Euro Debt Crisis: The Confidence Fairy Tale and Devaluation Delusion

The Confidence Fairy (Fear and Greed) Fable

Suggestions have been made that Euro crisis has been an issue of confidence or “animal spirits” as alleged by the mainstream analysts.

This represents half-truth.

The idea that people are driven by sheer optimism or pessimism dumbs down the people’s ability to look after their self-interest. Of course those peddling such rubbish assume that they are above the rest of mankind.

Yet in a bizarre way of thinking, they use assorted and complex economic analysis when at the end of the day, everything for them, essentially boils down to random optimism or pessimism.

The assumption that psychological factors as purely driving the marketplace ignores the truism of the collective individual’s ability to calculate on the elemental tradeoffs of cost relative to benefits or of risk relative to rewards.

People don’t buy financial securities because they wake up in the morning feeling ‘optimistic’ or sell when they feel ‘pessimistic’. People buy or sell because they see, rightly or wrongly, beneficial aspects from the execution of such actions. Whether psychic or monetary, the assumed rewards are subjectively determined by the person taking action.

The supposed confidence fairy of fear and greed are essentially driven by an underlying event stimulus or incentive and not by mere impulse.

For instance, a market crash doesn’t happen because of fear itself. Instead a crash happens when people discover that the issues they own have not been priced accordingly or has substantially been worth below the most recent value as a result of some chain of causes.

Like those stampeding out of a theater (effect) because of a sudden discovery of fire (cause), the simultaneous act by many to exit ownership of financial securities fuels impulses or emotions to go along with the crowd (bandwagon effect). Thus fear signifies a symptom of an underlying cause rather than a cause in itself.

Yet fear and greed are prominent symptoms of bubble cycles.

During market euphoria usually at the acme of a bubble cycle, people pile up on ascendant prices because of the thought of the perpetuity of such price trends.

Of course, this can be only made possible by the loosening of extensions of credit (circulation credit) where the credit-collateral feedback loop mechanism gets rolling—where rising collateral values prompts for more lending, and more lending increases collateral values.

Thus, circulation credit (which are consequences of artificially suppressed interest rates and from policy directives, e.g. credit subsidies, bailouts) fuels bubble cycles which impels contortions in people’s economic calculations and subsequently results to the emotive price chasing phenomenon—Greed.

The opposite phenomenon holds true during bubble busts. The credit-collateral feedback loop mechanism goes into a reverse operation—falling collateral values prompts for margin calls and the calling in of bank loans both of which decreases collateral values. The simultaneous acts of exodus essentially signify—Fear.

In truth the confidence fairy has nothing been more than a pretext for more government intervention.

As the great Murray Rothbard once wrote[1]

Keynesian doctrine is, despite its algebraic and geometric jargon, breathtakingly simple at its core: recessions are caused by underspending in the economy, inflation is caused by overspending. Of the two major categories of spending, consumption is passive and determined, almost robotically, by income; hopes for the proper amount of spending, therefore, rest on investment, but private investors, while active and decidedly non-robotic, are erratic and volatile, unreliably dependent on fluctuations in what Keynes called their "animal spirits."

Fortunately for all of us, there is another group in the economy that is just as active and decisive as investors, but who are also--if guided by Keynesian economists--scientific and rational, able to act in the interests of all: Big Daddy government. When investors and consumers underspend, government can and should step in and increase social spending via deficits, thereby lifting the economy out of recession. When private animal spirits get too wild, government is supposed to step in and reduce private spending by what the Keynesians revealingly call "sopping up excess purchasing power" (that's ours).

The Euro crisis has hardly been founded from the issue of greed and fear, but of boom bust cycles.

Following massive imbalances acquired from the antecedent boom, market prices have been prevented from clearing or from seeking to adjust to the required levels that would allow resources to be transferred from unproductive to productive use. The discoordination and coordination mechanism of the marketplace have been impeded.

Yet the constant interventions that has sustained the current artificial price levels have led to mass distortions and market participants astray. So once the effect of interventions subsides or once markets discover the artificiality of such price levels, volatility ensues. Emotional transactions follow.

Hence, the distributive outcomes from a significantly politicized marketplace suggest of massive price distortions from repeated government interventions. This has been mistakenly construed or touted as fear. Those saying so have been misreading effects as the cause.

Political Insanity and the Devaluation Elixir

The mainstream has also been suggesting that the gold standard effect from the Eurozone Union, which prohibits internal devaluation of member states, has been a cause to this crisis. For me this represents as unalloyed hogwash[2].

While I agree that the EU needs to be dissolved because of the latent intention to politically centralize Euro economies such as the supposed need to fiscally integrate the EU, I oppose the idea of nationalizing currency for the sole purpose of inflationism via devaluation.

I will not elaborate on the evils of inflationism[3], but rather point out how ridiculous the assertion of supposedly allowing Greece, for instance, to devalue to become ‘competitive’.

Based on the average hourly labour costs in the business economy in 2009[4], Greece has been one of the cheapest among the peripheral EU states. Italy, Spain and Portugal are just within the range of Greece.

The cheaper labor costs (on the right) belong to those of emerging Europe.

And labor costs signify as part of labor market efficiency[5]

The crisis affected PIIGS also belong to the least competitive rankings[6] in terms of labor efficiency.

In other words, cheap labor did not translate to export greatness.

Thus, devaluation will hardly impact the competitiveness of the labor market because this does not treat the disease.

The disease which plagues the PIIGS are highlighted by the unfriendly business enviroment[7] caused by too much regulations and bureaucratic hurdles.

And importantly, by the intractable government expenditures[8] mostly from the welfare state as measured by the Fiscal Imbalances (FI)[9].

At the end of the day, those who yearn for a Zimbabwe solution to the Euro don’t have the intention of resolving the crisis but to promote the same ills that has blighted them.

No wonder Albert Einstein called—doing the same thing and expecting different results—insanity.

---

[1] Rothbard Murray N. Keynesianism Redux, Chapter 12, Making Economic Sense

[2] See Quote of the Day: A Very Expensive Education in Basic Economics, November 10, 2011

[3] See Vatican Banker Endorses ECB’s Inflationism November 24, 2011

[4] Euro Commission Wages and labour costs, Eurostat

[5] Financial-lib.com Labor efficiency variance: the number of hours actually worked minus the standard hours allowed for the production achieved multiplied by the standard rate to establish a value for efficiency (favorable) or inefficiency(unfavorable) of the work force

[6] Infectiousgreed.com Reforming Labor Markets, November 14, 2011

[7] Danske Research Euro Area Macro Handbook, November 2011

[8] Gokhale Jagadeesh Measuring the Unfunded Obligations of European Countries January 2009

[9] The fiscal imbalance (FI) measures the size of the total imbalance built into current fiscal policies, including future changes already scheduled by law. It is a country’s unfounded liability, looking indefinitely into the future. It is the difference between the present cost of continuing current government spending programs, including entitlement promises, present public debt, net of expected tax revenues. It is the amount of additional resources the government must have on hand today, invested and earning interest, in order to continue policies forever. Alternatively, it equals the additional net revenue or cost savings required from future policy adjustments to close the budeget gap embedded in current fiscal policies.

The FI is similar to outstanding public debt in one important way: It grows larger over time because of accruing interest costs. In addition fiscal policies that imply a positive FI are unsustainable: Because the ratio of FI to the present value of future GDP also grows larger over time, the implied annual service payments would eventually become larger than annual GDP

Ron Paul: Europe’s Bailout Threatens the US Dollar

Congressman Ron Paul shows us why paper money is about to meet its cataclysmic destiny: Voltaire’s curse. (bold highlights mine)

The global economic situation is becoming more dire every day. Approximately half of all US banks have significant exposure to the debt crisis in Europe. Much more dangerous for the US taxpayer is the dollar's status as reserve currency for the world, and the US Federal Reserve's status as the lender of last resort. As we've learned in recent disclosures, this has not only benefitted companies like AIG, the auto industry and various US banks, but multiple foreign central banks as they have run into trouble. Nothing has been solved, however, by offering up the productivity of Americans as a sacrificial lamb. Greece is set to be the first domino to fall in the string of European economies at risk. Rather than learning from Greece's terrible example of an over-consuming public sector and drowning private sector, what is more likely from our politicians is an eventual bailout of European investors.

The US has a relatively small exposure to overwhelmed Greek banks, but much larger economies in Europe are set to follow and that will have serious implications for US banks. Greece is technically small enough to bail out. Italy is not. Germany is not. France is not. It is estimated that US banks have over a trillion dollars tied up in at-risk German and French banks. Because the urge to paper over the debt with more credit is so strong, the collapse of the Euro is imminent. Will the Fed be held responsible if the Euro brings the US dollar down with it?

The most disingenuous aspect of the narrative about the European sovereign debt crisis is that entire economies will collapse if more resources are not bilked from productive people around the world. This is untrue. Tough times are coming for the banks, to be sure, but free people always find a way back to prosperity if the politicians leave them alone. Communities within Greece are coming together and forming barter systems because they know the Euro is becoming unstable. Greeks are learning how to engage in commerce with each other, without the use of fiat currency controlled by central banks. In other words, they are rediscovering what money really is, and they are trading with each other in ways that cannot be controlled, manipulated, squandered, inflated away and generally ruined by corrupt bankers and the politicians that enable them. Farmers will still grow food, mechanics will still fix cars, people will still make things and exchange them with each other. No banker, no politician can stop that by destroying one medium of exchange. People will find or create another medium of exchange.

Unfortunately when politicians try to monopolize currency with legal tender laws, the people find it harder and harder to survive the inflation and taxation to which they are subjected. Bankers should take their dreaded haircut rather than making innocent people pay for their mistakes. The losses should be limited and liquidated, rather than perpetuated and rewarded. This is the only way we can recover.

Government debt is often considered rock solid because it is backed by a government's ability to forcibly extract interest payments out of the public. The public is increasingly unwilling to be bilked to make bankers whole. The riots and the violence in Greece should tell us something about the sustainability of this system.

If we continue to bail out banks and bankers so they can continue to lose money, if we cavalierly put this burden on the taxpayer, it is all too predictable what will happen here.

Evidence where Greece has been seguing into a barter society (real news reporter)

As the Greek economy succumbs to the debt crisis and individual Greeks are made poorer each day through austerity measures and job cuts, many have begun resorting to traditional bartering as a way to make ends meet and at the same time increase their involvement with neighbors and their general community…

As we’ve suggested on previous occasions, when a country goes through a monetary crisis, depression or recession, traditional methods of income disappear, sometimes overnight. As a result, those who are aware that the paradigm has or is shifting and are willing to accept their new reality will prosper.

Greece, referred to by many as the canary in the coal mine of the ever-worsening global economic crisis, is a perfect example of how communities will respond during monetary, fiscal and political chaos. Use their example to your benefit, because similar circumstances will take place in the U.S. and other industrialized Western nations in due time.

Read New York Times’ coverage of the emerging Greek barter economy here

As one would note in the above table from Danske Bank, Greece’s welfare state and heavy regulatory regime has resulted to the stifling of entrepreneurship and the overdependence of bank-financed government which has resulted to this crisis. Greece ranks at the bottom of ease of doing business list.

The new reality of Greece's collapsing welfare state has been changing this dynamic, as people shift activities towards trade in the informal or underground economy.

Yet this serves as proof that inflationism (to save the bankers and the political class) isn’t the solution. Neither is mainstream's favorite proposed panacea: political or fiscal union. The answer lies in unleashing economic freedom.

Doing Business 2012: Philippines Ranking Down

The World Bank in conjunction with the International Financial Corporation recently released Doing Business 2012

Doingbusiness.org attempts to measure how business friendly an economy is.

A fundamental premise of Doing Business is that economic activity requires good rules—rules that establish and clarify property rights and reduce the cost of resolving disputes; rules that increase the predictability of economic interactions and provide contractual partners with certainty and protection against abuse. The objective is regulations designed to be efficient, accessible to all and simple in their implementation. In some areas Doing Business gives higher scores for regulation providing stronger protection of investor rights, such as stricter disclosure requirements in related-party transactions.

Doing Business takes the perspective of domestic, primarily smaller companies and measures the regulations applying to them through their life cycle. This year’s report ranks economies on the basis of 10 areas of regulation—for starting a business, dealing with construction permits, getting electricity, registering property, getting credit, protecting investors, paying taxes, trading across borders, enforcing contracts and resolving insolvency (formerly closing a business). In addition, data are presented for regulations on employing workers.

Here is the current ranking:

Unfortunately the Philippine fell two notches from 134 last year to 136th. Notice how ‘unfriendly’ the domestic business environment has been. The other implication is that the local business environment has been uncompetitive and requires a high hurdle rate to attract investors, which why jobs are inadequate.

Here is the measure of progress by 183 nations monitored by the institution.

For the Philippines, there has hardly been any progress from 2005. This implies that the deluge of media based politicking has resulted to little progress.

The only reform, doingbusiness.org has identified is the passing of a law on ‘Resolving insolvency’. Yet we don’t even know how ‘fair’ or ‘equitable’ and enforceable this law is.

Finally here is overall scorecard. Except for trading across the borders (globally ranked 51st) and getting electricity (54), most of the other metrics has been dismal: starting a business (158), dealing with construction permits (102), registering property (117), getting credit (123), protecting investors (133), paying taxes (136), enforcing contract (112) and resolving insolvency (163).

If there is any important lesson that can be gleaned from the above is that the Philippines political economy remains firmly hamstrung or plagued by the lack of property rights. Obviously, this has been the result of excessive politicking or overdependence on political resolution of socio-economic problems.

Filipinos hardly realize that politicians don’t care about our property rights, what they care about is the usurpation and the expansion of their political control and the privileges that accompanies this.

We can fantasize about so and so politician delivering us from our economic woes. However, economic reality will only persistently frustrate us, because there are NO miracles from redistributionist policies.

Forcibly taking resources from Pedro’s pockets and to give to Juan is not only a ZERO sum activity that leads to a waste of resources, but importantly also promotes a culture of sloth and dependency, which politicians and their media accomplices has been perennially parroting—control here, control there and control everywhere. Yet the only thing that needs controlling should be their loquacious economically abstract 'noble' sounding mouths.

Progress would have to come from our respect for property rights which serves as the foundation for economic freedom. Ultimately the path to progress starts from us, and not from politicians-a reality which most can't comprehend.

Philippines Small Business: Unfortunate Victims of Political Distribution

When, then, does plunder stop? It stops when it becomes more painful and more dangerous than labor. It is evident, then, that the proper purpose of law is to use the power of its collective force to stop this fatal tendency to plunder instead of to work. All the measures of the law should protect property and punish plunder.- Frédéric Bastiat

In a few hours the Philippine President, Benigno Aquino Jr. will be making his second state of the nation’s address (SONA).

Yet like most speeches, much of what we will likely hear will be founded on emotive platonic rhetoric, mostly founded on logical fallacies and empty promises whose solution would require expanded political redistribution and more control over the economy and the sacrifice of civil liberties.

And most likely, the important real factors will be glossed over.

Nevertheless, the following charts shows where the Philippines have gotten policies so wrenchingly astray.

The heart of any market economy is the small businesses.

In the US, small businesses have functioned as an indispensable force.

According to the US Small Business Association[1]

-Represent 99.7 percent of all employer firms.

-Employ just over half of all private sector employees.

-Pay 44 percent of total U.S. private payroll.

-Have generated 64 percent of net new jobs over the past 15 years.

-Create more than half of the nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).

-Hire 40 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer programmers).

-Are 52 percent home-based and 2 percent franchises.

-Made up 97.3 percent of all identified exporters and produced 30.2 percent of the known export value in FY 2007.

-Produce 13 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms; these patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

China’s majestic renaissance also shares the same dynamics

Ms. Lydia So of Matthews Asia writes[2], (bold emphasis mine)

With the diminishing dominance of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), China’s private sector is increasingly becoming an important driving force for economic growth. Over the past few decades, these private businesses have been a large contributor to providing consumer-oriented goods and services, generating employment, and leading to innovation as well as increased productivity in China. These changes didn’t occur overnight. A favorable business environment is essential in fostering entrepreneurship in any country. While entrepreneurs in China got a relatively "late" start compared to their global counterparts, its achievements and contributions in driving the private economy have been impressive. To date, small and medium enterprises (SMEs) have become the dominant growth driver and a critical source of China’s expanding and evolving economy. In 2007, SMEs accounted for 55% of GDP, 60% of China’s industrial output, 65% of patent registrations and 70% of employment in urban areas.

Now, in contrast, the Philippines have shown a tremendous decline in registered small and medium sized business over the past decade.

Such dismal outcome have been in place despite the so-called manifold government assistance via (chart above and quote from ADB[3])

extension of financial support, enhancement of managerial and technological capabilities, tapping domestic and international markets, streamlining systems and institutions, and providing infrastructure and incentives

We understand that small businesses have not entirely vanished but have mostly gone underground or have operated beyond formal government.

This we know or call the informal economy.

The chart above from the ADB[4] shows that 43.4% of the Philippine economy has been operating underground or informally.

The other way to say this is that 2/5 of the Philippine economy exists outside of the ambit of government.

The multifarious reasons for the existence of an informal economy as I earlier pointed out are[5]

-high taxes,

-high welfare payments (social security)

-restrictions, mandates in the official labor market

-minimum wages

-a smothering web of government regulations (license requirements, labor market regulations and trade barriers)

-compliance and other regulatory related costs

In other words, an overdose of government regulations and tax and welfare burdens has pushed small businesses out to operate in the informal economy which has surmounted any trivial incentives by the government to promote them. What the left hand giveth, the right hand taketh away!

The simple reason is that operating in the formal economy has been so politically and economically exacting whose cost benefit rewards informal operations. Talk about the Philippine government sowing the seeds of self destruction!

The ADB chart shows almost the same concerns.

Corruption, as expressed by the surveys, is seen as the fundamental problem.

Yet the public has been virtually deluded to think that the roots of corruption have been about all about personal virtuousness.

Little realize that corruption, inefficient government bureaucracy, inadequate supply of infrastructure, policy instability, tax regulations, crime and theft and tax rates or at least 84% of the aforementioned obstacles for doing business have all been intertwined. You can even count in coups, labor regulations, inflation and foreign currency regulations as part of this.

Many people (vendors) pay bribe money just to be able to operate the informal economy which makes corruption an informal way of governance too. Except that bribe money goes directly into the pockets of the enforcers than the coffers of the government.

Yet people hardly realize that all these obstacles are consequences of predatory laws, as governments have been all about the power to plunder others and not about moral uprightness[6].

I reprise my previous quotation of the legendary investor Doug Casey on corruption[7] (bold emphasis mine)

As Tacitus said in the second century A.D., "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws." It's absolutely predictable that as all these governments around the world – and I mean all of them – respond to the ongoing crisis with an ever-accelerating onslaught of new laws, there will be more and more corruption – and frustration with that corruption.

Tacitus was right. But he could just as accurately have said, "The more numerous the laws, the more corrupt the state," because lots of laws engender lots of corruption. In other words, corruption isn't the problem. The state and its laws are the problem, to which corruption is an unsavory and unaesthetic – but necessary – solution. Laws create corruption, and corruption engenders laws.

Anyone can operate on utopian illusions and fantasies, yet economic reality eventually prevails and slaps us in the face.

Don’t we ever realize why self appointed messiahs in uniforms always pop out somewhere with their reformist rhetoric[8] but whose goal is to only seize power?

Personality based politics which operates on the principle of plunder represents a vicious cycle that deals with the superficial or the symptom and won’t solve whatever ills we have.

The only way to improve the Filipinos’ standard of living is to adapt and promote economic freedom through the repeal of these byzantine arbitrary anti-competitive laws and regulations, by vastly reducing bureaucracy and government spending, by having an economic system based on sound money, by pruning political stranglehold over the economic distribution of resources, by promoting property rights and the upholding the sanctity of contract through the rule of law.

---

[1] SBA.gov How important are small businesses to the U.S. economy?

[2] So Lydia, China's New Generation of Entrepreneurs, Matthews International Capital Management July 1, 2011

[3] Paderanga, Jr. Cayetano W. Private Sector Assessment Philippines 2011 ADB.org

[4] Martinez-Vazquez Jorge, Taxation in Asia 2011 ADB.org

[5] See Does The Government Deserve Credit Over Philippine Economic Growth?, May 31, 2011

[6] See Video: The Myth of Good Government, July 23, 2011

[7] See Doug Casey On Corruption: Laws Create Corruption And Corruption Engenders Laws, February 10, 2011

[8] Inquirer.net Marine colonel calls for Aquino’s ouster, July 16, 2011

Do Filipinos Need a New Attitude on Entrepreneurship?

I received a promotional email for an entrepreneurship seminar which comes with a column from Brian Quebengco entitled “Championing Philippine Ideas: The Rise of Silicon Valley in the Philippines”

Mr. Quebengco writes, (no link included in the email),

It is not an evolution that we need, nor is it a revolution. Rather, what we need is a transformation. Since the glory days of Semi Conductors and the Filipino entrepreneurs that championed them, we have evolved a great deal up to our present state. And as we are witnessing right now, a revolution in technology and communication has made the world flat. But what is lacking, and I feel the most important, is for us, the individual Filipino, to transform our attitude and ways to give rise to the Filipino Entrepreneur. We don't need mechanisms, infrastructures, or even the presence of a strong venture capital community to do this. In my own view, business is about people first, and everything else second. That transformation must and can only start with the individual Filipino.

He further says entrepreneurs should be individually motivated which should permeate to culture and subsequently to infrastructure. And from this he advocates the promotion of “a new kind of Enterpreneur”, one who will “challenge the global arena”.

I am delighted that there are local experts advocating entrepreneurship which functions as the cornerstone for any market economy.

However, I would suggest that any “new kind of entrepreneur” hardly matches the operational concept of entrepreneurship.

Entrepreneurs are those who allocate factors of production (labor, capital goods and natural resources) in the service of consumers. (Mises wiki)

Further, entrepreneurs employ “discovery” or “alertness” to profit opportunities in scanning the market horizon which can bring about innovation, better quality of goods or services or cheaper prices. (Israel M. Kirzner)

So aside from Silicon Valley which he seems to see as a paradigm to emulate, homegrown entrepreneurs are the balut vendors, carinderia operators, laundry services and etc… to the bigwig who compete internationally like Jollibee, San Miguel Brewery and others.

Each of them offers specific goods or services to serve their consumers in return for profit opportunities. These voluntary exchanges constitute the free markets.

What I am trying to say is that the marketplace hardly operates on “new” entrepreneurs founded on “new attitudes” but rather on individual specialization.

As the great Austrian economist Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold emphasis mine)

The selection of the market does not establish social orders, castes, or classes in the Marxian sense. Nor do the entrepreneurs and promoters form an integrated social class. Each individual is free to become a promoter if he relies upon his own ability to anticipate future market conditions better than his fellow citizens and if his attempts to act at his own peril and on his own responsibility are approved by the consumers. One enters the ranks of the promoters by spontaneously pushing forward and thus submitting to the trial to which the market subjects, without respect for persons, everybody who wants to become a promoter or to remain in this eminent position. Everybody has the opportunity to take his chance. A newcomer does not need to wait for an invitation or encouragement from anyone. He must leap forward on his own account and must himself know how to provide the means needed.

It must be understood too that the entrepreneurship ethos is also hardly acquired from formal educational training.

Again from von Mises, (highlights added)

In order to succeed in business a man does not need a degree from a school of business administration. These schools train the subalterns for routine jobs. They certainly do not train entrepreneurs. An entrepreneur cannot be trained. A man becomes an entrepreneur in seizing an opportunity and filling the gap. No special education is required for such a display of keen judgment, foresight, and energy. The most successful businessmen were often uneducated when measured by the scholastic standards of the teaching profession. But they were equal to their social function of adjusting production to the most urgent demand. Because of these merits the consumers chose them for business leadership.

There is NO holy grail to successful entrepreneurship, as it takes sustained “keen judgment, foresight, and energy” to compete in the marketplace, even in the global arena.

What needs to be transformed is NOT the individual attitude towards entrepreneurship but rather the Filipinos’ seeming dependence on political means of dispensing economic opportunities.

In the environment where...

-taxes are high,

-red tapes are byzantine,

-bureaucracy is bloated

-regulatory compliance costs are numerous, time consuming and burdensome,

-corruption is rampant,

-competition is restricted,

-economic opportunities are distributed as political concessions (subsidies, monopolies, private-public partnership, cartel, and etc.)

-redistribution programs are plentiful (which essentially transfers productive resources to non-productive activities and at worst, induces people toward entitlements and subsequently takes away the drive for entrepreneurship)

-and many more,

...so even if most Filipinos would want to become entrepreneurs they can’t. That’ because the Philippine government (regardless of who is in power) prevents them from doing so. The cost of doing business or the risk premium is prohibitive enough to require high hurdle rates for entrepreneurs to generate decent returns.

All these signify as the Filipinos’ aversion to free markets which is what genuinely inhibits the Filipino entrepreneurial discovery process from taking hold.

Philippine Competitiveness: Cut Capital Income Taxes

Duanjie Chen and Jack Mintz writes, (special thanks to Cato's Chris Edwards for this)

Many industrial and emerging countries have reduced their corporate tax rates over the last decade or so. The largest rate cuts were in Austria, Bulgaria, Canada, the Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Turkey, Egypt, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Lesotho, Mauritius, and Singapore. America’s largest trading partner, Canada, cut its statutory corporate rate from 43 percent to 29 percent, which helped to bring down its effective rate from 44 percent to 21 percent, according to our calculations. Substantial cuts were also achieved in Australia, Belgium, China, Denmark, Finland, Korea, Luxembourg, Mexico, New Zealand, Taiwan, and the United Kingdom. Taiwan cut its statutory rate from 25 percent to 17 percent in 2010, and now has an effective rate of just 10.9 percent.

A number of countries are initiating or phasing-in further corporate tax-rate cuts in coming years, including Australia, Canada, Ecuador, Israel, Japan, New Zealand, and the United Kingdom. In some countries, such as Israel and Japan, these are straight rate cuts. In other countries, such as New Zealand and the United Kingdom, rate cuts are being paired with base-broadening measures. When these reforms are in place, the average effective tax rate in 2014 will be 18.0 percent in the OECD and 17.4 percent among all 83 countries.

Philippine corporate tax rate is at 32%.

It’s positive to note how the world has been trying to stay competitive by lowering tax rates. This has been consistent with the growth explosion of global trade.

I hope the trend continues in spite of the recent crisis. And it would certainly be positive if the Philippines joins this global bandwagon.

It’s one of the many things that can be done to incentivize capital formation, build on research and attract foreign direct investments that could lead to more jobs.

As a side note, I honestly detest the rubric “jobs”, but this has been the mainstream vernacular. I’d rather say “economic opportunities” which is where jobs come from anyway.

And I hope that politicians will stop diverting people’s attention over to education policies. Education hasn’t been the answer, a big number of unemployed have been college graduates. Instead, the Philippines need to be competitive.

Back to taxes, in the Philippines, on top of corporate taxes there are capital gains and final withholding taxes on dividends. So you have a double whammy on capital income. Is it not a wonder why investments are low? And the hurdle rate is high?

While my ideal scenario would be to abolish all these taxes, this isn’t likely to be politically palatable, so I would suggest to start with the reduction of corporate tax rate or get taxed once by abolishing either capital gains or the final withholding tax on dividends.

Of course, there are other many factors that could lead to competitiveness, such as repealing obstructive regulations and avoiding distortions from arbitrary interventions, but this would be a topic for another post.

Overall, competitiveness boils down to economic freedom.

Vietnam’s Relative Policy Success Is Mostly Premised On Less Interventionism

In a recent comment at a social web platform, a local politician commented that the reason for the marginal improvements in Vietnam relative to the Philippines had been due to the “effective implementation of their policy”.

While it is true that political policies serve as fundamental framework to social activities, the question that needs to be identified is the kind of policies involved and to what extent the so-called ‘effective implementation’ which results to positive externalities.

For instance, the politician further noted that domestic agricultural issues had signified as a seemingly timeless unresolved imbroglio which needs to be addressed. Unfortunately, he didn’t say how.

Yet in citing Vietnam, what was not elaborated was that the so-called the ‘effective policies’ in agriculture had been the decollectivization or privatization of agricultural lands which served as a crucial step in the transition to a market economy.

As World Bank’s Martin Ravallion and Dominique van de Wallel wrote,

Vietnam's land reform of 1988 abandoned the collective farming system that had been introduced in the 1960s. The 1988 Land Law and its key implementation directive-"Resolution 10"-gave individual households long-term use rights over the collectives' land and other resources. Four million hectares of land were thus scheduled for effective privatization.

Opaque generalized political statements frequently leads to confusion. Statements like this would seem mellifluous to hear for the economic ignorant, yet lack the teeth in terms of specific actions.

Essentially, the fundamental reason for the apparent relative policy success of Vietnam is because of the thrust towards trade liberalization or economic freedom, which implies less government interventionism or political meddling in distributing scarce resources. And this runs contrary to the intone of the local politician.

This from McKinsey Quarterly,

Vietnam began to liberalize its economy in the 1980s, when the country’s leaders launched doi moi (or “renovation”). It was only after President Clinton lifted the US trade embargo in 1994, though, that multinationals began to pile in. Since then, Vietnam has taken off. In 2007, it joined the World Trade Organization (WTO)—just in time for the global financial crisis. The country weathered the storm well, posting 5 percent growth in 2009.

The remarkable embrace of globalization by Vietnam has prompted for a sharp recovery from a once war ravaged economy.

The following chart from the KOF Index of Globalization

Vietnam has undertaken substantial steps to reduce bureaucratic red tape.

The following chart from World Bank’s Doing Business presentation

Vietnam has also reduced and streamlined taxes.

According to World Bank’s Doing Business 2010

Vietnam cut the corporate income tax rate from 28 percent to 25 percent and eliminated the surtax on income from the transfer of land. It also adopted a new enterprise income tax law and value added tax law. In addition, increasing competition in the logistics industry and the application of new customs administration procedures as part of the World Trade Organization (WTO) membership reform program have reduced trade delays.

So overall, the marginal edge Vietnam has over the Philippines isn’t because of more politics but because of MORE TRADE.

As one would note from the above illustration, Vietnam has surpassed the Philippines in attracting investments by reducing hurdles to investments or has made the political and legal environment more conducive to trade and investments.

And the following chart from Google’s Public data seems to corroborate this.

Vietnam’s external trade (% to GDP) has sharply surpassed the Philippines. (Caution: currency values appear less of an influence compared to ease of business environment)

Economics shapes politics.

It is true that Vietnam remains politically a one party authoritarian regime, where according to the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom, “political repression and the lack of respect for basic human rights remain serious concerns.”

Chart above from KOF Index of Globalization

Nevertheless if economic trends should continue to influence politics, political trends may also gradate towards more openness or democracy. But this isn’t certain, specially not over the near term, as Vietnam may be following China ‘dualistic’ model.

Meanwhile, economic freedom is also reflected on social freedom.

Again from KOF Index of Globalization

And here is more proof that Vietnam’s society have been integrating with the world, this from McKinsey Quarterly,

In 2009, the General Statistics Office estimated that Vietnam had 5 million Internet subscribers and 18 million Internet users. Those figures are impressive for a country at a relatively early stage of digital development, and other estimates suggest the number is even higher. In Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City, for instance, up to half of the population is now online, spending more than two hours a day, on average. Expenditures on digital marketing for the country as a whole, however, are still very low: only $15 million, according to Cimigo, a market research firm. As Mai Huong Hoang, the chairwoman of one of Vietnam’s leading advertising agencies, the local branch of Saatchi & Saatchi, noted, “TV is still king in Vietnam, because women are the decision makers in the family and they spend a lot of time watching TV.” However, recent McKinsey research in other emerging markets, such as China, India, and Malaysia, suggests that the pace of digital change can be rapid, especially with younger people. Therefore, businesses—particularly consumer goods companies—shouldn’t ignore digital media in their marketing plans.

Bottom line: “Effective policy implementation” means less political interventionism, where people will be incented to harness their innate talents and skills in an environment fertile for business growth.

In other words, Vietnam’s success formula has been the relatively more aggressive adaption of economic freedom compared to the Philippines.

And more politics won’t serve as the elixir to the Philippines’ dismal and lagging performance.

Profits And Social Responsibility

In a book review, the Economist hits the nail on the head.

``In poor countries the problem is not that businesses are unethical but that there are too few of them.”

More from the Economist, (bold highlights mine)

Ann Bernstein, the head of a South African think-tank called the Centre for Development and Enterprise, thinks that advocates of corporate social responsibility (CSR) tend to miss this point. In her new book, “The Case for Business in Developing Economies”, she stresses the ways companies benefit society simply by going about their normal business. In a free and competitive market, firms profit by selling goods or services to willing customers. To stay in business, they must offer lower prices or higher quality than their competitors. Those that fail disappear. Those that succeed spread prosperity. Shareholders receive dividends. Employees earn wages. Suppliers win contracts. Ordinary people gain access to luxuries that would have made Cecil Rhodes gasp, such as television, air-conditioning and antibiotics.

These are not new arguments, but Ms Bernstein makes them fresh by writing from an African perspective. Citizens of rich countries often fret about the occasional harm that corporations do, yet take for granted the prosperity they create. People in developing countries do not have that luxury.

If you pay heed to the mainstream, you’d have the impression that “labor costs” ultimately determines economic activities. Hence, the undeserved fixation towards currency values.

Of course in real life this is only fractionally true.

Economic activities are mainly about business enterprises seeking to serve consumers in return for the prospects of profits, where labor costs signify as one of the many factors or inputs necessary to produce a service or a good.

What ultimately determines profitability are respect for property rights and the rule of law which serves as the cornerstone for free trade to exist.

While the Economist article assails the issue of corporate social responsibility, the implied message is that poor countries have not sufficiently been exposed to competition for the anti-business environment reasons mostly out of the prevailing political or legal regime.

On the other hand, what needs to be understood is that profits are not necessarily “selfish”.

Since businesses are mostly established towards achieving long term relationships, profits have inherent social responsibility aspects such as maintaining or enhancing social relationships via charitable actions (donations and charities) or even addressing environmental concerns.

As Murray N. Rothbard wrote, (bold emphasis mine)

Whereas the opportunity for voluntary charity acts as a spur to production by the able, coerced charity acts as a drain and a burden upon production. In fact, in the long run, the greatest “charity” is precisely not what we know by that name, but rather simple, “selfish” capital investment and the search for technological innovations. Poverty has been tamed by the enterprise and the capital investment of our ancestors, most of which was undoubtedly done for “selfish” motives. This is a fundamental illustration of the truth enunciated by Adam Smith that we generally help others most in those very activities in which we help ourselves.

Hence, capitalism equates to mutually beneficial actions.

The Brain Drain Nonsense

In reading media, it’s just amazing how incurably specious their treatment of social issues are.

Take for example the recent issue on supposed “brain drain”. It’s been emphasized that the Philippines appears to be helpless in the exodus of manpower as a result of demand from abroad.

This from the Inquirer.net,

Scientists, engineers, doctors, IT specialists, accountants and even teachers are among the English-speaking talent heading to foreign lands, leaving the government and private companies scrambling to find replacements.

"There is a skills haemorrhage. We are losing workers in the highly professional and skilled categories," Vicente Leogardo, director-general of the Employers' Confederation of the Philippines, told Agence France-Presse.

While they (government and business groups) don’t exactly say it (as this would construed as politically incorrect since OFWs are now an important political force!), the undertone suggests that these should be stopped. How? By Fiat!

I may be wrong but the following seems to be a clue.

More from the same article, (emphasis mine)

The government has been seeking ways to upgrade salaries and benefits, according to Myrna Asuncion, assistant director of the government's economic planning department.

"But local salaries can only go up by so much before they start hurting the competitiveness of local industries," Asuncion told AFP.

"We want to provide employment opportunities in the Philippines but there are some sectors that say salaries are already too high," she said.

You see the problem?

On the supply side, these anecdotes only reveal that the government and Filipino companies are “afraid” or "reluctant" to engage in market competition by paying market rates for these skills. With foreign companies willing to pay local skilled workers enough to tilt the latter’s (cost benefit tradeoffs) choice, thus, they decry the “brain drain”.

In short, this is simply demand and supply or Economics 101 at work.

Of course, media, politicians and their coterie (business interest groups, politically blind academicians and experts) loathe demand and supply. They believe in Santa Claus or free lunch economics.

And here are very important factors which they don’t say:

From TradingEconomics.com

First of all, they don’t tell you that the lowered standards of living have been the result of past collective policies that has resulted to inflation or the loss of purchasing power of the Peso.

Over the years, this has significantly contributed to the reduction of competitiveness. Think capital flight.

Chart from the BSP

Next, they don’t tell you that a lower Peso (falling from an exchange rate against the US dollar at 2 in the 1960s to 55 in 2005) doesn’t necessarily fuel an export-industry boom.

So policy manipulations (such as welfarism) to diminish the Peso’s worth only sustains distortions in the economic system, via protectionism -which favors select political groups (think cronyism). And these exacerbate the outflows of labor force.

In other words, protectionism is mostly a zero sum game and hardly contributes to goods-services value formation.

Chart from the OECD

Another, from the demand side, the demographic imbalances or falling fertility rates in developed economies will sustain the need for labor manpower from emerging markets. And the Philippines given the current political economic setting is likely to be a major participant for a long time.

Importantly, with increasing technology based globalization, skilled jobs will be a major contribution to the “labor” aspect of globalization.

Chart from the TradingEconomics.com

Essentially the so-called “brain drain” is a symptom of an underlying disorder.

And one of the primary variable is lack of desire to compete.

So even at relatively low wages (compared to OECD), the market’s response to price signals set by the downtrodden Peso have been undercut by the regulatory, bureaucratic, legal, (property rights) and tax environment.

According to Trading Economics, ``The Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations) in Philippines was reported at 141.00 in 2008, according to the World Bank. In 2009, the Philippines Ease of doing business index (1=most business-friendly regulations) was 144.00. Ease of doing business index ranks economies from 1 to 181, with first place being the best. A high ranking means that the regulatory environment is conducive to business operation.”

The Philippines is shown as one of the world’s least business friendly environments in the world, thus, resonating the signs of refusal to adjust to the global market climate. Instead, these interest groups seek political cover—which doesn’t change the nature of economics.

Finally, it’s equally nonsense to imply that brain drain will suck out the heck out of our skilled workers. This will only be true if you think the Philippines is immune to the basic laws of economics.

Why?

Because price signals say supply will adjust to demand!

Chart from TradingEconomics.com

Exploding remittances and net migration trend reveals how these dynamic would unfold.

The fertile population of the Philippines should “naturally” respond to these dynamic by having more Filipino youth take on more specialized courses that would meet global demand. Hence restrictions on these adjustments should be avoided.

Unless Filipinos are daft, which I don’t think we are, except in the eyes of politicians and media, I trust that the law of economics would prompt “brain drain” to result to a net positive benefit for the Philippine society, because it is a purposeful choice made by millions of individuals (our countrymen) in response to the current environment.

If we truly want to reverse “brain drain”, then we need to build capital.

And how do we that?

By sloughing off protectionism, cronyism, paternalism and embracing competition, free trade and economic freedom.

As Ludwig von Mises once wrote,

Under a system of completely free trade, capital and labor would be employed wherever conditions are most favorable for production. Other locations would be used as long as it was still possible to produce anywhere under more favorable conditions. To the extent to which, as a result of the development of the means of transportation, improvements in technology, and more thorough exploration of countries newly opened to commerce, it is discovered that there are sites more favorable for production than those currently being used, production shifts to these localities. Capital and labor tend to move from areas where conditions are less favorable for production to those in which they are more favorable.

That’s what media and the mainstream won’t likely tell you.

Update:

Outside business administration the major growth area in Philippine education is practically where the skilled exports has been taking place (red arrows)--namely, Medical Sciences (strongest), Math and computers sciences and engineering (growing but variable), that's from NSCB data (see below)

Bottom line: The law of economics works!