Skip to content

What if They Went on Strike?

August 6, 2010

Graft and corruption is not the main ally of failed governance, but our failure to think— our refusal to embrace reason, individualism, and capitalism- our failure to defend the truth. The only logical result of this “failure of the mind” is a nation of freeloaders, of free-askers, and of ‘little dictators’…

What if they producers and wealth-creators went on strike?

What if they producers and wealth-creators went on strike?

I was a student journalist of our weekly campus organ when I observed that the country was losing more and more professionals each year. I remember writing a weekly column about the rising number of enrollees in almost all nursing schools in the country. Most of these students personally decided or, in some cases, were forced by their parents to enroll nursing not because of high domestic demand, but because of rising demand for more nursing professionals and caregivers abroad. Yes, our colleges and universities produce students who dream of finding greener pastures beyond our borders.

Can we blame them? The answer is NO!

The case of 25 Philippine Airlines pilots who left their work for bigger salaries abroad somehow reflects the continued nursing diaspora in the Philippines. Reality tells us that many professionals, engineers, scientists, teachers, accountants, IT specialists, nurses, and doctors are heading to foreign lands for more opportunities and high-paying jobs, leaving our cash-strapped government and private businesses struggling to find replacements.

In a report by the Agence France-Presse, the PAL pilots who simply shrugged for better job opportunities in the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia would have in some cases nearly tripled their monthly pay. Currently, there are more than nine million Filipinos who work abroad, about one-tenth of the nation’s population of more than 90 million.

But instead of taking this ongoing exodus of Filipino intelligentsia to the West and elsewhere as a serious national problem and as a threat to our domestic economy, our career politicians try their best to cheat reality by embarking on a charade, such as their efforts to promote our overseas Filipino workers (OFW) as our new breed of national heroes owing to their billion-dollar remittances that keep our economy afloat. Yes, our Caesars fiddle while our country burns. Last year it was reported that OFWs sent home US$17.3 billion to their families or business and investment, comprising of more than 10 percent of our gross domestic product (GDP).

Brain drain is one of the striking, most grotesque manifestations of our failure of governance, most specifically the failure of our politicians to deal with both economic and political realities. This ‘failure of governance’, which is mainly due to our politicians’ lack or improper understanding of the proper role of government, of the proper concept of individual rights, and of the proper concept of free-market capitalism, is pushing this country towards statism and dictatorship.

I agree with some of our top economists and intellectuals who said that the many problems that we face today is due to what they call “failure of governance”, however, I strongly disagree with their crude evaluation. They defined “failure of governance” as the “inability to enforce an adherence to the demands of law and the lack of will to uphold the people’s lawful demands.”

In a joint statement signed by more than 40 Filipino economists, they said that the ‘failure of governance’ is the “main obstacle to the country’s long-run economic growth and ability to respond to the people’s most urgent needs.” There are two corollaries of this ‘failure of governance’ here: 1) economic problems and inefficiency, and 2) government’s inability to respond to people’s needs. The question now is: How should the government guarantee economic growth and how should it respond to people’s urgent needs? They did not elaborate. Instead, they came up with undefined platitudes and undigested solutions to the problem of ‘failure of governance.’ They said, “It is time the Philippines once more had a leader who embodies the spirit of heroism and integrity we share as Filipinos. We are convinced that Sen. Noynoy Aquino is that leader.”

They also stated the following: “The call for a higher standard of public ethics, therefore, is not some abstract moral preference—it is an imperative for survival and development. We believe that among the presidential candidates, Senator Aquino represents the best hope for such a change.”

Again, the proper answer to the focal question above— how should the government secure economic growth and how should it respond to people’s needs— is still hanging in the balance.

We have heard it before, when the country’s intellectuals and religious people expressed their strong indignation to the corruption anomalies of former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, that what this country needed was “moral revolution.” But what kind of moral revolution do we need?

According to the country’s top economists, the main ally of failed governance is large-scale corruption that has sapped the government’s ability to collect the proper taxes, distorted government spending priorities, and affected both the public and private sectors. The “bitter fruits” of failed governance, according to them, are “low growth, high poverty, big public deficits, and deep public cynicism.”

Yes, I agree with these so-called top economists and intellectuals on some points, but I do not believe that failed governance is the main problem and the source of all ills and evils in this country. The real problem that we all face today is not an economic catastrophe or a political crisis, but a moral crisis. And such a crisis is the by-product of the nation’s intellectual bankruptcy, which is the result of the dominant philosophies and ideologies that have conquered our universities, media institutions, and almost all intellectual circles. It is the Kantian, Platonian and Judeo-Christian philosophies, as well as Marxist ideologies, that set the intellectual trends of our country—and the only logical effect of this farce is intellectual bankruptcy, which is the main driver of ‘failed governance.’ There can be no ‘failed governance’ without its intellectual roots, and graft and corruption is simply one of the peripheral effects of this monstrosity.

I define ‘failed governance’ as the failure of our public leaders to properly deal with political and economic realities, which is the result of their failure to discover reason, individualism, and free-market capitalism.

Yes, I strongly disagree with the crude evaluation of our so-called top economists. Our government failed and continues to fail because freedom is being destroyed by our politicians, who are being backed by the people through their expressed approval or inaction. Our individual freedom is the first victim of our intellectual bankruptcy.

The symptoms of this intellectual bankruptcy can be seen everywhere today. We see young people, professors and intellectuals who proclaim that everybody has a right to education, health care, housing, pension, or almost every kind of public welfare. We see intellectuals who preach anti-capitalistic, collectivist and anti-reason ideas. They preach that we are our brothers’ keepers and that we must sacrifice our lives for the sake of the greater good. We see career politicians who shamelessly proclaim that it is their duty to serve the needs of the people. We see and hear professors and media personalities who urge the government to be our “nanny state.” We see protesters calling for more government services and goods. In short, we see more and more people calling on the government to inflate its scope of powers in order to serve people’s immediate needs. Yes, these are just a few symptoms of the nation’s intellectual bankruptcy that we continue to ignore.

Is this also what these top economists are advocating for? Is this how they want our nanny state to respond to “the people’s urgent needs?” Yet the question is: What are the people’s urgent needs? We have a group of public school students asking for a higher education subsidy. We have protesters calling on the government to allocate a higher budget for housing, food, transportation, and other public welfare. We see workers asking for higher wages. We see leftists and liberals who are urging the government to regulate the market and punish big companies simply because they are successful. Yes, this is the country’s intellectual climate: collectivism, statism, and sacrifice.

How should the government respond to the nation’s economic problems? President Noynoy Aquino declared that his government is preparing for the enactment of an antitrust law to address the so-called monopolistic practices in the business sector. But it seems that nobody is surprised when not one of these 46 economists expressed their opposition to the government’s plan. Their silence means Yes, they want an antitrust law enacted in the Philippines— and Yes, they want the government to regulate the economy.

However, I disagree that what we need is a higher standard of public ethics. What we, as a people, need is to discover morality. The code of ethics that we have today is the morality of altruism, which simply means selfless concern for the welfare of others. I consider altruism evil because of what we see all around us. We see the ongoing destruction of individual freedom all in the name of common good and social sacrifice. A very good example of this is the call of our young people on the government to fully guarantee their right to education by allocating a higher education subsidy. It is true that this ‘fiat’ right is guaranteed by our Constitution whose code of morality is altruism, but reality tells us that this statist scheme will certainly not permit this country to survive as half-property, half-loot.

No, the solution is not to urge the government to deal with corporate or business issues. The only key to economic growth is laissez-faire capitalism. That is, the government must leave the economy or the markets alone! The only proper function of the government is to protect individual rights and to guarantee economic freedom. Therefore I say that such a collective voice of the country’s top economists is simply one of the symptoms of the country’s intellectual bankruptcy. It is not economic freedom they want, but the perpetuation of government intervention into the economy.

The failure to defend reason, individualism, and capitalism has a very high price: the destruction of individual freedom and rights. Graft and corruption is not the main ally of failed governance, but our failure to think— our refusal to embrace reason, individualism, and capitalism— our failure to defend the truth. The only logical result of this “failure of the mind” is a nation of freeloaders, of free-askers, and of ‘little dictators’ (those who tell us how to live our lives, to obey, to surrender our will to our society, and to make a sacrifice for the sake of the greater good).

All economic crises in this country were created and caused by government intervention into the economy. There are so-called monopolies because of government grants, subsidies, partnership with private businesses, and because of political connections and cronyism. Cartels and monopolies will not exist in a free-market economy. This is the reason why the antitrust proposal of the Aquino administration is the result of their very failure to understand economic realities. An antitrust law is a negation of economic realities, most specifically the law of identity, which means A is A: free-market is economic freedom.

It is no longer a secret that lot of foreign businesses left the country because of its too intrusive economic policies, high corporate and individual income taxes, cronyism, graft and corruption, bribery, among others. Foreign investors also avoid the Philippines because of the country’s anti-business economic and political climate. However, the new administration seeks to up the degree of the country’s anti-business culture by enacting an antitrust law, which will punish successful companies in the country. This antitrust legislation is a good example of the nation’s intellectual bankruptcy, as it exposes the mediocrity and stupidity of our so-called political elites and intellectuals.

So long as we embrace the social concept of collectivism and the morality of altruism, our country will not survive. Since we live in a society of lemmings, the only form of strike by those who are still willing to think and who refuse to surrender their individuality to the collective mold of our self-sacrificing society is to SHRUG! A lot of professionals would like to live this country had they been given the chance. And if this semi-socialist nation fell into socialism, it is the most moral and most selfish duty of every thinking individual to leave this country behind and never look back.

  • Special thanks to Richard Gleaves for the wonderful Galt Speech videos above.
77 Comments leave one →
  1. November 29, 2010 3:38

    “I was a student journalist of our weekly campus organ when I observed that the country was losing more and more professionals each year. I remember writing a weekly column about the rising number of enrollees in almost all nursing schools in the country. Most of these students personally decided or, in some cases, were forced by their parents to enroll nursing not because of high domestic demand, but because of rising demand for more nursing professionals and caregivers abroad. Yes, our colleges and universities produce students who dream of finding greener pastures beyond our borders.”

    So you’re a nursing student talking about economic and political concepts? LOL!

    I am surprised that you are contradicting the statistical analysis of the economists of our country. Their statements are backed up by data that reflects the true situation of Philippine reality. What are you using to support your statements? Do you use regression analysis or any other hard evidences or are your statements based solely on opinions?

    This is the first time that I’ve been baffled by another capitalist like myself. I am an Economics major and I have been shaped by my mentors to give efficiency primacy over other principles in society. Efficiency, by the way, is the heart of laissez-faire capitalism. Your arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.

    You have to strike a balance between Efficiency and Equity in order to have a functioning state. Concentration on one principle may be ideal but it is not feasible.

    I also have to comment that you have definitely misunderstood the concept of Anti Trust laws. Antitrust laws prevent mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to a monopolistic firm. A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient. They price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      *The price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.

      Or are/were you a journalism major who didn’t take Economics seriously? I am asking this to know which field produced that kind of thinking.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        “Antitrust laws prevent mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to a monopolistic firm. A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient. They price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.”

        Lol! Kindly explain this further: “A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient.” What creates monopoly and cartel in any society? Can monopolies exist in a truly free-market society?

        Related blog https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/does-capitalism-produce-slavery-monopoly-unearned-wealth/

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Yes, they can. As competition drives out the weaker firms in the market, oligopolies rise. When these oligopolies merge, they become monopolies. Market structures are so basic economic concepts… I don’t know why you don’t know this.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        But you didn’t raise any valid arguments at all. I don’t think you read or understand Froivin’s blog. Did you?

  2. November 29, 2010 3:38

    “So you’re a nursing student talking about economic and political concepts? LOL!”

    – Who told you I was a nursing student? LOL! I don’t think like most college-bred elitists do: that only political science, economics and law grads have the right to talk about politics. Try to read more of my blogs to know more about me…

    “I am surprised that you are contradicting the statistical analysis of the economists of our country.”

    Who are they and what what did they do? Did you read the whole blog? Kindly identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments. Do not resort to package-dealing.

    “Their statements are backed up by data that reflects the true situation of Philippine reality. ”

    Where’s their statements supported by data? And did I debunk any data or statistics? Did you read the whole blog? Again, kindly give identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments, and please do not resort to package-dealing.

    “What are you using to support your statements? Do you use regression analysis or any other hard evidences or are your statements based solely on opinions?”

    Again, did you read the whole blog? Is it about the statistical failure of the government?
    Do we always need to use what you call “regression analysis” for all kinds of argument? You really are a college bred hippie who’s simply trained to think within the system. By the way, it’s “evidence”, not “evidences…”

    “This is the first time that I’ve been baffled by another capitalist like myself.”

    Oh, really? Kindly identify yourself? And here’s your failure to understand concepts. You maybe a businessman but that does not make you a “capitalist”, ideologically speaking. There are businessmen who support communism and welfare statism (like you perhaps). Again, kindly identify yourself, because we need some evidence here for me to know whether you’re telling the truth or not. And what’s your understanding of capitalism?

    “I am an Economics major and I have been shaped by my mentors to give efficiency primacy over other principles in society.”

    What’s this “efficiency primacy over other principles in society”? What do you think of Paul Krugman then? What’s your understanding of Austrian economics?

    “Efficiency, by the way, is the heart of laissez-faire capitalism. Your arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.”

    Lol! Who said that and what is it based upon? Kindly explain your theory of “efficiency”? What’s the object of this efficiency and how is it related to laissez-faire capitalism. And what’s your understanding of laissez-faire capitalism? Well, I’d be glad if you have further arguments to support that “arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.” Kindly cite some of my works? Did you read any except my latest anti-public education polemic?

    And by the way, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST PUBLIC EDUCATION! It’s either you’re trolling (yet you believe everything you said is true or you’re an ignoramus!

    “You have to strike a balance between Efficiency and Equity in order to have a functioning state. Concentration on one principle may be ideal but it is not feasible.”

    Just like socialism? What’s this concept of ” between Efficiency and Equity” and how is it related laissez-faire capitalism? I can now say that your professors are DUMBOS!

    Here’s the thing that takes the cake. You said: “I also have to comment that you have definitely misunderstood the concept of Anti Trust laws. Antitrust laws prevent mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to a monopolistic firm. A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient. They price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.”

    Again, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST ANTITRUST LAW!

    Read these. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to this issue…

    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/no-to-kuya-noys-anti-trust-law/
    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/3494/
    https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/the-dictators-of-common-good/

  3. November 29, 2010 3:38

    You do not answer questions with questions. Answer the question first.

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      You really are an ignoramus and a pretentious braggart who knows nothing but the content of a college textbook.

      First, you came here without any argument. In any debate or forum, it’s you who should: 1) identify what’s wrong with my arguments 2) by presenting them in an orderly manner and then 3) introduce your own counter arguments.

      How do I know if you’re a mentally challenged college grad hippie or not if you don’t lay down your premise. How do I know whether you understand the proper concept of free-market capitalism or not?

      Check my reply above again because it seems you didn’t read or understand the whole blog.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        by the way, why should I read your previous blog posts. I am only interested in this particular article. Don’t act as if you have the credibility to be cited.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Where’s your valid analysis of this article because your first comment shows you didn’t understand the whole context of the blog. Give arguments first.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        “by the way, why should I read your previous blog posts. I am only interested in this particular article. Don’t act as if you have the credibility to be cited.”

        Then that’s DOWNRIGHT stupidity! This one blog is not sufficient to know the blogger’s defense of the free-market system. Are you out of your mind. Besides, this blogger is talking about INTELLECTUAL BANKRUPTCY, and you’re prattling on about regression analysis and statistics. My goodness!

        Read his previous blogs first to know where the blogger is coming from! That’s the rule in a debate.

        And yes!

        Kindly state what’s your understanding of free-market capitalism? I’m interested to know…

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        @ Misesian.

        Precisely! I don’t think this pretentious braggart understands the theme of the article. If he wishes to deal with me in issue like capitalism and antitrust laws, he should have read my previous articles that deal with these issues. This explains the idiocy of this pretentious people.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Voice of the south said: “I should even be wasting my time here. If I were you, I’d study economics and political science. Your opinions are so dogmatic. They’re probably based on ancient philosophers. Visit the library and talk to those who have mastered Economics and Political Science! The complexity of the current open market economy cannot be handled by a simple system based on the works of Adam Smith and his contemporaries.”

        Lol! This kiddie is not here for a rational argument. He’s just here to expose his STUPIDITY! lol! What an epic fail.

        Where’s your questions? I believe they’ve been answered by Froivinber! What an ass lol!

        Here’s what Foivinber said:

        “So you’re a nursing student talking about economic and political concepts? LOL!”
        – Who told you I was a nursing student? LOL! I don’t think like most college-bred elitists do: that only political science, economics and law grads have the right to talk about politics. Try to read more of my blogs to know more about me…
        “I am surprised that you are contradicting the statistical analysis of the economists of our country.”
        Who are they and what what did they do? Did you read the whole blog? Kindly identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments. Do not resort to package-dealing.
        “Their statements are backed up by data that reflects the true situation of Philippine reality. ”
        Where’s their statements supported by data? And did I debunk any data or statistics? Did you read the whole blog? Again, kindly give identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments, and please do not resort to package-dealing.
        “What are you using to support your statements? Do you use regression analysis or any other hard evidences or are your statements based solely on opinions?”
        Again, did you read the whole blog? Is it about the statistical failure of the government?
        Do we always need to use what you call “regression analysis” for all kinds of argument? You really are a college bred hippie who’s simply trained to think within the system. By the way, it’s “evidence”, not “evidences…”
        “This is the first time that I’ve been baffled by another capitalist like myself.”
        Oh, really? Kindly identify yourself? And here’s your failure to understand concepts. You maybe a businessman but that does not make you a “capitalist”, ideologically speaking. There are businessmen who support communism and welfare statism (like you perhaps). Again, kindly identify yourself, because we need some evidence here for me to know whether you’re telling the truth or not. And what’s your understanding of capitalism?
        “I am an Economics major and I have been shaped by my mentors to give efficiency primacy over other principles in society.”
        What’s this “efficiency primacy over other principles in society”? What do you think of Paul Krugman then? What’s your understanding of Austrian economics?
        “Efficiency, by the way, is the heart of laissez-faire capitalism. Your arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.”
        Lol! Who said that and what is it based upon? Kindly explain your theory of “efficiency”? What’s the object of this efficiency and how is it related to laissez-faire capitalism. And what’s your understanding of laissez-faire capitalism? Well, I’d be glad if you have further arguments to support that “arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.” Kindly cite some of my works? Did you read any except my latest anti-public education polemic?
        And by the way, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST PUBLIC EDUCATION! It’s either you’re trolling (yet you believe everything you said is true or you’re an ignoramus!
        “You have to strike a balance between Efficiency and Equity in order to have a functioning state. Concentration on one principle may be ideal but it is not feasible.”
        Just like socialism? What’s this concept of ” between Efficiency and Equity” and how is it related laissez-faire capitalism? I can now say that your professors are DUMBOS!
        Here’s the thing that takes the cake. You said: “I also have to comment that you have definitely misunderstood the concept of Anti Trust laws. Antitrust laws prevent mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to a monopolistic firm. A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient. They price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.”
        Again, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST ANTITRUST LAW!
        Read these. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to this issue…
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/no-to-kuya-noys-anti-trust-law/
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/3494/
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/the-dictators-of-common-good/

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        What I am trying to say is that you do not have enough evidence to contradict the findings of our economist. For heaven’s sake, the Governance indicators have been studied thoroughly by those experts.

        Intellectual bankrupcy? Don’t you know that some of these economists are from UP. UP has been advocating academic freedom in which the students are open to all sorts of ideologies. Maybe you’re the one who has been blinded by yours.

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      You are avoiding the question. If you are truly a capitalist, then you would adhere to the concept of specialization. (aka. Mind you own business!)

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        This “Voice of the South” doesn’t really understand what free-market system means. Froivinber is right. Any genuine advocate of the free-market system won’t support public education and anti-trust law.

        And by the way, this guy didn’t present any argument but empty gibberish. There’s no valid question at all.

        Well, this confirms the fact that public education is a big, big failure!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Do not resort to evasion. First, it’s not clear what you’re trying to attack. I have answered your first comment one by one.

        Let me re-post if you too brainless to understand what I said:

        “So you’re a nursing student talking about economic and political concepts? LOL!”

        – Who told you I was a nursing student? LOL! I don’t think like most college-bred elitists do: that only political science, economics and law grads have the right to talk about politics. Try to read more of my blogs to know more about me…

        “I am surprised that you are contradicting the statistical analysis of the economists of our country.”

        Who are they and what what did they do? Did you read the whole blog? Kindly identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments. Do not resort to package-dealing.

        “Their statements are backed up by data that reflects the true situation of Philippine reality. ”

        Where’s their statements supported by data? And did I debunk any data or statistics? Did you read the whole blog? Again, kindly give identify what’s wrong with what I wrote and then give your own arguments, and please do not resort to package-dealing.

        “What are you using to support your statements? Do you use regression analysis or any other hard evidences or are your statements based solely on opinions?”

        Again, did you read the whole blog? Is it about the statistical failure of the government?
        Do we always need to use what you call “regression analysis” for all kinds of argument? You really are a college bred hippie who’s simply trained to think within the system. By the way, it’s “evidence”, not “evidences…”

        “This is the first time that I’ve been baffled by another capitalist like myself.”

        Oh, really? Kindly identify yourself? And here’s your failure to understand concepts. You maybe a businessman but that does not make you a “capitalist”, ideologically speaking. There are businessmen who support communism and welfare statism (like you perhaps). Again, kindly identify yourself, because we need some evidence here for me to know whether you’re telling the truth or not. And what’s your understanding of capitalism?

        “I am an Economics major and I have been shaped by my mentors to give efficiency primacy over other principles in society.”

        What’s this “efficiency primacy over other principles in society”? What do you think of Paul Krugman then? What’s your understanding of Austrian economics?

        “Efficiency, by the way, is the heart of laissez-faire capitalism. Your arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.”

        Lol! Who said that and what is it based upon? Kindly explain your theory of “efficiency”? What’s the object of this efficiency and how is it related to laissez-faire capitalism. And what’s your understanding of laissez-faire capitalism? Well, I’d be glad if you have further arguments to support that “arguments are very dogmatic that it sounds more like Marxist arguments.” Kindly cite some of my works? Did you read any except my latest anti-public education polemic?

        And by the way, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST PUBLIC EDUCATION! It’s either you’re trolling (yet you believe everything you said is true or you’re an ignoramus!

        “You have to strike a balance between Efficiency and Equity in order to have a functioning state. Concentration on one principle may be ideal but it is not feasible.”

        Just like socialism? What’s this concept of ” between Efficiency and Equity” and how is it related laissez-faire capitalism? I can now say that your professors are DUMBOS!

        Here’s the thing that takes the cake. You said: “I also have to comment that you have definitely misunderstood the concept of Anti Trust laws. Antitrust laws prevent mergers and acquisitions that may give rise to a monopolistic firm. A capitalist country does not want monopolies because it is inefficient. They price that they impose is higher and the quality of goods they produce are lower because there is no competition in the market.”

        Again, the man who truly understand how free-market capitalism works SHOULD BE AGAINST ANTITRUST LAW!

        Read these. I’m not a Johnny-come-lately when it comes to this issue…

        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/07/29/no-to-kuya-noys-anti-trust-law/
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/3494/
        https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/03/15/the-dictators-of-common-good/

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        How dare you call my professors such names?!

        You don’t even have the guts to tell to me your educational background. Why? Are you afraid that you’ll lose your credibility in your attacks on the current system?

        I should even be wasting my time here. If I were you, I’d study economics and political science. Your opinions are so dogmatic. They’re probably based on ancient philosophers. Visit the library and talk to those who have mastered Economics and Political Science! The complexity of the current open market economy cannot be handled by a simple system based on the works of Adam Smith and his contemporaries.

        You claim to be a capitalist yet you do not consider the efficiency of things. The capitalist system only wants to limit government intervention and not to abolish all of its function.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        I shouldn’t* even be wasting my time here.

        Why post it again? and avoid the question again? hahaha!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Well, I should have addressed those things to you because it’s you who put your so-called “professors” in bad light. I don’t think they’re too stupid to teach you those concepts. And if they ever did, you should have explained what those concepts is all about. I’d be very interested to know.

        Again, the theme of my blog is about “intellectual bankruptcy”. If you wanna see regression analysis and statistics, then you’re barking at the wrong tree because not all blogs and articles include those stuff.

        And I have made my observation of your first comment here. I refer you to my first reply https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/what-if-they-went-on-strike/#comment-6199 .

        You said: “I should even be wasting my time here. If I were you, I’d study economics and political science. Your opinions are so dogmatic.”

        If I were you, I should be presenting my arguments and explain my understanding of the free market system. You don’t have any argument at all. That’s very clear because you’re a pretentious know-it-all hippie.

        Show your arguments and then I’ll deal with them!

  4. November 29, 2010 3:38

    Voice of the South:

    “Yes, they can. As competition drives out the weaker firms in the market, oligopolies rise. When these oligopolies merge, they become monopolies. Market structures are so basic economic concepts… I don’t know why you don’t know this.”

    First, you’re raising too many issues. As a commenter, I don’t know whether your trying to take on the blog or whatever.

    Second, explain first your understanding of free-market system. Third, you should know where the blogger is coming from. And yes, do not resort to evasion. Answer the uetsions made by the blogger above.

    You said you’re an Economics grad or student, then explain what’s your understanding of free-market system.

    You have raise so many absurd concepts such as Efficiency and Equity. What the hell is this and what’s its significance in the free market system?

    As to monopolies, what creates monopolies by the way?

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      CORRECTION: * questions made by the blogger*

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Those are not absurd concepts. Shheesh!

      A Free Market System is an ancient concept that talks about minimal government intervention.

      Monopolies can be created through many ways. It’s very complicated and too mathematical to be written in this medium. Basically, monopolies are natural.

      I am not taking over or anything. I am just surprised how some people think this way. We are already in the twenty-first century. The author wants to impose something that is so primitive and impossible.

      I’ll return later… I have to do something…

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        This is very funny and idiotic:

        “A Free Market System is an ancient concept that talks about minimal government intervention”

        “Ancient”? How ancient it is? Do you know why it’s called free market? It’s from the french word laissez-nous faire, which means “let us alone.” It means freedom from government intervention. Get it? So how can you say you understand or even support the free-market system if you support antitrust law and public education? You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about!

        These are what the leading free-market thinkers of the 20th century state about free market capitalism:

        “In a capitalist society, all human relationships are voluntary. Men are free to cooperate or not, to deal with one another or not, as their own individual judgements, convictions and interests dictate.”
        — Ayn Rand, “Capitalism, The Unknown Ideal”

        “The difference between free-market capitalism and state capitalism is precisely the difference between, on the one hand, peaceful, voluntary exchange, and on the other, violent expropriation.”
        — Murray N. Rothbard, A Future of Peace and Capitalism, 1973

        “One of the worst fallacies in the field of economics – propagated by Karl Marx and accepted by almost everyone today, including many businessmen – is the notion that the development of monopolies is an inescapable and intrinsic result of the operation of a free, unregulated economy. In fact, the exact opposite is true. It is a free market that makes monopolies impossible.”
        — Nathanial Branden, “Common Fallacies Against Capitalism”

        “It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. Nobody but a beggar chooses to depend chiefly upon the benevolence of his fellow citizens.”
        — Adam Smith, “The Wealth of Nations”

        “There is no kind of freedom and liberty other than the kind which the market economy brings about. In a totalitarian hegemonic society the only freedom that is left to the individual, because it cannot be denied to him, is the freedom to commit suicide.”
        — Ludwig von Mises, Human Action

        “The desire for an increase of wealth can be satisfied through exchange, which is the only method possible in a capitalist economy, or by violence and petition as in a militarist society, where the strong acquire by force, the weak by petitioning.”
        — Ludwig von Mises, Socialism

        “Monopolies can be created through many ways. It’s very complicated and too mathematical to be written in this medium. Basically, monopolies are natural.”

        You’re wrong! Monopolies can only be established by government aide and protection and help. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about. Monopolies cannot exist in a truly free market society! The monopolies you’re talking about exist in a mixed economy, and we are a mixed economy

        READ THIS: https://fvdb.wordpress.com/advocacy-capitalism/

        I don’t wanna waste my time on a pretentious braggart! You learned nothing from your economics class. Better reeducate yourself.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        The word “ancient” really cracks me up!

        Kiddie who knows nothing but crap and rants, read this http://www.capitalism.net/. This will save you from the IDIOTATION you get in college!

  5. November 29, 2010 3:38

    One by one arguments then…

    Monopolies – “There are so-called monopolies because of government grants, subsidies, partnership with private businesses, and because of political connections and cronyism.”

    You are saying that monopolies are created by government. Monopolies exist before these things were given by government. Monopolies are natural because of the nature of certain businesses such as high costs of entering the market.

    Government intervention is necessary to prevent the formation of new ones. If you leave the market by itself, something wrong would happen. Haven’t you read about the Great Depression?

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      “You are saying that monopolies are created by government. Monopolies exist before these things were given by government. Monopolies are natural because of the nature of certain businesses such as high costs of entering the market.”

      Of course! See? You don’t even know what you’re talking about! Monopolies are created through government permits, protection, regulations, handouts, subsidies! What do you think of the Independent Power Producers? They were created by law? What do you think of the mining companies of Mike Defensor that are not out to dominate the country’s mining industry? They were created with government help!

      The problems of monopoly you’re talking about are a product of a mixed economy! If you don’t get this, reconsider your Economics stuff, if you’re really stating the truth!

      You said: “Monopolies are natural because of the nature of certain businesses such as high costs of entering the market.”

      Where did you get this? Out of your empty brain? In a free market economy, everybody will have an opportunity to start a business. Take the example I gave above https://fvdb.wordpress.com/2010/02/08/does-capitalism-produce-slavery-monopoly-unearned-wealth/ .

      Final NOTE: Don’t come here without enough ammunition. Read my anti-trust blogs. I’ve provided the answers there. I won’t repeat them here anymore. If you wanna deal with me, know where I’m coming from and be sure you know what the hell you’re talking about!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        No. It’s microeconomics, stupid.

        THE GLOBALIZED WORLD CAN NO LONGER RUN IN A PURE SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM. THAT IS A FACT THAT WAS PROVEN BY THE GREAT DEPRESSION.

        KNOW YOUR HISTORY!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        “THE GLOBALIZED WORLD CAN NO LONGER RUN IN A PURE SYSTEM OF CAPITALISM. THAT IS A FACT THAT WAS PROVEN BY THE GREAT DEPRESSION.
        KNOW YOUR HISTORY!”

        This lunatic kiddie really does not know what he’s talking about! Of course it can, IDIOT!!! Read my post below, IDIOT!

        Why? What’s the history of capitalism? What kind of history you’re talking about? ANSWER ME! MORON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Lol! Another epic fail. What history is that? Again, have enough intellectual ammunition first because you’ve clearly exposed yourself as an ignoramus!

        Don’t waste my time. I’ve tackled all your stupid ideas long before. Check all my previous posts!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Wait! What’s that microeconomics economics you just said? Nobody’s saying that the world should be a free-market system. But if that’s the case, that would be great!

        But can you please mention a single country that practices free-market capitalism today?

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      That’s pure hogwash and lunatic thoughts!

      “You are saying that monopolies are created by government. Monopolies exist before these things were given by government. Monopolies are natural because of the nature of certain businesses such as high costs of entering the market.”

      All cartels and monopolies are made possible my statist policies and government intervention into the economy. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t deserve any discussion here!

      Is antitrust law a necessary defense against the predatory business practices of wealthy, entrenched corporations that dominate a market? Or does antitrust law actually work to restrain and restrict the competitive process, injuring the public it is supposed to protect?

      Instead of protecting competition, antitrust law actually protects certain politically-favored competitors. This is an essential work for anyone wishing to understand the limitations and problems of contemporary antitrust actions.

      Also, your “natural monopoly” is a MYTH! That explains you know nothing about capitalism. If you wish to know more about anti-trust law, listen to this… it’s for free! http://mises.org/media/1713

      Read these too to educate yourself!

      http://blog.mises.org/11928/monopoly-is-in-the-eye-of-the-regulator/

      http://mises.org/humanaction/chap16sec6.asp about your monopoly prices!

      and this http://mises.org/journals/jls/1_4/1_4_1.pdf

      • Honey, free market capitalism is impossible permalink
        November 29, 2010 3:38

        Misesian: You’re the one who doesn’t know what you’re talking about.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

  6. Cartoon Network permalink
    November 29, 2010 3:38

    Voice of the South,

    Wag mo na sayangin oras ng mga yan…

    Nabubuhay pa sila sa panahon ng Cold War…

    Hindi ata nila alam na palano ang capitalism..

    Mali din pagkagamit niya sa intellectual bankruptcy… tanga tanga lang…

    Ang dami daming ideologies na ginagamit ng mga nasa gobyerno,,

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Oh! That idiot does not know what he’s talking about. A college educated idiot, indeed. Of course you agree with him because both of you are BRAINLESS fanatics of big government and statism! He doesn’t even know the concept of free-market capitalism! Ancient my ass! lol!

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Oras ko kamo. Haaiiyy…
      These guys don’t see the flaws of their thinking.
      The economy is a dynamic system. These people are really avid fans of those worldly philosophers that they forget that people also develop these ideas.

      Ang mga nababasa lang nila ay yung mga popular books (or wikipedia) at hindi yung mga bago. So tama ka nga. Stuck sila sa past noong nag aaway pa ang capitalism at communism (socialism). At napaka layman ng kanilang knowledge kaya hindi nila maintidihan ang sinasabi ko.

      Hindi na kasi yan ang issue ngayon eh.. Kaya nga hindi na yan pinag-uusapan masyado sa schools. Walang alam ang mga tao sa taas na nakakapag decide ang lang government kung may compromise between the opposing parties. So impossible ang pure system!

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        You said free market capitalism is an ancient system… What an epic fail. You don’t even understand what free market capitalism is all about.

        Again, name a country that is considered free market economy today.

        Also, kindly tell me if those monopolies you mentioned were NOT caused by government handouts, subsidies, protection, support and intervention.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        pathetic! you can say what you want but the fact remains that this troll does not know what he’s talking about. He didn’t even answer any of my questions.

        i can also say you’re a sockpuppet of that brainless twat!

  7. November 29, 2010 3:38

    The brainless twat Voice of the South is gone… Well, how can a natural stupid troll win a debate… lol!

    • Honey, free market capitalism is impossible permalink
      November 29, 2010 3:38

      Are you out of your minds?!

      Tell me how you would implement a free-market economy when democracy is used in decision-making? The people will not allow the government to neglect their needs. They pay taxes for the benefit of the nation. Your government officials are brought into power by the votes of the people. They will only be voted through making promises that they must fulfill.

      I can understand what Voice of the South is saying and I believe that he is right that government intervention is important. Tell me how the free market can avoid business malpractices such as merging and monopolization without government intervention. Explain also how can it protect the country from outside shocks by not intervening in the monetary system.

      The government is necessary to avoid unforeseen events from causing big damages to the economy. How can independent businesses act together to prevent an economic crisis? This is the function of government that is necessary for it to survive the global competition of wealth accumulation.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        LOL!!!

        That’s the only possible and best reply to your brainlessness! Lol!

  8. November 29, 2010 3:38

    @ Honey, free market capitalism is impossible AKA the PROXY of Voice of the South,

    He does not even know what free market system means! He ancient! But the question is, WHEN? LOL! Ke keeps on obfuscating the issue and raising too many unrelated matters.

    Here’s what he failed to answer:

    1. What is the true concept of free market system?

    2. Name any single country that is truly free market economy.

    3. What creates monopolies and cartels? How can a free market system create monopolies and cartels?

    4. Explain why disagrees with the fact that the government creates monopolies and cartels.

    5. Explain his STUPIDITY and BRAINLESSNESS! I Think this would be a lot easy. Lol!

  9. November 29, 2010 3:38

    Misesian, kung may brainless sa ating dalawa. Ikaw yun. Who are you to deny the existence of natural monopolies?! Read some Microeconomics book please.

    Free market capitalism = Minimal Government Intervention

    Why minimal? Because complete separation of the state from the economic issues of the nation is impossible.

    The government controls the money supply. It also has too collect taxes to fund its expenese and pay for the salary of its employees. These actions can never be isolated from the economy.

    Foreign trade must also be supervised by the state to prevent bad goods from entering the country or to catch pirates that greatly affect trade routes.

    Its participation in the market is inevitable.

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      For your information, it is economies of scales and high costs of entry that causes monopoly.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        So who made those high costs?!!!

        IT’S THE GOVERNMENT, IDIOT! It’s government intervention!!!

        You brag about your economics! That’s failure economics, idiot!

        Now you’re learning. You won’t get it… You have to detoxicate your empty brain from the things you learned in college.

      • Laughtrip yung mga feelers dito permalink
        November 29, 2010 3:38

        Yung blue avatar nakakatawa.

        hahaha! Saksakan ng bobo. Isama mo na rin yung author.

        Ang gumagawa ng high cost at ay ang government?

        Nung high school pa lang tinuro na ang law of supply and demand. Di ka siguro nakikinig sa teacher mo.

        Haynako! Wag kasi kayo magpopost ng links niyo kung san san… lalo na sa pex.. Akala ko naman may kwenta tong blog na toh. Random thoughts lang naman ito ng isang “classical thinker” na nasa modern time. At hindi maganda ibig sabihin ng classical sa sinabi ko. Parang sinasabi mo na ang mundo ang gitna ng solar system. LOL!

  10. November 29, 2010 3:38

    Here’s what he failed to answer:
    1. What is the true concept of free market system?
    It is an economy with minimal government intervention.
    2. Name any single country that is truly free market economy.
    None! Because all country has a monetary system controlled by the state.
    3. What creates monopolies and cartels? How can a free market system create monopolies and cartels?
    Barriers to entry such as high costs and economies of scale
    4. Explain why disagrees with the fact that the government creates monopolies and cartels.
    It is the government that helps these monopolies because they are important for the people. (meralco for example. no other firm would enter energy distribution because of its cost)
    5. Explain his STUPIDITY and BRAINLESSNESS! I Think this would be a lot easy. Lol!
    I’m not stupid. You are!

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      You said: “It is an economy with minimal government intervention.”

      OK. Let me complete it for you since what you said is utterly incomplete. The true concept of free market system according to its main proponents, Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and others is this: the market should be free from state interference. There should be no government regulation into the economy. The only proper role the of the government is to protect individual rights. That is, there must be courts to protect contracts and men from fraud and violation of rights, etc. There must be police to protect men from criminals and other criminal elements. There must be military to protect the country from both external and internal threat.

      So that means that you don’t understand the proper concept of free market system because of your defense of public education and antitrust law. NO PROPONENT or free market thinker has ever advocated for antitrust law and public education, BRAINLESS TWAT!

      “None! Because all country has a monetary system controlled by the state.”

      So how can you say then that monopoly should be controlled by the state when there is no free market system to blame. Now, it is only logical and natural to claim that all of these monopolies and cartels were created by the government, through the Constitution and other laws. The Constitution itself is a monopolizing agent of the state!

      Froivinber gave a very good example on how the government creates monopoly. The IPP and the case of Mike Defensor’s mining firm! So your argument is a big failure because you’re an IGNORAMUS!

      NOW THIS IS REALLY FUNNY!

      You said: “Barriers to entry such as high costs and economies of scale.”

      SEE? Who creates these barriers? The government! But that’s just one very minimal agent of monopoly, idiot! There can be no monopoly without government intervention, and your argument of merger and acquisition is very hilarious.

      You said again: “It is the government that helps these monopolies because they are important for the people. (meralco for example. no other firm would enter energy distribution because of its cost)”

      WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow! What a complete ignoramus! And you now complain why you have high electricity rates in the Philippines! You now complain why most of your taxes go to the payment of IPPs, you country of idiots who graduated from UP! Wahahha! My God this really made my day!

      So because they are important, the government is justified to create a monopoly! In America before, the telephone industry was a monopoly! It was ran by the government. You know what happened? The cost of phone calls was so high, the service was utterly inefficient, and the employees were so rude and they didn’t care about their subscribers! Well, that time, telephone calls was ” important for the people” as you said. But that no longer the case today!

      Another question because I’m really enjoying this and your stupidity!

      So what other industries and businesses should be monopolized by the state because you said they help the poor?

  11. November 29, 2010 3:38

    Here another idiocy…

    “Misesian, kung may brainless sa ating dalawa. Ikaw yun. Who are you to deny the existence of natural monopolies?! Read some Microeconomics book please.”

    What natural monopolies are you talking about. Those books you read are all made of CRAP!

    Plain LOGIC is needed here, brainless twat!

    Those monopolies in the country you have in mind are NOT a product of free market system because we are not a free market economy, dumbo! We are a mixed economy!

    Ok then! Explain your natural monopoly!

    Like I said, natural monopoly is a myth, idiot!

    And besides, if you wanna deal with me answer these first! You keep on evading them just because YOU CAN’T ANSWER THEM!

    Here’s what he failed to answer:
    1. What is the true concept of free market system?
    2. Name any single country that is truly free market economy.
    3. What creates monopolies and cartels? How can a free market system create monopolies and cartels?
    4. Explain why disagrees with the fact that the government creates monopolies and cartels.
    5. Explain his STUPIDITY and BRAINLESSNESS! I Think this would be a lot easy. Lol!

    EDUCATE YOURSELF! http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      well.. No wonder you hate education. You think books are crap.

      I have won this debate. Your statements are just opinion. They’re not even applicable to reality. Hello?!

      A totally Free Market does not exist!

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Plain logic? Valid statements are not sound statement, you know?

      Stop saying logic is not needed here when you’re not even attached to reality.

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        See? You’re all rants. You didn’t even offer any argument. Is that how you people at UP stupidly think?

        I love this debate started by Froivinber because it’s unleashing the collective idiocy of people at UP… lol!

  12. November 29, 2010 3:38

    RE-POST!

    You said: “It is an economy with minimal government intervention.”

    OK. Let me complete it for you since what you said is utterly incomplete. The true concept of free market system according to its main proponents, Ludwig Von Mises, Ayn Rand, Milton Friedman and others is this: the market should be free from state interference. There should be no government regulation into the economy. The only proper role the of the government is to protect individual rights. That is, there must be courts to protect contracts and men from fraud and violation of rights, etc. There must be police to protect men from criminals and other criminal elements. There must be military to protect the country from both external and internal threat.
    So that means that you don’t understand the proper concept of free market system because of your defense of public education and antitrust law. NO PROPONENT or free market thinker has ever advocated for antitrust law and public education, BRAINLESS TWAT!

    You said: “None! Because all country has a monetary system controlled by the state.”

    So how can you say then that monopoly should be controlled by the state when there is no free market system to blame. Now, it is only logical and natural to claim that all of these monopolies and cartels were created by the government, through the Constitution and other laws. The Constitution itself is a monopolizing agent of the state!

    Froivinber gave a very good example on how the government creates monopoly. The IPP and the case of Mike Defensor’s mining firm! So your argument is a big failure because you’re an IGNORAMUS!
    NOW THIS IS REALLY FUNNY!
    You said: “Barriers to entry such as high costs and economies of scale.”
    SEE? Who creates these barriers? The government! But that’s just one very minimal agent of monopoly, idiot! There can be no monopoly without government intervention, and your argument of merger and acquisition is very hilarious.
    You said again: “It is the government that helps these monopolies because they are important for the people. (meralco for example. no other firm would enter energy distribution because of its cost)”
    WAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Wow! What a complete ignoramus! And you now complain why you have high electricity rates in the Philippines! You now complain why most of your taxes go to the payment of IPPs, you country of idiots who graduated from UP! Wahahha! My God this really made my day!

    So because they are important, the government is justified to create a monopoly! In America before, the telephone industry was a monopoly! It was ran by the government. You know what happened? The cost of phone calls was so high, the service was utterly inefficient, and the employees were so rude and they didn’t care about their subscribers! Well, that time, telephone calls was ” important for the people” as you said. But that no longer the case today!

    Another question because I’m really enjoying this and your stupidity!

    So what other industries and businesses should be monopolized by the state because you said they help the poor?

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      The state is the only one who could produce tender. You can’t give that duty to the citizens.

      So, who would provide the goods that cannot be provided the the private sector?

      Who would take care of the externalities?

      Now, I ask you? Give me an example of a modern country that uses a free-market economy?

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        The post above exposes you as an authentic brainless twat! lol!

        Can’t you see your many stupid contradictions? You claim you understand free market system, but your answers expose you as a fraud and an intellectual masturbator who thinks he’s somehow great just because he’s form UP. lol!

        Drop it! You’re no intellectual at all. You’re a pretentious braggart as Froivin said…

        I no longer have any desire to argue with a brainless twat. You disappointed me.. I thought I have found a good opponent. Yet I found a brainless twat! lmao!

  13. November 29, 2010 3:38

    MY FINAL THOUGHT:

    Most so-called public utilities have been granted governmen-
    tal franchise monopolies because they are thought to be
    “natural monopolies.” Put simply, a natural monopoly is said
    to occur when production technology, such as relatively high fixed
    costs, causes long-run average total costs to decline as output expands.
    In such industries, the theory goes, a single producer will eventually
    be able to produce at a lower cost than any two other producers,
    thereby creating a “natural” monopoly. Higher prices will result if
    more than one producer supplies the market.
    Furthermore, competition is said to cause consumer inconven-
    ience because of the construction of duplicative facilities, e.g., dig-
    ging up the streets to put in dual gas or water lines. Avoiding such
    inconveniences is another reason offered for government franchise
    monopolies for industries with declining long-run average total
    costs.
    It is a myth that natural monopoly theory was developed first by
    economists, and then used by legislators to “justify” franchise monop-
    olies. The truth is that the monopolies were created decades before the
    theory was formalized by intervention-minded economists, who then
    used the theory as an ex post rationale for government intervention. At
    the time when the first government franchise monopolies were being
    granted, the large majority of economists understood that large-scale,
    capital intensive production did not lead to monopoly, but was an ab-
    solutely desirable aspect of the competitive process.

    The word “processn is important here. If competition is viewed as
    a dynamic, rivalrous process of entrepreneurship, then the fact that a
    single producer happens to have the lowest costs at any one point in
    time is of little or no consequence. The enduring forces of competi-
    tion-including potential competition-will render free-market mo-
    nopoly an impossibility.
    The theory of natural monopoly is also a-historical. There is no evi-
    dence of the “natural monopoly” story ever having been carried out-of
    one producer achieving lower long-run average total costs than every-
    one else in the industry and thereby establishing a permanent monop-
    oly. As discussed below, in many of the so-called public utility indus-
    tries of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, there were
    often literally dozens of competitors.

    http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf

    To the UP idiot above… get proper education. No, you’re no good at all! You’re nothing but a brainless twat! Don’t kid yourself into believing that you’re good just because you’re from UP. You’re good because you studied in UP (perhaps!).

    • November 29, 2010 3:38

      Not really…
      You’ve been using economic concepts MADE by ECONOMISTS. Now, you tell that they’re all made up… hahahahhahahahahhaahha!

      My impression can be summarized by this simple analogy

      Misesian: Economist :: Quack Doctor:Surgeon

      Meralco is a living example of this natural monopoly! AHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAH! YOU’RE SO STUPID THAT YOU’RE FUNNY!

      It is not a myth! Goodbye to your stupidity… I don’t have time for this anymore…

      • November 29, 2010 3:38

        Lol! That worse thing is that you don’t even know you’re an IDIOT and a BRAINLESS TWAT! LOL!

        Die in your own contradictions, BRAINLESS TWAT!

  14. November 29, 2010 3:38

    By the way, I didn’t say that I was from UP. You’re so assuming. Thank you. It was like a compliment.

  15. Laughtrip yung mga feelers dito permalink
    November 29, 2010 3:38

    Isa lang masasabi ko sa author

    Iho, wag mo i-apply ang classical thinking sa modern situation. OK?
    Hindi ka capitalist eh. Post-modern ka na.

    Ginagamit mo ang classical thoughts para i-contest ang neoclassical theories.

    • November 30, 2010 3:38

      Do you know what you’re talking about? Is that what you learned from your STUPID professors?

    • November 30, 2010 3:38

      Another UP moron or state college idiot, I believe. Classical thinking you ass? What the hell is that? Do you ever know those things, moron? lol! Feeler!

  16. Laughtrip yung mga feelers dito permalink
    November 30, 2010 3:38

    Why are you assuming that everybody who is against you is from UP or from some state university?

    I’m from DLSU, Dimwits!

    • November 30, 2010 3:38

      I don’t think you’re educated at all… Anybody can claim anything thing here, and you’re a moronic TROLL. Prove that you’re educated by refuting what I stated above and by defending that moron South troll… Otherwise you’re Voice of the South himself or a troll supporter.

      • Macky Pizarro permalink
        September 10, 2011 3:38

        All I can say is that there could be only 2-3 people taking other identities to continue this endless and seemless battle here.

Trackbacks

  1. On Winnie Monsod’s Viral ‘Lecture’ Video « THE VINCENTON POST
  2. Cut the Education Budget on College Hippies! « THE VINCENTON POST
  3. Another Argument With a UP Moron « aristogeek
  4. Let the Individualist Revolution Start! « THE VINCENTON POST
  5. The PH Government needs Bailout! Privatize MRT/LRT! « THE VINCENTON POST
  6. 1987 Constitution: The Source of All Political, Economic Evils in RP « THE VINCENTON POST
  7. If UP, Ateneo Profs Really Read the RH Bill and Still Support It, Then They’re A Bunch of IDIOTS! « THE VINCENTON POST
  8. Destroying the ‘Filipino First’ Mindset « THE VINCENTON POST
  9. Economic Education Not Enough to Promote Freedom, Capitalism « THE VINCENTON POST
  10. Destroying the ‘Filipino First’ Mindset - VINCENTON BLOG
  11. Destroying the ‘Filipino First’ Mindset « VINCENTON

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: