The US Census Bureau, Population Division, gave this population projection for many countries. For this purpose, I chose only the top 30, then other Asian countries in lower rank.
World's largest countries in population size, 2010 (in million)
1. China, 1,330.1
2. India, 1,173.1
3. United States, 310.2
4. Indonesia, 243.0
5. Brazil, 201.1
6. Pakistan, 184.4
7. Bangladesh, 156.1
8. Nigeria, 152.2
9. Russia, 139.4
10. Japan, 126.8
11. Mexico 112.5
12. Philippines, 99.9
13. Vietnam, 89.6
14. Ethiopia, 88.1
15. Germany, 82.3
16. Egypt, 80.5
17. Turkey, 77.8
18. Iran, 76.9
19. Congo (Kinshasa), 70.9
20. Thailand, 67.1
21. France, 64.8
22. United Kingdom, 62.3
23. Italy, 58.1
24. Burma, 53.4
25. South Africa, 49.1
26. South Korea, 48.6
27. Spain, 46.5
28. Ukraine, 45.4
29. Colombia, 44.2
30. Sudan, 43.9
43. Malaysia, 28.3
49. Taiwan, 23.0
50. North Korea, 22.8
54. Australia, 21.5
55. Sri Lanka, 21.5
66. Cambodia, 14.4
99. Hong Kong, 7.1
source: http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/broker
I do not know how the US Census Bureau produced this projection, but I think the numbers for some countries, like the Philippines, are bloated. The National Census Office (NSO, wwww.census.gov.ph), the official census office of the Philippine government which conducts actual headcount surveys every 5 years, put the country's population this year at only 94.0 million, not 99.9 M as indicated above.
Nevertheless, in the top 20 countries above, only the US, Russia, Japan and Germany are the developed and industrialized ones. The rest are either emerging/industrializing or poor/developing countries.
The prospect of ever-rising population of currently non-industrialized countries send shivers to the elitists in many rich countries. Hence, the panic towards climate alarmism because of the "unsustainabiity" for the planet of taking care of several billion people more in the coming years.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Climate stupidity 3: Cowards to face public debates
At times I get pissed off by those media releases by the world's top warming NGOs -- Oxfam, Greenpeace and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF). I have challenged their leaders in their Philippine offices to a public debate before, zero reply from them.
Do we hear them saying, "CO2 causes global warming, it also causes global cooling"?
Climate robbery is a bad habit that won't stop. Woe upon us, taxpayers and energy consumers.
So in one of my big discussion yahoogroups, I posted and threw this challenged:
A Filipino friend and member of that discussion list,, Ahmed Mendoza, commented:
Here's the sea surface temp. (SST) anomaly in Nino region 3.4, equatorial Pacific, as of October 31, 2010. This year's cooling in Nino 3.4 is similar to the cooling of 2007-2008. Data is from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtml
I thanked Ahmed. About the proposed debate between me and Dr. Joey Comiso, the only Filipino scientist in NASA, the organizers, a group of filipino Balik Scientist Program (BSP) under the DOST proposed it. Rither Joey or the organizers themselves chicken out.
Yes, I now use really strong words. They are ALL cowards, big scam, 100 percent lie, etc. to refer to man-made warming. Precisely to embolden them.
If someone tells me frontally that I'm a liar, a peddler of scam, etc., right there and then -- not a minute or an hour or a week from there -- I will confront that person.
See also the so-called "thousands of IPCC scientists" who produced the UN IPCC Assessment Reports 1 to 4. AR 4, the latest, was released Nov. 2007.
Heartland Institute has been organizing a big international conference on climate change (ICCC). The 1st ICCC was held in March 2008 in NYC, where the UN HQ is. Zero participant from any of those "thousands of IPCC scientists" even if the IPCC leadership were invited. The 2nd ICCC was held again in NYC, March 2009. Again, zero participants from IPCC.
The 3rd ICCC was held in Washington DC in June 2009, where the politicians who legislate carbon "cap and trade" and "clean energy" blah-blah bills are holding office, not a single shadow of the warming scientists. The 4th ICCC was held in Chicago last May 2010. Again, everyone from the warming camp were invited, Pachauri of IPCC, Al Gore, Jim Hansen of NASA, and for 4 straight occasions, zero attendance from the warmers.
How coward they can be? It's a big international conference with about 700 participants from many countries around the world, explicitly delivering papers that say that IPCC "analysis" and projections are a huge scam, and the IPCC cannot send 10 or 100 or 500 of their scientists to do battle with the "skeptical" scientists?
Where there is deafening silence, there is huge admission of guilt.
Here's the latest lower tropospheric temperature data from Remote Sensing System (RSS). The plunge in air temperature last month was so steep. Data is from
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/rss-global-temperature-anomaly-takes-a-dive/#more-27457
Please take note that the IPCC or the UN FCCC do not hold conferences where debates are accomodated. They only hold meetings to sing halleluiah to each other. And they hold really huge, expensive, global climate meetings, every 2 months on ave in Bonn, Germany or other big cities in the world. Last Dec. 2009, the COP 15 meeting attracted possibly 10,000+ climate bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalists, media, and other do-gooders in Copenhagen. Funny for them, they experienced blizzard for an event to "fight global warming".
In case there are any taker from any, yes, from anyone, from the warming camp -- please forward this challenge to your friends in WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, other environmentalist groups -- to face me in a debate. There are some opportunities. The Rotary Club of Makati Urdaneta will have me as their guest speaker on the subject of warming scam. I told the organizers to scout for anyone to debate with me. One projector for each of us, so we can show graph vs graph, data vs data. It will be on Nov. 24, noontime, I dont know the exact venue yet, should be in makati.
Do we hear them saying, "CO2 causes global warming, it also causes global cooling"?
Climate robbery is a bad habit that won't stop. Woe upon us, taxpayers and energy consumers.
So in one of my big discussion yahoogroups, I posted and threw this challenged:
To people from Oxfam, Greenpeace, World Wildlife Fund, other alarmist groups -- you know that what you are peddling is a scam, 100 percent lie.
You also know that you are ALL cowards to face a public debate on the science of man-made warming. But in the event that you are not cowards, my challenge to you remains: face me in a public debate. Graph vs graph, data vs data, satellite pictures vs satellite pictures. You will realize that you are peddling a big lie.
Guys, forward this to your friends and acquaintances who are working for any of those warming-alarmist NGOs.
A Filipino friend and member of that discussion list,, Ahmed Mendoza, commented:
Noy, you wrote “You also know that you are ALL cowards to face a public debate on the science of man-made warming.” I remember a debate between you and a scientist (?) who accepted your challenge to talk about this climate change issue (or non issue). Did it push through or was there a chickening out in the last minute?
I hope someone from the multitude who turned off their lights for 60 minutes for Mother Earth and cling to this claim dogmatically will stand up to take on your challenge. If words like “cowards,” “face me in a public debate,” “100 percent lie,” and “big lie” won’t embolden them, I think their arguments really stand on shabby ground.
Here's the sea surface temp. (SST) anomaly in Nino region 3.4, equatorial Pacific, as of October 31, 2010. This year's cooling in Nino 3.4 is similar to the cooling of 2007-2008. Data is from http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/enso/indices.shtmlI thanked Ahmed. About the proposed debate between me and Dr. Joey Comiso, the only Filipino scientist in NASA, the organizers, a group of filipino Balik Scientist Program (BSP) under the DOST proposed it. Rither Joey or the organizers themselves chicken out.
Yes, I now use really strong words. They are ALL cowards, big scam, 100 percent lie, etc. to refer to man-made warming. Precisely to embolden them.
If someone tells me frontally that I'm a liar, a peddler of scam, etc., right there and then -- not a minute or an hour or a week from there -- I will confront that person.
See also the so-called "thousands of IPCC scientists" who produced the UN IPCC Assessment Reports 1 to 4. AR 4, the latest, was released Nov. 2007.
Heartland Institute has been organizing a big international conference on climate change (ICCC). The 1st ICCC was held in March 2008 in NYC, where the UN HQ is. Zero participant from any of those "thousands of IPCC scientists" even if the IPCC leadership were invited. The 2nd ICCC was held again in NYC, March 2009. Again, zero participants from IPCC.
The 3rd ICCC was held in Washington DC in June 2009, where the politicians who legislate carbon "cap and trade" and "clean energy" blah-blah bills are holding office, not a single shadow of the warming scientists. The 4th ICCC was held in Chicago last May 2010. Again, everyone from the warming camp were invited, Pachauri of IPCC, Al Gore, Jim Hansen of NASA, and for 4 straight occasions, zero attendance from the warmers.
How coward they can be? It's a big international conference with about 700 participants from many countries around the world, explicitly delivering papers that say that IPCC "analysis" and projections are a huge scam, and the IPCC cannot send 10 or 100 or 500 of their scientists to do battle with the "skeptical" scientists?
Where there is deafening silence, there is huge admission of guilt.
Here's the latest lower tropospheric temperature data from Remote Sensing System (RSS). The plunge in air temperature last month was so steep. Data is from http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/11/04/rss-global-temperature-anomaly-takes-a-dive/#more-27457
Please take note that the IPCC or the UN FCCC do not hold conferences where debates are accomodated. They only hold meetings to sing halleluiah to each other. And they hold really huge, expensive, global climate meetings, every 2 months on ave in Bonn, Germany or other big cities in the world. Last Dec. 2009, the COP 15 meeting attracted possibly 10,000+ climate bureaucrats, politicians, environmentalists, media, and other do-gooders in Copenhagen. Funny for them, they experienced blizzard for an event to "fight global warming".
In case there are any taker from any, yes, from anyone, from the warming camp -- please forward this challenge to your friends in WWF, Greenpeace, Oxfam, other environmentalist groups -- to face me in a debate. There are some opportunities. The Rotary Club of Makati Urdaneta will have me as their guest speaker on the subject of warming scam. I told the organizers to scout for anyone to debate with me. One projector for each of us, so we can show graph vs graph, data vs data. It will be on Nov. 24, noontime, I dont know the exact venue yet, should be in makati.
Thursday, November 04, 2010
Statist paranoia, part 8
Here's continuation of my debate with a statist friend in one of my discussion yahoogroups. I answered some of his questions, below.
1. Pushing Right Policy or Fallacy? tempting to push for a “free market” policy in any situation...
What is right or wrong, or heaven-hell, depends on how statist you are. A statist would always say, "Aha, market failure! Introduce a new tax, or raise the existing tax. Or create a new regulatory agency..." A non-statist would say, however, "Aha, market failure! there are market solutions to it. Government, keep out."
Market failure. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and can be created by anyone. I myself can create a market failure. I demand that a 200 GB usb flash disk should be made available in Philippine cyber shops and they should be sold for only P5,000. There is demand, but where is the supply? Zero. If someone is capable of bringing such usb in the local market, most likely it will be sold at P20,000 or more, not the P5,000 that I want. Demand exists, supply is absent, market failure, simple.
Where's the "market solution"? Just wait, maybe in 5 years or so. Competition among IT companies will make sure that such usb will be made available in the future at such price, or even lower. A statist though, would demand government intervention for such market failure. Then what, tax-tax-tax so that govt can subsidize the production of such usb and sold at a price demanded by certain consumers? What a lousy proposal.
2. Why some of us go to the extent of name-calling people who do not support free market policies as “statists”.
--> While I already apologized to some people for labelling them as "socialists", I will retain using the term "statist" because it's the most appropriate, 100 percent precise, term to describe their thinking. More state, more govt intervention and taxation, statist.
3. Sweeping resistance or sweeping reforms? what is necessary are sweeping reforms, starting with a tax on “hot money.” A mere two percent (2%) tax rate alone, for instance, on the current P5.5 Billion Value daily turnover could raise about P110 M a day...
--> A proposed 2% tax on hot money is "sweeping reforms" already? Why not propose 20% tax, or 100% tax? That's sweeping. Resistance to even 2% or even 1% additional tax, on top of already existing taxes, is based on my above questions, that if some people will think big and decide to issue an IPO for their companies too, why bring in the state to introduce price distortion? If no one buys their IPO, is it your or DOF problem? If many people buy their IPO, is it your or DOF problem? You are not part of it, unless you are one of the investors. It's a private contract between a private company and private buyers of the IPO.
4. "Collapsing physical economy" due to traders and middlemen who earn big bucks and leaving the farmers poor, another example of free market as a failure.
--> If the traders' profit margin is too high, that means that are too many agri producers and too few traders. So the market solution is to allow more traders, let them compete among themselves in bidding up the price for agri products.
Why is talk cheap? Because supply is always larger than the demand. Why are some consultants' professional fee expensive? Because their supply of really theoretical and quantitative studies is small relative to demand. That's free market.
On another note, we harvested mangos last April. We borrowed a small truck to transport some 50 "kaing" (about 20 kilos each) of mangos. We finished harvesting around 6pm. Dinner and rest for the driver and 2 aides. I took the bus as the small truck can only accommodate 3 passengers including the driver. They travelled back to Manila at 9pm.
Already in Metro Manila, around 1am, they were stopped at a police check point in Quezon City. The policemen asked what are being transported, they saw the mangos. Then they said there's a violation, that the truck should have an official notice on its body that it is a "fruit dealer" truck. These policemen are of course on some petty extortion rackets. The driver haggled for only P100, the cops said it's too small, they ended up at P200, then allowed the truck to move along.
Lesson? Traders are limited because of some idiotic government or police regulations, not because of free market. 50 kaing (at 20 kilos each, only 1 ton) is too small to hire a 6-wheeler truck and the rental cost will be big, which means the net profit for transporting the mangos will become small.
1. Pushing Right Policy or Fallacy? tempting to push for a “free market” policy in any situation...
What is right or wrong, or heaven-hell, depends on how statist you are. A statist would always say, "Aha, market failure! Introduce a new tax, or raise the existing tax. Or create a new regulatory agency..." A non-statist would say, however, "Aha, market failure! there are market solutions to it. Government, keep out."Market failure. It can happen anytime, anywhere, and can be created by anyone. I myself can create a market failure. I demand that a 200 GB usb flash disk should be made available in Philippine cyber shops and they should be sold for only P5,000. There is demand, but where is the supply? Zero. If someone is capable of bringing such usb in the local market, most likely it will be sold at P20,000 or more, not the P5,000 that I want. Demand exists, supply is absent, market failure, simple.
Where's the "market solution"? Just wait, maybe in 5 years or so. Competition among IT companies will make sure that such usb will be made available in the future at such price, or even lower. A statist though, would demand government intervention for such market failure. Then what, tax-tax-tax so that govt can subsidize the production of such usb and sold at a price demanded by certain consumers? What a lousy proposal.2. Why some of us go to the extent of name-calling people who do not support free market policies as “statists”.
--> While I already apologized to some people for labelling them as "socialists", I will retain using the term "statist" because it's the most appropriate, 100 percent precise, term to describe their thinking. More state, more govt intervention and taxation, statist.
3. Sweeping resistance or sweeping reforms? what is necessary are sweeping reforms, starting with a tax on “hot money.” A mere two percent (2%) tax rate alone, for instance, on the current P5.5 Billion Value daily turnover could raise about P110 M a day...
--> A proposed 2% tax on hot money is "sweeping reforms" already? Why not propose 20% tax, or 100% tax? That's sweeping. Resistance to even 2% or even 1% additional tax, on top of already existing taxes, is based on my above questions, that if some people will think big and decide to issue an IPO for their companies too, why bring in the state to introduce price distortion? If no one buys their IPO, is it your or DOF problem? If many people buy their IPO, is it your or DOF problem? You are not part of it, unless you are one of the investors. It's a private contract between a private company and private buyers of the IPO.
4. "Collapsing physical economy" due to traders and middlemen who earn big bucks and leaving the farmers poor, another example of free market as a failure.
--> If the traders' profit margin is too high, that means that are too many agri producers and too few traders. So the market solution is to allow more traders, let them compete among themselves in bidding up the price for agri products.
Why is talk cheap? Because supply is always larger than the demand. Why are some consultants' professional fee expensive? Because their supply of really theoretical and quantitative studies is small relative to demand. That's free market.
On another note, we harvested mangos last April. We borrowed a small truck to transport some 50 "kaing" (about 20 kilos each) of mangos. We finished harvesting around 6pm. Dinner and rest for the driver and 2 aides. I took the bus as the small truck can only accommodate 3 passengers including the driver. They travelled back to Manila at 9pm.
Already in Metro Manila, around 1am, they were stopped at a police check point in Quezon City. The policemen asked what are being transported, they saw the mangos. Then they said there's a violation, that the truck should have an official notice on its body that it is a "fruit dealer" truck. These policemen are of course on some petty extortion rackets. The driver haggled for only P100, the cops said it's too small, they ended up at P200, then allowed the truck to move along.
Lesson? Traders are limited because of some idiotic government or police regulations, not because of free market. 50 kaing (at 20 kilos each, only 1 ton) is too small to hire a 6-wheeler truck and the rental cost will be big, which means the net profit for transporting the mangos will become small.
PhilHealth Watch 4: P110 B excess money
(Note: this is my article in the lobbyist.biz this week, PhilHealth's P110 B excess money)
Here is the government's health insurance corporation monopoly amassing P110 billion (about $2.5 billion) of reserves and extra money, but giving out very limited services to its contributors who were coerced to become members. In addition, the quality of service is lousy.
.jpg)
I have personal experience of queuing for two hoursjust to submit documents for benefit claims -- a process that takes only about one minute when you talk to the PhilHealth staff; or queuing for an hour and 40 minutes just to get a member data record (MDR) -- a process that takes only about 30 seconds.
There have been a number of recent big conferences and symposia on attaining universal health care (UHC) for all Filipinos. The most recent was the two-day summit on UHC held on October 27-28 at the Ramon Magsaysay Center sponsored by MeTA Philippines, in partnership with the DoH, WHO and AIM.
A week before that, there was a one-day forum on the same subject held at the AIM and sponsored by the Zuellig Family Foundation. A month ago, there was two-day forum on the same subject held at the AIM, sponsored also by MeTA Philippines. Among health NGOs, the Coalition for Health Advocacy and Transparency (CHAT) also held several forum on the subject over the past few months.
.jpg)
The DoH Advisory Council for Price Regulation, the council hearing inputs on the drug price control policy of the government, has been converted into the Advisory Council for Healthcare. I am a member of that old and new Council and the first meeting of the new Council was held only last Tuesday, October 26, at the DoH compound.
So, what should PhilHealth do to spend the P110 billion for its members, and not invested in government treasury or other unrelated activities?
One measure that I can think of, is for PhilHealth to outsource the function of (a) giving out PhilHealth membership cards, (b) printing of MDR, (c) receiving documents for claims and other related work. The institution should focus its personnel and efforts on checking claims to reduce waiting period from 60 working days (at least) to only a week or two and to remove, investigate and prosecute fraudulent claims -- or other core function related to expanding and hastening payment to members.
Another is to cover out-patient consultation by members, say to see a physician. Diagnostic tests for out-patient care may need not be covered for now. The main reason why many people resort to self-medication (if they feel ill, they immediately go to a drugstore to buy drugs that are heavily advertised or was recommended by their friends and family members) is because they do not want to pay to see a doctor, unless their illness is already serious. Self-medication often results in irrational drug use.
Members should feel that they are getting some service from the monthly contributions they are coerced to give to PhilHealth. This way, they will pay with a light heart, and not feeling like being held up monthly by another government bureaucracy.
Here is the government's health insurance corporation monopoly amassing P110 billion (about $2.5 billion) of reserves and extra money, but giving out very limited services to its contributors who were coerced to become members. In addition, the quality of service is lousy..jpg)
I have personal experience of queuing for two hoursjust to submit documents for benefit claims -- a process that takes only about one minute when you talk to the PhilHealth staff; or queuing for an hour and 40 minutes just to get a member data record (MDR) -- a process that takes only about 30 seconds.There have been a number of recent big conferences and symposia on attaining universal health care (UHC) for all Filipinos. The most recent was the two-day summit on UHC held on October 27-28 at the Ramon Magsaysay Center sponsored by MeTA Philippines, in partnership with the DoH, WHO and AIM.
A week before that, there was a one-day forum on the same subject held at the AIM and sponsored by the Zuellig Family Foundation. A month ago, there was two-day forum on the same subject held at the AIM, sponsored also by MeTA Philippines. Among health NGOs, the Coalition for Health Advocacy and Transparency (CHAT) also held several forum on the subject over the past few months.
.jpg)
The DoH Advisory Council for Price Regulation, the council hearing inputs on the drug price control policy of the government, has been converted into the Advisory Council for Healthcare. I am a member of that old and new Council and the first meeting of the new Council was held only last Tuesday, October 26, at the DoH compound.So, what should PhilHealth do to spend the P110 billion for its members, and not invested in government treasury or other unrelated activities?
One measure that I can think of, is for PhilHealth to outsource the function of (a) giving out PhilHealth membership cards, (b) printing of MDR, (c) receiving documents for claims and other related work. The institution should focus its personnel and efforts on checking claims to reduce waiting period from 60 working days (at least) to only a week or two and to remove, investigate and prosecute fraudulent claims -- or other core function related to expanding and hastening payment to members.
Another is to cover out-patient consultation by members, say to see a physician. Diagnostic tests for out-patient care may need not be covered for now. The main reason why many people resort to self-medication (if they feel ill, they immediately go to a drugstore to buy drugs that are heavily advertised or was recommended by their friends and family members) is because they do not want to pay to see a doctor, unless their illness is already serious. Self-medication often results in irrational drug use.
Members should feel that they are getting some service from the monthly contributions they are coerced to give to PhilHealth. This way, they will pay with a light heart, and not feeling like being held up monthly by another government bureaucracy.
Wednesday, November 03, 2010
Pol. Ideology 17: The LP and the Philippine President
In a facebook status by one of my friends, she observed how a number of top officials of the current administration under President Benigno S. Aquino III (BSA3) seem too juvenile and arrogant in their work.
I commented in her fb status my personal observation: where is the Liberal Party (LP)? BSA3 ran on a liberal platform, not socialist or nationalist or pure populist platform. Thus, the liberal agenda as defined in their campaign program and promises should prevail in this administration's agenda. Not the specific agenda and personal interests of people that BSA3 employed outside the party.
Many of the officials appointed by the President, I observe, are non-party members. They are not part of (LP) party ideology and party discipline. Although I also observe that LP's practice of what is "liberal economics, liberal politics" is also not so distinctive. Their liberalism is focused too much on promises of "good governance/anti-corruption" platform.
When I voted last May, I held on the party philosophy. I don't believe in socialism, I dont believe in nationalism and anti-globalization, I don't believe in pure populism. I believe in liberalism, especially the classic liberal (not american liberal or neo-neo-liberal label) philosopy, emphasizing individual liberty, more personal responsibility.
All political parties in the last elections campaigned hard on anti-corruption platform, so it is difficult to differentiate one from the other, except the personalities and standard bearers of the party. The LP and BSA3 should go back to their liberal agenda during the campaign.
I just checked the LP website, I like their "Liberal Vision":
Definition like this makes me a fan of liberalism as an ideology. It is a beautiful ideology. Focus on individual freedom. Individual rights, personal responsibility. As opposed to forced and collective freedom, collective rights, that tend to step or disregard individual freedom.
Go liberal, LP and BSA3.
It is your promise. It is your commitment. You are duty-bound to stick to it.
* Six months ago, I wrote this related paper,
Party-building vs. Personality-building
April 26, 2010
Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism and Democratism, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010
I commented in her fb status my personal observation: where is the Liberal Party (LP)? BSA3 ran on a liberal platform, not socialist or nationalist or pure populist platform. Thus, the liberal agenda as defined in their campaign program and promises should prevail in this administration's agenda. Not the specific agenda and personal interests of people that BSA3 employed outside the party.Many of the officials appointed by the President, I observe, are non-party members. They are not part of (LP) party ideology and party discipline. Although I also observe that LP's practice of what is "liberal economics, liberal politics" is also not so distinctive. Their liberalism is focused too much on promises of "good governance/anti-corruption" platform.
When I voted last May, I held on the party philosophy. I don't believe in socialism, I dont believe in nationalism and anti-globalization, I don't believe in pure populism. I believe in liberalism, especially the classic liberal (not american liberal or neo-neo-liberal label) philosopy, emphasizing individual liberty, more personal responsibility. All political parties in the last elections campaigned hard on anti-corruption platform, so it is difficult to differentiate one from the other, except the personalities and standard bearers of the party. The LP and BSA3 should go back to their liberal agenda during the campaign.
I just checked the LP website, I like their "Liberal Vision":
The freedom of every individual is at the core of our beliefs. Liberals aims to build a society in which individual men and women are entitled to pursue their aims, develop their talents and fulfill their potential free from arbitrary interference, and are able to exercise real power over the institutions that govern their lives. The necessary condition for the creation of an environment in which individuals can genuinely prosper and to maximize their potential is by enabling them to take and use political power.source: http://www.liberalparty.ph/platform/vision.htm
We believe that the power of the individual is best expressed and secured within communities. Communities help people not just to realize their rights, but to recognize their responsibilities to others and to broaden the common good. This is the necessary social framework without which individuals cannot truly flourish. The empowerment of individuals therefore also requires empowering the communities to which they belong.
Definition like this makes me a fan of liberalism as an ideology. It is a beautiful ideology. Focus on individual freedom. Individual rights, personal responsibility. As opposed to forced and collective freedom, collective rights, that tend to step or disregard individual freedom.
Go liberal, LP and BSA3.
It is your promise. It is your commitment. You are duty-bound to stick to it.
* Six months ago, I wrote this related paper,
Party-building vs. Personality-building
April 26, 2010
(This is my article for the "People's Brigada News", April 21, 2010)
A friend articulately wrote an article, "Why _____ is the Best for Philippine Democracy and Development?" Among his main arguments are:
1. Candidate’s program is the "politics for God and country".
2. His promise of "Walang Korapsyon"
3. His ability to mobilize the spirit of volunteerism.
4. His 7E's platform for democracy and development (Eradicate bad governance, Energize the economy, Empower the people, other motherhood calls).
In the upcoming Presidential elections, there are at least 4 candidates from small political parties. While they all have something useful to contribute to Philippine politics as they expand the choices for the voters, there is something problematic with their insistence to run for President.
The purpose of elections is to allow the most organized political party or coalition to capture political power, nothing less than that. So some politicians sell their souls (and their family members' souls) to the devil, just to capture political power. Other politicians use charisma, emotions, political pedigree, etc., to achieve the same objective.
My main critique of politicians from small political parties running for President, is that they are weak, if not lousy, in political party building. They focused on personality-building, highlighting the personal achievements, beliefs and advocacies of their “standard-bearer.”
The main vehicle to capture political power is through a political party. The party offers a particular political and social philosophy or ideology to the voters and the public. Another party offers a different, if not opposing, political and social philosophy. A winning or victorious party or coalition should implement what it promised to the voters. Its victory can be seen as a reflection of the dominant political philosophy embraced by the voters.
If the political party is not strong and big enough, it should build an alliance or coalition with other smaller political parties that share the same political philosophy on major concerns, so that the coalition will win and capture political power.
The politicians from small parties did little to develop a broad-based political party from the grassroots between 2004 and 2010. They just shot up from somewhere a few months before the elections and offer themselves as the "best" leader with no sufficient leadership to show in actual political party-building or coalition-building. They cannot even coalesce and unite among themselves, none of them would give way to support the other principled-but- small groups. They all want to be proclaimed the "best", or the "most honest" or what have you, presidential candidate.
The process of party-building, rather than personality-building, is also a good measurement of how transparent and how accountable the politicians of a particular party are. Those with dictatorial tendencies or those who do not stick to the party philosophy and ideology would see their political party thinning out and breaking apart soon.
My personal bias is to vote for a presidential candidate or political party who will promise or plan to have a smaller government, smaller and fewer taxes, allow bigger role for personal responsibility, individual liberty and market competition. Since I cannot find such political party now, and I am lazy to put up my own political party or work with other individuals to push such advocacies at the political party level, then I will go for candidates and a political party that approximates my personal bias and philosophy. I will vote for candidates who have the least record of heavy state intervention, those who enacted the fewest laws, regulations and prohibitions. This option is a hundred times better than offering myself or some friends to the public as the "best" or "most honest" or "savior" or what have you adjectives.
A citizens’ movement for bigger personal responsibility, lesser government responsibility in exchange for fewer and smaller taxes, regulations and prohibitions, should start now and the coming months. The pressure to politicians during campaign period would push them to become more welfarists and subsidy-giving, with the implicit and inevitable consequence of retaining the existing high and multiple taxes, fees and charges. Or raising taxes later on.
Such citizens’ movement need not be centralized. In fact, it is better that such movement will be decentralized to allow greater leeway and dynamism for individuals and groups that advocate the philosophy for greater personal responsibility and greater individual freedom. Party-building can start from such initiatives. Personality-building should be minimized. The idea should prevail over the personality. Ideas can last for years and centuries while personalities can last for only a few years or decades.
A friend articulately wrote an article, "Why _____ is the Best for Philippine Democracy and Development?" Among his main arguments are:
1. Candidate’s program is the "politics for God and country".
2. His promise of "Walang Korapsyon"
3. His ability to mobilize the spirit of volunteerism.
4. His 7E's platform for democracy and development (Eradicate bad governance, Energize the economy, Empower the people, other motherhood calls).
In the upcoming Presidential elections, there are at least 4 candidates from small political parties. While they all have something useful to contribute to Philippine politics as they expand the choices for the voters, there is something problematic with their insistence to run for President.
The purpose of elections is to allow the most organized political party or coalition to capture political power, nothing less than that. So some politicians sell their souls (and their family members' souls) to the devil, just to capture political power. Other politicians use charisma, emotions, political pedigree, etc., to achieve the same objective.
My main critique of politicians from small political parties running for President, is that they are weak, if not lousy, in political party building. They focused on personality-building, highlighting the personal achievements, beliefs and advocacies of their “standard-bearer.”
The main vehicle to capture political power is through a political party. The party offers a particular political and social philosophy or ideology to the voters and the public. Another party offers a different, if not opposing, political and social philosophy. A winning or victorious party or coalition should implement what it promised to the voters. Its victory can be seen as a reflection of the dominant political philosophy embraced by the voters.
If the political party is not strong and big enough, it should build an alliance or coalition with other smaller political parties that share the same political philosophy on major concerns, so that the coalition will win and capture political power.
The politicians from small parties did little to develop a broad-based political party from the grassroots between 2004 and 2010. They just shot up from somewhere a few months before the elections and offer themselves as the "best" leader with no sufficient leadership to show in actual political party-building or coalition-building. They cannot even coalesce and unite among themselves, none of them would give way to support the other principled-but- small groups. They all want to be proclaimed the "best", or the "most honest" or what have you, presidential candidate.
The process of party-building, rather than personality-building, is also a good measurement of how transparent and how accountable the politicians of a particular party are. Those with dictatorial tendencies or those who do not stick to the party philosophy and ideology would see their political party thinning out and breaking apart soon.
My personal bias is to vote for a presidential candidate or political party who will promise or plan to have a smaller government, smaller and fewer taxes, allow bigger role for personal responsibility, individual liberty and market competition. Since I cannot find such political party now, and I am lazy to put up my own political party or work with other individuals to push such advocacies at the political party level, then I will go for candidates and a political party that approximates my personal bias and philosophy. I will vote for candidates who have the least record of heavy state intervention, those who enacted the fewest laws, regulations and prohibitions. This option is a hundred times better than offering myself or some friends to the public as the "best" or "most honest" or "savior" or what have you adjectives.
A citizens’ movement for bigger personal responsibility, lesser government responsibility in exchange for fewer and smaller taxes, regulations and prohibitions, should start now and the coming months. The pressure to politicians during campaign period would push them to become more welfarists and subsidy-giving, with the implicit and inevitable consequence of retaining the existing high and multiple taxes, fees and charges. Or raising taxes later on.
Such citizens’ movement need not be centralized. In fact, it is better that such movement will be decentralized to allow greater leeway and dynamism for individuals and groups that advocate the philosophy for greater personal responsibility and greater individual freedom. Party-building can start from such initiatives. Personality-building should be minimized. The idea should prevail over the personality. Ideas can last for years and centuries while personalities can last for only a few years or decades.
---------
See also:
Pol. Ideology 11: Liberalism, Democratism & Authoritarianism, January 04, 2009
Pol. Ideology 12: Lao Tzu, Cooperative Individualism, February 07, 2009
Pol. Ideology 13: Liberty and Liberty Forum, the LP, March 19, 2009Pol. Ideology 14: Liberalism and Democratism, January 18, 2010
Pol. Ideology 15: Socialism, Conservatism and Liberalism, March 08, 2010
Pol. Ideology 16: Liberalism and Social Opportunity, July 29, 2010
Senior Citizens Discount, Part 2
(Note: The original title of this paper was "Mandatory Drug Price Discounts")
Last week, I attended the first meeting of the DOH Advisory Council for Healthcare. This body used to be called the Advisory Council for Drug Price Regulation. Curious why a free marketer like me is attending meetings of the government that imposed drug price control? Well, I attended it mainly to listen to what the industry players have to say based on their actual experience, and to help explain to the DOH officials that price control is not the way to achieve the goal of cheaper drugs or whatever commodity. More competition from more players will achieve that.
Anyway, the various industry players were there in the meeting as usual -- the multinational pharma, local pharma, drugstores (from Mercury to Watsons to small ones), hospital associations, medical and pharmacist associations, NGOs (me among them). There were also participants from other government agencies like the DTI, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and PITC pharma.
.jpg)
The old and renewed pain of the drug retailers were raised once more related to the obligatory, mandatory discounts for senior citizens (SC) and persons with disabilities (PWDs). And recently the expanded senior citizen law.
Before, it was 20% mandatory discount (SC and PWDs).
Then there was the drug price control policy, mandatory 50% discount.
And after that, the expanded SC discount of 12%
.jpg)
So drugstores, especially the small ones, that earn a gross profit margin of 5 to 10 percent will now be forced to shoulder the above mandatory price reductions at no cost to the government. All costs will be borne by the drug retailers and drug manufacturers. The mandatory revenue losses are not subject to tax credits.
When politicians like legislators think of "welfare", one variation is that the full cost of such welfare is entirely on the sellers and entrepreneurs, not on them or the Executive branch. Let the drugstores (small ones, esp.) lose and close shop, or let them stop selling some affected drugs, or let them sell cheap but counterfeit drugs perhaps to help recover the losses, they won't care. So long as they can "give welfare" at no cost to them or to the national treasury.
The other and more dominant variation of welfare, is that taxpayers foot the bill, like the conditional cash transfer (CCT) and various other programs.
Welfare. Politicians are well, taxpayers pay the fare. Welfare.
See also, On Senior Citizens Discount, August 10, 2009.
Last week, I attended the first meeting of the DOH Advisory Council for Healthcare. This body used to be called the Advisory Council for Drug Price Regulation. Curious why a free marketer like me is attending meetings of the government that imposed drug price control? Well, I attended it mainly to listen to what the industry players have to say based on their actual experience, and to help explain to the DOH officials that price control is not the way to achieve the goal of cheaper drugs or whatever commodity. More competition from more players will achieve that.
Anyway, the various industry players were there in the meeting as usual -- the multinational pharma, local pharma, drugstores (from Mercury to Watsons to small ones), hospital associations, medical and pharmacist associations, NGOs (me among them). There were also participants from other government agencies like the DTI, Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and PITC pharma.
.jpg)
The old and renewed pain of the drug retailers were raised once more related to the obligatory, mandatory discounts for senior citizens (SC) and persons with disabilities (PWDs). And recently the expanded senior citizen law.Before, it was 20% mandatory discount (SC and PWDs).
Then there was the drug price control policy, mandatory 50% discount.
And after that, the expanded SC discount of 12%
.jpg)
So drugstores, especially the small ones, that earn a gross profit margin of 5 to 10 percent will now be forced to shoulder the above mandatory price reductions at no cost to the government. All costs will be borne by the drug retailers and drug manufacturers. The mandatory revenue losses are not subject to tax credits.When politicians like legislators think of "welfare", one variation is that the full cost of such welfare is entirely on the sellers and entrepreneurs, not on them or the Executive branch. Let the drugstores (small ones, esp.) lose and close shop, or let them stop selling some affected drugs, or let them sell cheap but counterfeit drugs perhaps to help recover the losses, they won't care. So long as they can "give welfare" at no cost to them or to the national treasury.
The other and more dominant variation of welfare, is that taxpayers foot the bill, like the conditional cash transfer (CCT) and various other programs.
Welfare. Politicians are well, taxpayers pay the fare. Welfare.
See also, On Senior Citizens Discount, August 10, 2009.
Government Debts: Philippine Debt
Here's a continuation of my debate with some statists in one of my discussion yahoogroups.
The main issue in government finance now, is the huge public debt, the endless budget deficit. Again, here are the figures, interest payment alone of the national govenment:
2005-2009, P287 B/year on average
2010, P278 B (projected)
2011, P357 B (projected)
What to do with those ever-expanding, ever-rising, debts, of living beyond one's means?
Why is the most convenient solution for many technocrats and analysists is "more taxes", or "raise existing taxes"?
Why not cut spending? Cut subsidies, cut bureaucracies, cut pork barrel, cut the number of govt employees and bureaucrats?
The most recent racket, funded by WB and ADB loans, is conditional cash transfer (CCT) for the poor. There were healthcare for the poor, housing for the poor, education for the poor, credit for the poor, agrarian reform for the poor, food subsidy for the poor, everything for the poor.
If almost all of them are failures because poverty still persists if not expanding, what makes the government technocrats and WB-ADB bureaucrats think they will succeed with CCT?
Why not simply promulgate the rule of law. Healthcare for the poor should really benefit the poor. Education for the poor should really benefit the poor, and so on.
If all of them are failures, why another program and racket for the poor?
I think this CCT will just be another racket and program for large-scale waste if not robbery. And what's next, DCCT, double conditional cash transfer? And then, TCCT, triple conditional cash transfer?
If there are lots of programs, subsidies and cash transfers if one is poor, some poor people would prefer to remain poor. If their income will rise, the various subsidies and cash transfers will stop as those programs and cash transfers are budgeted for many years, not one-time program.
And the budget deficit will keep expanding. And the public debt will keep rising. Up to about P4.4 (or 5?) trillion as of middle of this year. Easy to reach P5-6 trillion next year.
There is zero limit to more spending, more subsidies. There is zero limit to fiscal and personal irresponsibility.
And some institutions like the WB and ADB think, "No problem, you should save the poor, save the economy, save the planet, so have more debts with us!" That's why we have new debts with them like the CCT loans.
On the excise tax on gasoline, I am not in favor of raising it. In fact, that tax on gasoline products should be abolished. Excise taxes are slapped on so-called "public bads" like tobacco and alcoholic products. is gasoline a "public bad" and unnecesssary product? People who say so should ride bicycles and walk/commute more often.
If the DOF will raise the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products, that I can support. People who don't want to pay more tax to the govt should quit smoking and drinking, or significantly cut their smoking and drinking, no big deal.
About the "over-worked" staff of DOF and its attached agencies like BIR and BOC, I think the problem is that they administer too many taxes. HK and Singapore have only 4 to 5 diff business taxes per year. Why does the Philippines have 47 different business taxes and fees per year?
HK and Singapore also charge only about 16 percent income tax rate (personal and corporate) vs the Philippines' 32 and 30 percent, respectively. In fact, supposedly capitalist Philippines has more businesses taxes than socialist China and socialist Vietnam. There are more socialists in Philippine legislature and exec branches?
Congress is a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders and trying-hard socialists, spending other people's money, not theirs. And they do so because there is a big supply of people and voters who think that govt should provide this, subsidize that, tax there, regulate over there, etc. For these people, the solution to problems is more taxes and fees, like more taxes on hot money or portfolio investment.
The main issue in government finance now, is the huge public debt, the endless budget deficit. Again, here are the figures, interest payment alone of the national govenment:
2005-2009, P287 B/year on average
2010, P278 B (projected)
2011, P357 B (projected)
What to do with those ever-expanding, ever-rising, debts, of living beyond one's means?
Why is the most convenient solution for many technocrats and analysists is "more taxes", or "raise existing taxes"?
Why not cut spending? Cut subsidies, cut bureaucracies, cut pork barrel, cut the number of govt employees and bureaucrats?
The most recent racket, funded by WB and ADB loans, is conditional cash transfer (CCT) for the poor. There were healthcare for the poor, housing for the poor, education for the poor, credit for the poor, agrarian reform for the poor, food subsidy for the poor, everything for the poor.
If almost all of them are failures because poverty still persists if not expanding, what makes the government technocrats and WB-ADB bureaucrats think they will succeed with CCT?
Why not simply promulgate the rule of law. Healthcare for the poor should really benefit the poor. Education for the poor should really benefit the poor, and so on.
If all of them are failures, why another program and racket for the poor?
I think this CCT will just be another racket and program for large-scale waste if not robbery. And what's next, DCCT, double conditional cash transfer? And then, TCCT, triple conditional cash transfer?If there are lots of programs, subsidies and cash transfers if one is poor, some poor people would prefer to remain poor. If their income will rise, the various subsidies and cash transfers will stop as those programs and cash transfers are budgeted for many years, not one-time program.
And the budget deficit will keep expanding. And the public debt will keep rising. Up to about P4.4 (or 5?) trillion as of middle of this year. Easy to reach P5-6 trillion next year.
There is zero limit to more spending, more subsidies. There is zero limit to fiscal and personal irresponsibility.And some institutions like the WB and ADB think, "No problem, you should save the poor, save the economy, save the planet, so have more debts with us!" That's why we have new debts with them like the CCT loans.
On the excise tax on gasoline, I am not in favor of raising it. In fact, that tax on gasoline products should be abolished. Excise taxes are slapped on so-called "public bads" like tobacco and alcoholic products. is gasoline a "public bad" and unnecesssary product? People who say so should ride bicycles and walk/commute more often.
If the DOF will raise the excise tax on alcohol and tobacco products, that I can support. People who don't want to pay more tax to the govt should quit smoking and drinking, or significantly cut their smoking and drinking, no big deal.
About the "over-worked" staff of DOF and its attached agencies like BIR and BOC, I think the problem is that they administer too many taxes. HK and Singapore have only 4 to 5 diff business taxes per year. Why does the Philippines have 47 different business taxes and fees per year?
HK and Singapore also charge only about 16 percent income tax rate (personal and corporate) vs the Philippines' 32 and 30 percent, respectively. In fact, supposedly capitalist Philippines has more businesses taxes than socialist China and socialist Vietnam. There are more socialists in Philippine legislature and exec branches?
Congress is a bunch of bleeding heart do-gooders and trying-hard socialists, spending other people's money, not theirs. And they do so because there is a big supply of people and voters who think that govt should provide this, subsidize that, tax there, regulate over there, etc. For these people, the solution to problems is more taxes and fees, like more taxes on hot money or portfolio investment.
Tuesday, November 02, 2010
Dr. Roy Spencer on individual freedom
For those who are not familiar with Dr. Roy Spencer, he describes himself as a "climatologist, author, former NASA scientist." His blog is cool, discussing from "Global Warming: Natural or Manmade?", "Global Warming 101", "Research Articles and Simple Climate Model", among others. His belief about climate change -- "it happens, with or without our help." Cool guy.
Dr. Spencer is associated with the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and this university's climatologists interpret various temperature data collated by NASA's Aqua (and other?) satellites on 24/7 basis -- sea surface temp. (SST), temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), others. And here's the latest TLT anomaly for October 2010, it has gone down to only 0.42 C. Click on the graph to get a bigger image.
I was very lucky to meet him in person last May. At the Heartland Institute's 4th International Conference on Climate Change (4th ICCC) in Chicago, he was one of the plenary speakers. During cocktails, I met him and immediately asked for a picture with him.
Yesterday, he wrote a simple, down to earth analysis why climate alarmism persists, entitled Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future. He wrote,
Dr. Spencer identified the problem squarely: the hunger for bigger government. The hunger for more government regulations of environment activities and more taxation/subsidy of certain energy sources. The various sectors used "climate science" for this specific and often non-explicit goal. Then he defined the evil of elitism:
Wow, bulls-eye! And here are more meat to his discussions on individual freedom and free market:
There is a big political and environmental lobby to demonize if not kill certain energy sources that are cheap but are deemed "dirty and cause man-made warming", and then use huge taxpayers' money to subsidize "clean and no carbon emission" power sources. I have argued before that personally, I have nothing against wind farms, solar farms, other renewable energy sources. They should be allowed, like all other energy sources. Their presence expands the range of choices for people over what kind of energy sources they wish to give them electricity and power in their homes, offices, communities and cars.
What I am against is government coercion of tax-tax-tax certain energy sources and turning around to give the huge tax collections to feed a big and expanding government climate bureaucracies, the government-funded environmental groups and NGOs, and the subsidy-dependent renewable power sources. Use voodoo science, quick-fix climate soundbytes, just to get the energy socialism that they wish for.
If people want to use solar and wind energy sources, then they should pay for it even if these are expensive. Let them spend their money where their mouths are. They should not clamor for expensive energy sources become artificially cheap by making governments force you and me to pay for higher energy taxes. Meaning you and me and other people who do not believe in whatever energy subsidies should be forced and coerced to give such subsidy to them.
And here's Dr. Spencer's take on free markets. I love his definition of it.
Wow! I almost forgot that Dr. Spencer is a natural scientist, not an economist or social scientist or a businessman. I don't want to make any elaboration on those words as they are so beautifully explained.
Finally, here's his killer concluding paragraph:
This should be the main reason why I was lucky to corner him in the picture above. Minimal government philosophy jibes 100 percent with climate realism.
Dr. Spencer is associated with the Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville (UAH) and this university's climatologists interpret various temperature data collated by NASA's Aqua (and other?) satellites on 24/7 basis -- sea surface temp. (SST), temperature of the lower troposphere (TLT), others. And here's the latest TLT anomaly for October 2010, it has gone down to only 0.42 C. Click on the graph to get a bigger image.
I was very lucky to meet him in person last May. At the Heartland Institute's 4th International Conference on Climate Change (4th ICCC) in Chicago, he was one of the plenary speakers. During cocktails, I met him and immediately asked for a picture with him.Yesterday, he wrote a simple, down to earth analysis why climate alarmism persists, entitled Global Warming Elitism, Tomorrow’s Election, and The Future. He wrote,
...there was a strong push for policy changes that even most of the scientists involved supported — ultimately culminating in the governmental control over how much and the kinds of energy sources humanity would be allowed to use in the future.
Cap and Trade, as well as potential regulation of carbon dioxide emissions by the EPA, are the fruits of the labor of politicians, governmental representatives, bureaucrats, the United Nations, and activist scientists who have used global warming as an excuse to accomplish policy goals that would have never been accomplished on their own merits.
Dr. Spencer identified the problem squarely: the hunger for bigger government. The hunger for more government regulations of environment activities and more taxation/subsidy of certain energy sources. The various sectors used "climate science" for this specific and often non-explicit goal. Then he defined the evil of elitism:
The belief that a better-educated few should be allowed power over the less educated masses. That government knows better than the people do.
Tomorrow’s election is widely viewed as a referendum on the proper role of government in people’s lives. There is no question that the founders of our country intended there to be maximum of freedom on the part of individuals and the states, while placing strong limits on the role of the federal government.
Wow, bulls-eye! And here are more meat to his discussions on individual freedom and free market:
One of the reasons I am willing to stick my neck out and inform people of the uncertain nature of government-approved global warming science is because the basic economics behind any governmental (or environmental extremist) attempts to restrict personal choice in energy use will end up killing people.
In fact, it already has.
The biggest threat to humanity is poverty. Wealthier is healthier. When governments make energy more expensive, or environmental organizations pressure foreign countries to not build hydroelectric dams, poor people die.
Those already living on the edge are pushed over the edge. Energy is required for everything we do, and artificially raising the price of energy cannot help but destroy wealth generation.
There is a big political and environmental lobby to demonize if not kill certain energy sources that are cheap but are deemed "dirty and cause man-made warming", and then use huge taxpayers' money to subsidize "clean and no carbon emission" power sources. I have argued before that personally, I have nothing against wind farms, solar farms, other renewable energy sources. They should be allowed, like all other energy sources. Their presence expands the range of choices for people over what kind of energy sources they wish to give them electricity and power in their homes, offices, communities and cars.
What I am against is government coercion of tax-tax-tax certain energy sources and turning around to give the huge tax collections to feed a big and expanding government climate bureaucracies, the government-funded environmental groups and NGOs, and the subsidy-dependent renewable power sources. Use voodoo science, quick-fix climate soundbytes, just to get the energy socialism that they wish for.If people want to use solar and wind energy sources, then they should pay for it even if these are expensive. Let them spend their money where their mouths are. They should not clamor for expensive energy sources become artificially cheap by making governments force you and me to pay for higher energy taxes. Meaning you and me and other people who do not believe in whatever energy subsidies should be forced and coerced to give such subsidy to them.
And here's Dr. Spencer's take on free markets. I love his definition of it.
What ensures sustainability is free markets. As natural resources of one type become more scarce, their price goes up, which makes alternatives more attractive. People are incentivized to develop new answers to old technological problems. This is why fossil fuels will never be used up. At some point, they simply will become too expensive to extract.
Mass production by factories and corporations should be embraced, rather than derided. It represents the most efficient way of providing goods and services. Waste is minimized because it hurts competitiveness.
If you really want to help the poor, then help the country grow economically. Want to make sure the poor are taken care of? Then encourage businesses to grow, which will lead to more jobs. Economic activity is what is needed...
And whether we like it or not, the only way to ensure this growth happens is to give business owners and entrepreneurs some hope that their risk-taking and creativity will pay off for them personally in the future.
Yes, in the process, some people will get rich. A few will get obscenely rich. But this only occurs because so many consumers want the goods and services those rich few can offer them.
Call it a necessary evil, if you must. But it is, indeed, necessary. The end result will be more money for the poor, not less.
Wow! I almost forgot that Dr. Spencer is a natural scientist, not an economist or social scientist or a businessman. I don't want to make any elaboration on those words as they are so beautifully explained.
Finally, here's his killer concluding paragraph:
So, what is the primary role of government in all this? In my opinion, it is two-fold: (1) make sure people play fair, and (2) get out of the way.
This should be the main reason why I was lucky to corner him in the picture above. Minimal government philosophy jibes 100 percent with climate realism.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)