Bong Mendoza's Political Poetry

Below are three of the various short poems and septons by a friend, Dr. Amado “Bong” Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department. Posted yesterday and today, reposting them here with his permission. My short comments after each poem.

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

(1) self-rule, anarchy and leadership

there is without doubt
greater demand for
than supply of good leaders

for leaders, what's the recipe?
mix vision and charisma?
courage and resolve?

no equilibrium in sight
we should eventually learn
to lead ourselves.

Right Bong, but anarchy to mean "zero authority" and "zero government" is a pipe dream, a fiction. I like the example of many village associations. They provide roads/drainage/flood control construction and maintenance, garbage collection, street lighting, security, fire truck/control, village park and multipurpose hall, etc. They have elected officials with term limits, have appointed or hired staff and bureaucrats. They have their own internal revenues like the annual dues, car sticker fees, household ID fees, etc. It is one classic case of self-government, minarchy, and it is working. People who are not satisfied with how the village fund and security is being managed, can move out and go to another village, or plot to change the leadership of the village.

(2) why do we obey so-called leaders?
t'is the key question in political philosophy

They're elected, they're the best
men of virtu
slaves not to fortuna's
shifting fickle tides

Karl Marx said they owned us
Robert Michels declared
They do what we can't do, daily, 24/7!

(I acknowledge my intellectual debts to Aristotle, John Locke, Niccolò Machiavelli, Karl Marx, and Robert Michels.) 

We obey so-called leaders because we are forced to do so. There are laws, armed forces and prison system by the state that forced us to obey them. True democracy should mean the least coercion. Someone thinks he's got a very bright idea. In a democracy with least coercion, he should be able to finance it without coercion, and not forcing me and you to finance his bright idea. The fact there it needs coercion and legislation means that 99 percent, it is a stupid idea.

(3) what's a CAP?
collective action problem
there's one when people
do not help each other
constitute a community

why this behavior?
we do compete or cooperate
the stronger instinct seems to be
consistent with our best lights.

bakit di magtulungan?
mga tao sa lipunan
sadya bang
mas malakas
pagnanais na
isulong ang sarili
isulong ang interes?

kailangang magtulungan
para mabuo, ating pamayanan.

(c) 2014 Amado M. Mendoza, Jr.

Collective action is often hidden, especially from the eyes of central planners. Some people focus on producing or spreading knowledge, they do not produce a single kilo of food. Some people produce food, they contribute little or nothing in producing knowledge. They exchange somewhere, the knowledge producers have food, the food producers have knowledge for them and their kids. There is collective action there, and it benefits humanity.

Thailand Politics and the Monarchy, Part 3

A friend, Dr. Amado "Bong" Mendoza, Prof. of UP Political Science, wrote a brief but good analysis of the Thai political crisis. He gave me permission to post it here; photo from his fb wall. My comments below his article.
--------

Oh, Thailand

Dr. Bong Mendoza

February 01, 2014

While we had delightful face-offs in Manila's Chinatown, there are dangerous ones going on in Bangkok.

Thais cast their ballots in polling stations today hopefully to form a new government after Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra dissolved parliament in the face of vociferous opposition last year.

The cause celebre?

Yingluck's parliamentary majority rammed through an amnesty bill that, among others, would allow Yingluck's older brother, former prime minister Thaksin Shinawatra to go home from exile in Dubai.

The proverbial straw that breaks a camel's behind!

Elections in democracies are supposed to settle rivalries between political factions; that is, decide which camp will lead a nation. However, these elections may not be able to accomplish that due to several complications.

The opposition's strategic objective: the ouster of the "Thaksin regime"

Opposition tactics: blocking of major Bangkok intersections; occupation and paralysis of government ministry buildings; calls for Yingluck's resignation; calls for take-over by a reform council before elections are held; election boycott; blocking of candidate registration--all resulting in failure of elections and failure to constitute parliament and a government.

This latest crisis is part of the continuing struggle roughly between pro-Thaksin and anti-Thaksin forces. Said contest started in 2006 when then prime minister Thaksin was ousted by a royally-endorsed coup. A few decidedly inept military men (including one, General Samak, who cannot decide what his job was: general, prime minister, or television cooking show host?) were at the helm until a civilian politician from the Democrat Party took over.

Thaksin fled the country in 2008 to avoid cases filed against him in court.

However, he retains strong support and loyal Red-shirts clashed with pro-government Yellow-shirts in 2010.

In 2011, the rival political factions arrived at a modus vivendi upon the election of the Pheu Thai government led by Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra. Eventually, the peace was roiled by the railroaded amnesty bill.

Thus in Thailand, we have minorities who try to impose their wills. We have majorities abusing their numbers. King Bhumibol, who had influentially shaped the course of Thai politics for several decades, is old and sickly. The military top brass can mount another coup. Question is how long can the generals man the household before the civilians assume power once more.

The eventual death of Bhumibol will be a game changer. His heir apparent is a wastrel. The Crown Princess is respected but she has to hurdle the gender bias before she could be named head of state and monarch of Thailand.

Bhumibol is also a very tough act to follow. The 1932 Revolution may have ended absolute monarchy in Thailand. In the early years of his reign, during the government of a military dictator, Bhumibol may have had little power and was no more than a ceremonial figure. However, military rivals for leadership begun to seek his blessings.

The English academic Duncan McCargo have noted the active political involvement of Bhumibol through a "network monarchy" working through the Privy Council. The network's political cachet was supposedly threatened by the rise of Thaksin. The network's capacity to exercise power is based partly on Bhumibol's popularity and strict control of his image.

Bhumibol's power is largely based on mystique. He is reputed to do things. We will never know how these are done since he works behind the scenes.

---------- 

The Thaksin camp has its set of sins and corruption, so does the anti-Thaksin camps, from the monarchy to the traditional Bangkok-based political elites. The problem of the anti-Thaksin camps is they can NOT win any election. Since 2006 ouster of Thaksin, all four elections including the last 2011 elections were won by the Thaksin camp. That is why the opposition including the Democratic Party, campaigned for mob rule, bring down the Yingluck Shinawatra government without elections, and their unelected "People's Council" will rule for two years without election. 

Mob rule, no respect for the rule of law, the Thai constitution. The problem with mob rule policy is that assuming they succeed in bringing down the Yingluck government without election, the next months, if the Thaksin camp can also mobilize millions of supporters, there will be another round of paralyzing rallies and change of government. Mob rule is ugly and not advisable.

On the monarchy. Its "holiness" should be damaged by now among many rural residents who are mostly pro-Thaksin. The monarchy and Thaksin are both populists, giving away various subsidies and freebies to buy political support, bloating the Thai public debt. But it seems that Thaksin was the better populist than the monarchy, his family and business cronies.

Not that I am pro-Thaksin and his corruption and populism. I am for the rule of law, in Thailand and elsewhere. If a government is corrupt, then bring it down and change it via constitutional processes like elections or impeachment or similar schemes. Mob rule is rule of men and the opposite of rule of law.

The snap election was held yesterday. Here is one news story, it is ugly. Preventing other people to vote, and still call themselves as democrats, people's representatives? They are mini-dictators who are not in power yet, and they want to be in power sooo bad.

http://www.interaksyon.com/article/79951/thai-protesters-block-voting-in-chaotic-election

BANGKOK - Opposition protesters prevented voting at thousands of polling stations in Thailand on Sunday, triggering angry scenes in the capital over an election that plunged the strife-racked kingdom into political limbo.

Despite weeks of mass street demonstrations aimed at forcing her from office, Prime Minister Yingluck Shinawatra was widely expected to extend her billionaire family's decade-long winning streak at the ballot box.

But the disruption to voting means that the results are not expected for weeks at least, and there will not be enough MPs to convene parliament and appoint a government until new elections are held in the problem areas….

-----------

See also: 
Thailand politics and the anti-globalists, November 20, 2008 
Thai politics and the Monarchy, December 04, 2008 
Killings in Thailand and Military Crackdown, April 16, 2009 
Rule of Law 4: On Thailand Crackdown, April 18, 2009 

Thailand Politics and the Monarchy, Part 2, January 14, 2014

MeTA 15: Forum 2014 on Healthcare Ethics and Transparency

The Medicines Transparency Alliance (MeTA) Philippines will hold its annual forum this year with a timely theme, Transparency and Ethics in Healthcare. Things that are expected of various players and professionals in the health sector -- pharma companies, drugstores and pharmacies, hospitals and clinics, doctors and pharmacists, etc. And patients and the public too, we should have our own "code of ethics".

Here is the provisional program as of January 25. I removed the time slots to focus on topics and speakers. Lunch time is indicated, so readers can see which ones are morning and afternoon sessions.

The Mexico City Principles (MCP) is a set of ethical conduct adopted by APEC member countries for the pharmaceutical sub-sector several years ago, held in Mexico City. As shown in the program above, there will be a high-level multistakeholder panel discussion on the adoption of MCP in the Philippines and a call for voluntary codes of business ethics from different sectors and players. 

Day 2 morning, there will be foreign speakers who will talk about global developments in regulating medicines promotion (Tim Reed, Executive Director, HAI Global), regional trends in ensuring transparency in pharmaceuticals policy (Klara Tisocki, Team Leader-Essential Medicines and Health Technology, WPRO), and the way forward for the Good Governance for Medicines (GGM) Program (Deirdre Dimancesco, WHO Geneva). 

In the afternoon, two special topics that have great impact on healthcare in the Philippines - health promotion and sustainable funding, will be discussed by speakers from  HealthJustice  and the AIM.

Participants will come from various sectors and represent all stakeholders in the dialogue about health, medicines and transparency.  They will have opportunities throughout the forum to participate in open forums, ask questions and articulate their positions and perspectives through the stakeholder workshop.

They will be given links to all forum documents, including studies and researches cited in the presentations, as well as reference materials on transparency, ethics in health, addressing corruption in health and related topics.

Meanwhile, I have changed the title of this thread from "Health Transprency" to simply "MeTA" as this thread is mainly about MeTA fora and activities.
-------------

See also:
Health Transparency 11: MeTA Philippines and Multistakeholder Process, September 19, 2012 
Health Transparency 12: MeTA Philippines Dynamism, October 02, 2012 
Health Transparency 13: MeTA International Visit to Manila, April 16, 2013 
Health Transparency 14: IMS-CHAT Meeting, April 18, 2013, Friday, July 12, 2013 

Drug Price Control 36: Advisory Council, James Auste and China, July 12, 2013 
FDA 6: Business and Modernization Plan, July 17, 2013

Energy Econ 12: EPIRA, WESM, PSALM and DOE Bureaucracy

I like this new article by Romy Bernardo. My comments after his paper, below.
---------

BUSINESS WORLD, January 26, 2014 10:15:33 PM

Introspective

By Romeo Bernardo

The way forward for the power industry

THE RECENT sharp spike in power rates led to the understandable shock and anger of consumers; most are unfamiliar with the structure and workings of a now market-based power industry. Headline news and public discourse have generated more heat than light. It can be satisfying to embrace conspiracy as a short-cut to thinking about a complex subject which the ideologically opposed to privatization are quick to fan.

What is emerging though from various congress hearings and submissions to the Supreme Court, is that this temporary two month spike was a product of a most unlikely and unfortunate perfect storm of planned and unplanned plant outages on top of already thin reserves. And what failures there were arose not from collusion, but from a bid and offer system that requires further refining, and perhaps, from insufficient diligence.

By way of disclosure, I was Undersecretary of Finance during the last two years of Aquino 1 and the first four years of Ramos administrations, an independent director in one major publicly listed power company and in an unlisted diversified holding company active in the energy business. While in government, I was involved in trying to addresss crippling blackouts in the early 1990’s that led the government to contract Independent Power Producers (IPPs) as part of the solution. Quick solutions had to be found -- the most expensive power was no power. Due to the outages, GDP flatlined for two years, 1990/92, lost output of P800 billion in today’s prices, equivalent to twice the cost of government’s infrastructure budget last year, or 20 years of its conditional cash transfer program. This is not even counting investments that were driven away, and the country’s lost momentum.

I resurrect this dark episode in Philippine economic history as a background to what may ensue if counterproductive actions are taken that lead to underinvestment yet again in power generation. Under the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA; 2001) it is private sector players who are expected to deliver electricity under a competitive playing field, with government providing the enabling environment. This national policy was not arrived at willy-nilly but after seven years of debate both within the executive department and in Congress, with the active participation of all affected publics.

Modelled after successful privatizing countries, EPIRA was a recognition of the fiscal and institutional limitations of government in building and running power assets efficiently. As we know, such led to costly under-provision during the blackout years, and expensive stranded costs when the long-term growth forecasts failed to materialize post 1997 Asian Crisis.

Today many questions have been raised on whether EPIRA was a success. I submit that, while there has been a delay, a fair call is “so far, so good.” EPIRA has provided the framework for the restructuring of the Electric Power Industry, including privatization of National Power Corp.’s assets, defining the responsibilities of various government agencies and the private sector, and transitioning to a functioning competitive structure. The end goal was to make sure we had an ample and reliable supply of electricity, at reasonable and competitive rates.

What has happened since EPIRA was passed?

Global Warming Hits the Philippines, Part 3

Updating this article and inserting this news story today...
brrrr!!!

All time lows were 14.6 C in February 1962, then 15.1 C recorded in February 1987 and December 1988.

Here's my original posting yesterday,  January 25, 2014:

It is rather cold these days in the Philippines that many legislators are seen with their hands in their own pockets. Partly joke, partly true.

Cold mornings, even at noon time, are common these days in Metro Manila and the rest of the country. A friend of a friend, Mike Blanco Ella Sarsoza, posted this image this morning. 14 C in Binan, Laguna, just a few kilometers south of Metro Manila. Wow.

This morning in the house around 5am, I was forced to wear jacket while checking emails. Much colder than previous mornings. And here's why... (source, gmanews)

The cold spell has been with us since last December. Second coldest so far in M. Manila this month was 17.5 C last Sunday. In Baguio City, 8.1 C also last Sunday.

The non-stop rains in Mindanao since last week have killed more than four dozen people already.

Reported also in local tv news, cows in some upland municipalities of Cebu being covered with coats; some have died, reports this week.

Not only farm animals, aquaculture is also adversely affected.

Meanwhile, the global picture...

source: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2014/01/al-gores-10-year-warning-only-2-years-left-still-no-warming/

Meanwhile, I will join my mountaineering friends in climbing Mt. Pulag this coming January 31. This is the 2nd highest mountain in the Philippines at 2.92 kilometers above sea level (asl), or almost twice the height of Baguio City, 1.54 kilometers asl. We expect that temperature there can drop to -8 C in early morning.

The first time we climbed that mountain was 3rd week of January 1994, or exactly 20 years ago. Around 8pm that time, the temperature dropped to -2.5 C. It could have dropped further to -4 or -5C the next morning, portions of our drinking water froze.
---------------

See also: 
Global warming hits the Philippines, part 2, January 07, 2011 
Global warming hits Asia, part 3, February 15, 2011 
Typhoon Nesat ("Pedring") in pictures, September 28, 2011

Climate Tricks 22: Typhoon Haiyan due to Man-Made CC?, November 10, 2013 

Climate Tricks 25: Demonizing CO2 as a Toxic, Pollutant Gas, January 19, 2014

Taxes, The Beatles and Adam Smith

A friend, Dr. Amado “Bong” Mendoza of the UP Political Science Department, posted his poem in his fb wall today….

Taxing to death
A septon on political economy

Taxation is the purest of political games
The process determines
Who gets what, where, and when

Smith (Adam, that is) warned
If taxes were onerous
Mobile capital can frustrate the avaricious prince

Taxes are as sure as death
Lennon and McCartney crooned
Dead men should declare the pennies in their eyes.

© 2014 All rights reserved

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

I like it, so I added a stanza from The Beatles’ song, “Taxman”,

Let me tell you how it will be
Just one for you nineteen for me
Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman…
And you're working for no one, but me.

On top of taxes (from income tax to death/inheritance tax), there are also "non-tax revenues" aka mandatory fees. They come from cradle to grave: birth certificate fee (at city hall LCR or NSO), marriage certificate fee (NSO), death certificate fee. In between, there are passport fee, driver's license fee, terminal fee, NBI clearance fee,...

And on top of taxes and fees...mandatory or forced contributions: SSS, PhilHealth, PagIBIG. The first two are rising starting this month.

And on top of taxes, fees, mandatory contributions, there are royalties for certain industries and companies, mostly in energy, mining, quarrying sectors.

To a large extent, government mainly exists for itself, an end in itself. Provision of certain services are just gravy and alibi to justify those taxes, fees, forced contributions, royalties. Many people are retreating to self-contained villages and condos where peace and order, garbage collection, roads/drainage construction and maintenance, street lighting, education, healthcare, parks and mini forest, etc. are ALL private provided. And they pay big amount to enjoy those privately-provided services. And still, they pay taxes, fees, etc. to the government even if they hardly use or benefit from those.

Lennon-McCartney in their younger years could be libertarians. They disliked high/big taxes and hence, big government. They disliked revolution, violence, central planning, and advocate more personal responsibility. From the song Revolution: 

You say you'll change the constitution

Well, you know,

We all want to change your head.

You tell me it's the institution

Well, you know,

 You better free you mind instead...

There is a continuing debate between libertarian anarchists (zero government advocacy) and libertarian minarchists (limited, minimal government). I belong to the latter. The former want zero taxes, zero fees, etc.; the latter recognize the need for some taxes to finance limited government functions like ensuring the rule of law, justice administration, limited infra. (most infra can be done by the private sector via tollroads). Classical social contract thinkers Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Jean Jacques Rousseau, believed that the “social contract” was limited to rule of law function of government, in justice administration. They did not or hardly mentione about infrastructures as core government function.

Adam Smith believed in limited government too. He wrote,

According to the system of natural liberty, the sovereign has only three duties to attend to, three duties of great importance, indeed, but plain and intelligible to common understandings:

first the duty of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other independent states;

secondly, the duty of protecting…every member of society from the injustice or oppression of every other member of it, or the duty of establishing an exact administration of justice;

and thirdly, the duty of erecting and maintaining certain public works and certain public infrastructure which it can never be in the interest of any individual or small number of individuals to erect and maintain.

-- The Wealth of Nations, IV.ix.51.

If a particular government will follow Adam Smith's three main functions of government, there would be only two branches of government needed: Executive and Judiciary. The Executive will be composed of (a) Office of the President or Prime Minister, (b) Foreign Affairs, (c) National Defense, (d) Interior and Police, (e) Public Works, (f) Health, (g) Edcation, and (i) Finance and Taxmen.

(b) and (c) will do function 1, protect society from violence and invasion of other states.
(d) and the Judiciary will do function 2, ensure the rule of law and justice administration; and
(e) will do function 3, erecting and maintaining public works and hard infrastructures,

(f) and (g) will also do function 3 for “soft” infra; limited to infectious diseases, people with physical and mental problems,

(a) will monitor and supervise the implementation of the 3 functions, and

(i) will collect the money for all of the above.

I can support this limited or minimal government. 

---------

See also: 

Pol. Ideology 18: John Lennon and Liberty, Purpose of the Law, December 15, 2010 

Liberty Rock 1: 50 Years of The Beatles, June 05, 2012 

Pol. Ideology 46: Misunderstanding Adam Smith, July 14, 2013

EFN Asia 34: Chatib Basri on Subsidy and Protectionism for the Poor

My first exposure to international and regional free market network was in 2004. First in the US in April-May that year when I was one of the International Fellows of Atlas, then in Hong Kong September of that year, during the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia Conference 2004, sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation (FNF) and co-sponsored by five Beijing- and Hong Kong-based institutes.

Among the great presentations in the HK conference was one by Dr. Chatib Basri, who was then a faculty member of the University of Indonesia and individual member of EFN, now Indonesia's Finance Minister.

This is his first slide after the title. I remember my eyes brightened at these clear and erudite words from two of the intellectual giants of the free market literature.

 The two questions that his paper wanted to explore and answer...

He presented short-run impact of eliminating fuel and electricity subsidies, which actually benefit the non-poor.

These slides are interesting, about bribes given by the public to certain government officials and bureaucrats as regulations are plentiful, complicated and costly.

John Cowperthwaite, Statistics and Central Planning

Interesting article here shared by a friend, Andrew Work, co-founder of Lion Rock Institute (LRI), a free market think tank in Hong Kong. He is also the CEO and Publisher of New Work Media, which publishes Harbour Times, among others.

When Andrew was Executive Director of LRI, he would often mention to us Mr. John Cowperthwaite, the main architect of Hong Kong's free trade, free market philosophy and public policy. Today, Andrew posted this article in his facebook page, No Statistics, No Mischief by Andrew Ferguson, about the man.

Reposting portions of it here, original article is 2,000+ words. I like this story, hope you will enjoy it too.
-----------

John Cowperthwaite...

... The name is familiar to economic historians, academics in postcolonial studies, specialists in the tax policy of the Far East, and avid libertarians, but less well known to normal people. Cowperthwaite was a lifelong government bureaucrat who should be lionized by anyone who loathes and fears bureaucracies. In 1945, as a member of His Majesty’s colonial administrative service, he was sent to Hong Kong, which was then (and remained until 1997) a British protectorate. Hong Kong was in bad shape at the end of the war. Things only got worse when hundreds of thousands of refugees streamed in as the Chinese Revolution raged next door. 

Cowperthwaite rose through the ranks and became financial secretary of the colony in 1961. For the next 10 years he had near-total control over the economic laws and regulations governing Hong Kong. By the time he left office, in 1971, the number of Hong Kongers in poverty had dropped by two-thirds, average wages had risen 50 percent, and Hong Kong had gone from one of the poorest places on earth to one of the richest.

Hong Kong’s rise seems almost miraculous today, and surely the envy of any maker of economic policy. (US Fed) Chairman Yellen, unlike Cowperthwaite, is a determined advocate of the redistribution of wealth and other governmental manipulations that are guaranteed to make us happier, healthier, and more wonderful generally….

Cowperthwaite took as financial secretary…. keeping a flat income tax rate of 15 percent, deregulating nearly every enterprise that caught his attention, nullifying labor laws, and dismantling barriers to imports and exports—are things that Yellen, as Fed chairman, couldn’t do even if she wanted to, which she wouldn’t.

Instead, Chairman Yellen should contemplate another of Cowperthwaite’s initiatives. Asked once what the greatest and farthest-reaching policy of his tenure was, he replied: “I abolished the collection of statistics.” If only in this regard, Chairman Yellen, who will sit atop a vast apparatus built primarily for the gathering of statistics, could do us all a favor by following the Cowperthwaite Way. It’s true that there will suddenly be many unemployed economists wandering around Washington, D.C. But this is only one of the potential benefits. 

Cowperthwaite wasn’t anti-intellectual; he did not scorn statistics. The figures gathered by the International Monetary Fund are the most eloquent testimony to Hong Kong’s achievement in the Cowperthwaite era. As far as he knew, in his day statistics were being compiled all over the colony. He just didn’t want to know what they were. More precisely, he didn’t want other economic policymakers to know he knew what they were. He refused to allow government money to be spent cooking them up. Otherwise, he reasoned, “I might be forced to do something about them.” 

The connection between statistics and mischief is indissoluble. He explained himself to a gathering of legislators who were pressing him for figures on the colony’s gross domestic product—a term of art that everyone uses but no one can usefully define…

At other times Cowperthwaite suggested the causality works the other way around: Statistics themselves are what create, or at least justify, high taxation and other interventions in the economy. In a way it’s a supply-side problem, if you’ll forgive the expression. Say’s law tells us that supply creates its own demand. A supply of statistics will spontaneously generate a flock of people who will want to study them, and who, having studied them, will reach conclusions about them, and then, still worse, will want to shape their conclusions into government policy that will tug the citizenry this way or that, distracting workers and businessmen alike from the important task of minding their own business. 

Cowperthwaite went on:

One of the honourable Members who spoke on this subject said outright, as a confirmed planner, that he thought that [economic statistics] were desirable for the planning of our future economic policy. But we are in the happy position, happier at least for the Financial Secretary, where the leverage exercised by Government on the economy is so small that it is not necessary, nor even of any particular value, to have these figures available for the formulation of policy. We might indeed be right to be apprehensive lest the availability of such figures might lead, by a reversal of cause and effect, to policies designed to have a direct effect on the economy. I would myself deplore this….

Stripped of his numbers an economist would have to resort to the old home truths about how the world works: If you tax something you get less of it; as a general rule an individual manages his own affairs better than his neighbor can; it’s rude to be bossy; the number of problems that resolve themselves if only you wait long enough is far larger than the number of problems solved by mucking around in them. And the cure is often worse than the disease:

In the long run, the aggregate of the decisions of individual businessmen, exercising individual judgment in a free economy, even if often mistaken, is likely to do less harm than the centralized decisions of a Government; and certainly the harm is likely to be counteracted faster.

Somehow the most successful practical economist of the twentieth century knew this was true, and he didn’t have to work out a single equation. 

Andrew Ferguson is a senior editor at The Weekly Standard.

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

See also: 
Lion Rock 5: Free Will vs. Power Over Others, December 26, 2012 
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013