Is Hong Kong’s Free Economy a Myth?

Hong Kong has been known as the freest economy in the world.

But skeptics argue that such claims may not be accurate as Hong Kong’s capitalist political economy may have been shadowed by cronyism.

Writes Eddie Leung and Pepe Escobar at the Asia Times,

For the Heritage Foundation is a matter of routine to rank Hong Kong as the freest economy in the world - with a whopping overall score of 89.9 compared with a world average of 59.5. This Milton-Friedmanesque paradise is extolled for "small government, low taxes and light regulation".

Much is made of "business freedom" and "labor freedom". True - you can open a business in three days; you just need a Hong Kong ID, a form and US$350. But depending on the business, you will be squeezed by monopolies and oligopolies in no time. And if you are "labor", chances are in most cases you can only aspire to some sort of glorified slavery.

Heritage researchers may be excused for losing the plot between dinners at the Mandarin Oriental and partying in Lan Kwai Fong, both favored drinking and dining spots near the central business district. Behind all those luxury malls and the best bottles of Margaux, real life Hong Kong has absolutely nothing to do with a free economy encouraging competition on a level playing field. It's more like a rigged game.

The dark secret at the heart of Hong Kong is the unmitigated collusion between the government and a property cartel - controlled by just a few tycoons; the Lis, the Kwoks, the Lees, the Chengs, the Pao and Woo duo, and the Kadoories (more about them on part 2 of this report). These tycoons and their close business associates also happen to dominate seats on the 1,200-member Election Committee that chooses Hong Kong's chief executive…

We should be back again to a Chinese maxim: land is power. All the conglomerates controlled by Hong Kong tycoons are fattened on owning land. The local government is the sole supplier of land. So no wonder it keeps a vested interest in the property market - and that's a huge understatement - as it pockets fortunes from land sales and premiums on so-called "lease modifications".

As for the maxim that prevails across the city's property market cycles, it's always been the same: "Buy low and sell high".

Read the rest here.

Hong Kong has certainly not been an ideal laissez faire economy as no country in this world has been.

But rankings of economic freedom, whether by Heritage Foundation or by the Fraser Institute, has been relatively established and have not been measured on absolute terms.

It is also important to note that for as long as the distribution of any resources are politically determined, the natural outcome will be one of collusion, horse trading, favoritism and corruption.

Virtuous or moral government is an illusion more than Hong Kong’s free economy is a myth.

Government officials are human beings too limited by knowledge problem, cognitive biases, value preferences (determined by education, religion, culture, ideologies, family values and etc…), peer pressure, social standings, career ambitions and etc...

While some of Hong Kong’s wealthiest may have made their fortunes from cronyism (or politicized real estate policies), the above critics who resort to claims of “oligopolies and monopolies” that leads to “high prices land policy” and “glorified slavery” fails to recognize that Hong Kong’s property boom has also been influenced by the US Federal Reserve policies via the US dollar peg.

Also Asia’s increasing social mobility has been an influence to Hong Kong’s property market.

Hong Kong has been the second hottest property market in the world according to MSNBC.com

The growing wealth of mainland Chinese, coupled with China’s property restrictions, has led to an influx of mainland buyers into Hong Kong’s residential market in recent years. According to industry estimates, three in 10 deals in Hong Kong’s luxury property markets are done by mainland Chinese buyers.

Property restrictions too add to the politicization of Hong Kong’s real estate market.

Finally the above authors seem to have misunderstood the meaning of competition by which they ascribe to flawed neo-classical concepts of oligopolies and monopolies through “captive markets” or “limited competition”.

Let me quote the explanation of Austrian economist Dr. George Reisman (bold emphasis mine)

Actual price competition is an omnipresent phenomenon in a capitalist economy. But it is completely unlike the kind of pricing envisioned by the doctrine of "pure and perfect competition." It is not the product of a mass of short-sighted, individually insignificant little chiselers, each of whom acts to cut his price in the hope that his action won't be noticed by any of the others. The real-life competitor who cuts his price does not live in a rat's world, hoping to scurry away undetected with a morsel of the cheese of thousands of other rats, only to find that they too have been guided by the same stupidity, with the result that all have less cheese.

The competitor who cuts his price is fully aware of the impact on other competitors and that they will try to match his price. He acts in the knowledge that some of them will not be able to afford the cut, while he is, and that he will eventually pick up their business, as well as a major portion of any additional business that may come to the industry as a whole as the result of charging a lower price. He is able to afford the cut when and if his productive efficiency is greater than theirs, which lowers his costs to a level they cannot match.

The ability to lower the costs of production is the base of price competition. It enables an efficient producer who lowers his prices, to gain most of the new customers in his field; his lower costs become the source of additional profits, the reinvestment of which enables him to expand his capacity. Furthermore, his cost-cutting ability permits him to forestall the potential competition of outsiders who might be tempted to enter his field, drawn by the hope of making profits at high prices, but who cannot match his cost efficiency and, consequently, his lower prices. Thus price competition, under capitalism, is the result of a contest of efficiency, competence, ability.

Price competition is not the self-sacrificial chiseling of prices to "marginal cost" or their day by day, minute by minute adjustment to the requirements of "rationing scarce capacity." It is the setting of prices perhaps only once a year — by the most efficient, lowest-cost producers, motivated by their own self-interest. The extent of the price competition varies in direct proportion to the size and the economic potency of these producers. It is firms like Ford, General Motors and A & P — not a microscopic-sized wheat farmer or sharecropper — that are responsible for price competition. The price competition of the giant Ford Motor Company reduced the price of automobiles from a level at which they could be only rich men's toys to a level at which a low-paid laborer could afford to own a car. The price competition of General Motors was so intense that firms like Kaiser and Studebaker could not meet it. The price competition of A & P was so successful that the supporters of "pure and perfect competition" have never stopped complaining about all the two-by-four grocery stores that had to go out of business.

I agree that there have been accounts of cronyism in Hong Kong. But Hong Kong’s largely open economy has also been materially influenced by external forces (monetary transmission and mainland immigration and or speculation), focusing on one at the expense of the other only exposes of analytical bias and would signify a big mistake.

Thus to conclude that Hong Kong’s political economy has veered towards an oligarchic-monopolistic environment would “currently” seem exaggerated as there has been little evidence of the deficiency of price competition in the context of the promotion of efficiency, competence and ability.

I say “current” because Hong Kong seems to have taken the slippery slope towards China’s mixed economy (by the introduction of minimum wages) which may change the incumbent political economic setting.

Hong Kong may not be a laissez faire or classical liberal paradise, but relatively speaking, I don’t think that Hong Kong’s free market has been a myth, especially not when compared to the Philippines.

US Social Mobility Hamstrung by Taxes and the Welfare State

One principal reason to expect future default and high interest rate environment can be seen from the micro level.

In the US, the repressive tax regime and the welfare state has deepened the public’s incentive to become unproductive and dependent on the government which comes at the expense social mobility.

Writes the Business Insider, (hat tip Sovereign Man) [bold added]

Upward mobility has been a foundation of America’s self-image since the 18^th century.

If you work hard enough, nothing can stop you from getting ahead. That, at least in the minds of many Americans, is what distinguishes us from much of the rest of the world.

Yet, according to my always-provocative Tax Policy Center colleague Gene Steuerle, our tax and spending priorities not only fail to promote mobility for those who are starting at the bottom, but they often actively discourage the hard work and savings that help us climb the socio-economic ladder.

Oh, the federal budget is loaded with subsidies that encourage work and savings. But they are almost always aimed at improving the lot of middle- and upper-income households, not those who most need a leg up.

In testimony last week to the Senate Finance Committee, Gene estimated that of the nearly $750 billion in mobility-enhancing tax and spending programs in 2006, $540 billion–or nearly three-quarters– went to higher income households. Those with low-incomes received only about 2 percent of the benefit of subsidies for home ownership and almost none of the benefit of employer-related work subsidies or incentives for savings and investment.

Some of these programs not only fail to help poor and lower middle-class households, they actively hurt them. For instance, if home ownership is a key to upward mobility (an arguable proposition, but one many believe), we need to acknowledge that subsidies such as the mortgage interest deduction inflate home prices and make it harder, not easier, for poor families to buy.

Worse than that, Gene argues, once low-income households reach poverty level, government policy discourages work. True, social welfare programs provide a valuable safety net for the very poor. For instance, the Earned Income Tax Credit and the Child Tax Credit are important income supports for low-income families.

But because these safety net programs phase out as incomes rise, some people face marginal tax rates as high as 80 percent for getting a better job or even a raise. A new Urban Institute calculator shows how this works.

With a budget that encourages consumption rather than work and savings, the gap between the American Dream of unfettered mobility and the reality will only widen, Gene fears. His solution: Rethink those tax subsidies and spending programs that too often hinder mobility, paradoxically in the name of enhancing it.

A deepening of the socio-political parasitical relationship will come with great costs. Such will be vented not only in the political economy but likewise on the financial markets.

A Global Migration U-Turn?

In the past, people from developing countries flocked to developed nations mostly to find greener pastures. Such flow of migration caused controversial social issues as the mythical “brain drain”, “immigration restrictions” and etc..

As pointed out before, this trend seems to be in reversal.

From Gillian Tett of the Financial Times, (bold highlights added) [hat tip Sovereign Man]

It is a telling little indication of how the world is being subtly turned on its head, amid the rolling crises. During the past five decades, if anybody has been packing their bags to travel overseas to send remittances home, it has typically been the Brazilians, or other “emerging markets” peoples, not the developed Europeans. In recent years, Spain and Portugal have been pulling in vast quantities of migrant workers, both skilled and unskilled, as Poles and other eastern European workers have flooded to places such as the UK and Ireland. America has sucked even larger numbers of migrants, not just from Brazil but from other parts of South America. A couple of months ago, for example, the Pew Hispanic Center (PHC) in America released a fascinating report which calculated that 12 million immigrants have moved from Mexico to the US in the past four decades alone, to seek jobs and cash. “The US today has more immigrants from Mexico alone – 12.0 million – than any other country in the world has from all countries of the world,” the PHC report observed, noting that in absolute terms “no country has ever seen as many of its people immigrate to this country as Mexico has in the past four decades.”

Yet these days the most fascinating detail of the PHC report, which echoes that Boston lunch, is that a change is afoot. Last year “the net migration flow from Mexico to the United States has stopped and may have reversed,” it says, for the first time since records began.

Part of the explanation is “the weakened US job and housing construction markets, heightened border enforcement, a rise in deportations,” along with “the growing dangers associated with illegal border crossings and the long-term decline in Mexico’s birth rates”. But another issue is the improved “broader economic conditions in Mexico”. Life south of the border, in other words, is no longer quite as grim as it was before, or not relative to the risks of moving to the US.

Sadly, there is surprisingly little comparable data for other immigration flows. As Ian Goldin, an Oxford academic, has long lamented, the world lacks any centralised system to track migration flows in a timely way, let alone devise policies. Thus we do not really know how many young Portuguese or Spanish are seeking jobs in Latin America now (although Reuters reports that around 328,000 Portuguese hold work permits for Brazil, 50,000 more than last year, it is unclear whether these have been exercised). Nor is it clear how many Poles are returning to their homeland from the UK or Ireland, as austerity bites there; or how many young Irish may now be seeking their fortunes overseas (yet again). While I have recently heard plenty of anecdotes at American dinner parties and conferences about how young American graduates are becoming so disillusioned with their jobs markets that they are moving “temporarily” to Brazil or India, tracking data on that American flux – if it exists – is hard.

The other unmentioned factors are the repressive measures undertaken by governments of developed economies to forcibly wring out resources from the private sector, only to transfer them to crony or pet industries of the political class, that has led to sharp deterioration in investments and thus reduced employment opportunities.

Such is aside from the explicit policies of currency devaluation (or inflationism) by developed nations, that has caused boom bust cycles and thus reduced their respective standards of living. Example, the net worth of US families fell by almost 40% between 2007-2010

A reversal of the poor to rich global migration trend are manifestations of the wealth convergence dynamic.

Quote of the Day: Importance of Human Capital

How important is this human capital? According to recent estimates, the stock of human capital is over $750 trillion. According to a research report from JP Morgan called “U.S. Recession and Repression Are Only in Our Minds,” this is much greater than the roughly $70 trillion of physical and financial assets owned by American households.

As important as human capital is to economic success, it is not evenly distributed around the world. There is ample human capital already in the United States, but there are also enormous stocks of human capital—and potential capital—found overseas.

That’s from Nick Schulz who argues for the opening of skilled immigration in the US. [hat tip Professor Arnold Kling]

The way to enhance human capital is through economic freedom.

Economic freedom is not just about trade freedom, but also of freedom of movements (or social mobility)—where people can choose places on where to live and work or do business.

A liberal migration environment provides greater chances for people to discover on their abilities and to work on these for them to realize their fullest potentials as productive citizens.

And increasing human capital translates to a deepening society’s division of labor which should mean better chances to attain economic prosperity, as well as, social stability.

Also a liberal migration environment that would allow people to vote with their feet, would compel governments to become competitive and increasingly foster receptiveness to civil liberties which likewise reduces repressive political actions.

Migration Trends: The Coming European Diaspora?

Past performance does not guarantee future results. This is not just about Wall Street, as long term trends do change in many aspects of social activities.

Take migration trends, what used to be popular—where citizens of emerging markets migrate to western nations—could now be in a process of reversal: Western people are leaving for Emerging Markets. 

After all, what usually drives social mobility is the search for greener pasture or about following the money.

We get this clue from this Wall Street Journal article (hat tip Bob Wenzel)

Economic distress is driving tens of thousands of skilled professionals from Europe, and many are being lured to thriving former European colonies in Latin America and Africa, reversing well-worn migration patterns. Asia and Australia, as well as the U.S. and Canada, are absorbing others leaving the troubled euro zone.

At the same time, an influx of Third World immigrants whose labor helped fuel Europe's growth over the past decade is subsiding. Hundreds of thousands of them, including some white-collar professionals, have been returning home.

The exodus is raising concern about a potential long-term cost of the economic crisis—a talent drain that could hinder the euro zone's weakest economies as they struggle to climb out of recession.

Talk about talent drain or brain drain is utter nonsense.

As the WSJ reports, the principal reason for the reversal of migration trends has been because of the lack or absence of economic opportunities. And this has been because of excessive welfare state, interventionism, bailouts of pet industries of politicians and boom bust policies which has been consuming capital and diverting resources to non-productive activities.

In short, brain or talent drain are symptomatic of failed government policies. 

More account of people in Europe voting with their feet, again from the same article.

During a prosperous decade that ended in 2008, Spain welcomed one of the world's biggest waves of immigrants. Foreign workers poured in at a rate of 500,000 per year to boost its construction and service industries, making the country Europe's prime destination for new arrivals.

Last year, with unemployment topping 20%, Spain became a net exporter of people for the first time since 1990, according to Spain's National Statistics Institute. Some 55,626 more people left the country in the first nine months of last year than arrived, the institute said.

Spaniards are scattering to better-off European countries and beyond, particularly to Latin America. Of the estimated 37,000 Spanish citizens who left the country in 2010, nearly 60% emigrated to countries outside the European Union.

At least 100,000 of Portugal's 11 million citizens moved abroad in 2011, after a decade of anemic growth and rising debt in Western Europe's poorest nation. In Africa, Angola's burgeoning economy has absorbed 70,000 Portuguese since 2003, according to the government-backed Emigration Observatory in Lisbon.

The number of Portuguese in Brazil on work-related visas shot up by 52,000 in the 18 months through June 2011.

Brazil is profiting from Europe's decline. It is wooing foreign engineers and other construction-related specialists to help carry out housing, energy and infrastructure projects for which the government has budgeted $500 billion through 2014, more than double Portugal's annual gross domestic product.

As one can observe what seems as a talent drain for Europe is now a talent gain for emerging markets.

People respond to changes in the environment and the political economy without directions from the government. Instead they are reacting to failed policies.

And allowing for social mobility will only force governments to compete for the most productive members of any society, as well as, force governments to become more competitive by embracing economic freedom. But of course this would be bad news for politicians, their cronies and their media cohorts..

Finally, the north south migration trends could just be the beginning

More from the same article…

With Europe's crisis and Brazil's boom, migration patterns are shifting again.

Brazilians are coming home in epic numbers. The government estimates that nearly half the country's émigrés have returned—from more than 3 million Brazilians living abroad in 2007 to fewer than 2 million today.

Again more evidence of the deepening wealth convergence dynamic borne out of globalization and the ballooning forces of decentralization relative to the baneful effects from the decadent welfare state.

Interesting times indeed.

Restricting Social Mobility Equals Poverty

Economist Bill Easterly commenting on the incidences of ghost towns in the US makes a point where restriction of social mobility leads to impoverishment.

I quote Bill Easterly, (bold highlights mine)

What if we had a law that everybody had to stay in their home state? What if North Dakotans had to stay in North Dakota despite the collapsing economy there? Then wages would collapse and we would have very poor North Dakotans. Happily no one would dream of such a stupid law. Instead we have middle class North Dakotans moving to other places voluntarily, where employers want to hire them voluntarily. And so (former) North Dakotans stay middle class.

For states…but not for countries. We treat migration usually as a non-option if Zambia has an economic decline, so Zambians stay there and get even poorer as the economy declines.

This is the great point made by Lant Pritchett in a classic article and in a CGD book. Why can’t we start treating Zambians like North Dakotans? If their home economy is declining, let them move to other places voluntarily, where employers want to hire them voluntarily. Why do we recognize the right to live wherever you want for North Dakotans and not for Zambians?

I guess the Philippines should be a worthy example.

Had many of our countrymen (kababayan) been prohibited from finding greener pastures around the globe, then we’d be worst off economically considering the relatively unfree political and economic environment that continues to beleaguer us.

That’s why anyone who claims that the exodus of people results to “brain drain” is no less than prescribing poverty for us.

Regional share of Philippine remittances (ADB)

Bottom line:

Freedom should encompass people’s mobility or to move around or migrate in accordance with their perceived interests.

We should allow people to come in, in as much as to go out. Where free markets is about voting with money on products and services, freedom of movement is about voting with the feet.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote, (bold highlights mine)

The principles of freedom, which have gradually been gaining ground everywhere since the eighteenth century, gave people freedom of movement. The growing security of law facilitates capital movements, improvement of transportation facilities, and the location of production away from the points of consumption. That coincides, not by chance, with a great revolution in the entire technique of production and with drawing the entire earth's surface into world trade, The world is gradually approaching a condition of free movement of persons and capital goods. A great migration movement sets in. Many millions left Europe in the nineteenth century to find new homes in the New World, and sometimes in the Old World also. No less important is the migration of the means of production: capital export. Capital and labor move from territories of less favorable conditions of production to territories of more favorable conditions of production.

Maria Lourdes Aragon: Another Celebrity Sensation From Globalization?

Just like Charice Pempengco and Journey’s Arnold Pineda before her, Canadian based 10 year old Filipina Maria Lourdes Aragon looks likely the next celebrity sensation as a result of the web enhanced globalization evolution.

This from OMG.yahoo

Lady Gaga was overcome with emotion after a video of a 10-year-old fan performing a flawless rendition of "Born This Way" hit the internet and Access caught up with Maria Lourdes Aragon to bring you all the details on this budding web sensation! …

Thanks to the wonders of modern technology, the Grammy Award-winning singer saw Maria's video tribute less than 24 hours after the young fan had posted it. Gaga then re-Tweeted the video to her followers early Thursday, writing, "Can't stop crying watching this. This is why I make music. She is the future."

The reason I have been pressing on this is to demonstrate how the web has virtually cut the geographical distance and directly connected people or increased social interactions without the traditional layers that would have limited discovery and access to required information.

And this isn’t just in seen in celebrities. Goods and services and most importantly ideas have likewise fluxed in such a horizontal manner where knowledge, which used to be localized, has now been globalized. In terms of knowledge, the world is now everyone’s oyster.

And this is why, in contrast to the obstinate views of top-down analysts and the ideological neo-luddites, the unprecedented spread of the People Power phenomenon in the Middle East and Africa, have caught almost everyone by surprise.

The internet, like the printing press, has and will serve as the most critical instrument for the spread of the Hayekian knowledge revolution or Alvin Toffler’s Third wave, as epitomized by the newly discovered celebrities bypassing traditional talent recruitment channels or as seen in the People Power near synchronous phenomenon in MENA.

These are structural changes occurring at the fringes which people hardly notices (yes they see the changes but they hardly understand its mechanics and implications).

Like it or not, these changes will inevitably shape our future (commerce, lifestyle, culture and politics).

Will Falling Population (Demographic Time Bomb) Lead To A Reversal Of Globalization?

Lately I have encountered several commentaries suggesting that the “demographic time bomb” (falling population) will pose a risk to globalization by creating imbalances that would lead to political upheavals.

Here are two:

From Neil Howe and Richard Jackson in Global Aging And The Crisis Of The 2020's (bold emphasis mine)

“Rising pension and health care costs will place intense pressure on government budgets, potentially crowding out spending on other priorities, including national defense and foreign assistance. Economic performance may suffer as workforces gray and rates of savings and investment decline. As societies and electorates age, growing risk aversion and shorter time horizons may weaken not just the ability of the developed countries to play a major geopolitical role, but also their will.”

From Morgan Stanley’s Spyros Andreopoulos and Manoj Pradhan in ‘Ten for the Teens’(bold emphasis mine)

“The increase in macro instability comes at a time of major demographic transition in most DM and many EM economies. As populations become older, the demand for economic security - stable jobs, pensions - increases. This tension between higher instability and increased demand for security is likely to find its political expression in a backlash against globalisation. So far, the benefits of globalisation - higher income levels for most, i.e., the large middle class - have outweighed its drawbacks - increased competition and job instability. This has kept the globalisation show on the road until now. As this balance tips because the preferences of the middle class shift towards more security/stability, globalisation is likely to stall or reverse.”

There seems to be two separate issues here: unsustainable welfare states and globalization.

However the comments above attempt to make a connection which, for me, looks tenuous and confusingly premised on the fallacious ‘aggregate demand’.

Protectionism Equals Security?

Here is how I understand this: stripped out of the spending capacity due to old age, and with a government hobbled by fiscal straitjacket, the lack of demand (from both the private and the public) means slower economic growth which likewise would extrapolate to a political milieu that shifts from risk appetite (globalization) towards demand for ‘security and stability’ (protectionism), or in short, political stress.

For instance the Morgan Stanley tandem does an incredible turnaround, ``So far, the benefits of globalisation - higher income levels for most, i.e., the large middle class - have outweighed its drawbacks - increased competition and job instability. This has kept the globalisation show on the road until now.”

Are they suggesting that people who benefited from globalization will eventually bite the proverbial hand that feeds them? Are they suggesting too that people will see “security and stability” from lower incomes?

Will protectionism or restricting market activities make goods and services needed by the ageing society abundant and affordable? To the contrary, protectionism will only highlight on the shortages and the exorbitance of these economic goods that should lead to even more instability.

Murray N. Rothbard refuted this age old fallacy, he explained, (bold highlights mine)

It is difficult to see how a decline in population growth can adversely affect investment. Population growth does not provide an independent source of investment opportunity. A fall in the rate of population growth can only affect investment adversely if

-All the wants of existing consumers are completely satisfied. In that case, population growth would be the only additional source of consumer demand. This situation clearly does not exist; there are an infinite number of unsatisfied wants.

-The decline would lead to reduced consumer demand. There is no reason why this should be the case. Will not families use the money that they otherwise would have spent on their children for other types of expenditures?

Thus the problem of declining population can be helped by accepting immigrants or adopting to greater social mobility or the globalization of labor and by even more free trade.

We shouldn’t underestimate how people adjust to the new realities from the current underlying conditions. Importantly, we shouldn’t write off productivity of the senior citizens too (why? see below).

Illusion Or Reality?

Next would be the issue of welfare states. Once society realizes that the welfare state has been unsustainable, will people fight violently to retain the status quo (even if this is recognized as not possible) or will they cope up with the new reality?

The former would fall as part of the entitlement mentality engendered by excessive dependency or the moral hazard from political distribution while the latter will likely result from the realization that there’s no free lunch.

And perhaps in the realization that bellicosity won’t further society’s interests, they may opt for the latter (accepting harsh reality) than the former (live in a charade). And any political tensions from the succeeding reforms would signify as symptoms of ‘resistance to change’ than from a key reversal of political sentiment.

In the context of abrupt political-economic transitions from a crisis, Iceland’s violent riots from her financial crash of 2008 didn’t mechanically translate to close door ‘security’ based policies, as Iceland remains “moderately” economic free (44^th), according to Heritage Foundation, even as the crisis did have some negative impact on her economic freedom ratings (due to higher taxes and government spending).

From Heritage Foundation

The point is that the notion that crisis will instigate a radical reversal of people’s sentiment from openness to protectionism seems likely misguided.

Today, Iceland has shown signs economic recovery and has even applied to join the European Union (aimed at achieving more financial and trade openness, aside from social mobility)!

Protectionism likewise did not spread like wildfire in 2008, as earlier discussed.

Ignoring Technology

Another factor would be technology.

While it may true that fertility rates may be going down (upper window), it is often ignored how the advances in technology has continually enhanced people’s living conditions.

From Google Public Data

Global Life expectancy (lower window) has lengthened from 50 years to 68.95 years over the past 50 years. Japan reportedly has some 41,000 centenarians (over 100 years old)! [But I won’t be lucky to live this long, because of my love affair with beer]

And if futurist Ray Kurzweil is correct, people’s life span may extend to 120 years (by 2030) or even more (180 years) as rate of technology advances accelerates.

Again Murray Rothbard on the importance of technological advancement

“technological progress, is certainly an important one; it is one of the main dynamic features of a free economy. Technological progress, however, is a decidedly favorable factor. It is proceeding now at a faster rate than ever before, with industries spending unprecedented sums on research and development of new techniques. New industries loom on the horizon. Certainly there is every reason to be exuberant rather than gloomy about the possibilities of technological progress.”

In short, should these advances occur then all demographic projections should be thrown to the garbage bin, as they are falsely premised and would be rendered irrelevant.

The basic problem with mainstream insights is that people are treated like unthinking automatons. And because of this they’re most likely wrong.

The ultimate threat to globalization is inflationism and not demographic trends.

Celebrities of Globalization: Charice Pempengco and Journey’s Arnel Pineda

2 fantastic Filipino international music superstars Charice Pempengco and Arnel Pineda, the lead singer of a pop rock band of the 80s Journey, represent as shining examples one of the miracles of globalization.

Charice Pemepengco (left) and Arnel Pineda (right)

[sorry I am not aware of the billing order for the two celebrities thus made use of family name alphabetical order. Nevertheless portraits from Wikipedia.org]

The stepping stone to newfound stardom for these Filipino artists:

Charice Pempengco, according to Wikipedia.org (bold emphasis mine)

Pempengco made minor appearances on local television shows and commercials, but essentially had fallen off the radar after her stint at Little Big Star. It was not until 2007 that she gained worldwide recognition after an avid supporter started posting a series of her performance videos on YouTube under the username FalseVoice. These videos received over 13 million hits which, according to Reyma Buan-Deveza, makes Pempengco a "YouTube singing sensation"

Arnel Pineda, lead singer of popular 80s rock band Journey, based on the accounts of the mainstay members on this interview:

______________

Arnel Pineda’s biography according to Wikipedia.org here

My observations:

-The recent career success of both Filipino artists has been founded on the crucible of technology, social mobility, and importantly in response to a global audience.

-Both artists have defied the traditional-conventional vertical (organizational) process of discovering talent for the music industry.

In the case of Ms. Pempengco, her seeming unsuccessful debut in the local TV contest (one of the orthodox way of talent scouting) had been representative of the failure of the select judges to appreciate her talents in lieu of the market.

But that didn’t deter her. The viral (word of mouth) ramifications diffused over the web apparently neutralized the rigid and discriminatory screening process that eventually launched her newfound fame.

In short, 13 million hits demolished the subjective opinions of a handpicked few who presupposed ascendancy over the market’s opinion or appreciation over her talents.

Although one might interpret that Ms. Pempengco’s genre of music appear to cater to international audience more than the local ones, which may be partly true, I would suspect more of the rigid screening ‘syndicate’ based process as responsible for missing out in identifying her talent.

After her international success, local outfit have been quick to embrace her.

Of course, her perseverance and creativity had also been instrumental to the advancement of her aspirations.

In the case of Mr. Pineda, while years of exposure may seem to have augmented his recent career glory, the orthodoxy in the artist talent scouting system surely didn’t—as Mr. Pineda’s career didn’t make any significant headway.

Of course, this was not until Journey’s direct discovery through the internet (via Journey’s guitarist Mr. Neal Schon), which serves as a testament to the technology-aided short-circuiting of the archaic agent based process.

While it may be true that Mr. Pineda or Ms. Pempengco’s case could be, for the moment considered as unique, nevertheless, such trends appear on the way to radically alter the conduct of business as manifested in the music industry.

-Lastly, the Pempengco and Pineda ‘rags to riches’ success story appear to be representative of the internationalization or the global integration of the marketplace. In particular, the expanded access to a global pool in the matching of ‘specialized’ talent-to-‘niche’ audiences.

Think of it, if one of the three variables (technology, social mobility, and a global audience) had been encumbered, then the many would not have appreciated the magnificent repertoires provided by these newly discovered highly talented Filipino artists.

In short, the democratization of information (via technology platform) and increasing social mobility appears to have played a crucial behind-the-scenes role in the success story for these Filipino celebrities of globalization.

And count me in as a fan of the market elected talents.

Demographic Nightmares 2

George Magnus writes,

``capitalism rewards scarcity, and as labour supply fades relative to the availability of capital, returns will shift towards the former...

Huh?

If capitalism rewards scarcity then why at all risk precious capital to invest in order to produce?

What could Mr. Magnus be smoking?

Capitalism is an economic or resource distribution system which operates on the platform of property rights, voluntary exchange, and the profit and loss system in a world of scarcity. And the reason capitalism exist is to satisfy the unease or the pain of consumers from scarcity, hence the incentive to invest to produce.

I am reminded that once we argue using false premises then the conclusion would obviously wrong.

Mr. Magnus is apparently anxious about the world’s demographic trends echoing Pimco’s Bill Gross [see William Gross’ Demographic Nightmare]

His concern is that a smaller labor force would result to reduced corporate earnings and a lower economic growth. Hence, he recommends numerous “policy levers” or interventions to solve these predicaments.

Yet how valid is this?

True, the global rate of population growth has been falling as shown above, but it is still mostly positive (ex- Japan).

However, what is not seen is that the crucial reason why the rate growth has been falling is due to the relatively high nominal levels of world population which has already reached 6.697 billion (!), in 2008, according to the World Bank.

Another important variable in the present global demographic trends is that while population growth rate has slowed in developed economies, the bulk of the growth now comes from emerging markets.

Chart from Oppenheimer Funds

The implication is that this puts to risk the cumbersome welfare system of developed economies, aside from crimping “aggregate demand” (we dealt with this earlier).

Although I would be agreeable to one of Mr. Magnus’ suggestion that changes be made in the welfare system, I’d take a more radical approach.

Since it is to my opinion that welfare systems signify as unsustainable political PONZI programs that had been designed to buy votes of the population and to keep people dependent on politicians, welfare systems should be phased out or trimmed to the essentials.

The reduction or elimination of which would entail diminished financial burdens for the future generations, which should allow our children more room to deploy resources to their interest or pleasure, thereby reduce the barriers to investments.

This should also instill the culture of savings and personal responsibility and importantly advance the cause of personal liberty—where lesser redistribution translates to more efficiency of resource allocation and freedom of choice.

And there is another possible solution which could compliment this: ease immigration barriers to allow for free movement of people or enhance social mobility.

So globalization shouldn’t be limited to trade and finance, but also to migration flows, which at present constitutes only an estimated 3.1% of the global population, according to the International Organization For Migration (IOM).

These two structural reforms will greatly ease the concerns over reduced economic and corporate earnings growth, thus, needing less government activist (boom-bust) policies which would only worsen whatever demographic nightmare envisaged by interventionists.