Wednesday, November 21, 2012

EFN Asia 14: Conference 2012 Resolution on Populism


It is an annual tradition that at the end of each Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia Annual Conferences, participants produce a conference resolution -- short, one page, clear and direct -- that summarizes and concludes the two-days activity. I am posting the conference resolutions last year (theme: Competition: Engine for Prosperity, October 11-12, 2011, Kuala Lumpur) and this year (theme: How Welfare Populism Destroys Prosperity, November 6-7, 2012, Hong Kong).



EFN Conference 2011 
Statement on Competition and Prosperity

Preamble


Competition is an essential engine for prosperity. To prosper, all nations should encourage and nurture competition. Competition encourages innovation and creativity.

It motivates producers to make the best offers to consumers, therefore creating lower prices, higher quality products and better services.

The Role of Government

The primary role of the government is to enforce the rule of law, provide impartial judiciary, protect property rights and individual freedom.

Competition is the best regulator; therefore, the government should foster competition rather than restrict it.

Competition in Public Service Delivery

The people will benefit more if the government does not monopolize the delivery of public services.

Competition can be introduced and fostered in the major public services such as education, healthcare, transport, communications, and utilities by diversifying the providers through various form of private participation.

Competition, Economic Freedom and Prosperity

Free market economy is necessary for progress. Empirical evidence shows that open economies are more prosperous.

Competition is a key element in a free market economy.
========

EFN Conference 2012 
Statement on Liberal Views on Populism

We the liberals believe that populism is the promise of state-mandated, unsustainable benefits to the broader population without consideration of the long-term costs and benefits. It relies on highly emotive statements. In fact, populism is counterproductive to general well-being and progress, as illustrated by the economic decline of the many countries that have pursued populist agendas.

We are concerned that governments in Asia are turning away from the policies which have been demonstrated to promote prosperity in many parts of the world.

We are confident that people will reject populist policies once they understand the true costs associated with them. 

Those costs include an increasing dependency on the state, weakening the rule of law, propertyrights and individual freedom. Populism also reduces the ability of individuals and local communities to make their own decisions, and undermines the competitiveness of businesses.

Recent moves in Asia to subsidise food and fuel, and to transfer cash are all examples of populist policies that have done more harm than good.

We are confident that if Asia commits itself to liberal values such as property rights and the rule of law, the region will prosper.

We commit to:

* Provide alternative liberal solutions to the real problems that give rise to populism, and educate about the benefits of liberal policies, using positive language and examples.

* Provide public support to politicians, political parties, business groups and other stakeholders that support liberal solutions.

* Expose the high costs in terms of money and disastrous end results of such policies

* Educate politicians and students

* Engage with the media to educate the public more widely

* Engage and create strategic alliances with civil society

* Meet on a regular basis to strengthen our network. 
---------

More photos during the HK conference.

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

China Watch 18: Martin Jacques' Manila Lecture

Yesterday afternoon, I attended a lecture by Martin Jacques at Intercontinental Hotel, Makati. The event was jointly sponsored by the Pilipinas 2020 and the Center for Philippine Futuristics Studies. I had the chance to have a photo with Martin during the break. His book is available at National Bookstore.



Nice, long lecture, though I did not stay for the reactors' time and open forum. Food was great and a plenty.


Even before going to the lecture, I do not believe that China or any country or government or even the UN can rule the world. The world is too huge and people are too many and diverse to be ruled and regulated, monotonized by any country or government. China can be the #1 economic power in the world in 2030 or 2020 at the earliest, but it does not mean that it can economically rule the world.
But I like Martin's presentation, also his argument that unlike previous colonial powers Europe, and expansionist US, China is inward looking, never conquered any country (except Tibet?) as it believed that the Middle Kingdom is a superior land, huge and powerful by itself.

Martin showed certain sectors in comparing China and the US economically, not just the macro picture like GDP size. For instance, China has overtook the US in steel consumption (since 1999), number of mobile phones (since 2001), exports (2007), fixed investments, manufacturing output, energy consumption, number of car sales, patents granted to citizens (since 2009).


The ballroom was full. I thanked Jose Bayani "JB" Baylon, convenor of Pilipinas 2020, for inviting me to the event. JB was my classmate in one subject in Political Science in my undergrad years in UP Diliman in the 80s. He was the program MC. The Welcome Remarks was given by Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, a member of Pilipinas 2020. Reactors were Mr. Chito Sta. Romana and Dr. Clarita Carlos. These photos I got from JB's facebook timeline. 

Martin also said that in terms of foreign aid and lending to the developing world, China Development Bank + China Export and Import Bank gave loans in 2009-2010 at $110B, vs. the WB's lending of $100.3 B over the same period. But more than foreign aid, it is economic interdependence, trade and investment, among countries and blocs of countries (like the ASEAN) that greatly characterizes today's world economy. 

Personally, I believe that the western economy is slowly imploding due to their high public debt and very costly welfare system. The developing world led by China, India, Brazil will dominate the world economy in a decade or two, thanks to their huge population. More people, more entrepreneurs, more workers, more consumers.

Martin does not believe that China is a military superpower now, and won't be in the coming years. The US will remain the #1 military superpower in the coming years. He did not discuss much the military aspect, more on the economy and China history.

He also said that China's GDP size may soon be larger than that of the US, but per capita income, it is small, just one-fifth that of the US. 

One thing I like in Martin's lecture is that it was rather heavy on economics and history, low on military conflict. He does not believe that China will go to war with the Philippines over those small islands in the Western side of PH. Rightly so. I really doubt that the China communist government will court displeasing any or all the ASEAN member countries -- now probably 500million people and consumers, bigger than the US, bigger than EU, and next only to India. The probability of a China-ASEAN free trade area (FTA) I think, is probably 20x higher than the probability of a China-some ASEAN military confrontation over those few islands.
-----------

See also:
China Watch 12: The Spratlys and SCS Conflict, June 08, 2011
China Watch 13: More on the Spratlys/SCS Conflict, June 25, 2011
China Watch 14: More on the SCS/WPS Noise, July 11, 2011
China Watch 15: FTA, ASEAN and UNCLOS, August 01, 2011
China Watch 16: Scarborough Shoal, Spratlys and Citizens Action, May 01, 2012
China Watch 17: Using Drones Over Scarborough, SCS, May 14, 2012

Friday, November 16, 2012

Socialized Healthcare 11: Private Health Insurance and HC Vouchers

Last Friday, my left ear was in pain. Midnight that day, or early Saturday, I went to Makati Medical Center (MMC) for a check up. There was no more ENT (ear, nose, throat) specialist, a GP checked my ear. No wound as I suspected, but the ear drum is infected, reddish. She gave me 3 medicines to take:


1. anti-biotics, Co-amoxiclav 625mg tab (brand: Natravox): 2x a day for 7 days
2. pain reliever, Celecoxib 200mg cap 
(brand: Celebex): 2x a day for 5 days max, or only if the pain will persist.
3. decongestant, Phenylpropanolamine HCL + ... (brand: Nafarin A): 3x a day for 5 days.

Then I went to billing section, they gave me the phone where a staff from my private health insurance said my card subscription for the year is still "pending" and I need to clear with the office HR if the annual fee or other reqs have been sent to them. Meanwhile, I need to pay and ask for reimbursement later if the requirements have been complied with.

1. Hospital Emergency Room (ER) fee P800
2. Doctor's fee P500
Total P1,300, around US$32.

Medicine prices:
1. brand Natravox around P47, generic by Ritemed P34
2. Celebex P61, generic by Pharex P20
3. Nafarin P5.50.

Hospital fee + physician fee still a lot higher than medicine prices. I bought all the medicines, a mixture of the branded and generics, total of around P750. This is less than the ER fee alone. If there were diagnostic tests done (say Xray, blood test, urine test, etc. depending on the disease), the cost would have jumped higher.



My Filipino friend studying and working in Denmark, Bonn Juego, sent a comforting note. He added that I should be careful with strong anti-biotics, and one thing that he miss in the hospitals in PH, "you can always go direct to the ER. Here in Scandinavia, last summer I waited about two months to get an appointment with an ENT, but it's free (and medicines are subsidized as well). Advantages and disadvantages in two systems, indeed."

I replied that I slowly study anti-microbial resistance (AMR) due to anti-biotics abuse or non-compliance by many patients. Well, there's a whole day presentation later today by the DOH and WHO on the result of the AMR Rapid Assessment Tool.
  
A visit with a specialist (ENT, etc.)  should also be "free" courtesy of one's health maintenance organization (HMO) or private health insurance firm. PhilHealth is next to useless for outpatient services. One must be confined in a hospital for at least 24 hours before one can use the PhilHealth financing or reimbursement.

The pain reliever and decongestant worked within an hour, the pain has subsided. Which means they are not fake or counterfeit or substandard.

I talked to a physician friend one time, she saw how patients are affected by fake drugs. She's an anesthesiologist. One time the patient is already on the operating table, an anesthesiologist's turn to make the patient sleep or get numbed, they gave the medicine that the hospital purchased from a local drug manufacturer. It was a counterfeit or substandard, the medicine should make the patient sleep within minutes of taking it, or at least become numbed, but the patient was still wide awake, the surgeons could not slice his tummy. They have to get another round of medicines/anesthesia, otherwise the patient will be crying in pain under the knife.

The entry of many substandard drugs is often facilitated by the "cheap drugs at all cost" thinking and campaign. And t
oo often, health discussions are too focused on medicine prices only. 

Other costs related to healthcare take a higher share than medicine prices. Too often, it's the (a) physician fee, (b) diagnostic tests fee, and (c) ER or hospital fee, that can bore a huge hole on a patient's pocket.

Free healthcare in many welfare states sounds cute.  It's free, right, but the government also has the freedom to make a patient wait, two months in Bonn's case, before he can see a doctor. The average waiting time for "free healthcare" in many rich and welfarist countries now are getting longer.  If something is provided for free or at highly subsidized rate, expect the demand to be larger than the supply, always. That is why government hospitals are always full while more expensive hospitals have little or no queueing. Or why fiestas are full of people seeking free lunch while expensive restaurants have little or no queueing.
----------

Thoughts on HC vouchers...

Let's have a voucher system in healthcare, government to privatize many of its hospitals.. The government through the DOH, will still get huge funding from us taxpayers. But the DOH will give back the money direct to the people, rich and poor, in the form of vouchers, instead of sustaining and subsidizing government-owned hospitals and health bureaucracies. 

The government will distribute two types of voucher to all households. Type A will be non-transferable, non-cashable and will 
be used only to purchase a health insurance to any of the many private providers (hospitals, HMOs, etc. competing with each other. This type can be valued at say, P2,000 per person per year. Thus, a five-member household will receive P10,000 per year. The family can choose a PhP16,000 family health insurance, use the voucher and pay the P6,000 extra, or solicit private donation to cover the gap. 

Type B voucher will be transferable but non-encashable. Richer people can donate this to their house helper/s or family driver/s or other poor people, and the latter can get a more comprehensive, wider coverage health insurance without forking out extra cash.

LGUs can also issue their own vouchers to their local residents as add-on to the national government voucher. Or they can continue operating their city or provincial hospitals and pay for their costly maintenance. Or LGUs can contract with a big health insurance firm for a fixed amount and this firm will cover all residents of that city or province at specified minimum services.

The poor can further tap or approach private charities and health NGOs through the latter’s medical missions, or by asking for additional insurance cover so that poor households with special or high demand for their sickly family member/s can get an insurance with larger healthcare coverage. 

This private health insurance will be on top of PhilHealth membership. The former will cover mainly outpatient benefits (consult a physician, undergo diagnostic tests if necessary, buy the medicines if any, then go home and rest) while PhilHealth will cover hospitalization expenses. A higher premium for private health insurance should also cover additional hospitalization benefits.

This way, healthcare as personal/parental responsibility will be reflected, and government responsibility can top it off. The poor especially can be spared from the horror of high out of pocket even for ordinary ailments  affecting any family member. 

My friend, an academic in UP Diliman and her physician hubby, they have 3 kids, told me that they have been asking around for the best health insurance for a family package. She said that _____ HMO seems to have the best package. 

If none of them in the family got hospitalized for the past 5 years, they get some form of dividends, or lower premium for the next 5 years. Meaning, the company is thankful that their clients are taking care of their body, so they give back to their clients. The staff of the company too, she said, are very courteous.

How many times have we heard that several or many personnel in government hospitals are unfriendly, "masungit" and less courteous? Since personnel in government hospitals (or in any other offices for that matter) are "pre-paid", meaning they will get their salaries whether they treat 1 or 10 or 50 patients a day and their patients are non-paying anyway, there is indeed a tendency to be less courteous to the poor patients, but they can be extra courteous to the politicians or the high hospital officials who appointed them to their position.

It is important that government money should go direct to the people, and the people will choose among the various hospitals or health insurance companies or health NGOs, that can give them courteous, friendly services. Government and the legislators will over-spend on public healthcare, whether we like it or not. We might as well steer such high spending towards more market oriented, more efficient schemes.

Another Filipino friend based in Tokyo, Jules, sent a link from BBC, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14430309He added that "one outlier in the chart defies the historical trend. That increasing affluence DOES NOT necessarily lead to obesity. Incidentally, it is also the country with longest life span both for men and women...But why target obesity? Because, obesity along with smoking, lack of exercise and over eating accounts for most lifestyle related diseases...IF Health Economics is about efficient allocation of resources, we should instead focus spending on health on two things: our children and measures to prevent lifestyle related diseases."

I thanked Jules for his comment. That is really the main purpose of encouraging people to have private health insurance, on top of their PHilHealth membership as the latter is forced upon us by government. Whether we like it or not, we are PhilHealth members and hence, must pay a monthly contribution to it. 

People own their body. They can over-smoke, over-drink, over-eat, over-sit and have lots of lifestyle related diseases, fine. Their private health insurance will help them get over the huge cost of their healthcare someday, so it is not good to further hike the monthly contribution to PHilHealth because "healthcare is a right and government responsibility." No, healthcare is personal and parental responsibility, first and foremost. 
Corruption in government -- national and local -- hospitals definitely happen, like in many other government offices. If hospitals are private, the professionals there have to be nice and courteous to patients as even poor patients have the money, the voucher they get from the govt which used to be funded for government hospitals. If patients are unhappy with the service of one hospital or health insurance provider, they can stop patronizing it and move to another HC provider the next year. No need to demonstrate in the streets, to lobby politicians and in media exposing this and that hospital administrators are insensitive to the public, especially poor patients.

That many health bureaucrats in government hospitals will oppose this move is understandable. The huge perks and discretionary power they have -- whom to hire and promote, from whom to buy medicines and medical supplies at what discounts, etc. -- will be removed from them. But there is huge demand for universal HC, and the voucher system might be the most efficient to attain that goal.
------------

See also:
Socialized Healthcare 6: Student Debates, Charity Beds and UHC, August 22, 2012

Wednesday, November 14, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 30: BPOs and Obama

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/47956/fat-free-economics-in-demonizing-bpos-obama-barking-up-wrong-tree
--------

If market supply and demand of various factors of production – labor, capital, technology, etc. – are left to seek their specific and unique values worldwide, there will be factor price equalization (FPE) across countries and across sectors and sub-sectors through time. Globalization and international mobility of such factors of production would make this possible.

This is what happened to the business process outsourcing (BPO) and many other sectors around the world. Where wages and other labor costs, where office lease and rental, as well as cost of capital are much higher in one country than in others, there will be a tendency for businesses to move to countries with lower costs of production. The chart below is a simple conceptual illustration of changes in wages if global mobility of labor and capital is not hindered.

Recently, the re-election of US President Barack Obama has rekindled the old fear here of bringing back to the US those BPO jobs. The Obama administration is planning to entice American companies operating here and in other countries to head back to US soil by giving them a 20-percent tax deduction on costs associated with closing outsourced operations and bringing back jobs to the US.

There is reason for this apprehension by the Philippine-based BPO companies. Last year, estimated direct employment of the BPO sector here was 640,000+ while indirect employment was estimated at 1.3 million. Some $11 billion revenues were also made in this sector last year.

These are huge numbers. Compare those numbers to nearly $20 billion in remittances by the OFWs, who are working outside the country. BPO employment is considered good because people are working here in the country, not far away from their families. This is not to say of course that working abroad - as what the OFWs do - is bad.





The US is the largest market of Philippine-based BPO companies, and the latter have already set an ambitious goal of generating some $25 billion in revenues in 2016.

Obama should consider at least three ways by which more American BPO companies in the Philippines and other countries can help the US economy.

One, an American company that has outsourced its BPO needs abroad at a lower cost will make that company become more competitive and profitable. It may expand its operations within the US and hire more workers there.
Two, a rise in average wages in developing countries like the Philippines as a result of new jobs created by US multinational companies here would mean that more Filipinos will have higher purchasing power to buy more American products and services, or visit the US as tourists.

And three, these economic activities involving American companies and businessmen would mean more tax revenues for the US government.

Thus, the Obama administration should focus its efforts and energy on cutting its huge public debt that results in large interest payments. It should also consider bringing down some taxes and regulatory fees there that drive many US companies to operate and do business abroad.

On the part of the Philippine government, it should offer more incentives to multinational companies to set up businesses here. It should also encourage local entrepreneurs and business professionals to stay and create jobs here. This incentive package would include a reduction in corporate taxes and fees, and a drastic reduction in corruption and red tape.

Globalization means sharing of social and economic opportunities among different people in different countries. Governments should limit or reduce their intervention in business decisions, avoid populist quick fixes. Allow people and companies to do what they want so long as they do not physically harm other people and private enterprises.

Wealth is created in the private sector. Laws and regulations are created in the public sector. It is important that laws created by governments do not restrict the wealth-creating capacity by people and private enterprises. 
----------

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 26: US Public Debt and the November Elections, October 10, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 27: Sin Tax and Nannyism, October 22, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 28: Poverty, Planning and Populism, October 29, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 29: Anti-capitalism, Fanaticism and the Poor, November 13, 2012

Free Trade 16: Price Equalization vs. Export Subsidies, May 03, 2011
Free Trade 24: Trade and Improving Health Outcome, February 15, 2012
Free Trade 25: Excess Supply or Demand and Trade, June 05, 2012

Free Trade 27: Proposed EU-PH FTA and TRIPS Plus, September 24, 2012

Tuesday, November 13, 2012

EFN Asia 13: Welfare Populism and Poverty

* This is my article yesterday in the online magazine,
http://thelobbyist.biz/index.php/perspectives/less-government/item/122-welfare-populism-and-poverty
-------

State-mandated welfare populism or universal welfare, is creating more dependency and mendicancy rather than independence and self reliance. It is encouraging more corruption rather than curing it, expanding the spend-tax-borrow policy, bloating the public debt and the economic uncertainty that comes with it. Therefore, politicians and the public should avoid welfarism trap and steer government to focus on promulgating the rule of law, protecting property rights, making social and economic rules apply equally to all and not making favoritism and cronyism.


This is the main message in the two-days Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia 2012 conference last November 6-7, 2012, here at Crowne Plaza East Kowloon, Hong Kong. The event that attracted more than a hundred international and local participants was sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) and co-sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first and only free market institute. 
Among the speakers in the two-days conference were Wolf Dieter Zumpfort, Deputy Chairman of the FNF Board of Directors in Germany;  Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Thai Prime Minister, Rainer Adam, Regional Director of the FNF Southeast and East Asia, Bill Stacey, Chairman of LRI, and John Tsang, Finance Secretary of Hong Kong.
The various speakers have reiterated the importance of setting markets free – rich and poor, men and women, young and old, to have access to various employers and consumers of their skills and talent, products and services, in a competitive and non-monopolistic or non-oligopolistic environment. The role of government is to protect the property rights of the people, that the fruits of their hard work and efficiency, are protected and not forcibly taken away from them by bullies and cheats. This necessitates upholding the rule of law, that regulatons apply to all, exempts no one and no one can grant exemption from the limitations made by the law.
Thus, the law against killing, stealing, kidnapping, land grabbing, extortion and other criminal activities should apply and be strictly implemented. This equality before the law will act as the main incentive for people to become more industrious, responsible and self reliant.
Forcing equality in society via populist and welfarist policies – like high food subsidy, fuel subsidy, housing subsidy, healthcare subsidy, cash transfers – would tend to encourage dependency and mendicancy. Forcing equality of social outcome among the people regardless of their work and efficiency or lack of them, will distort markets, wreak havoc on the fiscal condition of governments, as what is happening now in many welfare states in Europe like Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy.
Even in Hong Kong, according to local speakers, the government is treading slowly on more welfarist policies that were absent when this free trade economy was developing and has attained a highly developed economic status.

The European speakers in the conference also recognized that Hong Kong's generally free market and globalized economy coupled with the rule of law, is mainly responsible for its economic prosperity while Germany and many European economies are struggling with welfarism trap, massive unemployment, and the need to cut the expensive, huge debt generator welfare programs to help stabilize their economy.

Welfarism is being introduced more liberally in many Asian governments and economies recently. In Thailand for instance, they have rice subsidy, free computer tablets for first graders, and subsidy for first time car buyers. The latter alone cost the government $1 billion and the traffic has worsened further.
In Indonesia, fuel subsidy has further bloated the public debt. In China, there are calls for school free lunch, free school bus.
In S. Korea, there are free child care and universal school meal policy. If these and other new welfare programs are adopted, public spending will rise by around $520 billion more, which will need either new taxes and/or more borrowings. Existing welfare programs alone is projected to contribute to government spending of 45 percent of GDP and the public debt is projected to reach 216 percent of GDP.
In the Philippines, there are various welfare programs supposedly to help “fight poverty”. These include education and books for the poor, healthcare and medicines for the poor, housing and relocation for the poor, credit and tractors for the poor, and many of these do not seem to work as high poverty still persists, so they invented new welfare programs like cash transfer for the poor, and soon, pills and condoms for the poor.
In his keynote address, HK’s Finance Secretary John Tsang said that they are conscious of observing fiscal prudence for three reasons: it is in their constitution, they are aware of the huge public debt problem of many welfare economies, and it is part of their value system of not spending more than one’s income.
Wall Street Journal editor for Asia business, Joseph Sternberg, observed that Mr. Tsang has several new taxes on residential real estate transactions, like a 15 percent tax on foreigners real estate buyers, an increase in “special stamp duty”, and the possibility of the HK government imposing a capital gains tax on property soon.
All new taxes or hike in the rates of existing taxes are meant to expand government revenue to finance in part new welfare spending or expand coverage of existing welfare programs. Politicians, legislators and other policymakers cannot bind themselves and their successors. The itch to intervene, to subsidize and over-spend, is there, resulting in distortion in many sectors of the economy, high public indebtedness that results in high interest payment and siphons resources away from otherwise productive spending.
Rule of law is undermined when government mixes with businesses. Cronyism and nepotism is not far off when government becomes the regulator and industry player at the same time, even in the guise of protecting the poor from “market manipulation by private enterprises” demagoguery.
There were many other important points discussed during the conference. As the Philippine elections is coming closer, just six months away, reminding both the politicians and the voters that welfare populism is a costly policy that can create more dependency rather than independence, is an important task for concerned individuals and civil society leaders.
-----------

Meanwhile, here are  more photos during the conference.
Below, the two guys whom I would consider as the "pillars" of the EFN Asia conference, Dr. Rainer Adam (left) and Dr. Wolf Dieter Zumpfort (right). Without their commitment to hold an annual EFN Asia conference, the network could have been more loose and have no regular regional and international networking.

Then my two photos from Xingyuan Feng's camera. Xingyuan has been a friend since 2004 and I see him every year in various regional and international conferences. Another friend in the picture is Shoulong Mao, another Chinese academic and free marketer, President of the Cathay Institute for Public Affairs (CIPA).


Wednesday, November 07, 2012

EFN Asia 12: Day 1 of Conference 2012


Day 1 yesterday of the 2012 Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference here at Crowne Plaza East Kowloon. It is sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom (FNF) and co-sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong’s first and only free market institute. 

There were 100+ participants, mostly international (Asia, US, Canada, Germany, Spain...). Many locals too, mostly friends of LRI.

Key speakers yesterday morning, from left: Wolf Zumpfort, Deputy Chairman, FNF Board of Directors, Germany;  Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Thai Prime Minister, Rainer Adam, Regional Director, FNF Southeast and East Asia, and Andrew Work, LRI co-founder. He took the place of  Bill Stacey, Chairman of LRI, who came late by a few minutes.


In his opening message, Bill reiterated the importance of free market, rule of law and property rights, in countering the mass appeal of populism which has long term negative impact on the economy. He said that the HK government is treading slowly on more welfarism.

Wolf cited HK's generally free market and globalized economy for its economic prosperity while Germany and many European economies are struggling with welfarism trap, massive unemployment, and the need to cut the expensive, huge debt generator welfare programs to help stabilize their economy.

Rainer reiterated a number of points made by Bill, and praised former Thai PM Abhisit for not bowing to heavy populism in Thailand during his term, that he cut certain subsidies and instill fiscal restraint and responsibility, only to be reversed by the succeeding populist administration in Thailand.

Abhisit discussed many points in his keynote speech. Among them:
* Populism has made the poor become even more dependent on the government.
* Populism breeds high opportunity for corruption, like the rice subsidy corruption.
* It can lead to more social conflict as a result of those continuing corruption.
* Decline of democracy as populism very often leads to authoritarianism and totalitarianism.
* Foreign intervention becomes inevitable later, like the heavily indebted welfarist economies who must be bailed out by other countries and the multilaterals.
* Decline in competitiveness and possible collapse of the economy as free market competition is often shelved.
* But free market has problem with social and economic distribution, thus the need for government to provide some safety nets to those highly vulnerable sectors and households.
* Politicians should be responsible, balance populism with proper education of the voters, avoid quick fixes and welfarism trap.

3. Keynote Address, former Thailand PM , “How Welfare Populism Destroys Prosperity”


The next round of speakers were Sec. Neric Acosta, the Presidential Adviser for Environmental Protection, Philippines, and Sec.Gen. of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), and Bibek Debroy from India. Bibek was the sudden replacement of Parth Shah, President of the Center for Civil Society (CCS), India, who failed to come due to  problem with his flight from Delhi. Below is part of Neric's presentation.


Neric emphasized the importance of the rule of law, avoid populism despite its temptation to politicians. Bibek said that contrary to many people's belief, politicians in general are not myopic as they balance populist demand by the voters and managing public expenditures.

Monday, November 05, 2012

Fat-Free Econ 29: Anti-capitalism, Fanaticism and the Poor

* This is my article yesterday in TV5's news portal,
http://www.interaksyon.com/business/47182/fat-free-economics--anti-capitalism-fanaticism-and-the-poor
----------


HONG KONG - One of the good things of our time, a daydream just a few decades ago, is the ease in communication among people from different countries and continents, the ease in getting information in just minutes without leaving our house or office. Online news portals like Interaksyon.com is one such product.

These are all products of entrepreneurship, innovation, risk taking and capitalism. The profit motive under this system has pushed and inspired so many individuals and private enterprises to keep innovating and improving on previous products and models, which benefit us, consumers. And yet we hear plenty of sentiments and proposals to abandon capitalism, the profit motive and enterprise competition, to be replaced by socialism or state ownership of various means of production, or other hybrid of such system. Or at least to have plenty of government regulation, taxation and prohibition.

Ludwig von Mises, an Austrian economist, wrote this in his book, The Anticapitalistic Mentality (1956, Libertarian Press, Inc.):

"The characteristic feature of modern capitalism is mass production of goods destined for consumption by the masses. The result is a tendency towards a continuous improvement in the average standard of living, a progressing enrichment of the many. Capitalism deproletarianizes the 'common man' and elevates him to the rank of a 'bourgeois'.

"On the market of a capitalistic society the common man is the sovereign consumer whose buying or abstention from buying ultimately determines what should be produced and in what quantity and quality. Those shops and plants which cater exclusively or predominantly to the wealthier citizens’ demand for re-fined luxuries play merely a subordinate role in the economic setting of the market economy. They never attain the size of big business. Big business always serves—directly or indirectly—the masses."

Mises’ book is among the e-books and long articles that we read before coming to this famous Freeport economy for the “Populism, Reading Club Salon” organized by the Lion Rock Institute, a free market think tank in this city.

There were two sessions yesterday, one on “Anti-capitalist mentality and the religion of the all-powerful government”, and on “Fanaticism and mass movement.” Mises’ book, along with Friedrich von Hayek’s The Road to Serfdom (1944) and Robert Nozick’s Why Do Intellectuals Oppose Capitalism? (1998) were the reading materials in session one. Two books were the background materials for session two, Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer (1951) and Mao Zedong’s Little Red Book.

Eric Hoffer wrote:

"Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves. The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause.

"A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people’s business.

"This minding of other people’s business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor’s shoulder or fly at his throat."

When I was an undergraduate student at UP Diliman in the 1980s when Marcos was still in power, believing in the writings of Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin and Mao Tse Tung was rather common among many activists. Mao for instance, wrote or quoted in his “Little Red Book” these things:

"Classes struggle, some classes triumph, others are eliminated. Such is history; such is the history of civilization for thousand years. To interpret history from this viewpoint is historical materialism.

"In the final analysis, national struggle is a matter of class struggle. Among the whites in the United States, it is only the reactionary ruling circles that oppress the black people. They can in no way represent the workers, farmers, revolutionary intellectuals, and other enlightened persons who comprise the overwhelming majority of the white people."

Having abandoned Marxism and belief in socialism nearly two decades ago, I realized how hateful and inciting to violence those words were.

The discussion yesterday was lively. There were several explanations why there is high anti-capitalist or anti-free market sentiment among people in various societies. Like the itch to regulate and control other people, high belief in forced collectivism as against allowing more individual freedom and diversity, the social engineering mindset, the desire to have forced equality in society, and the corresponding expansion in the legislation and institutionalization of various “rights” and entitlements.

There is a difference between equality of social and economic outcome, and equality before the law or simply the rule of law. The former calls for equality among people regardless of their industriousness or laziness while the latter is to have the same set of laws apply equally to unequal people. Thus, the law on stealing should apply equally to all, from the rich to the poor.

Today’s sessions will be on “The New Left” and “Propaganda” and we are done. This small group round table discussion will be followed by a big conference on Tuesday and Wednesday also on populism and welfarism, to be sponsored by the Friedrich Naumann Foundation for Freedom in another hotel in this city.

The desire for more populist and entitlement policies has corrupted individual values. Some people would rather be professional street demonstrators and political rabble-rousers than become efficient entrepreneurs who create various goods and services that people need. In addition, politicians tend to pander to the noise of this group of people and hence, public spending tends to rise much faster than public revenues, resulting in ever-rising public debt that is creating havoc and discomfort in several rich and welfarist economies.

(Thanks to Janice Fung and Wilson Li of LRI for these photos)

See also:
Fat-Free Econ 26: US Public Debt and the November Elections, October 10, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 27: Sin Tax and Nannyism, October 22, 2012
Fat-Free Econ 28: Poverty, Planning and Populism, October 29, 2012