Goodbye Cory

Three days ago, I wrote this:

When I learned last Saturday morning that former President Cory Aquino died, I felt an immediate tinge of sadness. The woman who replaced the Marcos dictatorship who was in power for 20 years, the soft-spoken, always smiling widow whose husband was killed by the dictatorship, has succumbed to colon cancer.

Almost all radio stations in Metro Manila were discussing about Cory – memories of the people who have worked with her during her term (1986-92), the People Power 1 theme song, some of her pronouncements and speeches, etc. The sadness in my heart became heavier with each passing hour.

Yesterday, Sunday at noontime, I attempted to see her body at La Salle Greenhills. I parked perhaps 300 meters away from the gate, lots of vehicles parked nearby. When I saw the long queue of people outside the gate wanting to come in and see also Cory, I decided to go home.

Today, Cory’s body will be transferred from La Salle Greenhills to Manila Cathedral. The motorcade will pass by Ayala Avenue in Makati. Around 10:30 am, one side of Ayala fronting Tower One was already closed. By 11am, a thick crowd of people were already waiting in Ayala and Buendia. Both lanes of Ayala were already closed to traffic. By 12noon, I think most buildings in Makati commercial district were already deserted as the employees and staff of those buildings have gone out to wait for the funeral motorcade.

Around 1pm, the motorcade passed by Ayala-PBCom area. This time, the crowd was thick on one side of Ayala. Some were clapping, most were just silent, a few were chanting “Cory, Cory!” Sad faces but excited to see Cory's funeral, that's the prevailing mood.

I followed the funeral motorcade from there to Buendia Axa Life building. I would surmise that up to Manila Cathedral, there won’t be a single square meter of road space that won’t have people standing to welcome the motorcade. Tens of thousands of sad Filipinos coming out of their houses and offices just to welcome the funeral march and motorcade.

It’s eerie to see Cory’s coffin. It’s mounted on a long truck, the coffin draped in Philippine flag, is surrounded by so many flowers and 4 guards. I was very sad to see that Cory is now in a coffin. I tried to control some tears falling from my eyes, but I failed.

Cory is like a second mother to tens of millions of Filipinos. Her death sent waves of sadness into millions of hearts and mind, not only in the Philippines but in many parts of the planet. I’m still very sad as I write this. Have other stuff to do, a paper to write for my talk tomorrow morning. Have to put them aside to put these sad feelings into sentences.

As much as possible, I don’t want any politics to mix up with Cory death. But it’s impossible. Cory was a former President, and she remained a strong political figure many years after her term ended.

Thus, I would wish only one thing, that those in the administration now will heed Cory’s wish before she died: do not tamper with the current Constitution for their selfish and devil political desires.

Paalam, Tita Cory. You will be in our hearts and mind forever....
-------

Yesterday, former President Cory Aquino, was finally laid to rest. Beside the tomb of her husband, former Senator Ninoy Aquino.

Ninoy was killed by military assassins under the Marcos government after his plane from the US landed in Manila airport. That was August 21, 1983. Cory, mainly a grieving widow, rose to political prominence two years after that when the scattered political opposition had to give way to her in late 1985 to fight Mr. Marcos in a one-on-one Presidential election (plus elections in the parliament) in January or February 1986.

Cory’s term ended in 1992 but her shadow and influence as a political figure remained tall many years after that. Mainly because while people may disagree with a number of her policies during her term, as well as some of her political leanings after her term, there is little or no way that people can say that she was dirty and corrupt. She has the high moral ascendancy that no succeeding Presidents could surpass or equal.

Cory’s high moral ascendancy stands in straight opposite to the immorality of the current President who is also a woman, the second woman President of the country. That is why when Cory died, there is deep sadness among millions of Filipinos because it seemed that the moral ex-president had to leave while the immoral, incumbent one still continues to wreak political, financial and moral havoc on the 92+ million Filipinos.

Since Cory died last Saturday, August 1, until her burial yesterday, August 5, all local media and the public, were practically glued on her wake and funeral motorcades. Especially the last 3 days: the transfer of her body from La Salle Greenhills to Manila Cathedral last Monday, the public viewing and necrological services last Tuesday, and the mass and the nearly 9 hours funeral march from Manila Cathedral to Manila Memorial Park.

One proof: the other day, August 4, I was one of 3 speakers discussing drug price control in the Philippines which will officially start by August 15. The 2 other speakers were from the multinational pharma and local pharma industry associations, respectively. This subject occupied front page and headline news just several days ago, it is high on the public consciousness and so many people can get very emotional about this. There were a number of local media people there, so many questions raised and explored, and the 3 of us speakers were interviewed later by one of two biggest tv network in the country, GMA 7. Nonetheless, the interviews and the forum was not shown on the station’s evening news program. It was all about Cory. No problem with me and perhaps with the 2 other speakers as I myself was eager to see practically anything about her during the wake and necrological services.

Yesterday, the scene of hundreds of thousands of people, more than a million in my estimate, standing on the roads just to see Cory’s coffin pass by, was really overwhelming and unbelievable. That was despite the dark sky and occasional downpour several times the whole day. Most of them, me included, watched the mass at the Cathedral first, which ended around 11:30am, before going to the streets to wait for the funeral march and motorcade.

I stood and waited near the South Expressway-Buendia flyover. For about 4 hours total. Every passing hour saw the number of people swelling even bigger. It rained several times during those 4 hours that I stood, but people came with umbrellas, jackets, while some simply braved the rain. It seemed that no one went home despite the rains until they saw the truck that carried Cory’s coffin. It’s really overwhelming.

People were supposed to be sad because Cory will be laid to rest finally. But somehow people were happy. It should be the idea that finally, the Filipinos are united once again, first time since the 1986 People Power revolution, and the idea that somehow there should be hope in the country’s current depressing political and economic environment.

I would say that this kind of hope and unity cannot be captured by politics or by any political party or political movement at the moment. There should be something more than politics, more than religious and cultural belief, more than economic advocacies. It is something that I cannot fathom yet at the moment. I can hypothesize one or two potential explanations, but the facts and human incidents are too many to be captured by any economic modeling or political paradigms.

There is one thing though, that practically anyone can safely theorize, not just hypothesize, as it is backed up by unassailable facts: Cory is loved and respected by so many Filipinos, and even by many foreigners. Her life and death was a phenomenon of inspiration, of a deep yearning for morality and honesty in government. And it is something that is sorely lacking in the current Presidency and administration.

Minimal Government-UK

A German friend who used to work for Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) Thailand, Patrick Lohlein, later moved to London to work in a private company, is putting up a new think tank there called "Minimal Government-UK". I kidded him, thanking him for putting up a "branch" of MG Philippines in UK :-). He wrote me a few days ago asking if it's ok with me to use MG, I said 101 percent no problem.

Patrick's vision of MG-UK is "to represent the interests of small businesses, the self-employed and anyone else who is opposed to excessive government intervention in society and economy."

He said that he's getting a lot of support from local businesses and already have plans for several campaigns aimed at media and politicans. But he is still "seeking to network with more economists and other academics, who may be interested to get involved, either in a purely voluntary capacity, or within view to becoming a director of the organisation."

MG-UK will have 3 main areas of concern:

1. Overall size of government sector is far too large and must be cut back to fit what is necessary only.

2. Health and Safety fetishism of the political elite is destroying freedom and individual responsibility and undermining entrepreneurship and employment generation.

3. Much environmental and conservation legislation is unscientific and even counter-productive, and should therefore be repealed.

I am flattered of course, that the name Minimal Government will be used by another think tank in another country. It's actually easy to explain to other people when they ask, "what do you do?" My standard answer is just one sentence: "We are a private, independent think tank advocating minimal or less government."

Good luck, Patrick!

Rule of Law 5: Lawless State, Corruption and Coercion

Three days ago, I edited the definition of “rule of law” in Wikipedia. I provided the first 3 paragraphs, below –

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_law

The rule of law, also called supremacy of law, simply means that the law is above everyone and it applies to everyone. Whether governors or governed, rulers or ruled, no one is above the law, no one is exempted from the law, and no one can grant exemption to the application of the law.

Friedrich Hayek in his book “The Constitution of Liberty” (1961), wrote: “By ‘law’ we mean the general rules that apply equally to everybody… As a true law should not name any particulars, so it should especially not single out any specific persons or group of persons... the rules must apply to those who lay them down and those who apply – that is, to the government as well as the governed – and that nobody has the power to grant exceptions.

There are two important implications for this. One, the laws should be very transparent and clearly worded so that all mature citizens would clearly understand what are strictly prohibited and the penalties associated with violating the laws. And two, the laws and prohibitions should be as few as possible. Both citizens and law enforcers can easily remember them and people can grow in freedom, in an environment of very few restrictions and prohibitions.”

I posted this entry in my facebook Notes, tagged several lawyer friends. Within hours, several comments came in. Those with facebook account can view the comments here, http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=127804856018&comments=

I am writing below the important comments that I got. I cannot, however, give the names of those who wrote these as I did not have time to ask permission from each of them to use their comments in this article. But what is important are the messages and arguments being made. There were actually more comments, but I will include only 5 of them here –

(a) “Hayek's definition is one acceptable way of understanding the rule of law. However, a fuller discussion should discuss efforts to deal with Legal Realism, i.e. Critical Theories, Postmodern views, Feminist Legal Perspectives and other challenges and accomodations to what appears to be a very liberal principle. The Rule of Law is vague, complex but a useful heuristic to understand the nature of the normative world. Its definition should reflect that.”

(b) “It should be clear enough, right? Until lawyers, politicians (and philosophers) discombobulate things.”

(c) “I believe the very basic need for people to understand the "rule of law" is to instill discipline, respect and selflessness to everyone....especially in the mass base at the local level...”

(d) “There is literature on the equivalence between "Rule of Law" and Due Process. And, of course, it originated with the revolt against kings who were traditionally "above" the law, since they were The Law.”

(e) “What lawmakers don't get is that their readiness to pass new laws, undermines the rule of law in general. The irony of utilising the law for purposes of social engineerng is that it actually detracts from the objective of creating a more moral society. The more laws there are, the more the public is alienated from the law…. the more the law becomes unrepresentative, and the only logical consequence of this is that more people become impelled to evade or break laws, which ultimately erodes respect for the rule of law in general.”

I do not think that the concept of ‘rule of law’ is vague, save for those politicians who use the term as they need it for their political interests, but totally disrespect the laws when no one is watching. Rule of law’s definition is very clear, categorical and explicit: The law rules above men and women, over and above their arbitrary interpretation, administration and implementation of the law. For instance, when the law says “No murder, No stealing”, then no if’s and but’s, whether the murderer or thieve is a King, a President, a priest or a beggar, the law will apply equally to all or any of them.

Hayek wrote about "equal application of the law to unequal people". When people understand and respect the rule of law, there will be peace and order in society as they perfectly know what the prohibited actions are, and the consequences for violating the law. There is very little or no allowance for arbitrary interpretation and application of the law by the judges and law enforcers because those laws are abstract and general, they were designed against no one individual or group, but are designed to apply to all, no exception.

Most laws are prohibitions: laws against pollution, against drunk driving, against smoking in public places, etc. So a tautological definition is: Rule of Law = Rule of Prohibitions.

When there are plenty of prohibitions, then there is less freedom in society. Another implication is that when there are too many laws, it will be impossible for ordinary citizens to remember them, or even fully comprehend those laws that they can remember. Thus they will need lawyers, advisers, and consultants. Lots of talent in society are diverted from actual production to personal and corporate advising on the various laws, including their revisions and amendments.

Contemplating on these things and the President’s State of the Nation Address (SONA) last Monday, I can conclude that the State itself is among the biggest violators of the rule of law.

Before and after the SONA, Metro Manila’s roads saw the anarchy of the State’s police forces and patrol vehicles going against in-coming traffic flow, going even on red lights, making left-turns or U-turns even if such acts are clearly prohibited, parking their cars and motorcycles in areas with clear “No Parking”. The State’s police and patrol vehicles were busy “assisting” the many legislators, Cabinet officials, local government officials, diplomatic officials, and other people and guests who were going to the President’s SONA at the House of Representatives.

It was also very noisy as those police vehicles were saying, “We are the kings and owners of these roads! We do what we want, the loudness of our sirens are directly proportional to our power and lawlessness.”

And to the legislators, Hayek also said something like “not all products of the Legislature can be considered as 'laws' in the sense of abstract and generalized commands that targets no one or any group in particular.” For instance, those laws giving subsidies or entitlements to some groups are not real laws because they are focused on a particular group or sector. They are commands, not laws. Laws should not make any exemption, and no one can grant exemption. If legislators give subsidies to some sectors but not to other sectors, then there is arbitrary granting of favor for some while exempting from such favor other sectors or group of people. They are commands, not laws.

Commands and lawlessness. We hear and see them everyday in our streets and in the various regulations and prohibitions that average citizens are being subjected to.
-------

Meanwhile, I am posting here 3 my earlier articles about Rule of Law.

1. Coercion and Rule of Law

August 14, 2007

Coercion is part of government. The government needs coercion to enforce a "rule of law", like law against killing, stealing, bombing, kidnapping, etc. Laws against the bad guys so that the good guys can work and live peacefully. The coercion in taxation is used to finance the state to enforce a rule of law, protect the citizens against the bad guys and bad actions.

Corollary to "rule of law", it is imperative, I believe, that laws should be as few as possible, and not number in thousands, even tens of thousands, from barangay rules to traffic rules to municipal laws to national laws, even international laws.

The purpose of having as few laws as possible, is to make the enforcement of the "rule of law" effective, to make the coercion effective, and NOT make the "rule of men" effective. Another purpose of having as few laws based on coercion, is to have more space, more leeway, for civil society organizations (like your Rotary Club, Lions Club, Badminton Club, Couples for Christ, etc.) to perform certain social functions that rely on volunteerism, on free will of individuals, and not on the iron will of government.

So, the next logical question is: what is the dividing line between coercion and volunteerism? That is, what functions should be enforced by coercion, and what functions should be expected from volunteerism?Another question is, which coercive power of the state are "legitimate" and which ones are "illegitimate"? The answer will depend on the philosophical point of view that one takes. But one test – "rule of law = no exception", of having rules that apply to everyone, governors and governed – will l determine which laws and state coercion are legitimate and which ones are not.

Coercion and Taxation

Not all forms of taxation is coercion. And coercion is a matter of degree, whether in the personal or political level, and that separates one form of coercion from the other. In short, there are varying degrees of coercion.

A child being forced by his parents to stop watching TV at 7pm and start studying or doing his class homework so he should be in bed by 8pm, can claim "coercion" by his parents.

A husband being obliged by his wife to repair a leaking faucet first before she will agree to have sex with him, can claim that he's being "coerced" by the wife.

A shop owner with several employees being threatened to give them 5 more months of extra bonus, otherwise they will strike or sabotage the office or shop, can claim "coercion" by his workers.

A person being obliged by his church to give tithes + other church expenses, otherwise his church will expel him and condemn him to hell, can claim "coercion" by his church leaders.

A well-off farmer obliged by rebels or bandits to give "revolution tax", otherwise the latter will burn his farm, can claim "coercion" by the said armed men.

A small businessman obliged by the state to surrender 35% of his gross profit, otherwise the internal revenue guys and the police will harass him if not put him to prison, can claim "coercion" by the state.

In all of the above examples, the degree of coercion varies (and the effect is very personal). If we cannot make a distinction on the degree or severity of those coercions, then we can conclude that the parents of that child are as coercive as Zimbabwe's Mr. Mugabe. Or the wife or the workers are as coercive as Venezuela's Mr. Chavez. Which are NOT the case. The coercion imposed by the parents affects only their children; the coercion imposed by the wife affects only her husband; the coercion imposed by the employees affects only the shop owner. Whereas the coercion imposed by dictators on their citizens and taxpayers affect everyone in their countries, from babies to old people to working-age adults.

The state's coercive power is a given, and I accept it, to enforce the "rule of law" like law against killing and stealing, laws against the bad guys so that the good guys can work and live peacefully. Therefore, I accept taxation to support the state to do this important function. What I object is the danger of a seemingly endless acts of coercion, or acts of taxation, by the state, and leaving very little space, very little leeway, for individuals and their civil society groups to do rationale acts of volunteerism and voluntary exchange of goods and services.

For instance, too many taxes (personal income tax, corporate income tax, doc stamp tax, real property tax, vehicle registration tax, travel tax, estate tax, value added tax, import tax, excise tax, business permit tax, terminal tax, sanitation permit fee/tax, building permit fee/tax, ...), purportedly to allow the state to have plenty of money so it can deliver public education, public health care, public housing, public pension, public nutrition, public banking, public transpo, public toilet, public parks, public basketball courts, everything public, can approach socialism.

So the individual is left with little leeway to pursue personal aspirations. Thus, even if those several dozen taxes are "spent wisely", it is still wrong and oppressive because the individual's needs can be very different from the perceived "needs of the people" by the politicians and those in government.


2. Culture of Impunity

September 13, 2007

Early this month, 5 groups -- Makati Business Club (MBC), Management Association of the Philippines (MAP), Financial Executives Institute of the Philippines (FINEX), Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), and another group whose name I cannot recall, came up with a strong statement critisizing the government's "national broadband network" (NBN). Their position paper is entitled "A Growing culture of impunity".

The first paragraph for instance, goes like this:
"We are appalled that the culture of impunity among certain government officials appears to have spread to an extent exceeding that of all past administrations. This impunity seems also increasingly evident in many agencies in government."

Rather strong words, right? I congratulate these groups for being brave enough to say those words and observation.

My observation of the current administration is that the "culture of impunity" is already grown up. It has matured, but still growing, nonetheless.

The current President of the country was caught on several accounts of orchestrating a large-scale cheating in the May 2004 Presidential elections. Among the most graphic proof was her regular calls to an elections commissioner, asking for some 1 million of rigged votes for her. She apologized in 2005 and said that she, being the President of the country and a presidential candidate, calling a commissioner of a constitutionally-independent Commission on Elections, has commited a "lapse in judgement". But she made about 15 calls, so it was "15 lapses of judgements".

The public and political opposition that came out when these proof and issues surfaced was so strong, it was time for her to engage in large-scale magic, if not bribery, of people who have the power to impeach her from office -- many members of the House of Representatives. Despite mounting evidence, the impeachment move was killed by Congress on a simple technicality: that the first (and weakest, the least proof cited) of several impeachment resolutions was to be the basis of Congress action whether to hear it or kill it.

In the last May 2007 elections, the culture of impunity, of large-scale cheating, reared its head again. For instance, I have 2 good friends, female friends, who ran for Congresswoman (one in Mindanao, one in Metro Manila), who have wide popular base, but they were with the opposition. The cheating was so vulgar and graphic, you will shake your head when you see how some of their votes were counted -- for their opponents who are administration candidates! My friend who ran for congresswoman in Metro Manila, after being cheated and beaten, learn one important lesson: if you want to win an election in the Philippines, court the voters, yes, but spend most of your money buying and bribing the government election officials!

The current NBN scandal is one of the many faces of a "mature culture of impunity" under the big government regime. Personally, I will not single out the current administration as the single evil administration. Past administrations have their own shares or "culture of impunity". And I have no doubt in my mind that the next administrations will also have their own brand of "culture of impunity". And why so? Because of the "culture of big government". Big government, especially in countries where the rule of law culture is not strong, always has big opportunities for big-time corruption, big-time robbery, and big--time treachery.


3. Endless Scandals of Corruption

OCTOBER 17, 2007

Mr. Antonio C. Abaya wrote an article, "Bribe It Was" (Standard Today, October 16, 2007):

"...Some 190 congressmen and women were summoned to a breakfast meeting in Malacanang with President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo last Thursday, Oct. 11. At the end of the meeting, envelopes were allegedly given away to the attendees, each one supposedly containing P200,000 to P500,000 in cash., as “send-off gifts” or “a remembrance” or “help”(See the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Oct 12.)

In addition, each attending congressman and woman was allegedly promised pork barrel allocation of up to P70 million.

The cash envelopes were given away apparently without any vouchers to be signed by the recipients, without any indication from which department the (presumably public) money was coming from, without any instructions on how or for what purpose the money was to be used for, and without any indication that the amounts were to be accounted for or liquidated at a certain date.

In other words, each recipient was free to use the cash, partly or fully, for the coming barangay elections or other local community project, or for his or her own personal needs. Which would be a working definition of a bribe....."

Everything correct that Mr Abaya wrote.
From an unresolved NBN scandal and now this...

PGMA is so dirty, I think a liar worse than Marcos and Erap. I question the sincerity to public service of anyone in government still aligned with her, from Senators to Congressmen to Governors and Mayors to Cabinet secretaries.

I have always believed that my former boss, now DOF Sec. Teves, is clean. But the way his boss is blatantly involving herself in so many scandals, and somehow he can't help but be part of the deny-and-lie defenses, I begin to think that his integrity should go down with her now...
---------

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

Scientists Speak: No "Consensus" on AGW

Below is a letter signed by 6 notable American scientists, published in a student paper at the Brigham Young University (BYU), USA. This letter was initiated by my friend, American-Malaysian astrophysict, Willie Soon.

Note, all of these 6 scientists have PhDs, they just did not put the title in their names in this letter. One of them is a geologist and former astronaut who was the last living "Moon walker", Jack Schmitt.

These 6 intelligent souls are saying only one thing: there was no scientific "consensus" to the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) theory in the past, no "consensus" until now, and there will never be one. Because the theory behind AGW is flatly wrong.

below is their letter.
---------

http://universe.byu.edu/node/1138

Viewpoint: Still a hot debate
Mon, 07/27/2009 - 20:54

Jeremy Kuhre recently suggested BYU students are unreasonably skeptical about global warming, in the face of “virtually unanimous” acceptance among climatologists of the belief our planet is “heating up.” He equates the students with people who maintain the lunar landing was a hoax.

We the undersigned have studied weather, climate and climate change for years — and we can state with certainty that there is no unanimous view among scientists on the matter of man-made catastrophic global warming.

One of us, Harrison Schmitt, actually stood on the moon, drilled holes, collected moon rocks and has since returned to Earth. He knows the landing was real.

Probably all climate and other scientists do agree our Earth warmed intermittently and slowly between 1850 and 1998 and has cooled slightly since then. But that is not the issue. The question is whether humans’ use of oil, coals and natural gas can cause a future global warming disaster — and on that there is tremendous disagreement, just as there is about the forces that are responsible for recent, current and past climate changes. This is the reason why over 31,000 scientists have signed the Global Warming Petition.

The opposition to the hypothesis of catastrophic climate change from rising atmospheric CO2 is legitimate, and it is the right and duty of all citizens, including American farmers, to ask questions and demand evidence and answers. The news media have contributed to the incorrect and biased view that recent warming was caused by human CO2 emissions and that future warming will be disastrous for humans, wildlife and our planet.

The media and political activists have also promoted policies that attack American liberties and harm and kill people, by diverting money, attention and energy resources from far more urgent and worthy purposes, such as reducing poverty, malaria and malnutrition and improving the living standards for everyone.

The issue of global warming is not a war of “expertise.” It is, or should be, an objective study of scientific measurements and data — which can now confirm atmospheric CO2 plays at most a minor role in causing weather and climate change.

BYU is an institution of higher learning that should promote the seeking of truth. Similarly, science is an objective assessment of hypotheses, testing concepts against actual data and observations; it is not a matter of votes, popularity or “virtual unanimity.” We are all harmed, if we allow our universities or our science to be politicized.

Harrison Schmitt
Geologist and Astronaut

Craig Idso
Geographer

David R. Legates
Climatologist

Art Robinson
Chemist

Noah Robinson
Chemist

Willie Soon
Astrophysicist
------

Meanwhile, I wrote this two days ago:

Climate Alarmists BBC vs UK Met Office

It's interesting how a big climate alarmist media like BBC is now criticizing the UK's Meteorological office for whipping "barbeque summer" or "scorching summer" predictions in April of each year the past 3 Aprils, only for the British public to endure cold and wet summers, especially June-July. See BBC news report below.

Meanwhile, per Joe d Aleo's (or perhaps other scientists') monitoring of sunspot activity, since January this year, 76 percent of all days have zero sunspot, blank as in white paper. The implication for this in the Sun-climate link theory, is that more cooling is way ahead.

From what I have read, the Sun's magnetic field (as observed in the number of sunspots) creates solar wind. Strong solar magnetic field, strong solar wind. Which drives away cosmic galactic rays from the outer space that are suppose to help catalyze the formation of low-lying clouds, which blocks sunlight, which results in global cooling. With weak solar magnetic field, few or zero sunspots, more cosmic rays reach the Earth's atmosphere, they help form low-lying clouds, which mainly explains for the current global cooling.

David Archibald, a physicist, noted the other day that even NASA now admits that the Earth may be approaching the Dalton Minimum of global cooling, occured 2 centuries ago. I wonder what James Hansen, the top and most vocal climate alarmist in NASA, would say about the recent pronouncement of NASA?
-----------

http://news. bbc.co.uk/ 2/hi/science/ nature/8173533. stm

Met Office cools summer forecast
By Roger Harrabin
BBC environment analyst

You will need a brolly on holiday in the UK in August - the Met Office is issuing a revised forecast for more unsettled weather well into the month.

It is a far cry from the "barbecue summer" it predicted back in April.

The news will raise questions about the Met Office's ability to make reliable seasonal forecasts.

But the organisation has defended its record, saying people have already forgotten the hot weather experienced across many parts of Britain in June.

It also highlights the absence of the sort of major floods that blighted 2007 and 2008; and the largely fine weather for the Wimbledon tennis championship, the cricket Tests and the Open golf.

The Met Office also says temperatures have been around or above normal, and that the end of August might be better again.

It did indeed stress at the time of the summer forecast in April that the odds of a scorching summer were 65%. It explains that it coined the phrase "barbecue summer" to help journalists' headlines.

But this has come back to bite the organisation because many people do not feel like they have been enjoying a "good" summer, especially compared with previous searing years....

US Debt 7: US Budget Deficit and G8 Debt

Now the US government's fiscal irresponsibility is being scrutinized by its big lenders. Especially the Chinese government. There seems to be no limit to the US government's hunger for ever-bigger expenditures and budget deficit, more public debt, administration after administration, from Republicans to Democrats. That's the debtor.

The lender, the world's 2nd biggest economy in terms of GDP PPP valuation, China. Its government is said to be holding about $1-5 trillion of US debt papers. That amount is equivalent to the GDP of Spain or Turkey, I think, and about 4x the GDP of the Philippines.

The ugly -- fiscal irresponsibility of the government of the world's biggest economy. There is a transmission line somewhere from the fiscal to financial and overall economic environment. So a crisis from the fiscal side can easily be transmitted to the financial markets. When the US government begs for more debt in order to pay some or most of its past debt, then trouble will not be far behind. The "savior" of today's US credit crisis will become the villain in the coming years.

But can the private sector -- the private enterprises, the households and average citizens -- bail out the US government? Yes, they can. In the form of higher taxes (to pay some of the maturing debts), higher interest rates (as government borrowings compete with corporate and household borrowings), and higher inflation rate (a result of higher interest rate, US $ depreciation, etc.).

The G8 would not matter much here because almost all of those industrialized countries -- US, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, France, Italy and Russia -- are huge debtors. The bigger question is the capacity of the world's biggest lender, China (both its private corporations and government), how long it will keep on lending. Or whether it will get tired and stop lending somewhere in the near future, if not dispose and dump even 1/4 of its huge US$ holdings.

There is no long-term benefit to fiscal irresponsibility. Only short-term gains like bailing out the administration who is sitting in the White House at the time of fiscal bleeding.

Below is the relevant news report today.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/us/politics/29sanger.html

On Washington
U.S. Budget Is Scrutinized by a Big Creditor

By DAVID E. SANGER
Published: July 28, 2009

No sooner had President Obama greeted nearly 200 of the bankers, bureaucrats and policymakers who could make or break his economic plans on Monday than they started grilling his economic team with the hardest questions about his economic strategy.

How long are these huge deficits sustainable, they wanted to know. How long do you keep stimulating the economy, and when do you break for the exits? If the dollar nosedives compared other major currencies, what’s the administration’s Plan B?

The questions were mostly asked in Chinese — by a delegation from Beijing that, diplomatic niceties aside, has come to check in on the investment of more than $1.5 trillion that China has made in United States government-issued securities....
-------

I wrote this last June 04, 2009:

Budget Deficit and Irresponsibility

Budget deficit means that revenues are lower than expenditures. When a household regularly spends more than its combined earnings, then it is said to be regularly living beyond its means and is known to be irresponsible and braggart (“mayabang”). The only understandable exception for such label is when that household has one or more family member/s with a complicated disease and health problem that requires expensive health treatment. In such a case, some people who lent that family some money will not expect to be repaid because they know the hardship and emotional troubles that household is regularly experiencing.

At the macro level, when a government is on perennial budget deficit, say running for 10 or 20 years or more, then it can easily be considered as fiscally irresponsible. It perfectly knows that its revenues from taxes, fees, charges, fines, grants and some privatization are not enough and yet it continues creating new agencies, bureaucracies and enterprises, new programs and subsidies, hiring new and additional people, raising the salary of its employees, and more often than not, raising the perks and pork barrel funds of its President, Prime Minister and legislators.

There are two important negative effects of this kind of philosophy and government practice. First, it corrupts and distorts the financial flows in the economy. The government is perennially borrowing to finance yearly budget deficit, that results in ever-larger public debt, that requires ever-larger debt servicing (principal and interest), that adds pressure in future expenditures that will require more borrowings. Second, the citizens are corrupted into dependence or rent-seeking behavior. If they have some problems that could otherwise be addressed through community or corporate and personal responsibility, they run to the State for subsidies, protection from competition, or they simply wish to become new bureaucrats and politicians in the State’s expansive and high pile of existing bureaucracies and agencies.

One policy tool that a government can do to reduce or stop its fiscal irresponsibility is the privatization of some or all of its government-owned and controlled enterprises, banks and utilities. If those enterprises are currently earning, then the government can sell them at a high price to help retire the huge pile of public debt, resulting in lower debt servicing and lower expenditures. If those enterprises are losing, then the government can sell them at a bargain, get some revenues while stopping the annual subsidies for those losing enterprises and reduce the fiscal bleeding caused by those inefficient State corporations.

But this is easily said than done. Those State enterprises, banks and utilities are one of those “bribery departments” that the politicians in power use to reward some of their political supporters and financiers. Or politicians and activists from other political parties, media, NGOs, and academe that will otherwise become critical of the administration, are co-opted and silenced with high positions and very handsome salaries, perks, travels and arbitrary power to dispense political and financial favors. Thus the inefficiencies and rent-seeking of the past political administration are simply replicated, if not exceeded, by a new batch of inefficiencies, wastes and rent-seeking.

The number of fiscally irresponsible governments (FIGs) around the world far outnumbers the responsible ones. Even the rich countries, majority are perennial debtors. All the G7 countries for instance (US, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, France and Italy) have huge public debts. Their gross debt as percent of their GDP ranges from a low of 44 percent (UK) to a high of 104 percent (Italy) and 195 percent (Japan).

Here at home, the Philippine State is among those fiscally irresponsible governments in the world. Its annual budget deficit ranges from one to three percent of GDP, amounting to several billion pesos every year. When this is accumulated along with past debts and deficit, outstanding public debt should be nearly Php4 trillion pesos or nearly half of GDP. This year and next year, top State bureaucrats at the Finance, Budget and Economic Planning departments are discussing how many hundred billion pesos they will “allow” as budget deficit.

Those FIGs are more often than not perked up and supported by multilateral and foreign aid institutions. These are regional and global banks funded by contributions by governments themselves but run and managed by technocrats. When FIGs from poor countries lack resources mainly due to wastes and corruption, these foreign aid bodies are more than willing to lend more money. The case of many governments in Africa is a classic example.

More than distortion in financial flows in the economy, it is corruption of the citizens’ mind that is a worse crime of fiscal irresponsibility. For instance, people who abuse their body with excessive intake of alcohol and tobacco products, or live in dirty surroundings and do not observe basic personal hygiene, would later run to the State for “quality” health care and subsidized or free medicines.

It is the relegation, if not substitution, of personal responsibility for “government responsibility” that is the main crime of big and fiscally irresponsible governments.
--------

See also 
US Debt 1: How Bloated is the US Govt? May 08, 2006
US Debt 2: Private Sector Bailout of Government, September 26, 2008
US Debt 3: Crisis of Irresponsibility, October 13, 2008
US Debt 4: Obama and US Entitlement, November 11, 2008
US Debt 5: Obama's Taxes, Bail Outs, $56 Trillion Debt Bomb, November 13, 2008
US Debt 6: Stimulus Trap, $1.75 Trillion Deficit, and Taxation Blackhole, March 08, 2009

Health politics

I am thankful to the DOH that I've been a part of the DOH Advisory Council on price regulation -- a multi-sectoral, multi-interest body that deliberates on whether government shoup dip its hands in setting or dictating the price of certain medicines, on whether to allow or restrict drug discount cards, and related topics. The DOH's hands are tied here because the Cheaper medicines law mandates it to take up such matters.

I perfectly remember that the subject of voluntary drug price reduction was extensively discussed during the 4th and 5th Council meetings last month, and I realized there that for the first time perhaps in the history of the Philippine pharma industry, the multinationals and Filipino pharma companies were united -- in opposing mandatory government price control.

Last Saturday, July 25, the Advisory Council released its first Resolution, "Implementing the voluntary price reduction for at least 16 molecules (or 41 drug preparations)". It was signed by various stakeholders and participants that regularly attend the Council meetings. I wasn't there because the schedule of the meeting and announcement was moved from 1pm to 10am, and I have an obligation for my daughter in the morning of that day.

The big problem in the implementation of 50 percent price cut (or any other rate) are the small drugstores in the provinces which have no computerized system in tracking their inventories, sales, orders, and so on. Otherwise, the big drugstores (Mercury especially, Watsons, PITC Pharma, etc.) can easily comply within the 1 month transition period (August 15 to September 15) before penalties for violation will be implemented.
-----

The list of medicines under voluntary price reduction was advertised in big newspapers last Sunday (and perhaps in other days).

But politics set in, as usual. What could be plain "voluntary price" became "Government Mediated Access" (GMA) price, referring to the initials of the name of the President of the country. Which shows once again the ugliness of government intervention. When government comes in, there are always "bahid politika" or political motives, and there are always politicians taking the undeserved media credits.

In reality, government produces not a single tablet, not a single medicine. Government only produces regulations, prohibitions and ots of paper work that all private enterprises (from barber shop to food shop to pharma companies) must comply.
-------

When my brother was still undergoing chemo treatment (prostate C), one injection was worth P25,000, nearly P3,000 of which was VAT alone. Eight (8) or more treatments, not effective enough because the cancer virus has spread to his body already. A last-attempt chemo just to prolong his life was worth P90k (of which around P10K was VAT alone). Days before his death, his pain was beyond description. On his last few hours though, he was already unconscious and perhaps, rested.

Cancer and Taxes, they have one similarity: they both suck, they both kill.

I know of some rich people who have cancer. They can afford even the most expensive medicines, even the most expensive doctors. But current breed of many medicines are not powerful enough to beat and kill cancer (or AIDS and Alzheimers). So they die quick once the virus spreads in their body.

Some NGO leaders in our local health coalition in Manila portray me as a "traitor" for consistently opposing government price control, government confiscation of private property in IPR. But I sincerely believe in medicine innovation. Only new, revolutionary, more powerful, real killer drugs of killer diseases can save lives. The generics and cheaper versions can follow later.

Tax Cut 10: Mongolian Taxpayers Movement

A friend from Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia, Mr. Jargal Dambadarjaa (JD), put up a new non-government organization (NGO) there, called Mongolians for Fair Taxes and Wise Spending (FTWS). The position papers are posted in his blog, http://www.djargal.blogspot.com/.

His last article as of this writing is entitled "Another Tax Load". He rightfully put it when he wrote,

"Today, the single largest factor hindering Mongolian society’s progress is our own ever-growing government. It enforces tax collection from people, but never gives a clear report where those money go, and with what interest rates those funds are kept. Because of this unclear condition of public funds, corruption stems from the government walls. The government is keeping our development stalled instead of facilitating it."

I was also shaking my head to read that Mongolian government officials can have medical treatment in Japan and Singapore for free. Well at least they are not going to UK, France, Canada or the US where medical treatment are very expensive.

I believe that free market think tanks and institutes should include some tax activism in their menu of research work and/or political activities. This will help discipline them NOT to accept any government money, national or foreign aid.

My observation here in the Philippines is that so many NGOs and civil society groups that are supposedly activist, fighting corruption and advocating good governance, are silent when it comes to taxation issues. Why -- I think mainly because they receive funding from some government departments, or from foreign aid bodies (USAID, WB, UN, ADB, EC, GTZ, etc.). WB-Philippines for instance was shameless to openly advocate higher excise tax for petroleum products. I wrote a blog entry about it here.


Meanwhile, I wrote this last February 07, 2009:

On Taxing the Rich

There is an interesting article this week from the NY Times,
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/06/opinion/06hastings.html?em 


Please raise my taxes
By REED HASTINGS 

Published: February 5, 2009 
Los Gatos, Calif.


The author wrote,

"I'M the chief executive of a publicly traded company and, like my peers, I'm very highly paid. The difference between salaries like mine and those of average Americans creates a lot of tension, and I'd like to offer a suggestion. President Obama should celebrate our success, rather than trying to shame us or cap our pay. But he should also take half of our huge earnings in taxes, instead of the current one-third. 

Then, the next time a chief executive earns an eye-popping amount of money, we can cheer that half of it is going to pay for our soldiers, schools and security. Higher taxes on huge pay days can finance opportunity for the next generation of Americans. 

Clearly, the efforts over the past few decades to control executive compensation haven't accomplished much. Improved public disclosure was supposed to shame companies into lowering salaries, and it obviously hasn't worked. In 1993, President Bill Clinton changed the tax law to effectively cap executives' salaries at $1 million a year, but that simply drove corporate boards to offer larger bonuses and stock options to attract and keep talent. More recently, "say on pay" proposals would have shareholders opine on their boards' compensation decisions, but "say and pay" won't change the fact that luring a top executive away from another company is never easy or cheap. 

The reality is that the boards of public companies hate overpaying for anything, including executives. But picking the wrong chief executive is an enormous disaster, so boards are willing to pay an arm and a leg for already proven talent. Putting limits on the salaries at public companies, or trying to shame them into coming down, won't stop this costly competition for talent.... 
-------

I agree that putting a cap on executive pay is a terrible idea.
But asking that income tax on high-earning people be raised is also a horrible idea.

A better solution is that neither of the above should be done. And if the author believes that parting with one-half of what he is supposed to earn every month or every year, the money be used to fight poverty in America is a good idea, then he can do it himself. If he pays taxes 30 percent now, then he can send the IRS another 20 percent, total 50 percent. Then he can also convince his other friends who are company President and corporate executive to do the same. This is a perfectly fine arrangement. No coercion needed or attempted.

But asking the government that his bright idea be made into a law so that it will apply to everyone including those who do not believe in his bright idea, is wrong. That is coercion. That is dictatorship.

And going back to democracy, technically, one would not need coercion to implement democracy. If the majority think that education for all is a bright idea, then there is no need to employ coercion and force everyone to contribute to that cause, whether they have children or none, whether rich or poor. Non-coercion means parents will be responsible enough to work hard so they can send their kids to a school of their choice (foreign language school, arts and culture school, science and math school, religious school, practical arts school, etc.). For children of lazy and irresponsible parents, they can be adopted as scholars by charitable organizations, or by the local government's special welfare program, provided that these kids will show that they are serious in their studies. Then allow the lazy parents to fade, slowly but surely, to oblivion, unless they will reform themselves and assume more personal and parental responsibilities.


* See also:

Tax Cut 8: Comparing HK and Philippine Taxes, March 04, 2008

Tax Cut 9: Flat Tax, 26 Countries Now, December 16, 2008

PLDT inefficiency

I got a Landline Plus telephone for Minimal Government Thinkers. Before it was post-paid, then I shifted to pre-paid after a year. They gave me a new number, 701-6558.

Around July 19 or 20, I received a text from PLDT saying that the service under the P300/month plan will expire in 2 days. July 21, I went to PLDT office in Ayala, Makati. It was loaded P300, around 12noon. I was able to make 1 landline call that day, about 2 minutes. No call the next day.

July 23, around 5pm, I received a call in my cell phone from a friend saying that she could not reach me at my landline. I checked -- made an outgoing call, nothing. I called up the landline myself, it's dead. No outgoing, no incoming calls, the phone is useless.

I called PLDT's landline plus hotline, 101-328, past 5pm, pushed 0 to talk to a customer service representative. No one answered the phone. Another call before 7pm, no one picked up the phone again.

July 24 Friday, another call in that hotline, the same zero response from the customer care. The same on Saturday, no one picks up the phone among the customer care people. I did not call Sunday.

July 27 I was out of town. Today, July 28 Tuesday morning, I made 2 calls, still no one answers. I was terribly disappointed already. So I wrote a complaint letter detailing the above to PLDT in their Ayala office through my sister's staff. The messenger went there in the afternoon. A staff at the customer care did not even bother to read my letter and told the messenger that I should call 101-328. In effect I was told that I should call the number that is the subject of my complaint itself!

So that's triple inefficiency on the part of PLDT.

One, disconnecting my landline plus even after I have loaded the required P300 before the scheduled disconnection date.
Two, having a hotline number that no one answers.
And three, having a customer care staff at PLDT office in Ayala saying that I should call the number that I indicated in my letter, is the source of my frustration. Since they are customer service staff, they should have read entirely my letter and did any remedial measure why my Landline Plus phone is still useless even if I already paid them several days ago.

I thought that PLDT is no longer a monopoly. Because only monopolists are arrogant and inefficient, and customers have no other option but bear their laziness and stupidity.

But PLDT is indeed no longer a monopoly. So there must be some sense of professionalism left. I made another call this afternoon, around 2:30pm. To my surprise, a staff picked up the phone, introduced herself as Michelle. I immediately told the lady of my frustration that my PLDT tel. is still useless for 6 days now.

Her explanation? I loaded P300 two days before the scheduled expiration of my previous P300. Since I made one call, the remaining balance is only P296. Since it is below P300, they have to disconnect my tel. -- no outgoing, no incoming calls either.

Wow! Ok, since P296 is not the same as P300, I accepted the explanation. But my 2nd question, why was it so hard to call that hotline number so that one staff could have explained to me as early as last July 24 that I needed at least P4 of additional load so that my telephone will become useful again?

Her answer, they entertain so many callers and they could not answer all calls.

Ok, damage has been done, my phone was useless for 6 days now, for a crime of lacking P4 in the load that nobody in PLDT was able to explain to me earlier.

To my friends -- don't believe those cute promos and sweet talks by PLDT about their Landline Plus. There are hidden inefficiencies somewhere that can cause you some stress, if not anger.

After posting this blog entry here, I will email PLDT and see if they will make any response or explanation. If I don't hear anything from them, that means they are indeed callous. I will make another blog entry and spread to my various yahoogroups or googlegroups.

Meanwhile, I reiterate my position that further government regulations of telecom companies is not the answer to some of their unfair promos. As customers, we need more options, more choices, so it will be to our interest if there will be 5 or more players in the telecom sector, and not just the current 3 players. If one promo or one player is lousy, like the PLDT Landline Plus program, we can dump them and move to the other competitors.

More government regulations to a certain extent is favorable to the existing players. The latter may feel the pain of more government intervention, but such increased intervention also discourages other players and potential competitors from entering the sector. Thus the incumbent's oligopolistic control of the industry is retained and cemented.