that Filipinos who want to see different marine animals and fishes need not go to Singapore or Hong Kong -- and pay thousands of pesos in travel tax, petroleum tax, terminal fee, security fee, to the state -- to see these marine creatures in style.
There is also an ocean park in Subic, about 130 kms. north-east ofManila, but there is corresponding or additional travel costs in going there. This oceanarium will be right in Metro Manila.
When people, children especially, can see live fishes and other marine creatures in front of them, and not just on Discovery or Animal Planet or National Geographic channels, or other documentaries, their appreciation of the marine environment will increase. Because who would want the destruction of marine environment if they will know that those colorful and beautiful, not to mention gentle, marinec reatures, will also be destroyed and killed?
(See the news report here,
http://businessmirror.com.ph/10232007/headlines013.html
First Philippine Oceanarium to open in December
By Louise M. Francisco
MANILA Ocean Park (MOP), the P1.1-billion joint oceanarium project ofChina Oceanis Philippines Inc. (Copi), and Singaporean and Malaysian investors, has set the opening of the first phase of its live aquarium facility on December 15, unveiling plans to exhibit more than 20,000 marine inhabitants of approximately 300 marine species. The oceanarium is divided into six sections named to evoke national pride....
--------
My two related papers in recent months:
(1) Markets, Government and Community
August 22, 2007
A friend defined these 3 concepts as follows:
Market - by competition
Government - by coercion
Community - by cooperation.
In my book though, I define them as:
Market = voluntary exchange
Government = forced exchange
Community = voluntary co-habitation.
Examples:
1) Market: I can only have your money if you like my hair-cut services, then you come back, you tell other people that i'm a good barber. The moment I become a lousy barber, or my barbershop stinks like a dumpsite, there's no way I can have you and your money.
2) Government: I will have your money even if you think policeman X is the most extortionist law enforcer, even if Congressman Y is the most corrupt politician, even if Mayor Z is the most arrogant mayor around. They are your public servants, so give me your taxes.
3) Community: I will live in this community (or village or condo building or barangay) only if it gives me peace of mind for me and my family, at a price that I can afford. The moment the peace and order deteriorates, or the cost of staying in this community becomes unaffordable for me, I and my family will be out of here, and we'll look for another community.
Market competition is only a means, not an end. The end-goal is choice. With choice, comes freedom. More choices, more freedom. In the process of voluntary exchange, some guys will lose out to fellow sellers as the buyers and consumers become choosy. So sellers are forced, even coerced, by circumstances, to be competitive, to produce goods and/or services that will be wanted and bought by the public. So in the process of giving consumers more choices, competition was born.
Government coercion is also a means to pursue a purported goal of public welfare. Oftentimes, the result, in the perspective of consumers, is lesser choice. Lesser choice means lesser freedom. When you have less take-home pay because of high income taxes, then you have less freedom to buy or consume certain goods and/or services that you deem important for you and your family.
Community cooperation is part of voluntary exchange. That is why builders and leaders of private villages and communities incorporate lots of amenities like good peace and order, garbage collection, street lighting, etc. to entice more residents and locators in their communities. More residents, more profit for them. Less residents and less buyers of their residential units, less profit, even losses for them.
Choice through voluntary exchange is a sacred goal to be pursued if one is to ensure individual and community freedom.
Market - by competition
Government - by coercion
Community - by cooperation.
In my book though, I define them as:
Market = voluntary exchange
Government = forced exchange
Community = voluntary co-habitation.
Examples:
1) Market: I can only have your money if you like my hair-cut services, then you come back, you tell other people that i'm a good barber. The moment I become a lousy barber, or my barbershop stinks like a dumpsite, there's no way I can have you and your money.
2) Government: I will have your money even if you think policeman X is the most extortionist law enforcer, even if Congressman Y is the most corrupt politician, even if Mayor Z is the most arrogant mayor around. They are your public servants, so give me your taxes.
3) Community: I will live in this community (or village or condo building or barangay) only if it gives me peace of mind for me and my family, at a price that I can afford. The moment the peace and order deteriorates, or the cost of staying in this community becomes unaffordable for me, I and my family will be out of here, and we'll look for another community.
Market competition is only a means, not an end. The end-goal is choice. With choice, comes freedom. More choices, more freedom. In the process of voluntary exchange, some guys will lose out to fellow sellers as the buyers and consumers become choosy. So sellers are forced, even coerced, by circumstances, to be competitive, to produce goods and/or services that will be wanted and bought by the public. So in the process of giving consumers more choices, competition was born.
Government coercion is also a means to pursue a purported goal of public welfare. Oftentimes, the result, in the perspective of consumers, is lesser choice. Lesser choice means lesser freedom. When you have less take-home pay because of high income taxes, then you have less freedom to buy or consume certain goods and/or services that you deem important for you and your family.
Community cooperation is part of voluntary exchange. That is why builders and leaders of private villages and communities incorporate lots of amenities like good peace and order, garbage collection, street lighting, etc. to entice more residents and locators in their communities. More residents, more profit for them. Less residents and less buyers of their residential units, less profit, even losses for them.
Choice through voluntary exchange is a sacred goal to be pursued if one is to ensure individual and community freedom.
(2) Property Rights = Freedom
JUNE 12, 2007
A friend from Sri Lanka, Ms. Mala Gunasekera, wrote a short essay, "The conversion of bad title into good title by acquisition and vesting. This process has empowered governments and impoverished the poor."
In her paper, she observed:
"In Sri Lanka we had legislation called Waste Lands Ordinance to take over their lands. Successive governments fluctuated in their opinions whether the lands should be government owned or privately owned. From time to time cultivated lands were taken over and controlled by government, land laws were randomly altered thus creating many doubts in the minds of people. This created a political cultural ethos where entrepreneurs looked to their respective governments to obtain land for their industrial establishments. They never looked to willing sellers to purchase land for their projects."
What Mala wrote is so true. Property rights means Freedom. And zero property rights means zero freedom. If you can't say that you own your tv or refrigerator 100%, that is, somebody can always come in and he says that he also owns your tv or refrigerator and takes it away from you, then your life is a mess.
If you extend that analogy to lack of property rights to your agricultural land, or the lot that your house is sitting on, then you have 24 hours of absence of peace of mind. You come home from work and somebody else has already fenced your agri land, or your house has already been demolished and someone else is putting up a new house or shop in your lot.
I think that the absence of secure, well defined property rights among citizens is the single biggest GOVERNMENT FAILURE ever created. But if you look at the literature of those who always cry "market failure" to anything and everything around society, the concept of "government failure" never comes to their minds.
Governments around the world have many tools in their disposal to discourage private property rights. Among them are multiple and high taxes, multiple titles and requirements (and signatures and regulations) to secure, unstable and unpredictable legal and judicial system, and so on. A combination of all these and life can be chaotic. I think people in Zimbabwe, Congo, and many other African countries fully understand this.
The big challenge for free marketers, is how to remind governments to focus on that very important function - to ensure property rights, whether intellectual property or goods/lands property, of the people. By extension, governments should be discouraged from dipping their dirty fingers on endless regulations of business and entrepreneurship, on providing endless subsidies to things that are better relegated and administered as personal and parental responsibilities.
In her paper, she observed:
"In Sri Lanka we had legislation called Waste Lands Ordinance to take over their lands. Successive governments fluctuated in their opinions whether the lands should be government owned or privately owned. From time to time cultivated lands were taken over and controlled by government, land laws were randomly altered thus creating many doubts in the minds of people. This created a political cultural ethos where entrepreneurs looked to their respective governments to obtain land for their industrial establishments. They never looked to willing sellers to purchase land for their projects."
What Mala wrote is so true. Property rights means Freedom. And zero property rights means zero freedom. If you can't say that you own your tv or refrigerator 100%, that is, somebody can always come in and he says that he also owns your tv or refrigerator and takes it away from you, then your life is a mess.
If you extend that analogy to lack of property rights to your agricultural land, or the lot that your house is sitting on, then you have 24 hours of absence of peace of mind. You come home from work and somebody else has already fenced your agri land, or your house has already been demolished and someone else is putting up a new house or shop in your lot.
I think that the absence of secure, well defined property rights among citizens is the single biggest GOVERNMENT FAILURE ever created. But if you look at the literature of those who always cry "market failure" to anything and everything around society, the concept of "government failure" never comes to their minds.
Governments around the world have many tools in their disposal to discourage private property rights. Among them are multiple and high taxes, multiple titles and requirements (and signatures and regulations) to secure, unstable and unpredictable legal and judicial system, and so on. A combination of all these and life can be chaotic. I think people in Zimbabwe, Congo, and many other African countries fully understand this.
The big challenge for free marketers, is how to remind governments to focus on that very important function - to ensure property rights, whether intellectual property or goods/lands property, of the people. By extension, governments should be discouraged from dipping their dirty fingers on endless regulations of business and entrepreneurship, on providing endless subsidies to things that are better relegated and administered as personal and parental responsibilities.
--------
See also:
Spontaneous Market 1: Profit, Trade and Personal Responsibility, May 22, 2006
Spontaneous Market 2: Market Failure vs. Government Failure, June 07, 2006
Spontaneous Market 3: No Nurses' Brain Drain, June 21, 2006
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
Market segmentation and pricing
On my recent trip to Hong Kong 2 weeks ago, at the HK airport on my way back to Manila, I was able to strike a conversation to 2 Filipinas who frankly admitted working as "pick-up" girls in the streets of Kowloon. They said that unlike in the Philippines where the male customers approach the female GROs (or sex workers), in HK, there are hundreds, even thousands of them competing for a few male customers on a strip of bar. So that in HK, its the ladies/GROs who should approach male customers, go out with them for $HK500 (cheapest, 30 minutes quickie), average rate $HK2,500 (3 hours). Supply exceeds demand. So that suppliers of a service or good have to settle for lower price or welfare. For these 2 ladies, they quit after 3 weeks because they were barely earning while the cost of living in HK is very expensive, so they went back home.
When supply exceeds demand, the "equilibrium price" for that particular good or service declines. It applies to domestic helpers from RP (and from Indonesia, from mainland China, from India, from everywhere) in HK. It applies to the squatter shanties in Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, Bacolod, etc. It applies to the price of tomatoes during the dry or summer season.
A Filipino friend, Teddy, commented that
"If you talk of prostitution in HK, Filipinas belong to the lower rung of that god-forsaken market. The supply of "labor" along this end does not exceed demand. Demand is cyclical, depending on whether its tour season or not. Why do Filipinas belong to the lower rung? Many factors. First of all, they are not as "aggressive" as lets say, latinas and russians who make no fuss approaching men on the street corners. Pinays still have that "hiyang" attitude when it comes to these things. The average latina or chicana is 1,000 hkd for 30 minutes...."
Prostitution is not a homogeneous (same product quality) commodity.If you draw a supply-demand intersection on one graph, you can actually have thousands of different "equilibrium price", not just one. This is because there are thousands of combinations of "supply meets demand" for each pair of sex worker and sex customer.
It's no different from riding a boat, say a Super-Ferry: there are at least 6 different cottages with their respective fares: economy ordinary, economy air-con, business, etc. There is market segmentation on one boat going to one destination.
Even among Pinay sex workers, there is market segmentation among them, whether they work in the Philippines or in HK or in Japan or Korea, wherever. The "prettier and curvier" ones demand a higher price compared to the "uglier and less curvy" ones.
When supply exceeds demand, the "equilibrium price" for that particular good or service declines. It applies to domestic helpers from RP (and from Indonesia, from mainland China, from India, from everywhere) in HK. It applies to the squatter shanties in Metro Manila, Cebu, Davao, Bacolod, etc. It applies to the price of tomatoes during the dry or summer season.
A Filipino friend, Teddy, commented that
"If you talk of prostitution in HK, Filipinas belong to the lower rung of that god-forsaken market. The supply of "labor" along this end does not exceed demand. Demand is cyclical, depending on whether its tour season or not. Why do Filipinas belong to the lower rung? Many factors. First of all, they are not as "aggressive" as lets say, latinas and russians who make no fuss approaching men on the street corners. Pinays still have that "hiyang" attitude when it comes to these things. The average latina or chicana is 1,000 hkd for 30 minutes...."
Prostitution is not a homogeneous (same product quality) commodity.If you draw a supply-demand intersection on one graph, you can actually have thousands of different "equilibrium price", not just one. This is because there are thousands of combinations of "supply meets demand" for each pair of sex worker and sex customer.
It's no different from riding a boat, say a Super-Ferry: there are at least 6 different cottages with their respective fares: economy ordinary, economy air-con, business, etc. There is market segmentation on one boat going to one destination.
Even among Pinay sex workers, there is market segmentation among them, whether they work in the Philippines or in HK or in Japan or Korea, wherever. The "prettier and curvier" ones demand a higher price compared to the "uglier and less curvy" ones.
Friday, October 05, 2007
ASEAN 3: On Myanmar, Letter to Sec. Romulo
This is the letter I sent to the DFA.
----------
October 2, 2007
Hon. Alberto G. Romulo
Secretary
Department of Foreign Affairs
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
Dear Sec. Romulo,
We applaud you and other Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN member-countries for issuing a strong statement urging Myanmar leaders to exercise restraint and to release political prisoners like Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We have also read and support your press release, “No let up on Philippine Advocacy on Myanmar Democracy”, dated September 27, 2007.
The Philippine government has hosted many ASEAN meetings in the past. For this year alone, our country hosted the ASEAN Summit in Cebu last January, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila last July, and the ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting in Makati last August.
As Filipino taxpayers that finance those expensive meetings, and as ordinary motorists that suffer heavy traffic whenever police escorts block our way to allow those officials of ASEAN and other participating governments have their way, we feel bad that part of our hard-earned money were spent on those Myanmar generals and bureaucrats whose definition of “public service” is to suppress their citizens’ economic and civil rights, then truncheon, imprison, or shoot them to death when they find courage to stand up to more than 4 decades of military dictatorship.
As taxpayers that finance the DFA budget, we urge you to take certain penalties on the Myanmar government should it continue its political and military repression of its citizens, in particular the continued detention of political dissenters like Ms. Suu Kyi. Please consider urging other ASEAN member-countries that they bar and exclude Myanmar’s leaders, even temporarily, from attending future ASEAN meetings. They have isolated themselves from their citizens, they have disregarded diplomatic requests from governments of other countries, let ASEAN isolate them, until at least they have followed your demands in the recent joint ASEAN statement issued last month. Please spare our tax money from pleasing those Myanmar leaders until they have learned to reform themselves and democratize their country.
Sincerely yours,
Bienvenido Oplas, Jr.
President, Minimal Government, Philippines
minimalgovernment@gmail.com, 0915-8204616
---------
On another note, our network of liberty-oriented think tanks, research institutes and other political organizations issued the following online campaign:
----------
October 2, 2007
Hon. Alberto G. Romulo
Secretary
Department of Foreign Affairs
Roxas Boulevard, Pasay City
Dear Sec. Romulo,
We applaud you and other Foreign Ministers of the ASEAN member-countries for issuing a strong statement urging Myanmar leaders to exercise restraint and to release political prisoners like Daw Aung San Suu Kyi. We have also read and support your press release, “No let up on Philippine Advocacy on Myanmar Democracy”, dated September 27, 2007.
The Philippine government has hosted many ASEAN meetings in the past. For this year alone, our country hosted the ASEAN Summit in Cebu last January, the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting in Manila last July, and the ASEAN Economic Ministers Meeting in Makati last August.
As Filipino taxpayers that finance those expensive meetings, and as ordinary motorists that suffer heavy traffic whenever police escorts block our way to allow those officials of ASEAN and other participating governments have their way, we feel bad that part of our hard-earned money were spent on those Myanmar generals and bureaucrats whose definition of “public service” is to suppress their citizens’ economic and civil rights, then truncheon, imprison, or shoot them to death when they find courage to stand up to more than 4 decades of military dictatorship.
As taxpayers that finance the DFA budget, we urge you to take certain penalties on the Myanmar government should it continue its political and military repression of its citizens, in particular the continued detention of political dissenters like Ms. Suu Kyi. Please consider urging other ASEAN member-countries that they bar and exclude Myanmar’s leaders, even temporarily, from attending future ASEAN meetings. They have isolated themselves from their citizens, they have disregarded diplomatic requests from governments of other countries, let ASEAN isolate them, until at least they have followed your demands in the recent joint ASEAN statement issued last month. Please spare our tax money from pleasing those Myanmar leaders until they have learned to reform themselves and democratize their country.
Sincerely yours,
Bienvenido Oplas, Jr.
President, Minimal Government, Philippines
minimalgovernment@gmail.com, 0915-8204616
---------
On another note, our network of liberty-oriented think tanks, research institutes and other political organizations issued the following online campaign:
Solidarity with the People of Myanmar
2 October 2007
148th birth anniversary of Mahatma Gandhi
We, who are united by common principles and values of individual liberty, declare our steadfast support for the freedom of expression and freedom of association of the people of Myanmar to exercise these rights peacefully. In particular, we declare our solidarity with the people of Myanmar in their present hour of crisis, the people who have bravely faced the brutal force unleashed by the military junta against its own people. By its action on peaceful protestors the military regime in Myanmar has not only underscored its own illegitimacy, but also exposed its own vulnerability.
We call on the military regime in Myanmar to respect the popular sentiment of the Burmese people against authoritarian rule. We also call on the military to release from detention all political prisoners, initiate an honest dialogue aimed at reconciliation, and respect the ideal of political pluralism.
We, also call on the international community to support the democratic aspirations of the people of Myanmar to exercise their sovereign right to live in peace, with freedom and dignity.
Signatories, Institute or organizational representatives, as of Oct. 3, 2007:
· Khalil Ahmad, Alternate Solutions Institute, Pakistan
· Ozlem Caglar-Yilmaz, Association for Liberal Thinking, Turkey
· Melinda de Jesus, Center for Media Freedom & Responsibility, Philippines
· Trupti Parekh, Ambrish Mehta, Anil Patel, Action Research in Community Health and Development (ARCH), India
· Barun Mitra, Liberty Institute, India
· Todd Myers, Asia Institute for Social, Philosophical, and Economic Research, USA
· Krishna Neupane, Limited Government, Nepal
· Nonoy Oplas, Minimal Government, Philippines
· Muttukrishna Sarvananthan, Point Pedro Institute of Development, Sri Lanka
· Mohit Satyanand, Liberty Institute, India · Wan Saiful Wan Jan, Malaysia Think Tank, UK
------
See also:
ASEAN 1: Asian regional bureaucracies, November 08, 2006
ASEAN 2: Regional Meetings, Indonesia's Military Businessmen, September 13, 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)