ASEAN trade expansion and RCEP

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last June 09, 2017.

bw

Despite various protectionist rhetoric by many world leaders against free trade, deep inside they know that there are “net gains” from trade and there are “net losses” under protectionism and restricted trade. Thus, while the multilateral trading agreement under the World Trade Organization (WTO) is not moving significantly, bilateral and regional free trade agreements (FTAs) are everywhere.

Trade within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is among the most dynamic in the world because of their consensus on faster unilateral trade liberalization policy and near zero tariff for all 10 member-countries since 2016. The region of some 630 million consumers would naturally attract the attention of its neighbors that want to source many of their needs and imports and want to export many of their products and services.

Thus, the ASEAN + 6 (Japan, China, South Korea, India, Australia, New Zealand) evolved and later these 16 countries moved towards creating the world’s biggest FTA covering half of the planet’s total population + the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Plenty of negotiations still ongoing but member-countries are hoping that RCEP will be formalized within the next two years. The main thorn in the agreement is not on tariffs but on non-tariff barriers (NTBs) or non-tariff measures (NTMs).

Last May 8, Stratbase-Albert del Rosario Institute (ADRi) organized a small group economists’ roundtable discussion on the “Global Geopolitical Situation: its Impact on Australian and Philippine Economies” at the Manila Peninsula Hotel. The main speaker was Mark Thirlwell, chief economist of Australia Trade and Investment Commission (Austrade).

It was a good forum with lots of useful data and insights. Among Mark’s points were the following: (a) Global tariffs are still low but have stopped falling, (b) Free Trade Agreement (FTA) coverage has grown but may have plateaued, (c) Non-tariff barriers are rising, including temporary barriers like anti-dumping, countervailing duties and safeguards, (d) trade liberalizing measures are surpassed or outnumbered by discriminatory/protectionist measures, and (e) ASEAN countries fit this global pattern as shown in these two very clear charts.

2017060894920

During the ASEAN Summit in Manila, Malaysian PM Najib Razak reemphasized the need to reduce the NTBs or non-tariff measures (NTMs) in the region, which have surged from 1,634 in 2000 to 5,975 in 2015.

Mark also said that e-commerce is also enabling trade citing the role of eBay, Amazon, and he asked if the world has already attained “peak trade” as global trade/GDP ratio has somehow plateaued at around 63% over the past few years. I argued during the open forum that like “peak food” (formulated by Thomas Malthus and later by Paul Ehrlich, others) and “peak oil” (formulated in the ’70s, reformulated in the ’90s), “peak trade” will not happen.

The average merchandise exports/GDP ratio from 2010-2015 of these Asian economies are as follows: Hong Kong 352.2%, Singapore 260.7%; Vietnam 152.7%; Malaysia 134.7%; Taiwan 114.6%; Thailand 113.6%. Yearly data I got from the ADB’s Key Indicators, November 2016 report. These are exports of goods alone. If exports of services are included, the ratio will grow much higher.

20170608bc46cASEAN countries should proceed with further trade liberalization and reduce the number of NTBs/NTMs at least among themselves. There is economic prosperity in trade expansion and misery in protectionism.

Advertisements

Income tax and the politics of envy

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.

bw

“The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government.”
— Barry Goldwater (US businessman and five-term senator)

“The difference between death and taxes is death doesn’t get worse every time Congress meets.” 
— Will Rogers (US actor, humorist, columnist)

The tax reform plan of Dutertenomics known as Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) is composed of (a) overall personal income tax (PIT) cut, (b) hike in excise tax for cars and oil products, (c) hike tax for sugar-sweetened beverages, and (d) hike in number of sectors covered by the value-added tax (VAT).

This paper will focus on the income tax reform: Minimum-wage earners and those earning P250,000/year and below will pay zero income tax. The 13th month pay and other bonuses not exceeding P100,000 are also exempted from income tax. The number of tax brackets has been reduced from seven to six. And the top PIT rate of 32% for taxable income of P500,000/year or higher has been increased to 35% for taxable income of P5 million/year or higher.

To better appreciate the current PIT and proposed changes in the policy in the Philippines, let us compare the rates with our neighbors in the ASEAN.

o4_060817

The proposed PHL-TRAIN indeed deserves compliment because current PIT policy is highly confiscatory and makes Barry Goldwater’s statement so accurate. Imagine earning an annual income (net of some deductions) of only $10,000 and the Philippine government automatically confiscates one-third of that.

But what the Department of Finance (DoF) and Congress did is to adopt the “increase tax rates elsewhere to compensate for lower PIT rate” philosophy. This is wrong and there are four reasons why.

First, it is possible to abolish income tax, zero, and yet government will still survive and prosper via other revenue sources. Currently there are 10 countries in the world which have zero income tax policy: Bahamas, Bahrain, Bermuda, Brunei, Cayman Islands, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and United Arab Emirates. Their governments rely and thrive on selling petroleum, natural gas, lands, and/or earning from consumption-based taxes and financial transaction taxes.

Second, lower PIT rate can expand the tax base and can potentially increase overall tax revenues. More entrepreneurs and professionals from abroad as well as Filipinos working abroad will be encouraged to do business here to take advantage of lower income tax rate and hence, bigger take home pay.

Stated in a simple equation: Tax revenue (T) is a product of tax rate (t) multiplied by the number of taxpayers (N). Or (T = t x N). A decline in t can encourage the increase in N so that overall T can potentially increase, not decrease.

The DoF and Congress leaders have taken the linear and simplistic argument that lower tax rate means automatic lower revenues. They did not consider potential increase in N and T when income tax rate is significantly reduced.

Currently, Asian economies with low, flat income tax rates are Mongolia with only 10%, Macau with 12%, and Hong Kong with 15%.

Third, lower PIT even for high-income people means more take home pay, more domestic consumption which are captured by other consumption-based taxes like VAT, excise tax, property tax, motor vehicle tax, entertainment tax, travel tax and so on.

And fourth, the politics of envy is wrong. The philosophy of “demonize and overtax the rich, subsidize the poor forever” creates moral hazards problem. The implicit message is: Be careful when you become rich because the government will silently demonize you and explicitly overtax you. Aspire to remain poor, poor forever if possible because (a) your minimum wage income plus bonuses will be tax-free, (b) you get lots of freebies and subsidies, and (c) these are no timetable, forever subsidies and transfers.

When there are plenty of poor people, the government is silently saying two things: “Congratulations” and “Thank you.” Here’s how:

  1. “Congratulations — you are entitled to many subsidies and freebies: free cash transfer, free health care, free education until university, free or highly subsidized housing, free or highly subsidized e-tricycle, tractor, etc. No timetable, for life, can extend to your children and grandchildren, so long as they continue to be poor.”
  2. “Thank you — we have more justifications and alibi to harass and confiscate more from the income, wealth, properties and inheritance of the rich and super-rich (especially if they are not friends of the administration).”

Therefore, instead of raising the top PIT rate to 35%, Congress should bring it down to 25% to be more comparable with Malaysia; better if it is only 20% to be more comparable with Singapore rate.

2017060866507Society should reward people who become rich and wealthy via entrepreneurship and efficient professional work, not demonize and overtax them. We should have more millionaires and billionaires, not less; we should have more super rich people, not less.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET and Stratbase-ADRi.

Dissecting Dutertenomics’ overspending plan

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Tuesday.

bw

During the BusinessWorld Economic Forum held last May 19, Budget Secretary Benjamin E. Diokno showed two interesting charts: (1) sustained overspending and borrowings, budget deficit/GDP ratio from -0.9% in 2015 to -2.7% in 2016 then -3.0% from 2017-2022. And yet (2) debt/GDP ratio was expected to decline from 44.8% in 2015 to 40.2% in 2017 and further down to 36.7% in 2022.

Is this possible? That one overspends and over-borrows and yet the debt/GDP ratio will keep falling?

DBM, NEDA, and Malacañang say yes because the projected taxes/GDP ratio will increase via the proposed Tax Reform bill of 2017. Sec. Diokno said in the same forum that “We will continue to guard against underspending, the Waterloo of the previous administration.”

“Underspending” for me should mean that expenditures are lesser than revenues, resulting in a fiscal surplus. When expenditures are larger than revenues but the deficit is only at -1% or below -3% of GDP, that is still overspending, not underspending. So the previous administration did not really underspend, just that it did not go into an uncontrolled spending spree.

Here are relevant numbers about the Philippines’ fiscal position and levels of outstanding public debt, and comparative debt/GDP ratio of seven ASEAN countries (see table).

2017052984d8e
The numbers above show three important facts:

One, the average deficit in the previous administration, 2010-2015 was only P185 B/year or -1.8% of GDP, benign and considered as “underspending” by many fiscal hawks, especially when compared with deficit in 2009 (last year of the Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo administration) and 2016 (first year of Duterte administration).

Two, low annual budget deficit and borrowings in the same period means the country’s outstanding debt stock has risen only mildly, with the average of P260 B/year.

Three, partly a result of this, the Philippines’ debt/GDP ratio over the same period showed significant decline, similar to the experience of Myanmar while other neighbors posted deficits, owing to increased borrowing.

Fewer borrowing means less debt service payments for both principal and interest. It was during the same six-year period that Philippines’ GDP growth was 6.2% per year, much higher than Thailand’s 3.7%, Indonesia and Malaysia’s 5.7%, Vietnam’s 6.0%.

In the same BW Economic Forum, the DoTr showed that these projects will be ODA (government loans) funded, not PPP.

  1. PNR North Railway (Manila-Clark), construction Q4 2017 — Q4 2021, P255 B.
  2. PNR South Railway (Manila-Bicol), construction Q3 2018 — 2021, P270 B (originally a PPP).
  3. Mega-Manila subway (Phase 1, QC-Taguig), construction Q4 2019 — 2024, P225 B.
  4. Edsa-Central Corridor Bus Rapid Transit BRT (Edsa, Ayala, Ortigas, BGC, NAIA), construction Q1 2019 — Q1 2021, P38 B.

Other big projects were identified but it wasn’t specified whether these would be funded by official development assistance (ODA) or via Public-Private Partnership (PPP). In December 2016, DoF Secretary Sonny Dominguez already indicated that infrastructure projects under the Duterte administration will avoid PPP whenever possible. And the massive China and Japan ODAs came into the picture.

Then there are tweaks in some major projects, from PPP to ODA. Like the PNR South Railway and the Kaliwa Dam project in Quezon province of Maynilad Water. What would pre-qualified players like San Miguel do with this policy reversal?

The Dutertenomics’ spending plan is detrimental to taxpayers in general and the investment environment in particular, for the following reasons.

  1. Bigger annual budget deficit would mean more government loans, higher public debt stock, and will lead to higher taxes now and the future to service those huge loans to be contracted. Soon the P6/liter increase in oil excise tax will not be enough, it will further rise.
  2. Massive shift from PPP (private investment) to ODA of major infrastructure projects will result in more loans which mean more public debt, more taxes, and fees in the future.

Global commodity prices, trade and growth

* This is my article in BusinessWorld yesterday.

bw
One of the beauties of free trade and global economic integration is that countries can benefit from low commodity prices as improvement in technology and processes in other countries result in bigger output for the same land area and other inputs. The downside of course is that when commodity prices go up, economies that are more dependent on imported products would tend to wobble.

The period from 2008 to 2014 was characterized by generally high food and commodity prices.

For instance, price of corn was only $98/ton in 2005 but it shot up to $223 in 2008. I think it was the momentum of the biofuels law in the US in 2005, spurring huge demand in the US, Brazil, other countries. The price mellowed in 2009-2010 during the global financial turmoil that started in the US, but shot up again to nearly $300 in 2011-2012.

The global spike in rice prices (aka as “rice crisis of 2008”) from $288/MT in 2005 to $700 in 2008 was caused by several factors, among which are (a) price hikes in major energy sources oil, natural gas, and coal in 2008, and (b) rice export restrictions by India, Vietnam, Brazil, other countries.

o4big_052617
Maize (corn) — US No.2 Yellow, FOB Gulf of Mexico, US price
Rice — 5% broken milled white rice, Thailand nominal price quote
Swine (pork) — 51%-52% lean Hogs, US price
Poultry (chicken) — Whole bird spot price, Georgia docks
Sugar — Free Market, Coffee Sugar and Cocoa Exchange (CSCE) contract no. 11 nearest future position
Coffee — Other Mild Arabicas, International Coffee Org. New York cash price, ex-dock New York

Crude Oil (petroleum) — West Texas Intermediate 40 API, Midland Texas

Natural Gas — Indonesian Liquefied Natural Gas in Japan, $/million metric British thermal units of liquid

Coal — Australian thermal coal, 1200 btu/pound, less than 1% sulfur, 14% ash, FOB Newcastle/Port Kembla

Among the reasons why world oil prices rose to record levels in 2008 was the high energy demand in the two biggest countries in the world in population, China and India. Prior to 2008, from 2003-2007, China’s GDP growth was always double-digit, averaging 11.7% per year. India’s growth during that period was also high, averaging 8.8% per year.

Implications for the Philippines

Among the things that the Philippines should optimize given these price fluctuations in world commodity prices are the following:

  1. Rice trade liberalization should have been started in 2010 when the Aquino administration took power. After short price spikes in 2011-2012, rice prices went downhill. The Duterte administration should proceed with full rice liberalization this year because of high medium term outlook for rice output and exports by our neighbors, Thailand and Vietnam especially.
  2. Sugar liberalization should be pursued too as world sugar prices have declined from their peak prices in 2010-2012 average of around 22 US cents per pound.
  3. Trade of corn and swine, even poultry should also be liberalized. Prices of rice, corn, swine, poultry and other food products are among the major contributors of the overall consumer price index (CPI) which are used to compute the inflation rate.
  4. Energy-intensive industries like manufacturing, hotels, construction, and transportation (on air, land, water) can expand their production and fleet to take advantage of lower prices of oil, natural gas, and coal.
  5. Two hindrances here: (a) the planned hike in excise tax for oil products by P6/liter across the board, and (b) continued onslaught by feed-in-tariff (FiT) and soon, renewable portfolio standards (RPS) that will result in expensive electricity. The purpose of trade and energy revolution is to make global energy prices become cheaper. The purpose of government in this case to make cheaper energy more expensive. These two measures should be abandoned and reversed someday.
  6. Among the ASEAN-6 big economies (Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Singapore, Vietnam and Philippines), the Philippines registered the highest average GDP growth per year from 2010-2015: Thailand 3.7%, Indonesia and Malaysia 5.7%, Singapore and Vietnam 6.0%, and Philippines 6.2%. There was something good that the previous Aquino administration was doing that the new Duterte administration should somehow continue.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

Mobility of goods, capital, and people in Asia

* This is my article in BusinessWorld last Tuesday.

bw

One big issue that failed to land on front pages during the ASEAN Prosperity Summit last week is the creeping protectionism, not through rising tariffs but rising non-tariff barriers (NTBs).

Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak pointed out during the Summit that NTBs and non-tariff measures (NTMs) from 2000 to 2015 have surged by nearly four times to 5,975 from 1,634. This despite the zero tariff regime for intra-regional trade and the creation of the ASEAN Economic Community (AEC) or the regional single market.

While ASEAN was created initially for defense cooperation against regional communist revolutions in the ’60s and ’70s, it has evolved into a platform for freer movement of goods, people and services, and capital or investment. It was a good development and it should be pursued.

This coming November, the Philippines will host the ASEAN partners’ meeting composed of ASEAN + 6 (China, Japan, South Korea, India, Australia, and New Zealand) + Russia and US. Mr. Putin, Mr. Xi, and Mr. Trump and other leaders will be coming to Manila.

The US exit from the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA) and China-Japan leadership in the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP) are important developments.

By how much have Asian economies improved based on freer mobility of goods, services, investments, and tourism? Here are some basic data (see table).

o4big_050917

Those that have expanded by more than seven times in just 15 years are the following:

  1. Vietnam: 11.2x in exports, 10.6x in imports, 9.1x in investments, and 10.6x in tourism receipts.
  2. Myanmar: 7.2x in imports, 12.1x in investments, 12.9x in tourist arrivals; also high expansion in tourism receipts.
  3. Cambodia: 14.2x in investments, 10.3x in tourist arrivals, and 24x in tourism receipts.
  4. Laos: 9.3x in imports, 10.4x in tourist arrivals and 36x in tourism receipts.
  5. China: 9x in exports, 7.5x in imports, almost 6x in investments, and 7 to 7.5x in tourist arrivals and receipts.
  6. Japan: 7.4x expansion in international tourist arrivals.
  7. India: 7.5x in exports, 12.3% in imports, and 7.8x in exports.

The Philippines also experienced modest growth in all the above indicators but not fast enough to create more jobs and businesses to its 104 million people. We should take hard lessons from our two small neighbors with huge economic achievements, Singapore and Hong Kong.

Singapore with only 5+ million people and just 3 1/2 hours by plane south of Manila, has 6x more exports, 11x more FDIs, attracts more than 3x foreign tourists and more than 4x in tourism receipts than the Philippines.

Hong Kong with only 7+ million people and less than 2 hours by plane north of Manila, has 8x more exports, 32x more FDIs, attracts nearly 7x foreign tourists, and nearly 8x in tourism revenues.

What small economies Singapore and Hong Kong have that the Philippines lacks are two important policies: free trade (zero tariff, minimal NTBs) and stricter rule of law (the law applies equally to both rulers and ruled, applies equally to unequal people).

So while we have improved our GDP size and material wealth via freer trade, freer movement of people and capital, we need to free up more.

We should allow more islands and provinces to have their own industrial zones to attract more investments and foreign trade. To have their own international airports and seaports to attract more investments and more tourism.

More modern infrastructure, simpler rules, and freer trade will help the Philippines attain what our developed neighbors have already achieved. Drastic reduction in NTBs and the removal of rice quantitative restriction (QR) and protectionism for instance. And less politics, taxes and bureaucracies, more respect for the law by politicians and bureaucrats.

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. heads Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

Economic freedom in Asia means faster growth, lower prices

* This is my article in BusinessWorld the other day.

bw
Thanks to its rapid economic growth, the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) is being looked up to by other economic blocs as it celebrates its 50th anniversary this month in Manila.

The pace of trade liberalization until this decade is perhaps the world’s fastest both among ASEAN member-states, and even among those outside the group.

Free trade creates good will among people and governments across the globe. It gives foreign trade partners greater access to the home market and, in the process, these trade partners tend to open up to more ASEAN countries’ exports and investments.

Here are two tables that show the economic wonders of free trade policy — not exactly zero-tariff and minimal non-tariff barriers (NTBs) but approaching there — for the emerging economies of Asia. We will use the purchasing power parity (PPP) values of gross domestic product (GDP) to somehow equalize valuation of goods and services across the world.

Overall, the GDP size of the world at PPP values was $40.3 trillion in 1996 and it rose to $120 trillion in 2016 or an expansion of more than three times in just two decades.

ASEAN-5 refers to Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam. G7 countries are the US, Canada, Japan, UK, Germany, France and Italy.

o3abig_042617

Table 1 numbers show the following:

  1. Emerging and developing Asia (including China and India) is now the world’s biggest economic bloc with GDP size of $38 trillion in 2016, overtaking the G7. The expansion of GDP size in just two decades was six times, an astonishing feat. The per-capita GDP also expanded almost five times, the fastest in the world.
  2. ASEAN-5 GDP size of $6.5 trillion in 2016 was larger than the combined economies of the CIS or developing Europe or Sub-Saharan Africa. Per capita GDP expanded more than two and a half times over two decades which is larger than that attained by many other economic blocs.

o3bbig_042617

Table 2 numbers further show that:

  1. While emerging and developing Asia is only the 3rd largest bloc in the exports of goods and services in the world, selling $3.9 trillion in 2016, the size of exports has expanded 7.2 times after only two decades, the fastest in the world. In terms of price inflation, the region also showed consistent price decline and stability at only 2.9% in 2016, the lowest among developing blocs in the world.
  2. Sub-Saharan Africa and MENA remain burdened with high prices and slow expansion in exports.

Giving local consumers and manufacturers more economic freedom where they can buy and sell the various goods and services that they need and produce means empowering the whole economy. Price declines and price stability are proof that freer trade is working and are instrumental in stabilizing the supply of various traded goods and services.

There are winners and losers in free trade, the same way that there are winners and losers in protectionism. But overall, “net gains” from trade trump “net losses” from protectionism because locals are deprived by policies that limit choices and options.

20170425fd31aIt is important therefore, that emerging Asian economies like the Philippines should never lose sight of the potentials of free trade and resist protectionist aspirations that penalize the consumers while protecting local vested business interests.

Bienvenido S. Oplas, Jr. is the President of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET; both are members of Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia.

Taxation in East Asia and PH tax reform bill

* This is my article in BusinessWorld on March 24, 2017.

bw

The current tax reform proposal of the Duterte administration promises to improve the Philippines’ competitiveness mainly by reducing income tax rates and cutting exemptions in value-added tax (VAT) and other fiscal incentives. The proposal has somehow created three myths in taxation.

  1. REDUCING THE INCOME TAX RATE CAN LEAD TO REVENUE LOSS.

No, for two reasons. (a) The Laffer Curve is a good reminder that tax revenues can go down as tax rates increase. High taxes are disincentives to honest business and that is why many companies are hiring good law and accounting firms to either take advantage of legal loopholes and reduce tax payments, or find technicalities bordering on dishonest tax payment. And (b) Hong Kong and Singapore are good examples that low income tax rates do attract more local and foreign businesses, which further expand the tax base.

  1. THE NEED TO RAISE EXCISE TAX FOR VEHICLES AND OIL PRODUCTS TO COMPENSATE FOR REVENUE LOSS IN INCOME TAX CUT.

No, for two reasons. (a) Vehicles and oil products are necessary for more business creation — petroleum is a public good, after all. Petroleum allows huge trucks, buses, airplanes, and ships to transport more people and goods, activities which again expand the tax base; and (b) raising the oil tax (by P6/liter across the board) further raises the cost of doing business in the country.

In the table, the Philippines is third highest in tax payment as percent of commercial profit.

While the taxes on profit and corporate income is comparable to many of its neighbors, its “other taxes” like VAT, documentary stamp tax, franchise tax, capital gains tax, excise tax, etc. charge high rates. So raising the excise tax on vehicles and oil products is a raise on “other taxes” and that will dent the attractiveness of lower income tax.

  1. NO NEED TO LOWER VAT, JUST REDUCE THE NUMBER OF EXEMPTIONS.

No. For two reasons: (a) Many industries and sectors have succeeded in their lobby for VAT exemption precisely because the 12% is high; and (b) among ASEAN countries, the Philippines, at 12%, has the highest VAT rate%; five countries have only 10% (Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, Thailand, and Vietnam), Singapore 7%, Malaysia 6%, Myanmar 5%, Brunei 0.

See the column on tax post filing index (PFI), distance to frontier (DTF), 100 being the highest score. The Philippines has a low score of 49.8 mainly due to VAT non-refund policy. Economies with scores of 63 and above either do not have VAT or have VAT but have low compliance time with paying their corporate income tax (CIT) (see table).

o1big_032417
So a good compromise will be to bring the VAT back to 10% and remove all exemptions except for raw agricultural and fishery products.

Another observable point from the above numbers is that many countries in Asia (and other continents) were socialistic in their income tax policy, started after World War II until the 1980s. For instance in 1980, Malaysia, Thailand, and Taiwan have income tax rates of 60%, Philippines has 70% and South Korea has almost 90%. The faster pace of globalization from the late 1980s onwards made many governments realize that the Laffer Curve indeed is correct, that the higher the tax rate, the lower will be the business activities and overall tax revenues.

To plug endless fiscal irresponsibility also known as endless and yearly budget deficit that require endless search for higher taxes, certain public spending and subsidies must be cut and certain government offices and bureaucracies must shrink or be abolished. Governments should learn to live within their means, even live below their means, especially during years without crises so they can have fiscal surpluses and pay their ever-rising public debt stock.

Bienvenido Oplas, Jr. is the head of Minimal Government Thinkers and a Fellow of SEANET. Both institutes are members of EFN-Asia.