Thursday, July 26, 2018

Free Trade 67, US-EU zero tariff, zero subsidies plan and agreement

Yesterday morning (Manila time), President Trump tweeted this and more than a hundred thousand people have liked it, with 46k retweets and replies.


Yes, free trade, zero tariff, zero subsidies. No more excuses and "provided that..." please.

Many EU companies actually are ready for a zero tariff deal with the US, it is only the EU bureaucracy that seems averse to real free trade. Below, first 2 news reports last July 4, next 2 news reports last July 5, the last report dated July 24.


And today, good news.


Zero Hedge reported,

We Have A Deal: Trump And Juncker Agree To Avert A Trade War
by Tyler Durden
Wed, 07/25/2018 - 18:33

“The two leaders agreed to expand European imports of U.S. liquified natural gas and soybeans and lower industrial tariffs on both sides, Trump said. The U.S. and European Union will “hold off on other tariffs” while negotiations proceed, Juncker added.

… the two leaders said they had agreed to work together towards eliminating all tariffs, trade barriers and subsidies related to non-auto industrial goods. They also said they would work together to reform the World Trade Organization and reduce trading costs and regulatory barriers across the Atlantic.”

Good news for consumers and producers in the US and EU, and good news for the world. We should aim for that free trade, high consumer freedom society.
---------------

See also:

Monday, July 23, 2018

BWorld 233, Federalism, Cha-cha, and more government

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last Friday, July 20, 2018.



“The aim, therefore, of patriots was to set limits to the power which the ruler should be suffered to exercise over the community; and this limitation was what they meant by liberty.”

— John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty” (1859)

The Duterte administration’s federalism push mainly plans to expand government from two to three layers with three sets of elected officials: (a) big national government with three branches (executive, legislative, judiciary) plus Constitutional bodies, (b) expanded municipal/city and provincial governments with their own executive and legislative branches, and the new (c) 18 state governments with their own three branches.

So while the 80+ provincial governors, vice-governors will be retained, there will be new 18 state governor and vice-governor positions that will be created. The number of business permits and taxes will expand while the number of national taxes have already expanded as shown by TRAIN 1 law.

Here is the distribution of powers between the national/federal and regional/state governments under Article XII of ConCom’s draft constitution. The agencies in parenthesis are my insertion to show where existing agencies fit in and the “S” refers to state-level agency.

A. EXCLUSIVE POWERS
Article XII, Section 1. Federal Government exclusive power over:

Article XII, Section 1. Federal Government exclusive power over:
Section 2. Within their territory, states’
exclusive power over:
(a) Defense, security of land, sea, and air territory (DND)
(b) Foreign affairs (DFA)
(c) International trade (DTI)
(d) Customs and tariffs (DOF, BOC)
(e) Citizenship, immigration and naturalization (DOJ, BI)
(f) National socio-economic planning (NEDA)
(g) Monetary policy and federal fiscal policy, banking, currency (BSP)
(h) Competition and competition regulation bodies (PCC)
(i) Inter-regional infrastructure and public utilities including telecommunications and broadband networks (DPWH, DICT)
(j) Postal service (PhilPost)
(k) Time regulation, standards of weights and measures (DTI)
(l) Promotion and protection of human rights (CHR)
(m) Basic education (DEPED)
(n) Science and technology (DOST)
(o) Regulation and licensing of professions (PRC)
(p) Social security benefits (SSS, GSIS)
(q) Federal crimes and justice system (DOJ, NBI)
(r) Law and order (DILG, PNP)
(s) Civil, family, property, and commercial laws, except as may be otherwise provided for in the Constitution (Judiciary)
(t) Prosecution of graft and corruption cases (Ombudsman, Judiciary)
(u) Intellectual property (IPOPHIL)
(v) Elections (COMELEC)
(a) Socio-economic development planning (NEDA-S)
(b) Creation of sources of revenue (DOF-S)
(c) Financial administration and management (DBM-S)
(d) Tourism, investment, and trade development (DOT-S, DTI-S)
(e) Infrastructure, public utilities and public works (DPWH-S, ERC-S, MWSS-S,…)
(f) Economic zones (PEZA)
(g) Land use and housing (HUDCC)
(h) Justice system (DOJ-S, State Judiciary)
(i) Local government units (DILG-S)
(j) Business permits and licenses (LGUs)
(k) Municipal waters (DA-S, BFAR)
(l) Indigenous peoples’ rights and welfare (NCIP)
(m) Culture and language development (CFL-S, DEPED-S)
(n) Sports development (PSC)
(o) Parks and recreation (LGUs)

B. SHARED POWERS
Section 4 says “Powers not exclusively given to either the Federal Government or to the Federated Regions are shared powers… can be exercised jointly or separately. In case of dispute or conflict in their exercise, the federal power shall prevail.”

This refers to current functions by 10 Departments: CHEd, DA, DAR, DENR, DoE, DoH, DoLE, DoTr, DSWD, DILG-PNP. Also two constitutional bodies CoA and CSC. The implication then is that there will be 19 Departments of Agriculture, one federal and 18 state departments; 19 DAR, 19 DENR, 19 CoA, etc. This will cost a huge amount of taxpayer money to maintain.

Various government corporations under these agencies like DoE’s NPC, NEA, and PSALM very likely will remain under the Federal government.

C. EXCLUSIVE TAXATION POWERS BY THE STATES
Under Article XIII, Fiscal Powers and Financial Administration, Section 2, the state governments have the power to levy and collect the following taxes, licenses and fees, meaning they will be removed from the national/federal government’s taxation powers:

“(a) Real Property Tax; (b) Estate Tax; (c) Donor’s Tax; (d) Documentary Stamp Tax; (e) Professional Tax; (f) Franchise Tax; (g) Games and Amusement Tax; (h) Environmental Tax, Pollution Tax, and similar taxes; (i) Road Users Tax; (j) Vehicle Registration Fees; (k) Transport Franchise Fees; and (l) Local taxes and other taxes which may be granted by federal law.”

So by implication, the federal government will retain exclusive taxation powers over income tax (personal and corporate), excise, VAT, customs duties.

But the states will get “not less than fifty percent (50%) of all the collected taxes on income, excise, VAT, and customs duties, which shall be equally divided among them and automatically released.”

The federalism agenda of the Duterte administration therefore, is a dangerous, interventionist, tax-hungry scheme whose main purpose is to spur more political development, not economic development.

A big manufacturing plant or similar facility must secure a barangay permit, a municipal/city permit, a provincial permit, a state permit, on top of getting national permit. And there are many sub-permits in each layer of local and national government agencies.

The federalism agenda would have been more palatable if there are explicit plans to (a) abolish many national departments and agencies and allow the state governments to create their own departments, (b) abolish provincial governments and governors before creating state governments and governors. But no such proposals exist. This administration’s federalism agenda, therefore, is confiscatory; a big employment plan for more government politicians and bureaucrats.

And now there are explicit calls to extend the term limits of current officials, to postpone the 2019 elections, coming from the Speaker himself, the top official who will oversee the Charter change.

The Charter change and federalism initiative of the Duterte administration should be rejected by the people, if they wish to have less bureaucracies, less egocentric politicians like the Speaker, fewer taxes, and more freedom in their lives.
-------------

See also:

Sunday, July 22, 2018

Agri Econ 26, Biotech products

Last Tuesday, July 17, I attended the forum, "The Economics of Biotech products" held at SEARCA, UP Los Banos, Laguna. The Philippine Economic Society (PES) was a co-sponsor of the event. PES also provided the free transportation for participants from Manila to UPLB and back.

The speakers that day:

1. Welcome message by Dr. Gil Saguiguit, Jr., Director, SEARCA

2. “Rationale of Symposium” by Dr. Majah-Leah Ravago, Assistant Professor, UP School of
Economics and President, PES

3. “The Status of BioTech Crops: Global” by Dr. Rhodora Aldemita, Director, Global Knowledge
Center on Crop Biotechnology, ISAAA

4. IRRI’s Research on BioTech Rice, 

“The Socio-Economics of Bt Eggplant” by Dr. Cesar Quicoy, BioTech Info Center, SEARCA

“The Social and Economic Impact of Biofortification through Genetic Modification” by Dr. Matty Demont
Sr. Scientist, IRRI

2 Comments, from Dr. Ramon Clarete of UPSE and Dr. Marites Tionco, Dean, Economics Department, DLSU.


The more substantial and interesting paper for me that day was the one from Dr. Aldemita of International Service for the Acquisition of Agri-biotech Applications (ISAAA). Like this slide.



During the open forum, I asked her two questions.

1. EU countries being non-friendly to biotech farming and Greenpeace is among the bad guys in opposing genetic modification (GM) and biotech farming in developing countries like the PH, do you see or read stories like EU countries funding GPeace and other anti-GM activists?

2. You mentioned "decarbonisation" to fight climate change in your presentation but agriculturists know that CO2 is a useful gas to humans and plants, it is not an evil-pollutant gas as claimed by the UN and Al Gore. More CO2 means more plant growth, more food production, so don't you think it is time for agriculturists to push back and stop demonizing CO2?

Her response to #1 is No, and EU countries are not really anti-GM, they are among the big importers of the US' soybeans and other GM crops. On #2, she said that too much CO2 can be dangerous to the planet.

Oh well, from other modern agri lectures that I attended, like Israeli agri-business forum in Makati a few years ago, they use CO2 injectors inside greenhouse farms and raise the CO2 level from 400 ppm (global level) to 600 ppm, even 800 ppm depending on crops. Higher CO2 results in faster growth, shorter harvest period for crops and hence, bigger income for farmers.

Anyway, it was a good forum, thanks PES, thanks Majah and team, thanks SEARCA.
------------

See also: 
Agri Econ 16: Seeds for Mankind, February 27, 2015 

Saturday, July 21, 2018

BWorld 232, Effects of fare control

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Monday, July 16.



Government has the tendency to throw its weight around, especially affecting people and private enterprises that it regulates. If players are deemed “friends” or crony of the administration in power, they enjoy kid-glove treatment, allowing them to get off lightly in terms of penalties and fines. Otherwise, if the players are outside the circle, they get hefty fines or threatened with closure.

When Uber was still operating in the Philippines, the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) slapped it with multiple penalties: (a) Suspension of operation for about a month or two, (b) a fine of P190 million, and (c) required Uber to give allowances to their drivers while the suspension was in effect.

Taken together, these fines plus legal costs have been estimated to reach P500 million or higher, a huge amount.

Last week, the LTFRB fined Grab P10 million for charging two pesos per minute on trips taken by its passengers, saying that it didn’t approve these fees.

Meanwhile, passengers have agreed — and continue to agree — to pay for these fares, even before they take trips using ride-sharing platforms, including Grab.

If passengers are unable to afford ride-sharing services, they have the option to take regular taxis, UV expresses, or a combination of other modes of transport.

Most commuters have refrained from using ride-sharing services owing to their cost. Only about 2.7% of the total number of commuters use ride-sharing.

FARE CONTROL
The LTFRB uses two price control policies: (a) surge price control to twice the fare amount, which was later cut down to 1.5x, and (b) abolition of P2/minute charge as a mechanism to offset the big decline in (a).

We now try to show the effect of these two measures on both passengers and drivers.

In the graph below, Pm and Pc means Market Price and Controlled/Capped Price. Likewise, Qm and Qc means Market Quantity and Controlled/Capped Quantity.


When there is no price control, when Pm prevails, passengers and drivers agree at point A and passengers get a ride soon, resulting in short waiting times.

When price control is imposed, when Pc prevails, those policies remove incentives of many drivers to go to high traffic areas to pick up passengers. This reduces the supply of drivers during the times when they are most needed and makes the supply curve shift from D1 to D2.

Passengers’ waiting times become longer, prompting some of them to take regular taxis — assuming these are readily available — or take multiple transport modes to reach their destinations.

So passengers’ demand curve also adjusts to the left, from D1 to D2. Only those desperate to get a ride-sharing service would stay and wait longer until a car arrives, and they meet at the new equilibrium or market-clearing price at point B.

The move from point A where Pm prevails to point B means movement from Qm to Qc. The difference between the two represents the unserved passengers and bookings, people who are forced to either take cabs or multiple rides.

Taking multiple rides is fine if one is wearing casual attire, or not carrying valuables such as laptops, documents, and cash, or not accompanying a child or an elderly person.

Are passengers given more “safe, convenient, affordable ride” at point B than point A?

If LTFRB Chairman Martin Delgra and party-list lawmaker Jericho Nograles are asked this question, very likely they will say: Yes.

After all, they have drivers and vehicles, all funded by taxpayers and are not subjected to long waits to get a ride.

If the ordinary passengers and ridesharing companies and their partner-drivers are asked, very likely they will say No. Passengers are forced to wait longer, even if they are willing to pay higher prices for their trips and drivers experience lower income.

FRANCHISE CONTROL
A related issue is the franchise control policy of LTFRB. It limits or puts a cap to total number of cars available for ridesharing platforms.

When Uber exited the region last April, it had 19,000 drivers in the Philippines but only 11,000 were absorbed by Grab because LTFRB did not accredit the remaining 8,000. This alone created a huge backlog in terms of getting rides.

If the LTFRB removes its franchise control policy, at least 10,000 new drivers and cars would be on the road.

That decision will help entrepreneurship and allow Filipino workers abroad to finally stay at home with their families.

The graph can also apply here.

No franchise control means the supply of cars will be at Qm and passengers and drivers can “meet” at point A. With franchise control, the supply of vehicles will be at Qc and the supply curve moves from S1 to S2.

Passengers will have longer waiting times under S2 and some will take other transportation services like regular taxi and multiple rides. So passenger demand will move from D1 to D2. The shift from Qm to Qc means more inconvenience, more unsafe passengers even if they have the extra money to pay for higher fares.

If government via LTFRB is sincere in helping the public get “safe, convenient, affordable rides,” it should remove its fare control and franchise control policies.

If LTFRB officials are retiring soon, they should aspire for goodwill from the passengers and ridesharing companies they are regulating. Retiring with ill will from the public is not a good way to leave.


Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is President of Minimal Government Thinkers, a member-institute of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.
---------------

See also:

Comparative quarterly growth of China, Germany and US

GDP quarterly growth of the Big 3.
(1) China keeps high growth but decelerating this year. 
(2) Germany picking up speed but decelerating also this year. 
(3) USA picking up speed, consistently.
Data source: Trading Economics.


Many anti-T will be unhappy to see numbers like this. For them, Mr T is "evil, insane, misogynist,..." he should be leading the US economy to oblivion.

And now reports:

(1) Initial Jobless Claims Plunge To Lowest Since The '60s
by Tyler Durden   Thu, 07/19/2018 - 08:36

(2) More Winning: American Jobless Claims Drop to Lowest Level Since 1969
By John Binder  19 Jul 2018Washington, D.C.

“The number of Americans claiming unemployment has now dropped to the lowest level as of last week since December 1969, the Bureau of Labor Statistics reports. Jobless claims decreased by 8,000 to 207,000 as of July 14.”

The tax cut, bureaucracy cut, spending cut on certain programs like climate junkets and bureaucracies, other market-oriented reforms in the US must have contributed to this generally positive development.

Friday, July 20, 2018

BWorld 231, Lessons from the Energy Policy Development Program

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last July 12, 2018.


Next week, the Energy Policy Development Program (EPDP), a USAID-funded project implemented by the UP Economics Foundation, will have its last lecture and the launch of a book that incorporates conferences, lectures, and seminars the program has sponsored over the last four years.

Among the EPDP lectures that I enjoyed — all held at the UP School of Economics (UPSE) — were those given by the private sector players. Here are some key points they made followed by my comments.

1. “Natural gas: Addressing the energy trilemma and powering our energy needs” by Mr. Giles Puno, First Gen, August 2017.

“Government support [is] crucial for LNG development… (1) Holistic and defined energy mix to direct planning and investments, (2) Incentivize LNG through fiscal and non-fiscal policies, (3) Secure LNG Off-take, similar to how Malampaya was underpinned.”

The first two points sounded like they were seeking special treatment from government and this is wrong. Setting the energy mix should be done by the market, not government. Government should stay out of building or financing or guaranteeing the construction of the LNG terminal and let interested private players put their money where their mouth is.

2. “Retail Competition and Open Access (RCOA): The Power of Choice” by Mr. Miguel Aboitiz, Aboitiz Power, Sept. 14, 2017.

“Benefits of RCOA for contestable customers: (1) they have more choices with respect to pricing and contract structure, (2) they are not subsidizing other customers, (3) they can choose the type of power they want or they can even decide to contract with a financial entity instead of a power plant owner, (4) they can choose from a variety different contract structures, (5) they are in full control of their generation costs.”

True. RCOA is among the best provisions of the EPIRA law of 2001. It liberalizes and allows the contestable customers to move away from geographical monopolies (private DUs or electric cooperatives) and allow them, to choose from three dozen or so retail electricity suppliers (RES).

3. “Enhancing Fair and Economic Competition” by Dr. Francisco L. Viray, Phinma Energy, Oct. 5, 2017.

“SUPPLY = DEMAND + LOSSES.

Above must be balanced in real time for the power system to be stable (Power System Stability), and it is consistent with ‘Causer’s Pay Principle.’”

The above equation is a big and explicit warning to advocates of “renewables only” lobbyists, activists, and developers. Demand is high in the Philippines with its 106 million population that expands 1.7 million a year, net of death and migration. Losses from scheduled maintenance shutdowns and unscheduled shutdowns can be substantial, especially if the power plants are old and aging. So high demand plus high losses would require high supply at stable, predictable capacity.

4. “Optimization of Supply” by Mr. Chrysogonus F. Herrera, MGen, Oct. 26, 2017.

“Where do we go?

(1) Let the market under EPIRA sort itself out (after all, it is working and gestating new investments); (2) A mandated “Generation Mix Policy” is a straitjacket to be avoided. It does not help reduce rates; (3) Coal is indispensable in keeping rates low and supply reliable; (4) Cheap and reliable power secures economic development and global competitiveness.”

Amen to Chris’ points. The EPIRA, the Wholesale Electricity Spot Market (WESM), and RCOA are all working and running full steam.

A government-mandated power generation mix is wrong and often cronyism-inspired. Let the electricity consumers decide what is good and desirable for them. Make sure that cheaper and reliable electricity supply is available.

5. “Delivering Clean and Green Energy to the Philippines” by Mr. Stewart Elliott, Energy World Group (EWG), Nov. 23, 2017.

“Pagbilao LNG Hub Terminal and 650MWCCGTpowerplant…”

Throughout his presentation, Mr. Elliott never mentioned things like “government fiscal and non-fiscal incentives for LNG terminal and development” at all. He just wants stable long-term policies not subject to arbitrary changes midway. Amen to this kind of investment attitude.

6. “Optimal Investment Decisions in Generation” by Mr. Eric T. Francia, Ayala Energy, Feb. 8, 2018.

“Investment Imperatives: (1) Diversify portfolio, (2) Further expand coal plants for baseload needs, (3) Explore gas/diesel for intermediate, peaking and ancillary, (4) Continue investments in renewables and build capabilities in storage, (5) Geographic diversification, (6) Strengthen balance sheet and multiple sources of funding, (7) Ensure cost competitiveness.”

This is practical advice from one of the country’s biggest business conglomerates, the Ayala Corp. It recognizes the practicality of coal and gas while pushing their corporate advocacy for renewables with storage.

7. “Cheap Electricity for a First World Philippines: The 24/7 Solar-Storage Revolution” by Mr. Leandro Leviste, Solar Philippines, Feb. 22, 2018.

“Solar is now the least cost for all peaking, mid-merit, and baseload requirements, and will thus comprise the vast majority of additional power generation capacity from hereon in the Philippines.”

Far out. If solar is indeed the “least cost,” we should have abolished the feed-in-tariff (FIT) scheme of guaranteed high price for 20 years for solar, from P9 to P10+/kWh when coal-gas prices are only P4-5/kWh and can be reduced to P2/kWh at off-peak hours.

The continued demonization of coal — articulated explicitly by Mr. Puno and Mr. Leviste in their presentations — is based on emotionalism and desire for government partiality, for two reasons.

One, our coal use until 2017 remained small compared to our Asian neighbors, only 13.1 mtoe or less than 1/2 of Vietnam, only 1/3 of Taiwan, 1/4 of Indonesia, 1/7 of South Korea, 1/9 of Japan, and 1/144 of China. And yet that small coal consumption provided 50% of total electricity production in the Philippines in 2017.

Two, even in developed and “green” Asian economies like Japan, South Korea, and Taiwan, solar and wind energy production remains very small, which speaks of their non-reliability and non-dependability and may even be part of economic underdevelopment, if pursued to the max (see table).



The market and the consumers, not government, not the environmental activists and renewables developers, should set the appropriate energy mix. This is one of the important lessons, explicit or implicit, that one will derive from attending or reading the various lectures at EPDP.
---------------

See also:

Weekend Fun 65, Go Bato sa Senado

I got this photo from Florin/Pilo Hilbay's fb and tw, very witty:

"Animal.
may sungay.
mabilis tumakbo."


The term "mabilis tumakbo" (runs fast) refers to his plan to run for Senator next year. He denies he plans to run, of course, but the photos, streamers and events are louder than his denial.


Bong Go is the personal assistant of President Duterte now, and even when he was the Mayor of Davao City. Part of the Davao group of politicians and bureaucrats.

  

Another Duterte official, also a Davao official, is former PNP Chief Gen. Bato dela Rosa, now head of Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). He is retired from PNP so he went to another bureaucracy.


Go-Bato, Davao group ito, trusted two ni Duterte ito.
----------------

See also:

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

BWorld 230, US-China ‘trade war’ and PH federalism

* This is my column in BusinessWorld last July July 9, 2018.


Among the big topics that dominated last week’s global and national reports are (a) US-China ‘trade war’ which technically means equalized high tariff (EHT), and the hard push for Charter change towards federalism by the Duterte-appointed Constitutional Commission (ConCom).

The US-China EHT or ‘trade war’ officially started last Friday, July 6. The US slapped 25% tariffs on imports from China worth $34 billion and the latter immediately slapped a higher tariff on equivalent value of imports from the US. There will be a follow up EHT from the US up to $550 billion worth of imports from China and the latter is expected to have its counterpart.


Meanwhile, funds have fled stock markets of countries that are expected to be net losers of this trade spat. China’s Shenzhen and Shanghai are the worst-performing stock markets in the world this year, having suffered a -19.1% and -16.9% drop in index values year to date (Ytd) or from January 02 to July 06, 2018, largely because of this EHT spat.

In comparison, the US’ DJIA experienced only a -1.5% decline year to date.

It is worth noting that the Philippine Stock Exchange (PSEi) is the 2nd worst-performing stock market in the world after China.

Several business uncertainties in the Philippines this year helped pull down the PSEi: (a) sharp rise in inflation rate after TRAIN 1 law, (2) changes in fiscal incentives and corporate income tax under TRAIN 2 bill, (3) wholesale closure of Boracay island for six months, (4) political uncertainties due to rabid federalism and Charter change hard sell by the government, (5) “Iglesia ni Duterte” vs “idiotic God” pronouncements, among others.

The PSEi level is also -1.2% compared to past three years, indicating that the gains under the previous administration have been wiped out under the Duterte government. This further shows that the federalism hard sell is misguided for at least three reasons.

One, a big and bureaucratic national government on the top will have another layer of big and bureaucratic state governments in the middle, aside from expanding municipal/city and provincial governments.

Two, federalism is no guarantee for economic prosperity nor political maturity.

While several developed economies have federal structures, the same can be said about some failing economies.


And three, the current Congress that will finalize the contents of the revised Constitution is too handicapped by clear lack of independence from the Duterte presidency. Thus, potential desires by this administration for continued stay in power beyond 2022 can easily be granted by Congress.

Trade protectionism is wrong as it penalizes the consumers while fattening the protected local players. “Trump protectionism” is similarly ill-intentioned but “Xi/China protectionism” is even worse. A move towards equalized low or zero tariff is needed.

The hard sell for Federalism is wrong as it will penalize local businesses and entrepreneurs with more national and local/state taxation and regulations while fattening many national and local/state agencies and bureaucracies. A move towards shrinking national taxes and agencies should have been done before federalism is pushed.
---------------

See also: