Need help refuting economic fallacies in the "Philippine Rice Crisis"

Economics Economics Questions
,
1

Hi guys. I’m kinda sick of my country’s Keynsian atmosphere so I’m going to try writing coherent rebuttals to the stuff being offered up. Case in point is our “Rice Crisis.” Unfortunately, I suck at writing so I figured I’d start here with the choir before facing the wolves.

I expect any future audience to be dyed-in-the-wool “government save me” socialists so I need to know how much to explain (too much and I lose the audience) and how much they should figure out on their own. Finally, I have to position this from a Catholic viewpoint (16th century Scholastics) so that I can’t be written off as some kook. I’m also going to need a lot of real world examples.

Here’s the basics I have so far:

Fact: Catholic Bishops Council of the Philippines (CBCP) President urges traders not to hike prices of goods (and other “helpful tips”).

What His Excellency, Angel N. Lagdameo, Archbishop of Jaro, and President of CBCP advocates:

      1. Price controls; that traders freeze prices of their commodities; considers such actions to be “price jacking,” (Not a safety mechanism of the free market to ensure that the supply of goods and services stretch in times of crunch.)
        1. Economic autarky; preventing the free importation of affordable rice from overseas, but okay for now because we are in a “crisis.” (This action will guarantee high prices and a future shortages)
        2. Government protectionism; that “government funds” (not taxpayer’s money) should be spent on “improving” whatever. (As Catholics, we must place our trust in God and in the natural order of the universe (including economics) He has created, rather than seek refuge in government AKA Caesar AKA statism AKA state worship. Father forgive him! He only knows what he and the rest of the country has been taught for the last hundred years!)

“Rice importation is a response to a rice crisis. But there must be limit to importations. It should not be the permanent arrangement. The lesser the imports the better! We encourage the improvement of local production with genuine government support at all levels of production with the end in view of restoring to agriculture and to our rice producers ad farmers the assistance that they deserve to achieve genuine food security and self-sufficiency. Some policies are needed to reverse the trend from over dependence on importation to making the rice production truly the backbone of our economy, as it is in other countries of Southeast Asia.”

In and Out of Season: http://abplagdameo.blogspot.com/2008/04/give-us-this-day-our-daily-rice.html

Fact: National Food Authority (NFA) is trying to keep rice prices stable by purchasing and storing rice when prices are low and selling them at a loss when prices are high. (Is this what is called a loss leader?)

"National Food Authority (NFA) administrator Jessup Navarro said they cannot keep prices too low “because our farmers might be affected.”

Fact: In 2007, the NFA incurred a P1.5 billion loss, as it tried to keep prices of rice stable.

(2008, April 10). CBCP asks traders not to hike prices of other goods. GMANews.TV. http://www.gmanews.tv/story/88583/CBCP-asks-traders-not-to-hike-prices-of-other-goods

(2008, April 10). CBCP to traders: Don’t raise prices of commodities. Sun.Star Network Online. http://www.sunstar.com.ph/static/net/2008/04/10/cbcp.to.traders.don.t.raise.prices.of.commodities.html

Aquino, L. A. G. (2008, April 10). CBCP President asks traders to keep prices down. Manila Bulletin. http://www.mb.com.ph/MTNN20080411121590.html

What both want: Affordable rice for everyone (especially the poor).

Why this line of action doesn’t work: Because autarky is an economic fallacy. To continue this policy to condemn our farmers and their descendants into a permanent caste system, depriving them of the chance to be anything else other than farmers. For every farmer the current system holds in stable place, society loses one unseen doctor, lawyer, fisherman, accountant, &c. that could have been.

That’s it so far. I don’t know what else to write since I know that a lot of the examples I’m going to try and use will be just be turned around and used to justify their own

For example: I point out the Days Inn, Long Island price gouging case that this wasn’t price gouging. They’ll just say it was and thank God for government for cracking down on those evil predators…

(Woods, The Church and the Market, p 46.)

http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2001/dec/dec26a_01.html

So how do I present such cases?

My reference materials:

  • Woods, T. E. (2005). The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy. Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN: 978-0739110355.

  • Chafuen, A. A. (2003). Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics. Maryland: Lexington Books. ISBN: 978-0739105405.

  • Chafuen, A. A. (1986). Christians for Freedom: Late Scholastic Economics. Colorado: Ignatius Press. ISBN: 978-0898701104.

  • Woods, T. E. (2005). How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization. Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing. ISBN: 978-0895260383.

  • Novak, M. (1993). Catholic Ethic And The Spirit Of Capitalism. Illinois: The Free Press. ISBN: 978-0029232354.