Colorful rag

WE WUZ ROBBED

2009-10-23T12:11:00.005+08:00

Hi evereh badeh!

Just a quick note to point out how I got robbed twice in the past two weeks.

Last week, it was at the LTO. Got my car registered for P3,900-ish, including a tip to the smoke emission dude helping me out (not a fixer - I would have gotten a fixer if I knew where to find them).

A couple of days ago, I was at the San Juan post office to claim a package I had ordered on the 'net. The Customs guy who was there was being 'charitable' to me, saying he wouldn't charge me an excise tax of 30% on my item. Instead, he'd only charge me P5,559, for another tax, whatever the hell that is.

I'm kind of annoyed with the guy I bought the item from, as he placed the value of my item on the package, like a good American citizen.

The exchange between me and the Customs guy was more dignified than when I spoke to a Customs lady late last year. This time around, there was no arguing, just a little bit of begging. It was quite telling of most people's notion of government, when I asked the Customs dude (CD), "Ano ba yung ginawa ng Customs para ma-'earn' nila yung pera para dito?" Something like that. And CD simply said, obviously never having thought deeper on the issue, "Lahat ng pumapasok sa bansa, may Customs fee." Something like that.

It does not do much to my ego to realize that only a few of us bother to ask, Why are they making money off my property?

I never asked for their service. And the state would not even give me a choice as to where I get my mail from. Instead we have a franchised 'corporation' in charge of all postage.

Private deliverers offer only limited express services which the average dude could not afford. And even if private postage would be more expensive, this would only be because of the state's draining of people's wealth in other sectors through taxes.

What did Customs ever do to earn money for something I paid the postage of? The answer is NOTHING.

We should be so relieved that the forced government fees do not bring the same level of anxiety as giving up my money to a 'regular' robber. Of course, the 'regular' robber is more pressured to act violently, knowing he has less time to do his deed, and that the population does not have faith in his sovereignty.

But the government, it has all the time in the world. It does not have to point a knife or gun right away to get me to do as it says. After all, it has the monopoly on violence known as police on its side. And the Republic is kept alive by superstitious sovereignty. So yes, I should be so assured that as I pay my 'duties,' my hands do not tremble as much.

WE NEED A NEW TITLE FOR THESE BLOG ENTRIES, A.K.A. STUPID FLOODS

2009-10-01T22:04:00.002+08:00

We have heard some pretty idiotic stuff as a result of this so-called flood crisis. I hope that at the very least, this problem which continues five days after the rains, gives people insight as to how inept government is, and how wrong it is to rely on government for anything, what more our lives.

A particularly rich conclusion drawn by the floods is how climate change and global warming caused it. In particular, Jess Abrera made a fascinating editorial cartoon today in the Inquirer, blaming climate change. His cartoons have been so lame for years, but this one was particularly ridiculous and baseless.

The real issue, of course, is management of dams and drainage systems in the Metro, actually the entire country. It is not like these rains were particularly strong as compared to before.

Just as with roads, which we discussed in an earlier entry, people should consider the completely private ownership of dams and drainage systems. An argument against this, supposedly justifying government ownership, is that everyone is affected by the creation and maintenance of such infrastructure. With this logic, why is the Philippine government a sufficient entity for handling this issue? Shouldn’t a world dam overseer be created then? I hope your answer is no.

With a private owner of these ‘public’ works, fingers can be pointed in the right direction when something goes wrong, and with this, civil and criminal liabilities or at the very least public scorn. In a free society, measures will be taken so as to make sure that someone pays for incompetence.

Compare the arbitrary accountability of public officials today, to definite insurance liabilities through a purely private system. A private owner may not think of what he does as a public service per se, but needs the dry land that dams and proper drainage systems allow, for any number of purposes. This means they would have more to lose if a dam bursts, or if drains are clogged. It should also be possible for homeowners or establishments in the vicinity to actually have shareholdings for the maintenance of these ‘public’ works. This beats paying taxes, and is a voluntary system. If it weren’t voluntary, then these stakeholders would have chosen to locate elsewhere.

Insurance companies would also take the opportunity to make money through premiums from landowners. These insurers would want to develop confidence in their services by offering low premiums – indicating low risk – and by being stakeholders of the infrastructure. Even if a small fraction of people are insured, this would better ensure the quality of dams and drainage systems, benefiting even non-insured landowners in the area.

You can see that the dreaded free market – which does not exist today – has its way of minimizing both natural and unnatural dangers as well as providing people with quality services. It works not just for infrastructure but for health care and education, not to mention every other industry in existence.

It is well and good, and admirable how people are chipping in and helping out those in distress due to follies of the government. It is a private effort that functions in spite of the government. Imagine if the state had not taxed the money now used for government calamity or contingency funds. More money would have been freed up to give more efficient services to the victims of this disaster. And it’s not like government officials did not reallocate their emergency funds for non-charitable purposes.

STUPID SUPREME COURT

2009-08-26T22:21:00.005+08:00

I've had such an easy time with titles this past year. Either I place 'stupid' before the stupid thing that I am writing on, or jest about how 'we need a clean' so and so. So creative!

Why am I so mean as to insult this 'highest' tribunal in the land? Just look at how they put a stop to the awarding by Malacañang of National Artists for 2009. Why would these 15 bozos bother with the issue at all, at the expense of all other cases that demand their attention? Kasi, it's a hot issue in the news! That's it! What kind of criteria naman is that for prioritizing court cases? Goes to show what Chief Justice Reynato Puno is really up to. Pasikat lang na naman siya. Whether because he's running for public office next year or just because he's a media whore, doesn't matter. And no one is dismayed about such a method of selection of their Tuesday en banc agenda.

This isn't the first time. And it's less excusable than the temporary restraining order they issued against the agreement to break off a piece of the Philippines to hand off to a bunch of rebels. At least with the previous case, there was some sense of gravity of the situation that required action on the justices' part. As an aside, rebels had no right to claim such a huge portion as their own, and in addition, all lands should be private anyway, making all claims of secession irrelevant.

But going back to the present court order. Apart from the whole pa-pogi aspect of choosing this case among thousands, why in hell's name do people even give credence to the whole notion of a 'national artist?' Who gives a shit what a bunch of artless morons in the Palace think about who deserves an award? It doesn't even matter whether it's Gloria's or any other administration. The concept of 'national artist' has nothing to do with art, and the only thing that ought to worry people is that their taxes are being wasted for such purposes. Did we need taxes to start speaking in English or Filipino? Then why the hell is there some official 'national language'? It is all bullshit.

Everyone who has been conferred the title of national artist, or national hero for that matter, should have no pride based on the state's esteem of their persons, their art or any of their accomplishments. They should in fact be horrified to be associated with the institution of government. The state is nothing but an instrument of violence.

THE CONSPIRACY OF NATIONAL HOLIDAYS AND PUBLIC POSTAL SERVICE

2009-08-04T16:19:00.008+08:00

I recently moved, to Quezon City, and unwittingly am now a victim of the horribly slow Quezon City Central Postal Office. I found it necessary to find the guy who delivers notices to my address, and get his number to follow up on packages I'm awaiting. If you live in Quezon City, and have received a package recently, check the envelope for two dates stamped separately. Chances are, there's a two-week gap, meaning, you only get a notice about your package's arrival two weeks after the QC post office gets it. And THEN you have to go and get it.

Even in San Juan, where I used to live, I'd have problems apart from the limited office hours. A new policy was instituted around late last year where a Customs official would have to inspect packages before they're claimed. As if the additional bureaucracy wasn't bad enough, the Customs official was only available past 10 a.m., and I had to go back for my package that afternoon. When confronting this Customs official later in the day, I learned that she had to attend to both the Pinaglabanan and Greenhills post offices because of a lack of personnel. Great. Not only do they add to procedure, but don't even have enough people to implement it! And I'm supposed to feel sorry for the Customs official who is overwhelmed with things to do (I kind of was sorry, actually).

I must have sounded pissed, because the Customs official felt the need to lecture me on the necessity of protectionist policies such as tariffs. If we allow imports to enter without duty, so I was told, the importers, providing cheaper goods, would take all our jobs and collapse the local economy. I didn't bother pointing out that there's no such thing as a 'national task quota' or a permanent loss of jobs on a grand scale, and that by getting better services from abroad, we're now open to doing other productive things to the mutual benefit of locals and foreigners. Protectionism would have barred the automobile, for fear of the loss of jobs in the horse-breeding and cart manufacturing industries.

They must have been so miffed by my lamentations that afterwards, I would claim my packages from another window in the San Juan post office, sans Customs meddling. Apparently, the new layer of bureaucracy wasn't necessary after all.

As I have no alternative to the public post, apart from the highly specialized and much more costly private delivery services (whose potential is already sucked out due to their big bully competitor the government), I meekly resign myself to the reality that postal services are real slow, and that I should be grateful that my packages arrive at all. It's like how, in 'The Shawshank redemption,' a prisoner would be grateful for any mercies shown by the warden or the guards. But things don't have to be this way. There is no fundamental reason why I have to surrender my freedom, whether to a prison guard or to the gods of snail mail. And I shouldn't have to be content with services during regular office hours, Monday to Friday, 8 a.m. to 5 p.m., except on holidays. But all this - and more! - is here to stay, thanks to the postal monopoly.

Anyways, so I text my contact at the QC post office, and sure enough, a package had just arrived today, and he has yet to serve me my notice of it. What's more, I can't get it tomorrow. Why? Because Pangulong Gloria, in her quest for appeasement of the citizens, and perhaps due to mere misguided intentions, proclaimed August 5 a holiday in honor of the recently deceased former president Corazon Aquino. This is cause for rejoicing for students, and regular workers. But it is just wrong. Surely holidays could be observed without some government decree. If something was worth commemorating, a holiday could be allotted by individuals of the community. But such holidays shouldn't force people, such as those who want to work for overtime pay, or those who need the services of a monopolized industry even on holidays, to settle for a boring day watching TV or a reply like "Sa Huwebes na lang" (It's Tuesday today).

Hey, what about banks? They usually open at 9 a.m. and close at 3 p.m. They're private! Well for one thing, we now have options of online banking and ATMs. Second, banks adjust to the trading in financial markets, for their own mysterious reasons. As a little aside, the banking industry in general, here and abroad, is a messed up monopoly, not quite private. Third, some banks have extended office hours.

My gripe about the post has nothing to do with Tita Cory's deserving of the honor, and everything about my lack of options in procuring items from abroad. I am quite positive that there would be a huge market for 24-7 postal services that deliver packages to your doorstep instead of making you go all the way to NIA Road and line up in various windows, wasting two hours of your life. What makes me so sure? Because I would avail of such conveniences for twice the price of what I'm paying the goddamn post office. The thing is, with privatized post, we can expect services including insurance to further drop in cost, not to mention for packages to arrive at least two weeks earlier.

In a future entry, I'll have a list of 'civil disobedience' things to do to show how much we love the government.

WE NEED CLEAN FILIPINO SINGERS

2009-08-03T20:29:00.005+08:00

Yeah, it's kinda late, but what the hell, I just heard of this last Saturday, the first of August. Anyways, Freddie Aguilar was criticizing successful Filipino singers for allegedly being Western copycats. They should have been singing Filipino stuff as a way of showing the world what Pinoys are all about.

This laughable nationalism is exactly what brought Hitler, or any other dictator for that matter, to power. This paranoia and insecurity about some abstract foreign foe, and the neurotic need to present one's 'heritage,' actually furthermore limit individual identities. When one sings Lucrecia Kasilag, one is primarily singing Lucrecia Kasilag, and this is merely generalized as Filipino for convenience and simplicity. So whether Kasilag or something by Mutt Lange, it's still 'foreign.'

The issue at hand, then, is not whether something is Filipino or not Filipino, but whether one is unique and original, or not. My opinion on Charice's or Arnel's performances is secondary to the need to make this distinction. Nonetheless, I ought to point out that Charice has more potential than as a mere mimic (in this regard, Freddie was right). And Arnel has to fix his damn accent so that it doesn't sound like a Filipino trying to sound American. It should sound like he's actually intending it to sound that way, whether this resembles a Filipino or American accent, or something else entirely.

Gary V's defense of Charice was so lame, in that he disputed Freddie's claim while at the same backing up that Charice had yet to show originality. And Arnel's retort was just confused, in that he seemed to admit Freddie's point but merely criticized the use of the word 'unggoy.'

TITA CORY

2009-08-01T22:43:00.011+08:00

Tita Cory's passing at this time is quite unfortunate, not because she was a president per se but because it's always upsetting to hear of the demise of a figure who's been in our consciousness for such a long time, in my case, for most of my conscious life. Who would've thought that during the "Lagot siya sa akin" days of not much more than two years ago, that we'd be mourning her two years later?

Friends and associates are expressing their sentiments about all this, and it shows that kahit papaano, we want some direction in our social system, and are still inspired by certain figures. It's quite heartening, and I'd like to tap into that wellspring of youth and idealism.

My closest 'moment' with Tita Cory happened back in August 2003, in this momentary job I had. I was with a bunch of mainly strangers in this van, stopped near the corner of Paseo De Roxas and Ayala in Makati, and next to us in some SUV was this lady in orange. Several of my companions were debating with each other and with themselves whether it was Tita Cory ("Oo! A, hindi. Ay, oo!"), and a bit later, having noticed us staring, the lady waved. Not to me though. "Si Cory nga!" It was amusing and sweet of her to take notice and satisfy our curiosity. I think I remember one of my companions wondering, "E ba't naka-orange?"

***

I could already imagine the various political parties positioning themselves so as to appear as Tita Cory's choice for 2010. In this regard, obviously, the Liberal Party has an edge.

***

As we reminisce, let us not delude ourselves into thinking that the times gone by, specifically, 1986, are something to aspire to, or to go back to. Apart from the aesthetic appeal of displays of nonviolence and as manifested in songs such as 'Bayan ko' and 'Handog ng Pilipino sa mundo,' even the toppling of the Marcos dictatorship was not something ideal. We got rid of the bad (outright military rule and violent acts against dissenters) in exchange for something not entirely good either. The Philippine government in all its 'glory' remained a destroyer of wealth and property, as any other state. We got a new constitution that insisted on a nonexistent 'common good.' And after Tita Cory's coup-filled reign, came EDSA opportunist Fidel Ramos, charismatic plunderer Joseph Ejercito... you know the rest.

***

All this talk of 'unity' as the supposed bringer of progress. But people's concepts of 'unity' remain shallow and paradoxical. There is no real unity when an entity is granted coercive powers over other entities, yet all forms of 'redistribution,' 'pro-poor' programs and any type of government intervention necessarily put one group (usually the voting majority) over other groups. This political patronage and sector favoritism lead to disunity among and within sectors. Whatever progress would have occurred is stunted, as a result of this 'unity' by government.

And really now, 'magkaisa' is a nonsense term. What would 'pagkakaisa' actually look like anyway? People hugging all the time? No companies competing against each other? Or simply no one using arms against another? If the latter, it should be pointed out that the state is the most coercive entity there is, and it lives through the use of arms (and propaganda). If it didn't, then all transactions and interactions considered legit by consensus would be necessarily voluntary, and we wouldn't have a government at all. This, I believe, is what we really have in mind when fantasizing about unity. Zero government is the logical conclusion of our desire for unity.

***

So what is there to mourn about, if all these ideas of democracy are found to be bereft of logic and based on misguided passion? Tita Cory may have been a mere prop, a figurehead, for the political interests of Ramos, Senator JP Enrile and others, but she is nonetheless a symbol of freedom, more specifically, freedom from dictatorship. We are no less grateful to have gotten rid of Marcos, and if this gratitude is best expressed towards this housewife turned head of state, then so be it.

***

As I said above, we should not be looking backwards for inspiration to truly change our country. There is only the future to look to. An intellectual battle has yet to be fought in the forefront, serving as a prelude to enlightened action.

STUPID 2009 SONA

2009-07-27T23:25:00.006+08:00

Why did I even bother to listen to the State of the Nation Address? And it's not like I only happened to tune in to it. I even went back for it on Youtube late at night. There is really nothing binding in such an address, but what the hell, I heard it, and now my notes.

First of all, the applause. I don't remember President Gloria Arroyo waiting for applause in past SONAs quite the way she did this time. It was really sad to hear Congress, her Cabinet and a bunch of other sorry imbeciles clapping at every sentence.

Her comments on charter change were rather sparse, and we still have no categorical denial of having a third term (although she did say, in a pathetic joke, that her term was ending next year) or of her being in power past June 30 next year. Of course, a SONA is pure lip service and she could act contrary without threat of punishment.

I would guess that any statist critics found her SONA quite disappointing. She was pointing out how the government helped in this sector and that, and how the economy wasn't as bad as people thought it was, etc. Her statist critics (which comprise most of her critics) would have loved for her to declare Martial Law or to call for an extension of her term, for them to attack. Sayang!

Anyways, she started out with a statement on the Philippines' 'strong economy.' This, despite even Cabinet officials admitting a recession having begun or in the offing. As for indications of a strong economy, she couldn't cite the stock market as in the past, because stocks have gone down the past year. She cited the foreign exchange rate, although anyone should know that the dollar is on the decline, and we're merely relatively less bad.

Her worst indicator of course was the 1.5% 'inflation' rate, the lowest since 1966. Granting that by 'inflation,' she meant a rise in prices, the low rate is not something to take credit for, much less to be proud of. But she cited the central bank's low interest rates and rice importation programs for the low rise in prices. The former is not accurate; interest rates have actually been higher over the past few months, although the BSP has threatened to lower it after having seen the low price inflation figures. The latter is a negligible aspect; a general rise in prices is mainly the result of central bank policy, which has not been especially loose as to allow for a rise in prices.

The actuality then is that prices have not gone up by much due to higher borrowing rates and more cautious production and consumption. Is a downturn then something to brag about?

The stupid Cheaper Medicines Law was mentioned, and Gloria is lying in claiming she sided with the House of Representatives' own 'version' of the legislation. First of all, the House's final version is Congress' final version. Both House and Senate agree to whatever is passed to the president. And second, she's shooting her foot by saying the Senate's early version, which gives price control powers to the president, was weaker than the House's early version, which would have created a price regulatory board. Third, price control sucks!

Speaking of price control, we had yet another rent control law enacted a few weeks ago. Great job, if your intention is to reduce supply of dwellings and worsen living conditions. Yet Gloria bragged about this too.

She overestimates the good she's done with regards to national debt. It's good of course that debt has gone down, but 55% debt to GDP is still pretty bad. 55% debt to GDP is not to have 'exorcised' debt.

And the damn special purpose vehicle laws. SPVs do not get rid of bad loans, they merely tuck them under an unaccounted carpet. It's an accounting trick. Trust me, I'm an accountant (actually, I'm not).

One of the most dreadful things she said is future-oriented: a rise in taxes. But we shouldn't worry, since it's only 'sin' taxes. Of course, if you bring up the angle of millions employed in these 'sinful' industries possibly losing jobs as a result of reduced business, it would raise a howl.

Revenue collections did not save the economy, nor will they save the economy. Gloria may talk about what great things can be built or provided as a result of taxes collected, but she wouldn't be able to tell you about the jobs lost and the better products that do not come to the market as a result of taxation. More taxes will mean depleting the savings of Filipinos, making them more vulnerable to the worldwide depression.

We also hear about the call for a Department of Information Communications Technology, a step backwards from whatever 'deregulation' existed in the infotech industry. An example of what this DICT would do is the guarding of the consumer against unjust charges and whatnot. Look at how the cellphone companies responded to all the hoopla about stolen and expired 'load'; prepaid cards last three times longer just like that *snap*. Thank God we have these complainers from the government! Of course political considerations had nothing to do with telcos changing policy. And we have nothing to fear in terms of a decline in service as Globe, Smart and Sun aim to meet the public's raised demands. And of course the NTC's protection of the 'big three' telcos does not create a monopoly that prevents competitors with potential to beat the present players at their game. Yeah, high five, government! *slap*

And contrary to Gloria's or any other public official's claim: business process outsourcing is not the government's achievement. BPO became popular in spite of the government. We could praise how 'tax incentives' were given to BPO companies, but the taxes shouldn't even be there in the first place. Neither is BPO an ideal sector that we must nourish forever more. The popularity of BPO and the relatively higher salaries of their employees comes about precisely from the relatively lower salaries in other sectors. In a better economy, the gap in salaries provided by foreign and local employers would not be so great, and BPO would not seem the knight in shining armor it appears to be at present.

This whole sector-dropping thing done in the SONA is supposedly to have given recognition and contributed to the improvement of the mentioned sectors. There leaves much to be proved, starting with the assumption that government involvement is a good thing.

The icing on the cake was Manny Pacquiao, once again playing stooge for the administration. What a gullible moron. Dionisia should bitch-slap him to reality, and the reality is that the government has nothing to do with Manny's, or any decent Filipino's, success.

STUPID 2010 ELECTIONS - Installment No. 4 - They're all stupid

2009-07-20T18:56:00.004+08:00

So I didn't get to see the actual PPCRV debate last Thursday. Oh well. But I did watch some clips on Youtube. Just a few observations.

The debates reveal the 'what's-in-it-for-me' mentality of politics and elections. It's not about representing people or freedom (except in the sense of freebies!). Questions were asked by 'representatives' of sectors such as OFWs and the disabled, basically amounting to, "What are you going to do to benefit us?" It is assumed that without the state, the poor will be oppressed all the more by the rich and will be left to die or suffer a long miserable life.

What about voluntary association, so as to determine where to allocate resources? This would not favor any particular sector at the expense of another, as is the case now. This, however, is not even an option. Someone always has to step in and determine who needs what. Competition could not possibly raise real wages and bring about increased productivity to the benefit of all. Besides, real economic progress takes too long. So send in the clowns!

These OFW unions - may I call them unions? - are asking for more OFW benefits and love the idea of reduced, or eliminated, remittance charges at the expense of the money transfer firms. It doesn't matter whether they believe they're modern heroes who deserve better or that Western Union is evil. The government indulges them, promising this and that, the full monty. It's not the unkept promises that concern me, it's this 'gimme gimme' mentality.

Why do OFWs go off to other countries in the first place? Why not work here? Because they weigh the risks and judge that opportunities are better abroad. So why further increase the disparity between working conditions here and abroad, which would only encourage more OFWs to leave, a weaker local work force and economy, not to mention even more people demanding benefits for working abroad?

By giving in to these sectors, the government would only encourage greater dependence. With the state, there is only one interest after the other looking to be tended, flavors of the month. Crony sectors they're all. People insisting to be considered as special interest groups, rather than as individuals.

"Tulungan niyo kami." Do not give in! If you succumb and surrender that wicked dole, pray that by and by, you have the resolve to withhold it. After Emerson.

STUPID 2010 ELECTIONS - Installment No. 3 - Chiz, Loren, Mar

2009-07-09T20:26:00.004+08:00

To celebrate the third installment of 'Stupid 2010 elections,' we are featuring not once, not twice, but three potential 'presidentiables.' Let's begin!

Partymate senators Chiz Escudero and Loren Legarda both appear to be running for president next year. It's also possible that one of them will yield and run as vice-president. It is so appropriate for them to unite against bad elements in the government who have been overpricing rice, or something.

Now we all hate the government. We think it's inefficient, or at the very least, more inefficient than what rich and poor would have come by on their own. But to Chiz and Loren, the problem is the specific act of overpricing rice imports. Drat. How unjust is that? The funds could have been used for more than one inefficient government program. The NFA should be more mindful and spread out the wasting of taxpayers' money!

As a bonus, the two are promoting domestic rice production, or so-called 'self-sufficiency.' This nationalistic posturing would push the growth of these industries regardless of what would provide citizens with the best and cheapest products. We just HAVE to have our farmers plant rice, for the simple reason that it's a staple food. It is no matter that these farmers, whom we have taken for granted to be farmers for life, could have had a greater advantage in some other profession. It is also no matter that importation of rice has become the most viable option because of the condition of the domestic food industry, which has been subsidized for the longest time, for the worse.

Of course, by no means do we condone NFA's rice importation program. There is a reason why even some government officials have been calling for some sort of privatization of rice importation (Hint: private enterprise actually works). We have to take this further: Leave it to individuals, without government 'assistance,' to decide on domestic production or importation.

***

Next, Madame Gloria is chided for delaying the implementation of drug price control, in connection with the 2008 'Cheaper Medicines Act.' I've dealt with this law before, although my views have altered somewhat to reject the concept of intellectual property altogether. But for now, we're only dealing with the issue of price control.

As a slight aside, one of the worst presidents in United States history is number 37, Richard Nixon. No, not for Watergate, as abhorrent as that is. What distinguishes him from the rest of the notorious crop is, number one, his complete divorcing of the dollar from gold, which contributed to the greatest inflation of the world's money supply in history, culminating for now in this economic mess, and number two, his imposition of PRICE CONTROL on oil, a program known by his advisers to fail even before its implementation. Needless to say, although I'll say it anyway, it failed.

Our public officials should know better. Imposition of a maximum price below a market price means life-saving and life-enhancing drugs will get in the hands of the public sooner... and never come back again. Price ceilings lead to shortages, whether this is manifest by a pullout of firms or by an inability of producers and retailers to keep up with demand, or maybe the production only of substandard drugs. And if the government seeks to ration medicines so as to retain supply, this still does not recompense firms so as to provide future supply. An attempt at subsidizing these firms would remove the advantage of a capitalistic system, that is, optimal and efficient production.

Don't get us wrong. Drugs ARE overpriced. Partly because of the intellectual property system, and partly because of all these useless government regulations that prevent doctors and customers from patronizing drugs and drug firms as they see fit. I'm talking about the BFAD, not to mention the DoH, SEC, Customs, the BIR and what have you.

If there are such clandestine meetings between the President and drug firms, as claimed, wherein favors are granted through palakasan, this is a sign of what our 'capitalistic' system really is - a state with its cronies posing as private enterprise. But it's not just in the Philippines. Such connivance is no different from Halliburton's sponsorship of the Iraq war.

But if high monopolistic prices are a mere symptom, why focus on the symptom - which only leads to more problems and their corresponding symptoms - and not the root cause (government)?

If we want a better drug industry and overall better health care for Filipinos, a start would be reduction of red tape, and the emergence of private certifiers of quality. Then there's the need for more reforms of the intellectual property system, so that the big guys could no longer rely on their political pull to stay on top.

Price control is trash. The saving grace of cronyism, which doesn't really save it actually, is that it has kept other destructive policies at bay.

Come back soon for more of... 'Stupid 2010 elections'!

S2010E - Installment No. 2 - Noli De Castro (again!) with his version of GMA's ten-point agenda

2009-07-05T17:49:00.004+08:00

I am pleased to announce the latest winner for the ‘Stupid 2010 elections,’ none other than Vice-President Noli De Castro! OMG, that’s twice in a row for our favorite kabayan. The other ‘presidentiables’ will have to watch out!

So Noli wins this time around for the launch of his ‘ten-point framework.’ If it is the Inquirer’s fault in making his statements ‘second front page’ material and a typical ‘SS’ story, this does not lessen the idiocy of the plan. It’s wonderful to see what advisers of these politicians come up with. This is sheer stupidity at its finest. Thank you oh Lord for these elections!

Noli’s ‘framework’ amounts to the declaration of pleasant conditions that they would like to have exist in our archipelago. There is barely a hint of what will be done, much less how, and the single hint – an ‘antipoverty strategy’ – gives us good readers nothing to chew on. Does Noli really think any candidate of the past has declared a desire for more poverty?

The last one is a hoot, of changing supposedly ‘Filipino’ attitudes and phrases into positive affirmations that will raise the country onwards, to a new millennium! Okay, I just made up that last part, but the silliness is no less.

And after all of this ‘ambitious’ outlining, he has the nerve to say he’s still mulling on whether to run for president.

Now you might think I’m being too critical of Noli while ignoring the stupid statements of the other presidential contenders. How wrong would you be. I am very excited to feature the others, in time.

STUPID 2010 ELECTIONS - Installment No. 1 - Noli De Castro's prepaid wad

2009-06-30T19:37:00.007+08:00

Hello everybody.

I was wondering if I should come up with some witty, imaginative title for this new series of mine, which I'm just gonna call 'Stupid 2010 elections' for simplicity's sake. Basically, each installment, of which this is the first, will feature a stupid thing said for the sake of the 2010 elections. I am focusing on, but not limiting myself to, the presidential elections.

So, without further ado, stupid 2010 candidate for the day, who gave me the whole idea for this series, is none other than our 'Kabayan'... Vice-President Noli De Castro!

Our veep recently spoke of the evils of the cellphone companies, in connection with the disappearance of prepaid credit, in a story that those in the media would call 'SS.'

De Castro said putting an expiry on pre-paid cards was wrong since these have already been bought and paid for in cash.
“Buti na lang si Senator Juan Ponce Enrile ang nawalan kaya naimbistigahan bigla iyan. Dapat mahinto na iyang pagnanakaw na iyan (It’s a good thing it was Senator Juan Ponce Enrile lost a load. That robbery should be stopped),” he said.

He was referring, of course, to our octogenarian senator's gripes about losing his 'load.' As an aside, that's pretty bad grammar by the reporter or editor. "... have already been bought" should be "are bought."

But anyway, let's give the benefit of the doubt that these officials regularly use prepaid phones and are not making the statements so as to get the majority of the electorate to 'maka-relate.' I mean, Enrile is so old, he isn't bound to run anymore, right? His taste of the Senate presidency could no longer have stirred a lust for more power. And Noli... yeah, let's just give him the benefit of the doubt na nga.

Politicians ride on the public sentiment that whether or not Smart or Globe or whoever was around, we'd have the convenience of cellular phone technology. Hence the ease in scapegoating them for any problems arising from the use of such technology.

I ought to take note that I'm not being paid or sponsored in any way for my 'defense' of these companies. And that I have had my share of problems with my prepaid service (Yes, I use a prepaid. I'm so masa).

But investigations for connivance of cellphone companies and the regulators in the National Telecommunications Commission are pointless, and do not address the main issue: the presence of government regulation, which only makes easier the 'connivance' so hated. It is through such bureaucracy that these companies can further exclude potential competitors who would be able to provide a better service to the public.

De Castro foolishly criticizes the expiration of prepaid cards, without even knowing why such cards have to expire. Is he then saying that Smart or Globe has to allow for the use of a prepaid card in the year 3000, so as not to be accused of theft?

These huge telcos have limited resources, and their databases can only hold so much data. It is prudent, for the sake of cost-efficiency, to only allow a certain time for use of prepaid cards, whether these have begun being used or not. It would be to their advantage to provide a longer time of use, but this would not be economically feasible. A loss in efficiency would redound to the public in due time.

Kasi naman e. As it is, we are already enjoying whatever 'deregulation' is present so as to have this convenient means of communication, and these numbskulls who had nothing to do with such increases in our standard of living keep talking about more regulation.

But Enrile's complaint is different from De Castro's. Enrile claims the disappearance of unused credit before the card expires.

I don't believe that Smart and Globe are directly responsible for such anomalies. After all, a customer would be inclined to shift to the other service provider after being 'cheated.' If the 'big two' are somehow in connivance, hell, if the 'big three' (including Sun) are in connivance, and aided by the NTC, they'd still hate to lose customers to the other. Either Sun, Globe or Smart would wise up and guarantee no mysterious credit losses, as a way to draw more customers. That would be a hell of a selling point, definitely worth more than the alleged draining of customers' cards here and there. But it is unlikely for them to make such claims. Why? Because they themselves are not the cause of the 'load' disappearances.

It is more likely, to my mind, that the companies' databases are not as hack-proof or as stable as they would wish. They could only be silent for the meantime, as they figure out how to better protect their databases and fix up their credit mechanism. This silence leaves them vulnerable to politicians' whining.

I think that without the cartelization and cronyism that NTC regulation brings to the telecommunications industry, prepaid anomalies would not even be an issue today. The increased competition and freer environment would have encouraged the best, and not simply the most politically favored, to succeed and provide customers with the best service. But we couldn't know, because regulation is here to stay, for the time being.

Come back soon for more of... 'Stupid 2010 elections'!

WE NEED A CLEAN VIDEO

2009-05-21T21:36:00.002+08:00

Mainstream media are one to denounce this latest video scandal, even as they put it in their headlines, which naturally publicizes such shameful things all the more.

‘Big’ news such as this inevitably results in talks of what should be done to prevent these invasions of privacy. But whatever tarnishing of reputations has occurred, the further knee-jerk meddling of government may only serve as an excuse for it to violate rights all the more. You could imagine how the scandal may serve as pretext for searching private property for ‘invasive’ paraphernalia, or even requiring tracking devices or licenses for cameras, etc.

In assessing the situation, one must not confuse the thirst for revenge, with the course of action to be taken against the violator. Also, how the footage was released is still not clear. Such an offense should be considered separate from voyeurism or secret filming.

Ultimately, the issue is about how, in private interactions, trust in another may be misplaced. The girls stepped into the doctor’s property at their risk, not knowing what risk it entailed. The victims’ misplaced trust should not automatically subject the wrongdoer to state prosecution.

There is no need to revoke his license as a doctor. He could be boycotted and ostracized voluntarily by those who find his deeds reprehensible.

There is really no right to privacy, or right to one’s dignity, to be upheld. Following such a misleading principle to its logical conclusion, all gossips should be prosecuted. Rather, free society establishes voluntary associations among people, and we shouldn’t rely on state decrees to breed trust. Not like that has worked.

WE NEED A CLEAN CONGRESS

2009-04-23T23:52:00.001+08:00

I love my titles.

There are some things to consider with the new Supreme Court decision on party-list seats in the House of Representatives. We can ignore for the meantime Chief Justice ‘Rey’ Puno’s propagandizing about his crusade versus ‘trapo’ policies in Supreme Court rulings (at least I think he wrote it. The article wasn’t too clear about it). We can also ignore the wisdom, or the lack of it, of former CJ ‘Art’ Panganiban in limiting party-list seats during his reign. We can also ignore that butcher ‘Vito’ Palparan is set to become a congressman.

The main problem is that our system is unsure of how to elect representatives, whether by sector/advocacy, or by districts. The mix of districts and party-lists is a half-assed ambivalent attempt at representation. If the trapo congressmen elected by districts are unable to adequately represent communities, then district congressmen should be eliminated altogether. The creation of party-list seats presumes, after all, that people are underrepresented via district voting. Unfortunately for these representatives, they’re pretty much like the ‘token black guy’ of movies. They can say what they want on the floor, get the media’s support, file some radical bills that seek to double employment... but in the end, they’re a minority easily sidestepped by the big guys.

However, increasing party-list seats may defeat the purpose of representing ‘marginalized’ sectors. If the Supreme Court somehow interpreted the party-list law as saying that 80% of seats in the House should be of party-lists, we’re not going to have ‘marginalized’ representation quadrupled. With the opening of more seats, you can bet your balls that more ‘marginalized’ trapos will take advantage and join the fray, and the situation will end up like what we have today. This is the outcome of majority voting, and there’s no defeating this.

Not to say that if this were not the case – if the likes of Crispin Beltran (may God have mercy on his soul), Teddy Casiño and Risa Hontiveros are not overtaken by the Nograleses, Defensors and De Venecias (watch out; the younger one has been preparing for his congressional campaign since 2007) under an 80% party-list House – everything would be fine and dandy. God have mercy. House economic policy would go downhill, if that were possible; it would go below sea level and drown. All in the name of ‘more jobs, more wages.’ Lito Lapid will look like a hero, just by not acting on their bills. At least party-list members are not fans of Charter Change.

In the end, the ‘majority wins’ nature of government blocks whatever minorities have to say. Not only that, but majority policies being what they are, both majority and minority are adversely affected.

Without Congress – without government, in fact – and with all services provided by the private sector, prosperity is not a guarantee. But at least one is responsible for their choices. One’s actions and preferences as producer and consumer are not imposed on anyone else through subsidies and tax collections. And unlike congressmen, who may hear the demands of the people but refuse or be incapable of meeting these, the market listens, and responds in kind.

SO MUCH FOR ‘MAMANG PULIS’

2009-04-19T12:50:00.004+08:00

Seeing the cops’ boorish behavior in the whole newscaster’s wife shooting incident should not automatically lead to a judgment that all policemen, or even policemen in general, are power-tripping bullies. But one could begin wondering what system would allow the elimination or reduction of such incidents.

Imagine, just like in John Lennon’s song. Imagine competing security forces. Competing in a market sense, and not in a ‘300’ sense. ‘Police’ agencies competing not only in terms of ability to protect their citizens and catch criminals, but also in terms of affordability of service and, what’s more, courteousness of security personnel. Policemen would have to lose some of them calories, not to mention their conceit, to even be qualified to protect the citizenry.

Of course, there’s the concern that the security guards of private agencies suck, to put it simply. But such sucking is not due to their private nature per se, but the existing monopoly of the government on security and intelligence. This monopoly drains all of the good people (it is imaginable for a boy to dream of becoming police chief, but not to become the manong sekyu in the 7 Eleven down the corner), the resources and the general know-how from the private sector.

How will this system be implemented? People will voluntarily pay for the service, similar to how they pay taxes. But in a totally private setting, these payments will be more akin to premiums of insurance contracts. The ‘insuring’ agency must then protect its clients, in order to reduce its insurance obligations. It will be in the interest of the insurer to stipulate limitations of their client’s activity, to reduce criminal incidents, and therefore reduce insurance obligations. Clients, meanwhile, accept such limitations in order to be protected better.

How would these private security agencies not get into conflicts, or degenerate into gangs fighting with each other? Clients can pull their financial support of such endeavors. What’s more, governments such as of the United States, have been eager to initiate force because of their control over the country’s money supply. They can do ‘fund-raising’ of their own simply by increasing the money supply. But the call for private banking is another issue. Its relevance here is that private agencies will not have the same access to the printing press or the nation’s coffers as existing governments do. And as bad as ‘gang wars’ may be, they do not compare in magnitude and destruction to those waged by nations.

What if someone chooses not to avail of the protection service, and claims he is not liable for committing harm against others? That’s at his own risk. If he is a nuisance to others, security agencies would defend their clients, even if this meant harming the offender. Now, the killing of contractless people, if there are any of them left, won’t occur. Contracts among competitors will outline conditions, being very specific on things not to do (killing of hobos included) in order to reduce any wrongdoings against anybody, so as to reduce payments to the greatest degree possible.

The less insurance that the agencies have to pay, the lower the agencies can charge clients. Naturally, in a low-crime area, where citizens are well-protected, premiums will also be cheaper. But cheaper only to an extent, so that agencies can continue to defend effectively.

What about the poor? Aren’t they at present protected by the police by default? In the first place, the poor are not exactly prioritized by the existing regime. Second, lower-end protection agencies may also cater specifically to the poor, providing lower premiums (even if their protection services would be inferior to the high-end type, there would be more value for money than at present; the poor will have a choice among various competitors. Think of Smart Buddy’s Me na Me and Globe’s Unlimitxt). Third, the poor may be more willing to pay for protection services, now that taxes are no longer collected to fund the police. Fourth, charities will continue to exist and would be able to pay for these protection services.

Now that we’re considering the privatization of one part of government, that is, the police (and even the military), the entire process of litigation would change, including the courts, which will also compete. Both parties in a court case will only go to private courts which have a reputation of fairness, and incidentally provide more value for money. Contracts between plaintiff and respondent would limit the number of appeals in other private courts, so that a verdict may be rendered with finality. If one party knows that it would easily lose in a case, and refuses to enter proceedings, they may also be held liable by their insurer, which beforehand stipulates the undergoing of court proceedings in case of wrongdoing of a client. Insurers, after all, would want to reduce trouble, so as to reduce their insurance payments, and arrive at agreements with competing insurers in this regard.

This all seems pretty far out for you, I imagine. But if we were to start from scratch, and you were to choose between: 1. a government-like system where the cause of police brutality is unrecognized, and where briberies such as in the Court of Appeals are a not-so-secret open secret, and 2. security agencies and courts competing with one another for public approval and patronage, what would you go for? The issue deserves a whole book, or books, but this short article is meant for you to consider the possibility, to think, “It just might work. ‘Mamang Pulis’ may someday be a reality’.”

The principles as discussed here, primarily that competition with no involvement of the government whatsoever is what will give people the best services, are equally applicable to other sectors, even those ones we have taken for granted to be the government’s job – education, health, pensions, food, etc. The free market is consistent in that way.

WE NEED A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT

2009-03-27T17:23:00.003+08:00

You know, I really don’t feel like talking about ‘Earth Hour,’ but I already said I will do so last week, so might as well.

I was just going to point out that people should be wary of things that have little evidence to back them up.

The media has been really biased against doubters of manmade global warming. I read a wires story a month or so ago, and it unequivocally said that even the admittedly little carbon dioxide emitted by humans into the atmosphere is the deciding factor that has led to Earth’s heating. Never mind that throughout prehistory such heating and cooling has been going on.

Since I was in third grade, I, along with those of my generation, have been taught that chlorofluorocarbons should not be used. Hell, even Andrew Clements was given more ‘environment-friendly’ sprays by Dr. Jeffcoate in ‘My secret identity.’ The idea of global warming has been so ubiquitous that it’s hard to believe all of this is political in nature.

***

Even if humans have led to the planet’s destruction, a ‘symbolic’ gesture such as switching off lights for one hour strikes me as corny, if not hypocritical. It’s the mentality of a serial killer resting on the Sabbath.

Forgetting the matter of global warming and focusing on individual pollution cases, people should be held liable for dirtying someone else’s property. If, and that’s an if, present laws or systems are incapable of administering justice in this regard, this only means a deficiency in defining property rights, and not an altogether deficient system. To my mind, this means redefining property not only horizontally but vertically, and considering communal ownership of waters and the air (soon enough, cities in air will yet redefine property rights).

***

When it comes to government measures to reduce pollution, the idea of a ‘pollution’ tax comes up. Never mind that the poor have little or no access to alternative energy sources. Coal is bad. Petroleum is bad. Ergo, the government must disincentivize such use.

The present VAT on oil goods may not have been legislated as a deterrent to pollution, but this can be pointed to as justification of its retention. A problem with this manner of thinking is that 1. It assumes that politicians will actually reduce pollution with such collections and 2. It deprives consumers of their ability to demand the energy they need.

Alternative sources won’t come about just because of government restrictions on traditional energy. What is needed is a lot of private investment in so-called ‘renewable’ energy. The RE Law’s provisions on tax incentives for RE firms is deficient in that ALL industries must be free of high taxes, so as to maximize investments by non-energy firms, if these investments are indeed lucrative.

***

Two months ago, I had a marathon of 'My secret identity.' Funny show. One episode, ‘Toxic time bomb,’ shows a company disposing of toxic wastes in a harmful manner. I always take defense of capitalism when discussing environmental issues.

I also remember an episode of ‘30 Rock’ entitled ‘Greenzo,’ where David Schwimmer as Greenzo is made to say “There's no such thing as global warming, the free market will protect the environment” or something similar, in a naive manner. I find Tina Fey to be really funny at times, but she is, like most intelligent people, a socialist.

It’s such attitudes to capitalism that ought to be corrected. People are of the idea that without government regulation, companies will run amok and harm the environment and deplete resources as quick as they could.

Let’s consider how government regulation is actually harmful. It creates standards that would prohibit a certain amount of pollution. The problem is that this is an imaginary safety net. The government does not stand to gain, or to lose, no matter how effective or ineffective it is. The result is not just bad quality control and less efficient manpower, but bribery and kickbacks to officials that further create an illusion of safe environmental practices and respect of other people’s property.

What we need is a completely free market wherein businesses seek favorable public opinion with regards to environmental matters, through environmental compliance certificates from private environmental groups, who in turn compete with each other for a reputation of reliability – this includes non-sensationalism –
and an assurance that those certified are environment-friendly. Unlike a government monopoly where its assurance, however gained, creates complacency in businesses, these private certifiers are less likely to all connive with one another, and instead would watch each other’s ‘regulating’ activities and be quick to expose anything fishy.

This is very similar to my opinion on the SEC.

WE NEED A CLEAN PRESIDENT

2009-03-22T13:36:00.001+08:00

I’m inclined to believe that the Pampanga governor, Fr. Ed Panlilio, is one of the relatively clean politicians, in the sense that he is less inclined to take or give bribes and connive with certain sectors under the table.

With his hinting of running for president, the truth of the baseness of morals in this country is quite obvious.

Voters are left to settle for officials who are clean, ‘clean’ in the sense that I meant above, and sincere. The actual ideas on how to achieve reform take a backseat, and politicans’ promises, clean or corrupt, are the same. More jobs. Higher wages. Cheap prices (unless one sells these goods).

The reason I limit the idea of cleanliness above, is because you can have a false ideology and still be clean in that narrow sense. Among Ed is a case in point.

It’s admirable, from a certain point of view, that he achieved ‘fiscal discipline’ in his collecting exponentially greater quarry taxes than his predecessor. Well and good, that is, if one neglects the wrongness of taxation.

To complicate matters, Philippine mining in itself is socialistic. One can only mine through government licenses and franchises, and only on ‘public,’ that is, state-owned land. Such cronyism however should not justify the coerced collecting of one’s revenues.

Natural resources and their location, after all, should be treated like any other private property, and whoever owns such property should be free to do with it as they please. In a completely private setting, with indigenous people residing in potential mining areas and with a businessman wanting to extract minerals, it is up to the businessman to convince the owners to sell him the land, or to come to such an agreement as to allow adequate compensation for the people’s troubles.

This all assumes that a government does not provide special favors to the businessman whatsoever and has nothing to gain by doing so, and that indigenous people had not been ‘awarded’ such lands through land reform programs and the like.

These dynamics are ignored when praising Among Ed.

It’s easy to praise ‘clean’ politicians by virtue of their ‘saintliness,’ but this is not enough, not even close. Socialist ideas, when recognized for what they are, are just as bad and harmful as what we now know as corruption. Socialism precisely allows for ‘over-the-table’ connivance between the private sector and the state.

It is in this regard that the quest for clean politicians must take into account clean, sound ideas that promote freedom and do not favor any person or group, not even the poorest of the poor. This inevitably means diminishing the powers of the government, including of the clean (in the more encompassing sense) politician.

***

But you know what? Among Ed’s statement may simply be a ploy of another politician, who got the Pampanga governor to bring up the issue and will eventually get Ed’s endorsement. It’s ingenious!

DOES THE PHRASE “MGA KABABAYAN KO” MAKE YOU CRINGE?

2009-03-19T22:13:00.005+08:00

Francis M. is a national icon. As a kid, I learned several Filipino words from him. Let’s see: ‘Kababayan.’ ‘Kayumanggi,’ ‘Kaleidoscope.’ And I’m sure I can recall more words if I wasted any more time on it. Ah, those were the totoy days.

Like most people of my generation, I was shocked to hear of his being diagnosed with leukemia, and saddened by his recent death, which is still hard to conceive of. I mean, I was just in Virra Mall (It’s not called that anymore, but it will always be Virra to me) this afternoon, and reaching the third floor, I spotted a photography stall of some sort, with a big poster of “Master Rapper,” still with hair on his head, endorsing the establishment.

I avoided watching the ‘in memoriam’ features on TV and Youtube, thinking to myself that these trivialized what had happened. But I did check out his blog, which was both eerie and sad.

It was most upsetting to read the paper today and find that President Gloria Arroyo conferred him with a Presidential Medal of Merit, with Francis’ family accepting it on his behalf.

Avoiding the sentimentality of it, isn’t it disgusting how the too-soon death of this talented man was cheapened by politics? Sure, it was much appreciated by Francis’ family, but is this what a government is for? Meddling in cultural activities?

Imagine the time before government. Wouldn’t it be absurd for someone to have brainstormed and come up with, “I know! Let’s create an institution that would say ‘Great job!’ to those of our departed who ‘instilled a sense of nationalism and contributed to the nation’s arts and culture’! Surely we as private individuals would not have the decency, capability or motivation to honor such a beloved dead guy. This is a job for, tuntununaaan!!! The government!”

Person 2: “OMG that’s like the awesomest idea lolz! The dead guy and his family would surely appreciate such an award from an entity that has no capability to appreciate or enhance the arts of a people! But wait... and this is just me playing devil’s advocate... How will we fund the medals to be conferred to the late nationalistic artist? And won’t it be a waste of resources and time to vest such a medal-bestowing body?”

Brainstorming Genius: “Gee, you’re right. Who the fuck would patronize such shit?... Eureka! I got it! Let’s make payment to this quote-unquote government compulsory! And you know what, let’s use these quote-unquote taxes on other things as well! When the purposes of government money are so muddled up, people will no longer feel a pain in their gut with each amount spent by government. They’ll have no idea what is spent for what anymore!”

Person 2: “LOLZ, you thought of everything!”

Thus are governments born.

The issue isn’t the measly sum spent on medals, taken presumably for a good purpose from the taxpayer. It’s about how a government reflects people’s wants. It’s bad enough that the government constantly interferes with the market. There is absolutely no need for a government to commend individuals for their achievements in their various fields. A government has bigger, if any, priorities. Contrary to what these bozos led by PGMA think, private entities are perfectly capable of honoring the dead, and the living, and in a more sincere manner.

What’s more, some people may not even like Francis M.’s music, nor the manner in which he espoused his beliefs. Hey, it’s a free society. The whole ‘three stars and a sun’ schtick, and Francis’ support of Obama and of socialistic ideals, are not going to lack opponents, who should be free to oppose the emotionalism and want of intellect. Such freedom, however, is not acknowledged when the President, representing the people, gives kudos to someone just because they’re famous and have bereaved family and teary fans.

The point is simply this: Leave the task of honoring the dead to free individuals.

God bless you, Francis.

***

Notice how I haven’t been writing for like, two months now? Of course you’ve noticed. How could you not? Checking my blog everyday, you’re bound to notice when I don’t have a new entry for an extended period of time.

This isn’t a list of excuses, but I think I haven’t been writing much because, first of all, the hell of working for the government is over. Not that the wrongs of the government have been remedied with my departure, but being human, I’m less pissed off about my predicament.

Number two (Hey, what’s with this number-one, number-two shit? I’m not a politician being interviewed for the nth time on the same issue and discussing the same crap over and over again!), being out of the goddamn government, I don’t look at the newspaper or newspapers as often as before. I usually browse the Inquirer when I have breakfast, but there are times when I don’t even have a paper with me.

Third, the stupidities that abound overwhelm me as to where I should start. Just flipping through today’s Inquirer (that is, March 19, 2009), I saw that the jackoff Jalosjos is about to be released, and we all know how our justice system has adequately rendered justice to rich and poor. Then I saw that rape victim “Nicole” is supposedly recanting her accusation against yet another rapist Daniel Smith. Next, we hear the unfamous (not even infamous, just not popular) Prospero Nograles calling for a mere 10% text tax, which, although unlikely to be enacted due to the masa holding riots at such an affront to liberty, is contemptuous. And the medal for the Master Rapper. It’s just a lot of stupid shit.

Fourth, sometimes, the stupid crap in the papers is about something I’ve discussed before, so I refrain from repeating myself. When CARP will rear its ugly head around June, I already have this to say about it. When another bailout is passed and our countrymen cheer Obama on, I have this handy. I could probably add a local flavor to my arguments though.

When Pacquiao faces Hatton or whoever the hell his next victim is, I have my patriotic guts spilled out here.

Last week, I didn’t say anything about the controversy of former SEC commissioner Jesus Martinez, because I already wrote about what a crock of crap the SEC is. Well actually, I do have something new to say about that. This is just a suspicion of mine, but administration stooge Enrile was most likely role-playing when he was berating Martinez’ alleged acceptance of a bribe. I mean, great timing for it to be brought up, with the guy retiring that very same week. Even Congressman Ed Zialcita had it easy. It was the best moment to ensure that their controversy will die as dead as possible. It’s all for show, and we are no better from such token fingerpointing.

But anyway, there is light at the end of the tunnel. Be heartened that when Earth Hour comes, I will have my say on the matter. Please don’t get your panties all wet just yet.

My fifth reason/excuse for not writing is that I’ve been reading a hell of a lot, partly for my big writing project, a.k.a. reason/excuse number six. Abangan! :)

FUCK YOU, SENATORS AND CONGRESSMEN

2009-02-26T01:38:00.006+08:00

Here's my contribution to the discussion on the resurfacing of the bill known as the 'right of reply' bill, which is nearing passage in both houses of Congress. I wrote it eight months ago, and it's relevant as ever, summing up what this insidious legislation is about. Fuck all those in Congress for even considering it.

REMOVE THE FALSE SAFETY NET THAT IS THE GOVERNMENT

2009-02-07T22:17:00.000+08:00

In the United States, there is the $50-billion scandal masterminded by Bernie Madoff. In the Philippines, we have the Legacy banks’ get-rich-quick scheme and the pre-need fiasco.

Such controversies bring about calls for the government to take action and just do something, if only to prevent another like occurrence. We have a pre-need code being ‘finalized’ in Congress for the past five years.

Also in Congress, we have another useless investigation supposedly ‘in aid of legislation.’ This is all part of the scapegoating process, where self-righteous, vote-scavenging government officials fingerpoint at other supposedly more remiss government officials, and say “Gotcha suckaz!” to naughty company executives.

I believe it is the wrong approach to augment, or even to continue relying on, the ineffective powers of the government. There must be a change in people’s mindsets, in order for us to no longer believe that the government will and should take care of things.

Are we to accept that all the taxpayers’ money spent on the Securities and Exchange Commission, and the regulatory mandate of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas, must be increased or be put into better use? Can we ever expect to get our money’s worth in funding these government regulators, that they would prevent these nefarious scams?

It is precisely the false safety net that is the government that allows companies to garner a good reputation based on minimal compliance with the law, and that allows for complacency apart from this minimal compliance. In here, I am not even touching on the prevalent bribes and connivance made possible between the public and private sector – such as the World Bank ‘development’ projects allegedly involving the president’s husband and minions in the House of Representatives.

Society in the Philippines, and indeed in most of the world, has yet to inculcate the value of competition through voluntary transparency, which naturally gains the public’s patronage.

It is this same competition from which private watchdogs can come about. After people realize the necessity of removing the monopoly of the SEC – whose only achievement is red tape – and removing other government regulatory powers, these watchdogs can provide people with adequate knowledge as to the financial situation and history of the directors and officers of companies – companies that would seek out the seal of approval of these private ‘regulators’ in order to draw discriminating clients and customers. Watchdogs will in turn take pains to uphold their reputations, that each company so sealed is reliable and fair in its dealings.

Complacency is impossible in the free market, while in government it is, at best, the rule subject to exceptions.

Without people relying on the government, the Legacy banks could have not survived for long in providing a double-your-money scheme, no matter the gullibility of a number of people. Since such a scheme could not work when one’s books belie their claims of wealth, and since a bank’s reputation would rely on a proven track record and an independent authority’s thorough assessment of the bank’s finances, the scam would have been stopped before it had begun, or before it had accumulated such huge obligations.

The same goes for the pre-need crisis, where the SEC and courts have even been lenient to pre-need companies, whose weak business plans were inconsiderate of the rise in tuition fees and whose manner of investing clients’ premiums was not clearly elaborated.

Even if there was no malice involved in all this, people had assumed that these plans would work and provide for a worry-free funeral or their kids’ education. Such an assumption was made not because the companies had taken pains to disclose all that they could, but because the government by default didn’t object.

The US SEC failed in detecting the Madoff scam early on, and the Philippine SEC has likewise failed as watchdog. The commission’s officials are, I assume from experience, mainly nice people with families of their own who want to protect us from bad elements in business. But that won’t do.

Just think of what these individuals in the SEC, BSP, DTI, DOH, BFAD and other ‘necessary’ agencies can do when performing parallel or similar work in the private sector, where their abilities are not assumed, but proven by the free market.

INDEFINABLE STRENGTH

2009-01-26T11:38:00.004+08:00

US President Barack Obama has constantly been in the headlines for the better part of two years now, and I’ve gotten almost used to it, but today’s Philippine Daily Inquirer issue was just dreary. The only shining light I could find in it was this article on education by a certain Niceto Poblador, entitled ‘Beyond reform, beyond transformation,’ referring to the government monopoly on education.

But I’d like to stick to the fascination with Obama. Frank Langella mentions a kind of “strength” seen in Obama’s face, and such sentiments are echoed by others blindly convinced that he will make things right.

At home, we hear that the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration is turning to Obama to help correct the unemployment situation by instituting policies that would encourage the US to import Philippine labor. But what policies exactly? Apparently, it’s good enough for us to have hope for change, as carried out by Obama. Forget the specifics.

Conrado De Quiros wrote a lovely tribute to Obama today, contrasting him with President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. Such magnificent traits and ideas, merely inferred by seeing speeches and pictures, that people project onto this unworthy man. By no means am I saying that De Quiros’ ideals are any good either.

“Obama is the cure to the Great Recession...” How does De Quiros know that Obama has any idea whatsoever to improve the economy, when he’s merely amplifying the Bush-Bernanke-Paulson technique of bailouts and deficits? There is a depression; we shouldn’t worry about semantics and euphemisms such as ‘recession’ and ‘slowdown.’ I guarantee you, regardless of the soundness of the policies of the future Republican party, that come 2012, Obama will not be reelected, when his promises are revealed for what they are. Even though Franklin Roosevelt managed to be reelected despite his ineffective New Deal in the 1930s, I think the political opposition will be more prepared this time around; not to say that the opposition will be a worthy cause either.

Amando Doronila thinks there’s no chemistry between GMA and Obama, and means this in a critical way towards GMA. Time will tell if Obama walks the talk with regards to instituting transparency and respect of human rights. However, it’s apparent that the mainstream media are just eating this all up and assuming the sincerity and capability of this politician, whose shrewdness I would not discount just because he’s black.

And another sad article here, which shows that everyone is desperate to associate themselves with this man.

I only wish that people look past the pose, and judge the US President by the soundness of his platform. It’s going to be a long way down the cliffs of disappointment and unfulfilled hopes.

A MORAL FORCE DOES NOT EXIST IN THE GOVERNMENT

2009-01-15T12:32:00.004+08:00

Today’s Inquirer headlines (Why am I always picking on the Inquirer’s contents?) has Chief Justice Reynato Puno speaking of a need for a ‘moral force’ that would raise the country from its dire situation.

Nice statement, from someone whose reputation of being above the corrupt fold is only due to his vigorous public relations effort (using public funds). I myself was a recipient of P5,000 in SM gift checks during the first Christmas of Justice Puno’s reign, when I was still with the media. I blew it all on CDs and clothes, as I recall; I’m no hypocrite about it.

People, including the media, think that his dissociation from Gloria makes him all noble. His own ‘writ of amparo’ and whatever ‘pro-poor’ writ gimmicks are for the gullible. They provide no protection that the writ of habeas corpus doesn’t provide. The problem, of course, is not the number of rights protected by a government, but that they are protected at all or adequately.

And he’s socialist through and through. Socialism by no means provides, or even acknowledges, equal application of the law.

But aside from Justice Puno’s hypocrisy and poor ideology, another flaw, his biggest flaw, is that he believes just as well as anybody that the government is what will bring about reforms in society. This is actually tied in to his socialism.

What can we say plagues our society? In a few simple words: Corruption. Injustice. Politicking. All of these are not only associated with government, but are the very outcome of it.

***

Corruption would not be as prevalent if the government didn’t have all the funds, taken forcefully, for such despicable purposes. And so-called ‘regulation’ of companies, for financial fraud, environmental hazards, etc. would be carried out more efficiently by competing private watchdogs rather than a complacent SEC, DENR, etc. that have nothing to lose by being incompetent.

It is government legislation, and not contracts between private entities, that creates injustice, be it through agrarian reform or ‘pro-consumer’ laws against ‘profiteering’ and ‘cartels.’

Yet we hear again and again that CARP should be extended, “with reforms,” and antitrust legislation is constantly being lobbied, which would threaten the more capable businesses – that provide the most cost-efficient products to the public – for the sake of jobs that would otherwise be rendered obsolete in the process of raising the standard of living for all.

Government doesn’t work. Plain and simple. The best it can do, is step aside. This won’t happen by tricking voters into voting for a free-market advocate. Public opinion has to be shifted to such a great degree from the present. It will most likely happen after disaster strikes and all socialist measures to help the situation are seen for the shams they are. Incidentally, this is the only good thing I hope to come out of Barack Obama’s presidency.

***

Tomorrow is my last day as a government worker. It was tough, especially the last six months, to stomach all of the self-deceptions I heard around me, and perhaps even from myself, during the period. I mean, the reason I didn’t resign any sooner was that I awaited for the holiday bonuses. As I said, I’m no hypocrite, or at least recognize these actions of mine for what they are. I can only promise that I won’t do anything like it in the future.

The biggest lesson of my stint in the bureaucracy is that the solution to our country’s, and the world’s, economic ills is not rooted or to be found in the state, regardless of and despite the good intentions of its officials and work force. It is in the proper education of people, one by one, of what the state really means.

Justice Puno is surely right, that our problems are rooted in morals. Yet by no means should we hope for a moral force in the government, and such morals as we hope to save us have little resemblance to our culture of state worship, or the taking for granted that the government must exist, without asking why it should still exist even with our “farewell to kings” and our bidding goodbye to mandates of Heaven.

Morality, physical and mental health, education, aesthetic taste – all are related. There is a reason why ‘Wowowee’ is a popular noontime program, or that the latest Lito Camo (no offense to him of course) jingle is a big hit, and these reasons are related to the belief that someone, by hook or by crook, is watching out for each and everyone of us and will ensure the “greatest good for the greatest number,” regardless of what the non-believing minority have to say about it.

NOTHING NEW ABOUT IT

2009-01-06T10:04:00.009+08:00

The Philippine Daily Inquirer has recently published two articles of pretty much the same vein, declarations of governments’ supposedly new role in these challenging economic times: Walden Bello’s ‘The coming capitalist consensus’ and Roland Simbulan’s ‘Emerging alternative to neoliberalism.’

Thus do we hear of an alleged recent ideology of ‘neoliberalism,’ whose advocates want a free market no matter the cost and the marginalization, who insist on maintaining obliviousness to the suffering in the community. With the collapse of financial markets over the past year, the general public and economists tell us, we have witnessed the downfall of such backward dog-eat-dog thinking, and it’s time for the state to provide an alternative policy.

However, the idea of a truly free market as envisioned by so-called neoliberals is not new. Adherents are no more ‘neoliberal’ than they are ‘neo’ anything. The Great Depression is cited as the most famous example of laissez-faire inevitably gone wrong, while the state’s interference through the New Deal was heralded as just that, ‘new’ – a major innovation in policy that would lift America out of its economic quagmire.

We’ve heard this blame game before, and today, world leaders are likewise preaching a new solidarity that would enable the people to get through the mess that capitalism caused. This would involve “securing the benefits of the market while taming its excesses,” otherwise known as ‘Global Social Democracy.’

Such labels and frameworks are utterly false, recycled and lead to even worse global catastrophes, and it is really quite simple to refute these ideas built on flimsy economic foundations.

There are two main erroneous premises present in Profs. Bello and Simbulan’s articles:
1. The financial crisis was caused by capitalism; and
2. The government must intervene in the market to fix the problem.

What did not cause the crisis

On the first erroneous premise, one must rectify the notion that a free market created the bubble and its eventual bursting. Why, you may ask a Keynesian, did this crisis happen at this time and not at any other time? Chances are, if stuck in a Keynesian framework, they would say it just had to happen; it’s inevitable that businessmen, left to their own devices, would engage in all sorts of speculative behavior and optimism, which must inevitably come to an end. The government must then ensure that demand is maintained to ‘stimulate’ the economy and nurse it back to health. Supposedly, by getting the public to continue consuming goods as before, businesses will be able to make a profit and thus resume normal operations after some time.

This is the framework that Keynesians deal with, and just about every professor in the Philippines would not question it.

But nothing has been answered as to, why a crisis now? What policies were instituted, whether by the private sector or the government?

The Keynesian would then say that the greedy businessmen who bought and sold these faulty mortgages were a prime (pun intended!) example of laissez-faire’s speculative nature that leads to an economic collapse.

The government’s role in the creation of the bubble would be downplayed by the Keynesian, even though this is precisely the answer that makes sense of all of it.

Indeed, it was the United States Federal Reserve, both during the 1920s and the early 21st century, that allowed for the creation of all this money by which all this speculative behavior seemed to pay off, for the duration of the boom that is.

Without the Fed’s loose monetary policy, people wouldn’t have had the money to purchase such anomalous no-downpayment loans. Banks wouldn’t even dream of approving mortgages with no hope of ever being paid back. If they did, this would be the height of business stupidity and none of these banks would last long enough to victimize a significant fraction of a community. However, with the Fed creating an endless stream of funds by which debtors can partake in, and by the subsidizing and sponsoring of the entities guaranteeing the loans – Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – such mortgages did not appear stupid, at the time that is.

With such a background provided, as well as other factors such as the specter of the Community Reinvestment Act that provided penalties for banks who appeared biased or prejudiced in the approval of loans, could anyone in their right mind say that the crisis was not caused by the government?

Oh, but it’s still those fat cats at Wall Street that created those financial derivatives on top of one another. This does not change the fact that such activity was government-sponsored; those profiting from the boom can aptly be called cronies.

If this crisis was indeed merely greed-induced, as is alleged, can we conclude that the capitalists of the early 21st century were greedier than at any other time? Of course not. The difference was the manipulation of money during this period to simulate a healthy economy.

A ‘deregulated’ free market was clearly not at work here. Socialism, in particular, socialized housing, should be recognized as the culprit of this crisis.

Why couldn’t such loose money be maintained forever, and the prices of houses continue to increase in a perpetual boom? Because the money created for this did not represent actual valuable assets. People could not continue being deceived that prices accurately represented the value of economic items.

Boom and bust

As students of Philippine history in grade school and high school, we have heard about ‘Mickey Mouse’ money during Japanese rule, and in essence this is what the US Fed’s fiat policy creates. The more money produced, the more worthless the money becomes. Now, we are headed to understanding what is inevitable in booms, and how capitalism in itself does not produce this inevitability.

Inevitably, with house and stock prices continuing to go up, with more and more people joining in the supposed prosperity, the items’ actual values come to question, and the market left to its own devices would create new valuations. Hence the drop in prices of houses and in the stock market.

However, people get worried about the drop in prices, even though the changes merely depict the value of goods more accurately. Measures for price stability are tossed around, and the government, too antsy or too ‘concerned’ to just watch what unfolds, decides it must ‘stimulate’ the economy through pump-priming, in order to save businesses from having to put up with lower earnings.

The subsequent retention of the high boom-time prices and the continued high cost of production thus prevent businesses from taking advantage of lower prices and maximizing output, and the depression is prolonged.

It is also neglected by government policymakers that although numbers are smaller as a result of lower prices, real or inflation-adjusted incomes still retain purchasing power.

What about jobs?

There is nonetheless a depression, and the excesses and bad business decisions during the boom must result in a loss of jobs, with greater unemployment the more rigid wages are. It is a mistake, however, to say that, conceding that government did cause the crisis, we can’t just let these people lose their jobs; the government must now rescue them. This is an example of good intentions coming to naught.

Jobs programs as implemented by the government are wealth suckers. More than any other time, firms and individuals must be unburdened of high taxes, in order to once more accumulate the saving that would allow the economy to recover. Government spending for employment and welfare programs must then be cut drastically, if not completely, for these are funded through taxes, or, just as bad, more government borrowing or more fiat money.

These state programs also divert the good money left in the economy from their best uses, for less productive and less efficient purposes as envisioned by well-meaning bureaucrats.

Alba

Prof. Simbulan cites measures that are “emerging” in Latin America, heralded as the alternative to the profit-oriented failure that is capitalism. The Bolivarian Alternative to the Americas (a.k.a. Alba), with its resemblance to Soviet, East German, and New Deal policies, is doomed to fail.

“Prioritizing people’s needs and interests.” Where have we heard this before? It’s a very typical line of a politician regardless of geography. Most recently, president-elect Barack Obama has made similar utterances. His promise of two million jobs will not be kept, but he already has an excuse up his sleeve – his ‘capitalistic’ predecessor. This was Franklin Roosevelt’s card during the Great Depression. Let it be known, however, that George W. Bush, despite his defense of free markets, was no more a promoter of capitalism in deed than Herbert Hoover was in word and deed.

Like Prof. Simbulan, I can only wait to see what becomes of this “new trend in international relations.” But clearly, the idea of inter-government coordination, “socially-oriented trade,” better infrastructure, better health care, better education, better welfare, better jobs, etc. is nothing new, nothing to crow about, and certainly no substitute for a profit-oriented economy that makes no qualms about respecting property rights.

Verily, ‘profit’ is a noble motive that enables firms, when left alone by the state, to come up with the best goods and services, freely patronized by those seeking value for their money. It only makes sense to let the free market – not the central bank- or vote-seeking-bureaucrat- or Fannie Mae- or Freddie Mac-sponsored market – do its own wonderful thing. It is only through a free market that a people’s needs and interests, regardless of social class, are truly prioritized, wherein the population is truly a participant in the determination of the value of goods and services.

State intervention either way

Why must Prof. Bello give credit to the virtues of capitalism that make possible all economic growth, yet prevent free rein of this creature, via state regulation? This keeping-in-check of capitalists, however, is just as much an impediment to creation of wealth as the outright ownership of the means of production. In both nationalization of industry and regulation of industry, businessmen are subject to whatever fancies whoever is in power. Such uncertainty in itself is an impediment to investing, and prevents markets precisely from providing the advantage of capitalism – the most beneficial and most efficient use of capital. In criticizing such regulation, I am not even considering the lobbying, connivance and monopolistic powers that come about from crony capitalism and that ultimately lead to substandard products and a stifled economy.

Prof. Bello also gives too much credit to Obama’s rhetorical ability, as if this will have anything to do with the success of Global Social Democracy. The only thing it would allow is a coordinated decline of nation’s economies.

It is easy for critics to label true laissez-faire as ‘dogmatic’ or ‘utopian,’ implying by this that policies must be pursued in an illogical, senseless manner. Marxism and Keynesianism are of the idea that it is good intentions, and not entrepreneurial ability, that result in greater production and equitability in society. It seemingly was good intentions that led Alan Greenspan, whom I otherwise admire deeply for his pre-bureaucrat advocacy of a gold standard, to lower interest rates far beyond what the market could sustain with existing savings. During the boom period, millions realized their dreams of owning houses, and businesses, stimulated by easy credit, optimistically invested in people and resources beyond what they normally could. The fault lies in thinking that such bullishness, built on non-existent assets, could last beyond the short term.

No matter the good intentions, continued government intervention through bailouts and other types of subsidies rests on a delusion that the boom can be maintained. This is defying the very simple economic concept of supply and demand. You can not simply wish for greater supply to satisfy demand, nor can you continue stimulating demand when the foundation for the creation of the supply is not present.

A return to prosperity – the long and short of it

Contrary to what socialist Profs. Bello and Simbulan say – and I can not call them or their ideas anything but socialist – the depression, with all its unemployment and non-productivity, will not last forever. Barring any more government intervention, a two-year period would be enough for a return to relatively normal levels of jobs and output. With continued intervention, however, the depression can last as long as that of the 1930s and 1940s, which US Presidents Hoover and FDR collectively spent the most of two decades battling through their respective brands of socialism. Contrary to FDR’s propaganda, the New Deal was a disaster. How else can it be explained that all previous depressions in the 19th Century up to 1921 (which themselves were caused by inflationary war financing or attempts at post-war recovery) lasted only about 18 months each?

How can real prosperity be created then? I emphasize again the need for real savings, accumulated through the productive use of capital and the making of real profits for goods and services that give value to consumers. Only when supply, in this case capital, is able to meet demand, that is, the ever-varying wants of the public, can an economy truly flourish. This is what capitalism – unfettered, unregulated capitalism, where people can transact according to their desires and means, holding with highest regard each other’s right to property – allows. It is a slow but sure way, as opposed to socialist measures that only look good and provide a sense of relief for the immediate future but whose wrongness is unraveled as time passes.

ILLEGAL DRUGS SHOULD BE LEGAL

2009-01-04T11:23:00.009+08:00

This holiday season, with not much to report about, the Philippine media has focused on the continued detention of the ‘Alabang Boys,’ who, as part of an illegal drugs syndicate, have been supplying various clubs with marijuana, cocaine and ecstasy. The issue betrays the as-yet narrow viewpoint of the public regarding the ‘drug problem.’

I am of the position that illegal drugs – not just marijuana, but the deadlier stuff such as cocaine and heroin – should be legal.

The problem with calling for the abolition of laws against the use of drugs classified as ‘dangerous’ is that it would appeal foremost, at least initially, to junkies, hippies and other nonproductive scum, further misrepresenting the idea that the ban of certain substances is an assault on each one’s freedom. Nonetheless, I will outline the arguments for my case.

First of all, substances themselves are not inherently bad. Blaming crimes on that which ‘influenced’ the crime is like faulting the beer and not the drunk driver. It’s faulting the kitchen knife for a family massacre.

It is psychological problems, the mental illnesses, that need more attention than the actual content of the drugs ingested by these trouble makers.

Just like tobacco and alcohol are legal, albeit severely taxed (another impertinent act of the government), ‘dangerous’ drugs should be legal.

The very illegality of these drugs makes them all the more a potent tool of shady elements in society. When drugs are hoarded only among those who dare defy the law, these criminal organizations, it happens that people who are not particularly disposed to violence would patronize violent means and resort to violence for their fix.

What’s more, a dangerous combination is created when corrupt government officials, with no good conscience, condone the gangster operations, not for the sake of liberty of the individual, but to get their cut of the proceeds.

Just look at how the Department of Justice is scrambling to release the Alabang Boys, while poor drug users have no hope of being released once incarcerated.

The criminalized nature of drug abuse also makes rehabilitation that much harder. Users are less willing to get treatment due to fear of the pressing of charges, on top of society already looking down on substance abuse.

It is easy to surmise that among the most vehement opponents of legalization of presently illegal substances would be the drug pushers themselves. Right now, the law indirectly grants them a monopoly wherein those without ties to the mob or to the government are barred from the industry. Imagine their fear of no longer making a killing, when business suddenly becomes legit, and competition drives down their prices and earnings.

An argument for legalization of drugs wouldn’t be complete without citing the case of Winona Ryder. We all love her, and know that she is goddaughter of LSD guru Timothy Leary. Growing up, she relates, all sorts of drugs and information about these drugs were made available to her, and as a result, she never had more than a passing interest in such matters. And look at what a model of good behavior she has been! Short of shoplifting and use of unprescribed sleeping pills (the problem of which is not rooted in her upbringing but the mental hazards of her career), we couldn’t find anyone better to emulate.

The point is, the very illegality of these substances diverts the issue from a health matter, to a criminal matter. Proper parenting and rearing are still the best protection from ‘dangerous’ drugs.

Legalizing these drugs will not lead to a degenerative, mindless society. Neighborhoods and various communities who just don’t like those damn drugs, for whatever reason, should be able to bar junkies from their properties. Yet another reason to privatize roads. Hell, in this manner, drug users can have their ‘red light district’ where they can engage in all sorts of debauchery at their expense, without bothering the more sober members of society.

Business-wise, companies would shun use of certain drugs, because of its effects on people’s minds. For the sake of productivity, contracts will be drawn up that would guarantee employees’ ‘cleanliness.’ Only by repealing prohibitions in the law can such cleanliness be chosen.

Hippies, you can line up now.

WHAT TYPE OF EDUCATION SHOULD WE HAVE?

2008-12-23T21:25:00.002+08:00

Shit I’m tired.

But I just have to discuss an article that came out in the Philippine Daily Inquirer today. Here it is: http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/news/view/20081223-179475/English-only-bill-faces-tough-fight .

Should we teach our children in English or in native languages? That is actually not the main question. The question is, should we mandate the medium of instruction at all? The answer is no.

I think it would be more practical to have kids learn with whatever language they’re familiar with. If they’re English speakers, then go with English. If any other language, it should be that other language. But this all presupposes that kids are to be taught in classrooms, that they will go up by grades every year, with each grade containing specific subjects to be taught.

This nationalized curriculum is a result of a government monopoly on education, that devours and makes the education process much less meaningful. Even supposedly private schools are required to follow the curriculum as decreed by the state. All this for political slogans such as ‘education for all’ and ‘no child left behind.’ The results are a disaster.

In contrast, look at this: http://www.gmanews.tv/story/139863/Dream-school-No-tests-no-grades-no-teachers .

I don’t have details of this school’s programs, but it highlights the idea of allowing truly independent and private educational institutions to present their various programs to people. Such schools should not be discussed as ‘the exception’ or ‘only for the rich,’ because such systems can just as easily be tailor-made for poorer children.

The use of a native language as a medium of instruction would then be the result of the politically unpalatable ‘free market’ doing its work, wherein schools compete in providing what is truly their ‘brand’ of education. From here will rise the most reputable institutions, that are accordingly patronized by student customers, with the guidance of parents or guardians.

I have dealt with the advantages of leaving the government out of education, as well as the concept of the supposed ‘right’ to education, in an earlier entry, and you might want to check it out: http://colorfulrag.blogspot.com/2008/11/why-philippines-remains-poor-anarchic.html .

***

Also about education, we have heard of the incessant whining of a certain Antonio Calipjo Go, who took it upon himself to face the crooks of the Department of Education, and who eventually threw in the towel. His is a sad case of going up against soulless bureaucracy, and misdirection of a quest for better state education.

Spending millions out of his own pocket, this all came to naught when dealing with billion-peso organized crime. It didn’t matter that textbooks were filled with horrendous errors that lead to a lifetime of false notions and potential death. The Department of Education, granted some of its people have good intentions, is the recipient of taxes diverted for an apparently noble purpose, only to be used for the whims of those in power. The whole idea of a ‘right’ to education makes the ensuing ignorance and dull stares all the more tragic.

The DepEd has been led by some people with good, idealistic intentions. But even this is absolutely no match to a free market seeking satisfied customers.

Getting rid of the monopoly on education permits textbook corrections to be made not on a ‘best-effort’ basis, as is done by the state, but to gain and maintain a reputation of fancy book learnin’ by competing schools.

‘Standards of education’ will no longer be limited by ideas of bureaucrats, but be as varied as can be imagined by entrepreneurs. The quality and applicability of education is raised, when curricula are purposeful and not for mere compliance of standards whose purposes have all been forgotten.

Textbook errors will be anathema to any private educator, and will be swiftly rectified, if a business is to even survive.

It can not be emphasized enough that truly privatized education is more apt to serve the actual needs of poor and rich alike.

SOLVING TRAFFIC

2008-12-14T16:12:00.005+08:00

Last Friday highlighted a recurring problem, of roads being closed to the inconvenience of thousands, perhaps millions. Business meetings, video productions, a fun day at the mall, all ruined because the people just had to have their voice heard, against that insidious attempt at Charter change. I’m all for free speech, but the public nature of streets and highways makes certain a conflict of interest among stakeholders, i.e. the taxpayers. The matter of holding rallies becomes a politicized affair, as is apparent by Binay-controlled Makati City being THE venue for holding rallies against the administration.

The politicization of rallies and the conflict of interest enumerated above would not happen if roads were completely private-owned. What’s more, the traffic problem would be solved. The efficiency of roads will become a primary consideration in using them; we would not have to put up with public works projects for indefinite periods if a private owner faced loss of revenue as a result of inconveniences of road users. Jeepneys, buses and trucks would have to quit belching, stopping in the middle of the road and recklessly counterflowing, if they are to even be allowed on roads. We will no longer be subject to the whims of the “handsome” Bayani Fernando, whose propaganda machine earns him the moniker of “The Philippines’ Lee Kuan Yew.”

To illustrate the notion of road privatization and its utter effectiveness, let me cite one of the most definitive books in human civilization, Plato’s ‘The Republic,’ Book XI:

***

Plato: You know what, I love driving on Highway 54 at 4 a.m. in the morning from QC to Pasay.

Socrates: You mean EDSA?

P: Yeah, exactly.

S: Allow me my two dollars on what would help solve traffic.

P: Sige na nga.

S: Privatization of roads.

P: Is that even feasible?!

S: Yeah it’s possible. It’s feasible. Bid the roads out.

P: Ano iyan, eBay?

S: Uh... yeah. Remember, the money to make roads comes from somewhere. Taxes don’t just suddenly multiply in value when collected, in order to spend on roads. Big companies have the money for that, for one thing. At present, with public roads, it would be against the rights of truck and bus operators to ban them.

P: So where will everybody else drive?

S: I said “privatized.” That doesn’t mean no one can pass through. I mean, you enter a parking lot in a mall, right? Same principle.

P: I still don’t get how it would work.

S: There are roads in private commercial areas din naman. If roads can be made in that fashion, it can be applied on a national scope. It is the private owners, because they own the roads, that can say “Cars, trucks, buses, motorcycles and jeepneys, shape up, or ship out!” and have the right to impose penalties on violators of road regulations. How will the road construction and maintenance be financed? Companies can collect tolls, or situate their establishments, or advertise other establishments in the area. Homeowners can have communal ownership of stretches of roads. It all depends on the preference of the private owners. Private developers would be more competent than those of the government. If a road sucks, you can pass elsewhere.

P: Baka grumabe pa lalo yung traffic.

S: What’s your basis for saying that?

P: If people start avoiding the main road EDSA because of the new ownership or tolls or whatever, they’d look for alternative routes, thus resulting in congestion in other areas.

S: First off, people would no longer have to pay as much in taxes, and will use this money for tolls instead. And, it’s still to the advantage of the private owners to improve the flow of traffic, without reducing the number of road users, for them to earn more. Also, with more money freed up, private funds will allow for more roads to be made, flyovers and whatnot.

P: While the new infrastructure is being built with the funds, traffic will be worse than ever.

S: Tingnan mo ‘to ha. Of course the transition may be rough driving. It will have its inconveniences. That’s true of ANY changes in policy, especially those that are beneficial in the long run. Let me ask you. Who paid for EDSA?

P: Taxpayers, responsible citizens of the Republic of the Philippines. What am I, stupid?

S: So obviously the money to build the road did come from somewhere.

P: Well, I guess not from the squatters who piss and shit there.

S: Well maybe, but in road privatization, the money will also come from somewhere. The difference is that squatters could be barred from the road, AND the maintenance of the road becomes commercial in purpose. It’s not about some public official getting kickbacks.

P: But some stupid bus drivers will want to avoid paying the premium. And it will just result in complications.

S: Well, that’s a matter of improving the protection of property rights. Property violators can be arrested for trespassing. The point is, if the road is public, then really, it’s for everyone’s use. Taxpayers e. Hell, you don’t even have to show you’re a taxpayer. But if it’s private, you have a rationale, a justification, for barring certain individuals or vehicles.

P: Fair enough. But, by barring certain vehicles, it will result in collateral damage. Kasi hanap sila ng alternative roads. While the plan has its merits, it is flawed.

S: Give me a chance to show you that it is not flawed. But first, you’re right. They may not adjust to the new EDSA owner’s policy. Where do you think they’ll go?

P: I don’t know, Highway 55? Or inside streets?

S: Those barred vehicles are barred for a reason. A lack of discipline, for one thing. So they’ll only be able to use the shittier roads, UNLESS they get their act together. Unless they follow the private road owner’s rules under penalty of disbarment. And remember, even the roads that are considered shitty now, if privatized, will be more passable. Highway 55 stands to gain in terms of beauty and efficiency as much as EDSA, when roads are privatized.

P: But come on. Pilipinas iyan, e. It will not fly. If anything, magpi-picket and strike yung mga bus drivers.

S: Strike against whom? Bahala sila, it’s their financial loss.

P: They could strike against the corporation that controls privatized EDSA.

S: Perhaps you mean boycott. That is a legitimate means of expression of their sentiments. But what would be more practical, is to, quote-unquote, ‘compromise.’ For them to realize that they’re paying road fees, in lieu of an inefficient system of tax collection and use. And if the EDSA corporation wants to earn from the buses, and the buses want to bring people around, they will arrive at some way to bridge the gap. Sa kanila na iyon, it’s a private matter.

P: Chaos lang iyan, it won’t apply to the real world.

S: Is it really chaotic, or is it just different from what we’re accustomed to? If we had a clean slate, would the bureaucratic system, or private ownership, be more appealing? I’ve tried my best to answer each of your reservations as it is. And how will such a system not apply, when it’s already applicable in private commercial centers?

P: But this is a road! Public access iyan! Commercial centers have the option to shut people out. Privatizing such a public utility... I mean, the very existence of a road is for public consumption.

S: There might be a communication problem here. By public, do you mean people in general?

P: Yeah.

S: Because there’s another more accurate definition of ‘public’ that is, government-owned. But okay, let’s take a look at a privately-owned mall, which allows the public to enter rather freely. Whether or not you buy items, you’re allowed to wander in, because the mall owner knows that ultimately, people will patronize the shops enough to maintain the place and create earnings.
Now, same principle for roads. Again, whether it’s a government-owned road, or a private road, the money will come from somewhere. The difference is, if it’s the government who owns it, in the guise of ‘public ownership,’ no one can be barred from using the roads, regardless of their behavior on the roads. PLUS, maintenance of the roads, hell, the very creation of the roads, is of secondary priority to government officials who don’t make money off of it. Unless they do so through corruption. The quality of the roads suffers tuloy.
If privatized, the owner could evaluate the use of the road, and such evaluation will include considerations of the people coming in, the vehicles coming in, so that in the end, they can profit from it. So yes, they do earn from it din, but they also have a right to dictate who can enter, etc. according to how they could earn, and they can be as lenient as possible without sacrificing efficiency. Road user customers, after all, would prefer better and more efficient roads, and would be more than pleased to have road owners intolerant of road assholes, who must adjust accordingly.

P: But, the chaos, all the traffic rules and regulations. Won’t it confuse road users who go from place to place?

S: It is in the best interest of road owners to allow for a uniformity of most road regulations, to keep the customers coming.

P: So basically, treat EDSA like a big mall? How do they earn?

S: If it’s a private road, the owner could decide. But there are three basic means: tolls, advertising and tying the earnings of establishments in an area to the conditions of the roads, where customers would consider road quality in deciding to patronize a certain shop.
And road-owning doesn’t have to be an income-earning activity. It could be like owning any real property. Communities can own the roads and finance the construction, removal and maintenance of roads. It beats paying taxes for roads with the faces and names of political scum on them.
A private owner decides whether to leave the road alone and let anyone go through and let hell break loose – which is the present case in public roads – or, to make money and do everyone else a favor.

P: So you’re saying this scheme is not for EDSA alone?

S: Everything we’re discussing is hypothetical, but it ought to apply everywhere. I say, no to any and all public property.

P: Another consideration is, who would be the owner that would be willing to put themselves in a position to oversee EDSA? San Miguel Corporation?

S: That isn’t too far a possibility. Keep in mind, we’re advocating capitalism, not crony capitalism, meaning, no subsidies, no special favors for private owners. Having said that, we have to keep in mind that roads were supposedly public sector-owned, and the transition to private roads may require a short period where the road services are not charged against people. This is quite risky on the part of new road owners, who would have to put up with possible property rights abuse for that period, but it would shut up taxpayers who insist that they deserve free use of the roads, at least for a time. I’d say a one- or two-year period.
So, going back to who would own the roads, the answer is – just about anybody. Could be one corporation, or a group of them.

P: Is it good business sense to take on a lofty project such as EDSA privatization?

S: That’s part of the business plan, to determine if it’s lucrative. Just ‘cause it’s huge doesn’t mean it won’t be profitable. Microsoft is lofty. SM is lofty. Road owners can either shell out whatever capital they have at present, or sell shares to raise the necessary capital. Either way, the necessary money can come in.
Keep in mind, EDSA doesn’t have to be bought in one piece. It can be bid off in pieces, and parts of it can be converted to something other than roads – subdivisions, perhaps – as bad an idea as it may appear to be.
As I see it, the money will come mainly from establishments situated in the area, or those who will merely place billboards or other advertisements.

P: Oh my God! Did you say billboards? Aren’t they dangerous flying objects?

S: In pretty extreme situations, yes, such as supertyphoons. Keep in mind that people go or stay outside in such situations at their own risk. Legislating standards for billboard frames is extremely short-sighted and meant to get votes from those who believe they’re fighting, quote-unquote, ‘corporate greed.’ Huwag kang magpauto. Next thing you know, they’ll ban telephone poles and trees which contribute to the damage or death during calamities. “Those greedy telephone companies. Those greedy tree growers!”

P: Fair enough... but going back to the roads, I really doubt the public will embrace such a drastic move.

S: It is precisely those doubts that are the reason why the idea hasn’t been embraced. Hence the slow educational process. As I said, transition requires people to get used to the idea.
I admit that most people, perhaps those who don’t pay taxes, will have a hard time getting it. But then, look at you, I’m sure by now that your idea of road privatization has changed, in the past ten minutes. Not that you ever really considered it. But think of it, when we began talking about this, your argument was that it’s not practical in the real world. Now you’re saying your doubts are rooted in the people’s acceptance of the proposal.

P: The masa would hate any proposal to take more money from their pockets.

S: They may not even need to shell out anything! Financing may come, as I said, from establishments in the area, or advertisers. And think of the reduction in taxes.

P: So we go back to the question, would it be profitable to financiers? Establishments can be so segregated. It’s not like you can designate an area as Nike section or whatever.

S: What, are you crazy? The very establishments you see anywhere, the private homes you see on a road, are exactly that – private-owned. These houses and buildings are their ‘section,’ as you put it. We’re merely extending the ‘section’ to include the paths leading to the various places in a community.
It’s up to the road owners, whomever they may be, whether they would charge ALL, SOME or NONE of other entities in the area.

P: There should be reason why these things are left to be maintained by the public sector.

S: And we see the result all around us. Stupid schemes such as number-coding to reduce traffic by 20%. Even that objective isn’t fulfilled, but in the meantime, the people’s right to use their property – automobiles – is trampled on.
Are you saying that because it’s now managed by the government, that that’s enough reason to say that’s how it should be?

P: No. I’m just saying, there should be a reason why such things are left to the public sector. In an ideal world, the motive of the public sector is not to gain income and preserve the profitability of its, quote-unquote, ‘business.’ It’s supposed to exist to serve the public. Obviously, that really isn’t the case in any government.

S: Do you know why?

P: You tell me, Mr. Philosopher. Corruption?

S: Because the same people who take your money, are the same people who make the decisions on how to spend it. Instead of giving these people the money, the system should be that people retain their money and use it as they please – including for roads. It’s true, the government is not meant to make money. But it does.
Even if government officials were all noble, they are no replacement for a people free to decide for themselves what goods and services they want. Until people remove such negative connotations of profit, the proposal couldn’t be accepted. It is private profit that will allow for things to improve. Truth be told, a government never profits or loses – government corporations are appropriated their, quote-unquote, ‘capital,’ which comes from taxes collected pretty much at gunpoint – see what happens if you stop paying taxes and resist arrest.
It’s exactly what you said: If someone isn’t doing something for profit, e.g. the government, then there’s no reason why they would want to alter the status quo. It’s the private sector, through their own risks of their own capital, that allow for change, innovation, progress. It’s the private sector that should hold all economic power.
Whereas before, the question was separation of church and state, it’s now separation of economic power and politics. I’m all for removal of the state in its entirety, but before this happens, let’s reduce its power as much as we can.

P: Whoooow... you do make a good argument.

S: Well, I try. Hey get this, I just saw a news story, “Solon seeks to open private roads for vehicular traffic.” We have a long way to go. We can start by shutting these goddamn solons up.

P: I’ll write to my congressman now.

***

And there you have it. Those Greeks knew everything.