THE thing with neoliberal economics is that there is much faith placed in the forces of supply and demand. This is the ground from which criticisms are being hurled at the emergency policy measure adopted by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in placing a price cap on rice. To blueblooded neoliberal economists, any price restriction that would restrain the rising price of a commodity would disturb the market and lead to a shortage.

This is due to the possible refusal of sellers to sell at a price lower than what they would have sold otherwise, thereby depressing supply. In addition, restricting the price to a lower level can stimulate higher demand.

The thing is, neo-liberal economics assumes that the market is ideal and price controls would lead to its distortion, which can trigger a shortage. The reality, however, is that the market is already distorted by artificial shortages brought about by hoarding engendered by the speculative rent-seeking behavior of opportunistic traders. It is in this context that putting a cap on the price of rice in the short term may be a bitter pill to take to stave off the further increase in its price. It is in situations like this that limited government intervention may be beneficial in the short run.

However, putting a price cap in place should only be a temporary remedy and should not be a standalone response. It should be lifted as soon as farmers begin harvesting their crops. More importantly, government should really crack the whip on hoarding.

It is simply unconscionable that hoarding remains a problem, and hoarders appear like invisible phantoms. It is simply unbelievable that these distorters of markets who profit from the misery of consumers cannot be identified, and their storage facilities cannot be located. If there is a more valid use of intelligence and confidential funds, it would be in hunting and taking them down. It is simply enraging that the government appears helpless in dealing with hoarding. It would not be wrong to suspect that the failure may be because hoarders have political protection.

Imposing price caps, albeit temporary and short-term, would benefit consumers in the short run. Losers include rice traders who will be forced to sell at a lower price. Government should devise mechanisms to ensure that no immediate shortage would ensue due to sellers opting out of the market. While farmers may be affected, the impact may be minimized if their harvests are already bought by traders and they are waiting for their next harvest.

One of the casualties of the price cap policy decision appears to be former finance undersecretary Cielo Magno, who was forced to resign after she publicly posted online what appeared to be a subtle dig opposing the measure. Many have joined in the spinning of her resignation as another condemnable act by the Marcos Jr. government. On the contrary, Magno should have known that while she can express her disagreement with official government policy in internal meetings and discussions, where she can even write a dissenting memorandum, she cannot publicly contradict official government policy. She was technically working as an undersecretary for the alter ego of the President. It can be said that she violated the standards of decorum expected of her.

But it seems Magno acted willfully and with knowledge of the consequences. She has been quoted as saying: “I knew when I posted the supply and demand graph that my boss would receive a call from Malacañang to remove me. But I did it anyway.” In hindsight, she would have made a stronger political statement if she tendered her resignation on the day she posted her statement on social media, without waiting to be asked to resign. Doing so could have bestowed on her act a stronger air of righteous defiance without violating the decorum expected from civil servants and political appointees.

A collateral injury to the Marcos government was, however, self-inflicted. Instead of dealing with Magno’s departure as quietly as possible, Malacañang had to publicly disclose her resignation and even release a statement to the media. And it was not just a statement, but one that effectively threw Magno under the bus. The statement read: “The termination of her appointment could only be expected as she clearly does not support the administration and its programs for nation-building.” The statement further stressed that while the right to free speech is respected, “it would be counterintuitive to have someone be part of the administration who was clearly set on maligning it to begin with.”

These are fairly strong words. What is strange is that the statement alleged that Magno “has been against the policies of this administration and made it known to the public on social media long before the President assumed office.” It behooves us to ask, even defying logic, how can Magno be faulted for criticizing the policies of an administration that has not even started yet. Besides, if they already knew that Magno was against the would-be policies of the yet-to-be seated Marcos administration, it begs the question of why she was appointed undersecretary in the first place.

But what is most egregious about Malacañang’s castigatory tone toward Magno was its utter selectiveness when compared with the other departures from the Marcos administration. We did not see anything comparable when former executive secretary Victor Rodríguez or former press secretary Rose Beatrix Cruz-Angeles left their posts. The departure of the controversial former presidential adviser for creative communications, Paul Soriano, was just as discreet as it was obviously stage-managed, despite the noise generated by rumors of his alleged involvement in the rebranding fiasco of our tourism slogan.

What happened to Magno is a lesson for those who may be drawn in by the call to unity by the President, and think that it has room for disagreement. It has none. And worse, if you happen to have a history of being critical of Marcos or even of his predecessor, you will definitely not be accorded the courtesy of being gracefully, in Malacañang’s word, “terminated.”