There was a discussion paper that argued for the following:
a. Finite resources and Entropy. Resources are finite and the universe is entropic, not dynamic and static and will reach its inherent natural limits.
b. Animals adapt to nature, Humans conquer nature.
c. Why blame the victims. It is unfair to call the “scums” and “dregs” of society, as “leeches.” They are victims of a system,
My counter-arguments to the above are as follows:
1. On finite resources. "Finiteness" is relative. As technology and innovation continues, what used to look or sound like "finite" becomes infinite. Take land. Before, people worry how many houses a 1-hectare land can hold. With high rise condo buildings, a 1-hectare land can accomodate thousands of households, thousands of parking lots, with enough space for open-space park.
Or people used to worry about shrinking agricultural land. But some guys are already into vertical vegetable gardens, multi-layer, multi-cropping. Or with hydroponics, people can grow and harvest veggies at 1/2 the period and 1/2 (or less) the inputs (water and fertilizers) and harvest the same or 2x more than planting in open space land.
2. Entropic universe. Again, this is questionable if not wrong. A dynamic universe can never be entropic, static and finite. Last September for instance, NASA reported that there were 19 percent more galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) in the Earth's atmosphere (lower and upper atmosphere) than last year. This is mainly due to the prolonged solar minimum and less active or "quiet" Sun. GCRs mainly come from exploding stars. Billions of stars are still being born, while billions of other stars have already exploded to extinction. More stars born, more starlight (or what we call "sunlight"), more energy in the universe.
3. Humans conquer nature. Another misconcepcion and hence, wrong. See this news report today, for instance,
"Britain facing one of the coldest winters in 100 years, experts predict"
http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/topics/ weather/6921281/ Britain-facing- one-of-the- coldest-winters- in-100-years- experts-predict. html
During the winterstorm and blizzard in Europe at the time that government leaders and other warming alarmists were meeting in Copenhagen to "fight global warming", at least 90 people died there, mostly the homeless.
And more people died in UK with severe winter last year than in previous years,
"Figures obtained by the Tories show that the North West’s “winter kill” rose from 3,210 in 2007-08 to 5,000 last year."
http://www.liverpoo lecho.co. uk/liverpool- news/local- news/2010/ 01/02/liverpool- pensioners- face-cold- weather-death- risk-claim- tories-100252- 25507589/
Man "destroyed and conquered nature"? Think again. Nature, the coming severe and prolonged global cooling, will kill more people. And people will wish that the global warming scam was true and not a hoax, if only to save them from terrible cooling.
4. Blame the victims. Victims are "blamed" only when they become burdensome to society for a long time. Like those unemployed who have been on welfare for 1 decade, 2 decades or more. A Filipina friend in NZ complains that NZ's welfare system has spoiled one of her neighbors who has been on welfare for the past 20+ years and has zero ambition of ever working. People who were rendered jobless because of temporary dislocations (like many shops that were damaged 100% during typhoons Ondoy and Pepeng) and relied on limited government charity and welfare are not blamed; they are assisted to get back on their feet.
Sunday, January 03, 2010
Surplus under socialism
One member of my discussion yahoogroups posted his definition:
"Capitalism gets the profit and distributes it to owners.
Socialism/communism gets the profit and distributes it to workers."
His definition of forced collectivism (aka socialism/communism )is wrong. The surplus or profit goes to the leaders of the communist party, not the workers. If workers did benefit, the Berlin Wall and "proletarian states" would still be around.
Another member suggested that the 2007-08 financial turmoil was a "market debacle". Again, I will say that this is wrong.
We could say that it was Lehman debacle, AIG debacle, etc., but never a market debacle. Many big capitalist firms are still around -- big airlines, big hotels, big fastfood chains, big coffeeshop chains, big internet portals, etc. The market economy only wobbled, and it must experience that. Expansion and bankruptcy are 101 percent part of capitalism.
Greed is practiced not only by the big guys. It's also practiced by the small guys. Notice how tricycles would lobby, if not sabotage, the entry of jeepneys in some routes that they have monopolized for many years. Notice how jeepney operators and drivers would lobby, if not sabotage, the entry of air-con FX and vans in some routes that they have monopolized for many years.
Stiff competition among players provide the "invisible hand" that lead players' greed to serve public interest. An auto repair shop owner, driven by greed and profit, would open his shop 10 hrs a day, 7 days a week, no lunch break, order his staff to be extra courteous to clients, and not charge his customers too high -- in order to get more customers, to survive the competition by other auto repair shops nearby.
"Capitalism gets the profit and distributes it to owners.
Socialism/communism gets the profit and distributes it to workers."
His definition of forced collectivism (aka socialism/communism )is wrong. The surplus or profit goes to the leaders of the communist party, not the workers. If workers did benefit, the Berlin Wall and "proletarian states" would still be around.
Another member suggested that the 2007-08 financial turmoil was a "market debacle". Again, I will say that this is wrong.
We could say that it was Lehman debacle, AIG debacle, etc., but never a market debacle. Many big capitalist firms are still around -- big airlines, big hotels, big fastfood chains, big coffeeshop chains, big internet portals, etc. The market economy only wobbled, and it must experience that. Expansion and bankruptcy are 101 percent part of capitalism.
Greed is practiced not only by the big guys. It's also practiced by the small guys. Notice how tricycles would lobby, if not sabotage, the entry of jeepneys in some routes that they have monopolized for many years. Notice how jeepney operators and drivers would lobby, if not sabotage, the entry of air-con FX and vans in some routes that they have monopolized for many years.
Stiff competition among players provide the "invisible hand" that lead players' greed to serve public interest. An auto repair shop owner, driven by greed and profit, would open his shop 10 hrs a day, 7 days a week, no lunch break, order his staff to be extra courteous to clients, and not charge his customers too high -- in order to get more customers, to survive the competition by other auto repair shops nearby.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
Privatization 1: Philippine Military Academy (PMA)
The Philippine Military Academy (PMA) is known as the "premier" military school in the country. Well, it's the only military school in this country expensively supported by our taxes.
I believe that the PMA should be privatized, for the following reasons.
One, it is very expensive, or simply highly pampered, to train military students at P500,000/year/ student, or P2million/student over 4 years. PMA is bragging that figure in their photo exhibits, to lure more applicants.
Two, the ROTC or CMT system at the university level produces lots of good potential AFP officers. And yet those guys receive zero subsidy from the government for their early military training.
Three, Israel has the most battle-tested army in the world, but it has no military academy. Officers and soldiers are trained by the IDF (Israeli defence force) right there, and brought to "action" when there is another war with the Palestinians and/or other Arabs.
Four, lots of squatters at the PMA compound, mostly former AFP officers, soldiers and their friends/relatives.
Five, AFP needs lots of money for its modernization, it need not come from taxpayers' pockets. Sell a big portion of the compound and use the money for AFP use.
Six, it creates favoritism and nepotism in AFP promotions, where non-PMAers are almost always behind in promotion, regardless of their good performance in the field.
When Fort bonifacio was a military camp, it was a place for paranoid military officers. By 5pm, it was close to the public; also on weekends. And those people live off on taxes by the public. After Fort Bonifacio was privatized, it was democratized 100 percent. Anyone can enter the vicinity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Fort Bonifacio Global City encourage people to come in, to shop, to enjoy the improved scenery, to join marathons, etc.
The case of abuses of Blackwater guards contracted by the US Army in Iraq cannot be used as argument against PMA privatization. Whether public or private, what is important is accountability of soldiers, of government people and their contractors, under the rule of law.
A soldier kills a civilian because the former got drunk and became trigger happy. He will be accountable for that under the rule of law. A civilian guard (under a private security agency or under a military contract) kills a civilian because the former got drunk. He and/or his superiors will be accountable for that under the rule of law. Because there is only one law, not two or three. And that law says, "don't kill civilians without any valid reason".
On another note, using soldiers for engineering brigade, I think it's an excuse for having a bloated military. Like lots of air force soldiers but few airplanes. That is why many of the the guys we see in anti-riot defense by an unpopular president are air force soldiers and navy soldiers.
I believe that the PMA should be privatized, for the following reasons.
One, it is very expensive, or simply highly pampered, to train military students at P500,000/year/ student, or P2million/student over 4 years. PMA is bragging that figure in their photo exhibits, to lure more applicants.
Two, the ROTC or CMT system at the university level produces lots of good potential AFP officers. And yet those guys receive zero subsidy from the government for their early military training.
Three, Israel has the most battle-tested army in the world, but it has no military academy. Officers and soldiers are trained by the IDF (Israeli defence force) right there, and brought to "action" when there is another war with the Palestinians and/or other Arabs.
Four, lots of squatters at the PMA compound, mostly former AFP officers, soldiers and their friends/relatives.
Five, AFP needs lots of money for its modernization, it need not come from taxpayers' pockets. Sell a big portion of the compound and use the money for AFP use.
Six, it creates favoritism and nepotism in AFP promotions, where non-PMAers are almost always behind in promotion, regardless of their good performance in the field.
When Fort bonifacio was a military camp, it was a place for paranoid military officers. By 5pm, it was close to the public; also on weekends. And those people live off on taxes by the public. After Fort Bonifacio was privatized, it was democratized 100 percent. Anyone can enter the vicinity 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Fort Bonifacio Global City encourage people to come in, to shop, to enjoy the improved scenery, to join marathons, etc.
The case of abuses of Blackwater guards contracted by the US Army in Iraq cannot be used as argument against PMA privatization. Whether public or private, what is important is accountability of soldiers, of government people and their contractors, under the rule of law.
A soldier kills a civilian because the former got drunk and became trigger happy. He will be accountable for that under the rule of law. A civilian guard (under a private security agency or under a military contract) kills a civilian because the former got drunk. He and/or his superiors will be accountable for that under the rule of law. Because there is only one law, not two or three. And that law says, "don't kill civilians without any valid reason".
On another note, using soldiers for engineering brigade, I think it's an excuse for having a bloated military. Like lots of air force soldiers but few airplanes. That is why many of the the guys we see in anti-riot defense by an unpopular president are air force soldiers and navy soldiers.
Monday, December 28, 2009
Pfizer-Unilab row
During the Oversight Committee meeting on cheaper medicines law two weeks ago, the Pfizer-Unilab row over Atorvastatin was said to have been raised by some legislators. Pfizer owns the brand “Lipitor” while Unilab started selling last month its generic version, “Avamax”, said to be of similar molecule but 30% much cheaper than Lipitor.
The two corporations are slugging it out in the courts. The biggest pharma company in the world but only 3rd biggest in the Philippines (Pfizer) vs. the biggest pharma company in the Philippines (United Laboratories), with sales perhaps 4x that of the former.
Mercury Drugstore does not sell yet the Avamax. Some legislators, and many in the public and media, were questioning why Mercury is “depriving” the public of the cheaper generic version since there is no decision by the court yet.
I think the Pfizer-Unilab row in this case is a a legal and technical issue, not political. Is atorvastatin calcium crystalline the same as atorvastatin calcium amorphous molecule? That’s among the technical issues that I know.
If I am the drugstore, there is a temptation to sell also the cheaper but supposedly “equally effective” medicine. But since there is a legal dispute at the moment, I’d rather not sell that. Why?
Here’s one analogy. You’re a big real estate dealer. You know a piece of land – good location, cheap – but there’s a legal dispute over its ownership. Would you sell that land and at the same time protect your corporate image as seller of “clean” and non-contested real properties?
Most likely No.
Similar case here. While land is physical property, patent is intellectual (or non-tangible) property. And there is a legal dispute over ownership of the patent.
Let the courts decide over ownership of the Atorvastatin molecule. If Pfizer wins, that it still owns the patent to Atorvastatin calcium, then no harm to Mercury Drugstore. If Unilab wins, that Pfizer no longer owns that patent, still no harm to Mercury. If Mercury will sell Avamax and Pfizer later wins, then Mercury will be in trouble too.
----
I discovered a blog entry on this subject, "Dr. Arroyo and the law of intended consequences",
http://www.whitespacelab.com/2009/11/25/dr-arroyo-and-the-law-of-intended-consequences/
The paper referred to Unilab's action as:
"It appears that the business model for Pharma companies in developing nations is violate the law, copy the drug, steal the market share, and if necessary, settle in court since the future profits from capturing the generics market share sooner rather than later far outweighs legal ramifications. And President Gloria consolidates another political victory for the local under-dog.
Innovation be damned. The Law be damned.
Tej Deol, M.D."
The two corporations are slugging it out in the courts. The biggest pharma company in the world but only 3rd biggest in the Philippines (Pfizer) vs. the biggest pharma company in the Philippines (United Laboratories), with sales perhaps 4x that of the former.
Mercury Drugstore does not sell yet the Avamax. Some legislators, and many in the public and media, were questioning why Mercury is “depriving” the public of the cheaper generic version since there is no decision by the court yet.
I think the Pfizer-Unilab row in this case is a a legal and technical issue, not political. Is atorvastatin calcium crystalline the same as atorvastatin calcium amorphous molecule? That’s among the technical issues that I know.
If I am the drugstore, there is a temptation to sell also the cheaper but supposedly “equally effective” medicine. But since there is a legal dispute at the moment, I’d rather not sell that. Why?
Here’s one analogy. You’re a big real estate dealer. You know a piece of land – good location, cheap – but there’s a legal dispute over its ownership. Would you sell that land and at the same time protect your corporate image as seller of “clean” and non-contested real properties?
Most likely No.
Similar case here. While land is physical property, patent is intellectual (or non-tangible) property. And there is a legal dispute over ownership of the patent.
Let the courts decide over ownership of the Atorvastatin molecule. If Pfizer wins, that it still owns the patent to Atorvastatin calcium, then no harm to Mercury Drugstore. If Unilab wins, that Pfizer no longer owns that patent, still no harm to Mercury. If Mercury will sell Avamax and Pfizer later wins, then Mercury will be in trouble too.
----
I discovered a blog entry on this subject, "Dr. Arroyo and the law of intended consequences",
http://www.whitespacelab.com/2009/11/25/dr-arroyo-and-the-law-of-intended-consequences/
The paper referred to Unilab's action as:
"It appears that the business model for Pharma companies in developing nations is violate the law, copy the drug, steal the market share, and if necessary, settle in court since the future profits from capturing the generics market share sooner rather than later far outweighs legal ramifications. And President Gloria consolidates another political victory for the local under-dog.
Innovation be damned. The Law be damned.
Tej Deol, M.D."
Saturday, December 26, 2009
Warming Hysteria: Climate Extortion and Mayon Volcano
It is too common. When one cannot argue with data and facts, they attack the people or institutions that bring the idea. That is, they shoot the messenger, not the message.
This practice is very visible in the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW) claims. Many campaigners of such claim are too impatient to hear any opposing idea, so they douse any dissenting voice as "that's big oil lobby" and similar statements.
One article from mother jones has pathetically attacked the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network (IPN), the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC), and other think tanks and coalitions/network that do not agree with the AGW claim, see here.
http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/climate-deniers-atlas-foundation
The author is Mr. Josh Harkinson. The science and data behind AGW claim is highly suspect. I wrote a few papers on this, the latest of which is "Warming lies", http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091201.pdf.
Atlas is helping small think tanks around the world that advance individual liberty, not because they are questioning AGW. Most or all of those think tanks are fighting dictatorships, corruption, trade protectionism, high taxation, private property rights confiscation, among others. Questioning AGW is a small part of their work.
The CSCCC is a big international coalition of independent think tanks and institutes in more than 40 countries that don't believe in ecological central planning. Since there is no consensus yet about the science behind AGW, there should be no global coercion on environment and energy policies.
Talking about money, I think that while it is true that some oil money like Exxonmobil's was mobilized to help some "skeptics" groups, another big oil, Shell, is on the side of the warmers and most likely be giving them money too.
One estimate of lobby is goes like this:
against AGW, about $2m/year.
pro-AGW: $4 billion/year from the US federal government alone.
This is for climate researches that support the man-made warming conclusion. See for instance, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
--------
My related short papers recently:
(1) Winterstorm and Climate Extortion
December 20, 2009
I saw in my facebook account, pictures just a few hours ago, of my Filipino and American friends in deep snow in front of their houses in DC-VA and NYC. In this picture, my good friend Jo Kwong of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in DC.
That's one day after the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting to "fight unequivocal global warming."
US President Obama was forced to cut his trip in snowy Copenhagen to head back to DC because of the winter storm. But before flying, he and State Sec. Hillary Clinton promised "$100 billion a year starting 2020", all to fight global warming. The agreement in Copenhagen was to "limit global warming to only 2 C". The IPCC AR4 warned of "best case" 4 C rise in global temperature, with worst case of 6.4 C rise by 2100.
I would say that the Copenhagen meeting was an event of irony and hypocrisy. Let me enumerate a few points why I say this.
1. The $100 B/year promise by Mr. Obama will be made long after his term in the White House has ended, by 2020. It's the typical "promise everything" or "scare everyone with scenarios" long after you yourself is gone from your office or from the face of the Earth. The IPCC scientists for instance who predicted in 2007 of "up to 6.4 C rise by 2100" will all be dead by then.
2. Extortion by poor country governments. There was high political heat and bickering among poor country govts. vs rich country govts. vs. big environmental NGOs, in pressuring how much carbon emission cuts by whom and by when. In the end, they talk about money, money, money. European government initially said $10 billion/year, poor country governments said "No, We want $300 to $400 billion/year!"
Haggling and bickering, they end up with $100 B/year promise by Obama, plus contributions by EU and other rich governments. So in a sense, it was a meeting for extortion by poor country govts. But the leaders of those poor countries are ALL rich.
3. Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke in Copenhagen, lambasted the evils of capitalism and how capitalist corporations destroyed the planet. And many government representatives and NGOs applauded and gave him a standing ovation! Last time I checked, it was capitalism which gave them all commercial airlines, private jets, expensive limos and sedans, that brought them to capitalist Copenhagen. And they stayed in capitalist hotels, ate in capitalist restaurants in the city. Capitalist power plants gave them uninterrupted power and electricity for their meeting, and capitalist media outlets broadcasted their meetings and riots all around the world. And those politicians and bureaucrats say "capitalism is evil."
4. Blizzard in Copenhagen and upcoming winter storm in DC and surrounding states while they are meeting to "fight global warming". This time, it's the Earth telling them, "Get real guys. I got no fever. I'm chilling, and so are you."
Readers, feel free to add your list of irony and hypocrisy in all those lies and alarmism.
This practice is very visible in the anthropogenic [man-made] global warming (AGW) claims. Many campaigners of such claim are too impatient to hear any opposing idea, so they douse any dissenting voice as "that's big oil lobby" and similar statements.
One article from mother jones has pathetically attacked the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the International Policy Network (IPN), the Civil Society Coalition on Climate Change (CSCCC), and other think tanks and coalitions/network that do not agree with the AGW claim, see here.
http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/climate-deniers-atlas-foundation
The author is Mr. Josh Harkinson. The science and data behind AGW claim is highly suspect. I wrote a few papers on this, the latest of which is "Warming lies", http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091201.pdf.
Atlas is helping small think tanks around the world that advance individual liberty, not because they are questioning AGW. Most or all of those think tanks are fighting dictatorships, corruption, trade protectionism, high taxation, private property rights confiscation, among others. Questioning AGW is a small part of their work.
The CSCCC is a big international coalition of independent think tanks and institutes in more than 40 countries that don't believe in ecological central planning. Since there is no consensus yet about the science behind AGW, there should be no global coercion on environment and energy policies.
Talking about money, I think that while it is true that some oil money like Exxonmobil's was mobilized to help some "skeptics" groups, another big oil, Shell, is on the side of the warmers and most likely be giving them money too.
One estimate of lobby is goes like this:
against AGW, about $2m/year.
pro-AGW: $4 billion/year from the US federal government alone.
This is for climate researches that support the man-made warming conclusion. See for instance, http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf
--------
My related short papers recently:
(1) Winterstorm and Climate Extortion
December 20, 2009
I saw in my facebook account, pictures just a few hours ago, of my Filipino and American friends in deep snow in front of their houses in DC-VA and NYC. In this picture, my good friend Jo Kwong of the Atlas Economic Research Foundation in DC.That's one day after the conclusion of the Copenhagen meeting to "fight unequivocal global warming."
US President Obama was forced to cut his trip in snowy Copenhagen to head back to DC because of the winter storm. But before flying, he and State Sec. Hillary Clinton promised "$100 billion a year starting 2020", all to fight global warming. The agreement in Copenhagen was to "limit global warming to only 2 C". The IPCC AR4 warned of "best case" 4 C rise in global temperature, with worst case of 6.4 C rise by 2100.
I would say that the Copenhagen meeting was an event of irony and hypocrisy. Let me enumerate a few points why I say this.
1. The $100 B/year promise by Mr. Obama will be made long after his term in the White House has ended, by 2020. It's the typical "promise everything" or "scare everyone with scenarios" long after you yourself is gone from your office or from the face of the Earth. The IPCC scientists for instance who predicted in 2007 of "up to 6.4 C rise by 2100" will all be dead by then.
2. Extortion by poor country governments. There was high political heat and bickering among poor country govts. vs rich country govts. vs. big environmental NGOs, in pressuring how much carbon emission cuts by whom and by when. In the end, they talk about money, money, money. European government initially said $10 billion/year, poor country governments said "No, We want $300 to $400 billion/year!"
Haggling and bickering, they end up with $100 B/year promise by Obama, plus contributions by EU and other rich governments. So in a sense, it was a meeting for extortion by poor country govts. But the leaders of those poor countries are ALL rich.
3. Venezuelan socialist President Hugo Chavez spoke in Copenhagen, lambasted the evils of capitalism and how capitalist corporations destroyed the planet. And many government representatives and NGOs applauded and gave him a standing ovation! Last time I checked, it was capitalism which gave them all commercial airlines, private jets, expensive limos and sedans, that brought them to capitalist Copenhagen. And they stayed in capitalist hotels, ate in capitalist restaurants in the city. Capitalist power plants gave them uninterrupted power and electricity for their meeting, and capitalist media outlets broadcasted their meetings and riots all around the world. And those politicians and bureaucrats say "capitalism is evil."
4. Blizzard in Copenhagen and upcoming winter storm in DC and surrounding states while they are meeting to "fight global warming". This time, it's the Earth telling them, "Get real guys. I got no fever. I'm chilling, and so are you."
Readers, feel free to add your list of irony and hypocrisy in all those lies and alarmism.
(2) Mayon Volcano and Climate
December 19, 2009
Mayon volcano, the most active of the Philippines' 21 active volcanoes (and several dozens inactive ones), has been very active recently. In the last century, it was exploding every 10 years on average, I think. This decade and century, this will be it's 3rd explosion. First was February 2000, 2nd on August 2006, and now December 2009. That volcano is contributing lots of CO2 and other gases into the atmosphere.
Contribute to global warming? No. Exploding volcanoes release lots of gases, CO2 among them; also dust and smoke, into the lower and upper atmosphere. Such gases and particles tend to block sunlight from reaching the Earth's land and ocean surfaces, resulting in cooling.
When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, that event alone caused global cooling by at least 0.4 C for nearly 3 years. Thick volume of ashes, smoke and gases that navigated around the globe several times, blocking sunlight. When it erupted, certains hours of the day in Metro Manila, Pampanga and nearby provinces became dark.
One friend, Winthrop Yu, wondered how much cooling a Mayon eruption would contribute. Should be small, maybe by only 0.0__ C, but cooling, nonetheless.
And we go back to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4). On its "analysis" table, 8 out of 9 factors are anthropogenic (man-made), only 1 was natural, solar irradiance.
Whaaattt??? Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) don't contribute to the earth's climate? Volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, biosols, pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), other natural factors, do NOT contribute to the EArth's climate?
PDO cycles of cooling and warming average about 25 years. The warming phase is over, we're now entering the cooling phase.
Last September, NASA reported that there were 19 percent more GCRs in the Earth's atmosphere than last year. GCRs come from exploding stars from across the universe, within and outside our galaxy. They help create aerosols that become the "seeds" for more clouds.
The IPCC relied 100 percent of their climate predictions for the next 100 years on their global computer models (GCMs).
Seriously, anyone believes those computer models' predictive capacity of what will happen in the Philippines' weather, US weather, Europe weather, the world's weather, 1 or 2 weeks from now? For instance, the temperature range of hi-low, by Dec. 31, 2009? Because the IPCC's GCMs say they CAN predict the Earth's temperature range 90 or 100 years from now! And they have the figures, "best case" prediction of 4 C rise, max range of up to 6.4 C, by 2100!
Contribute to global warming? No. Exploding volcanoes release lots of gases, CO2 among them; also dust and smoke, into the lower and upper atmosphere. Such gases and particles tend to block sunlight from reaching the Earth's land and ocean surfaces, resulting in cooling.
When Mt. Pinatubo erupted in 1991, that event alone caused global cooling by at least 0.4 C for nearly 3 years. Thick volume of ashes, smoke and gases that navigated around the globe several times, blocking sunlight. When it erupted, certains hours of the day in Metro Manila, Pampanga and nearby provinces became dark.
One friend, Winthrop Yu, wondered how much cooling a Mayon eruption would contribute. Should be small, maybe by only 0.0__ C, but cooling, nonetheless.
And we go back to the IPCC 4th Assessment Report (AR4). On its "analysis" table, 8 out of 9 factors are anthropogenic (man-made), only 1 was natural, solar irradiance.
Whaaattt??? Galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) don't contribute to the earth's climate? Volcanoes, water vapor, clouds, biosols, pacific decadal oscillation (PDO), other natural factors, do NOT contribute to the EArth's climate?
PDO cycles of cooling and warming average about 25 years. The warming phase is over, we're now entering the cooling phase.
Last September, NASA reported that there were 19 percent more GCRs in the Earth's atmosphere than last year. GCRs come from exploding stars from across the universe, within and outside our galaxy. They help create aerosols that become the "seeds" for more clouds.
The IPCC relied 100 percent of their climate predictions for the next 100 years on their global computer models (GCMs).
Seriously, anyone believes those computer models' predictive capacity of what will happen in the Philippines' weather, US weather, Europe weather, the world's weather, 1 or 2 weeks from now? For instance, the temperature range of hi-low, by Dec. 31, 2009? Because the IPCC's GCMs say they CAN predict the Earth's temperature range 90 or 100 years from now! And they have the figures, "best case" prediction of 4 C rise, max range of up to 6.4 C, by 2100!
Monday, December 21, 2009
Drug price control, Sen, Pia style
I just read that the Congressional Oversight Committee on Cheaper Medicines Law held a committee meeting last Wednesday, Dec. 16, at the Senate. Among those present were Sen. Pia Cayetano and Cong. Arthur Pinggoy, Chairman of the House Committee on Health.
Sen. Pia attacked the Department of Health (DOH) and Sec. Duque for not coming up with a second batch of medicines for drug price control as many people she said, still complain that they don't feel the cheaper prices of medicines yet. She cited the following:
1. Cisplatin 500 mg (anti-cervical cancer), original price at P2,804, price control at P1,125, but can be bought only at P770 from PGH's Cancer Institute.
2. Ramosetron 100 mg (anti-cervical cancer), price control at P860, but can be bought at PGH's CI at only P156.
I do not know how such a big discrepancy can happen. I also wish to see if the drugs cited by Sen. Pia are of the same drug by the same manufacturer and the same distributor. And not one is a generics counterpart, or one is parallel-imported, or other differences.
I think the DOH should conduct a review first of the policy. The drug price control policy is now more than 4 months old (since August 15, 2009). A review is necessary if the policy is beneficial to the public, both short-term and long-term, or not. If it can be proven that it indeed benefited the public, then an extension, if not expansion, of the policy is warranted. Otherwise, the policy should be terminated very soon.
Perhaps BFAD and the DOH can help answer these possible questions in assessing the effectivity or benefits of the policy:
1. Health result of some patients who are chronic or repeated users of certain drugs that were price-controlled?
2. Instances of drug withrawals, say generics products that cannot compete the sudden low prices of branded and/or innovators drugs?
3. Instances of revolutionary and more powerful medicines against cancer, hypertension, and other killer diseases in the country, that are available in neighboring Asian countries which have no drug price control policy, but are not available in the Philippines?
4. General reaction of other players in the health sector -- drugstores (big and small), hospitals (government and private), pharma companies (local and multinational), professionals' organizations (pharmacists, physicians, nurses, etc.).
I hope that drugs pricing will be depolicicized as soon as possible. When there is heavy politics involved in the pricing of something (drugs, oil, food, house rental, electricity, bus fare, etc.), there is always distortion that will adversely affect the number and quality of players and producers in a given sector.
Sen. Pia attacked the Department of Health (DOH) and Sec. Duque for not coming up with a second batch of medicines for drug price control as many people she said, still complain that they don't feel the cheaper prices of medicines yet. She cited the following:
1. Cisplatin 500 mg (anti-cervical cancer), original price at P2,804, price control at P1,125, but can be bought only at P770 from PGH's Cancer Institute.
2. Ramosetron 100 mg (anti-cervical cancer), price control at P860, but can be bought at PGH's CI at only P156.
I do not know how such a big discrepancy can happen. I also wish to see if the drugs cited by Sen. Pia are of the same drug by the same manufacturer and the same distributor. And not one is a generics counterpart, or one is parallel-imported, or other differences.
I think the DOH should conduct a review first of the policy. The drug price control policy is now more than 4 months old (since August 15, 2009). A review is necessary if the policy is beneficial to the public, both short-term and long-term, or not. If it can be proven that it indeed benefited the public, then an extension, if not expansion, of the policy is warranted. Otherwise, the policy should be terminated very soon.
Perhaps BFAD and the DOH can help answer these possible questions in assessing the effectivity or benefits of the policy:
1. Health result of some patients who are chronic or repeated users of certain drugs that were price-controlled?
2. Instances of drug withrawals, say generics products that cannot compete the sudden low prices of branded and/or innovators drugs?
3. Instances of revolutionary and more powerful medicines against cancer, hypertension, and other killer diseases in the country, that are available in neighboring Asian countries which have no drug price control policy, but are not available in the Philippines?
4. General reaction of other players in the health sector -- drugstores (big and small), hospitals (government and private), pharma companies (local and multinational), professionals' organizations (pharmacists, physicians, nurses, etc.).
I hope that drugs pricing will be depolicicized as soon as possible. When there is heavy politics involved in the pricing of something (drugs, oil, food, house rental, electricity, bus fare, etc.), there is always distortion that will adversely affect the number and quality of players and producers in a given sector.
Saturday, December 19, 2009
On health socialism
In one of my discussion yahoogroups, I mentioned that I will not vote for Mar Roxas for VP in the May 2010 elections. Though he was the leader of a Liberal party that was supposed to advance liberal politics and liberal economic policies, he chose the socialist policy of drug price control, among others. There was no national health emergency at the time they forced drug price control (May to July this year). There was only political emergency as his then Presidential survey ranking was very low at that time. With high media mileage caused by his endless Senate hearings on price control, his ranking inched upwards. Until he realized that Noynoy is a better candidate than him, at least in their party.
Another member of that list countered, "what do you do with the drug cartel? In India Pfizer sell Ponstan at P3.50 and still made profit. Here it sold it at P43.00."
I replied with 2 points.
First, where's that figure P3.50 vs. P43 coming from? How is the conversion into pesos arrived at? Is the P3.50 price from real Pfizer's Ponstan or a counterfeit Ponstan? I asked that question because we have it here too, super-cheap copy-cat drugs, 1/5 or 1/10 the price of the original drug, and your disease expands.
Second, assuming the price difference is even worse, P3.50 India vs. P100 or P200 in Manila, both by the same Pfizer (or GSK or Roche or Sanofi or whatever pharma). If there is NO competing drug on the same generic or molecular property, then one can say there is a cartel or monopoly. But if there are 20 or 50 other competing drugs from various manufacturers, innovator or generics, what's the fuss? Why insist on buying P43 or P100 from one manufacturer when you can buy a competing drug with supposedly the same curative capacity from other manufacturers selling at only P3, P5, P10?
So long as there is competition, then let us allow any manufacturer or seller to over-price itself out of the market, out of the competition.
One good example is amlodipine(? ), a drug against hypertension. I heard that there are about 200 different drugs from different manufacturers against this disease. So the competition is very stiff, with prices ranging from P11 (or lower) to P44 (or higher). But the envious eyes of the politicians, media and activist NGOs are on Norvasc, made by Pfizer. Before the Roxas-Gloria drug price control policy in late July this year, it was sold at P44 for its customers with Sulit card. After the socialist policy of price control, it was coercively brought down to P22. The goal was to "help the poor" patients.
But the poor won't buy Norvasc at P22. It's still expensive for them. Other products of the same molecule are sold at P11 or lower. So did health socialism help the poor? No. It helped the rich and the middle class who used to buy at P44, now they pay only P22.
Again, my favorite analogy.
There is NO govt. restaurant, NO govt carinderia, NO govt turo-turo, NO govt supermarket, etc., and people are eating.
There ARE many govt. hospitals and clinics, there ARE many govt. drugstores and botica, there IS govt. health insurance, there IS govt. drug price control, and health problems are endless.
Health socialism -- or education socialism, housing socialism, socialism in general -- creates more problems than solutions.
--------
Part 2
Some people would not consider or admit that drug price control and similar schemes are tantamount to health socialism because the goal of such measures is "to help only the poor have access to medicines."
The current Cheaper Medicines Law (RA 9502) allows "parallel importation" scheme for drugs. Thus, anyone can now import a drug that is currently patented and sold higher in the Philippines, from another country which sells the same drug at a lower price. Thus, importing Pfizer India's Ponstan into the country is technically and legally allowed.
But many doctors, pharmacists, hospital administrators and informed patients are not comfortable with this scheme. Even assuming that the parallel-imported drug is 100% of the same molecule (not counterfeit, not substandard) as the one sold expensively here, there is the question of (a) storage, (b) handling and distribution, and (c) accountability.
Take drug A that specifies it should be stored and handled at temp. range of 15-25 C at ALL time. When it's stored and/or transported at 26 C or higher for 1 hour or more, it will have a lower or lesser effectiveness already. And a patient will either not get well, or develop new disease as the current disease that is supposed to be controlled or killed by a particular medicine, has already managed to mutate inside the body of the patient.
Under a parallel import scheme, the (a) foreign manufacturer, (b) foreign wholesaler or aggregator, (c) local importer and distributor, can be 2 or 3 different entities. They are never the same entity. So if something bad happens to the medicine being imported and given to the patient, and something bad happens to the patient, who is to be held accountable? A or b or c, or the local patent holder, or the physician and the hospital, or the drugstore, or the DOH?
Saving money is understandable. But saving lives is non-compromisable.
That is why I am not in favor of parallel importation scheme, not in favor of compulsory licensing, not in favor of drug price control, not in favor of government use, etc. ALL of those provisions are now allowed in the Cheaper medicines law. That is why I consider the said law as part of health socialism. The promises are holy and unquestionable – cheaper and affordable medicines. But the schemes used and allowed are generally confiscatory.
The law also does not say anything or amend medicine taxation. Such taxes comprise between 13 to 20 percent of the retail price of drugs. So government is a hypocrite, true blue hypocrite, for calling for “cheaper medicines” but is responsible for expensive medicines by slapping the product with various taxes, as if medicines are like beer and hamburger that should be taxed as much as possible.
So again, my 2 simple proposals to lower medicine prices, both of which were not included, explicitly or implicitly, in the cheaper medicines law:
1. abolish taxes on medicines
2. increase competition among drug manufacturers and retailers
I wrote a paper on drug price control, “Access to medicines through politics: Preliminary assessment of drug price control policy in the Philippines”, http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091014.pdf
It’s 33 pages, word document, including annexes and tables. I presented it in an international conference in Singapore last Oct 14-15 this year. There is one table there where I showed there are sooo many multinational pharma companies abroad that are not yet here, that have the potential to further push the competition among innovator manufacturers, but somehow they are not here. There should be some government policies here that scare them from coming in. Which reduces competition.
Another member of that list countered, "what do you do with the drug cartel? In India Pfizer sell Ponstan at P3.50 and still made profit. Here it sold it at P43.00."
I replied with 2 points.
First, where's that figure P3.50 vs. P43 coming from? How is the conversion into pesos arrived at? Is the P3.50 price from real Pfizer's Ponstan or a counterfeit Ponstan? I asked that question because we have it here too, super-cheap copy-cat drugs, 1/5 or 1/10 the price of the original drug, and your disease expands.
Second, assuming the price difference is even worse, P3.50 India vs. P100 or P200 in Manila, both by the same Pfizer (or GSK or Roche or Sanofi or whatever pharma). If there is NO competing drug on the same generic or molecular property, then one can say there is a cartel or monopoly. But if there are 20 or 50 other competing drugs from various manufacturers, innovator or generics, what's the fuss? Why insist on buying P43 or P100 from one manufacturer when you can buy a competing drug with supposedly the same curative capacity from other manufacturers selling at only P3, P5, P10?
So long as there is competition, then let us allow any manufacturer or seller to over-price itself out of the market, out of the competition.
One good example is amlodipine(? ), a drug against hypertension. I heard that there are about 200 different drugs from different manufacturers against this disease. So the competition is very stiff, with prices ranging from P11 (or lower) to P44 (or higher). But the envious eyes of the politicians, media and activist NGOs are on Norvasc, made by Pfizer. Before the Roxas-Gloria drug price control policy in late July this year, it was sold at P44 for its customers with Sulit card. After the socialist policy of price control, it was coercively brought down to P22. The goal was to "help the poor" patients.
But the poor won't buy Norvasc at P22. It's still expensive for them. Other products of the same molecule are sold at P11 or lower. So did health socialism help the poor? No. It helped the rich and the middle class who used to buy at P44, now they pay only P22.
Again, my favorite analogy.
There is NO govt. restaurant, NO govt carinderia, NO govt turo-turo, NO govt supermarket, etc., and people are eating.
There ARE many govt. hospitals and clinics, there ARE many govt. drugstores and botica, there IS govt. health insurance, there IS govt. drug price control, and health problems are endless.
Health socialism -- or education socialism, housing socialism, socialism in general -- creates more problems than solutions.
--------
Part 2
Some people would not consider or admit that drug price control and similar schemes are tantamount to health socialism because the goal of such measures is "to help only the poor have access to medicines."
The current Cheaper Medicines Law (RA 9502) allows "parallel importation" scheme for drugs. Thus, anyone can now import a drug that is currently patented and sold higher in the Philippines, from another country which sells the same drug at a lower price. Thus, importing Pfizer India's Ponstan into the country is technically and legally allowed.
But many doctors, pharmacists, hospital administrators and informed patients are not comfortable with this scheme. Even assuming that the parallel-imported drug is 100% of the same molecule (not counterfeit, not substandard) as the one sold expensively here, there is the question of (a) storage, (b) handling and distribution, and (c) accountability.
Take drug A that specifies it should be stored and handled at temp. range of 15-25 C at ALL time. When it's stored and/or transported at 26 C or higher for 1 hour or more, it will have a lower or lesser effectiveness already. And a patient will either not get well, or develop new disease as the current disease that is supposed to be controlled or killed by a particular medicine, has already managed to mutate inside the body of the patient.
Under a parallel import scheme, the (a) foreign manufacturer, (b) foreign wholesaler or aggregator, (c) local importer and distributor, can be 2 or 3 different entities. They are never the same entity. So if something bad happens to the medicine being imported and given to the patient, and something bad happens to the patient, who is to be held accountable? A or b or c, or the local patent holder, or the physician and the hospital, or the drugstore, or the DOH?
Saving money is understandable. But saving lives is non-compromisable.
That is why I am not in favor of parallel importation scheme, not in favor of compulsory licensing, not in favor of drug price control, not in favor of government use, etc. ALL of those provisions are now allowed in the Cheaper medicines law. That is why I consider the said law as part of health socialism. The promises are holy and unquestionable – cheaper and affordable medicines. But the schemes used and allowed are generally confiscatory.
The law also does not say anything or amend medicine taxation. Such taxes comprise between 13 to 20 percent of the retail price of drugs. So government is a hypocrite, true blue hypocrite, for calling for “cheaper medicines” but is responsible for expensive medicines by slapping the product with various taxes, as if medicines are like beer and hamburger that should be taxed as much as possible.
So again, my 2 simple proposals to lower medicine prices, both of which were not included, explicitly or implicitly, in the cheaper medicines law:
1. abolish taxes on medicines
2. increase competition among drug manufacturers and retailers
I wrote a paper on drug price control, “Access to medicines through politics: Preliminary assessment of drug price control policy in the Philippines”, http://www.minimalgovernment.net/media/mg_20091014.pdf
It’s 33 pages, word document, including annexes and tables. I presented it in an international conference in Singapore last Oct 14-15 this year. There is one table there where I showed there are sooo many multinational pharma companies abroad that are not yet here, that have the potential to further push the competition among innovator manufacturers, but somehow they are not here. There should be some government policies here that scare them from coming in. Which reduces competition.
Tuesday, December 15, 2009
Electing socialists
In one of my various discussion ygroups, there was one proposal to support a politician from the left-leaning BAYAN MUNA (country first) for Senator because she's a fellow UPSE alumni.
I have to spoil the party, err the proposal, as always. Electing to a higher legislative office politicians who believe that price control (petroleum, medicines, house rental, etc.) is good economics, is not a wise move.
Any candidate campaigning on near-socialist economic agenda, we should junk. Unless people think that socialism and forced collectivism is good. Socialism simply means that they will socialize health care, socialize education, socialize credit, socialize pension, etc., including socialize our pockets, socialize our personal bank savings, socialize personal efforts and ambitions or the lack of them.
Modern socialists don't even call themselves as such. But one can easily identify them through their words and actions:
* More and higher taxes to provide welfare and subsidies to the poor -- even if poverty is caused by plain laziness and personal irresponsibility.
* More business regulations and costly business compliance processes, more rigid labor laws to protect workers from "capitalist exploitation" .
* More financial regulations to "prevent" future financial crisis.
Such socialists serendade us during elections. Some socialists work in multilateral institutions, oppose any significant income tax cut but themselves are not subject to mandatory and confiscatory income witholding tax.
Double talk and hypocrisy is also very evident in the minds of those socialists. For instance, they shout "cheaper medicines" but are totally silent, if not absolutely supportive, of continued taxes on medicines (5% import tax + 12% VAT + other fees) that contribute to expensive medicines.
So, whether they are fellow UP alumni or not, if they act like modern robbers who, in the name of "welfare for the poor", would confiscate more from our pockets, or force private enterprises to provide mandatory subsidies to the public while collecting endless taxes from such enterprises -- what exactly happened with drug price control and oil price control -- we should junk them.
------
Two political quotes:
(1) "As a politician, these are my principles!
If you don't like them, well, I have others."
-- Groucho Marx
(2) "If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan
The 2nd somehow alternatively defines what socialism is. The politicians who make promises along those lines, often implicitly, may call themselves "Bayan Muna", or "Dyos Muna" (God first), "Nacionalista" , "Liberal", "Nationalist People", etc.
But their mark or signature is one and the same, regardless of their label or political party: they just love more regulation and more taxation.
I have to spoil the party, err the proposal, as always. Electing to a higher legislative office politicians who believe that price control (petroleum, medicines, house rental, etc.) is good economics, is not a wise move.
Any candidate campaigning on near-socialist economic agenda, we should junk. Unless people think that socialism and forced collectivism is good. Socialism simply means that they will socialize health care, socialize education, socialize credit, socialize pension, etc., including socialize our pockets, socialize our personal bank savings, socialize personal efforts and ambitions or the lack of them.
Modern socialists don't even call themselves as such. But one can easily identify them through their words and actions:
* More and higher taxes to provide welfare and subsidies to the poor -- even if poverty is caused by plain laziness and personal irresponsibility.
* More business regulations and costly business compliance processes, more rigid labor laws to protect workers from "capitalist exploitation" .
* More financial regulations to "prevent" future financial crisis.
Such socialists serendade us during elections. Some socialists work in multilateral institutions, oppose any significant income tax cut but themselves are not subject to mandatory and confiscatory income witholding tax.
Double talk and hypocrisy is also very evident in the minds of those socialists. For instance, they shout "cheaper medicines" but are totally silent, if not absolutely supportive, of continued taxes on medicines (5% import tax + 12% VAT + other fees) that contribute to expensive medicines.
So, whether they are fellow UP alumni or not, if they act like modern robbers who, in the name of "welfare for the poor", would confiscate more from our pockets, or force private enterprises to provide mandatory subsidies to the public while collecting endless taxes from such enterprises -- what exactly happened with drug price control and oil price control -- we should junk them.
------
Two political quotes:
(1) "As a politician, these are my principles!
If you don't like them, well, I have others."
-- Groucho Marx
(2) "If it moves, tax it.
If it keeps moving, regulate it.
If it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan
The 2nd somehow alternatively defines what socialism is. The politicians who make promises along those lines, often implicitly, may call themselves "Bayan Muna", or "Dyos Muna" (God first), "Nacionalista" , "Liberal", "Nationalist People", etc.
But their mark or signature is one and the same, regardless of their label or political party: they just love more regulation and more taxation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)