Global Financial Crises: Capitalism is going down

[andy_1904]

---

because the price of oil is low.. the economic crisis is turning into tidal wave. This is a result of massive protest in Manila to lower the gasoline prices. Now, you see the result is devastating. Pinoy ra pud ang mag antus sa kalisod. Mauy unang i-fire-out. So, wala na muy trabaho.. unya mag welga na pud mo nga patas-an ang presyo sa gasolina?

speaking of gasoline, karun na year alone from (retail price ni ha sa california) $2.20/gallon mu-abot nasad daw $4.++/gal like last year so im sure mas mahal pa jud dinha sa pilipinas...whewwwww mag baktas nlang ko ani padung trabaho..

[Dorothea]

Right. And no matter how much we blabber on the best ism for an economy, it brings you back to the idea of who's in charge. If the one in charge is not going to act like the doctor that he is supposed to, he therefore becomes the disease. And that's exactly what's happening today. In all their grandiose and the seeming coherence of the economic systems they (governments) so arrogantly flaunt, it makes you wonder why we always find a decent man ashamed of the government he lives under.

There are a lot of decent people, brownprose. But decent people, they are not perfect. They falter too. There are actually a lot of people in gov't whose intentions are good, but they are not perfect, they falter. No person on this earth is morally incorruptible. We are humans, imperfection is in our genes. Mao nang bisan unsa pa nga isms, naa gyud na'y deperensya kay human creations man na.

[b|tcH_g0dd3sS]

bitaw people. If you can discuss using really simple (as in everyday and not classroom) words then perhaps we'd have more people sharing their views.

Or else you'd just turn us off. Although it's fun reading you guys...

[makatasawi]

its like a multiplicity of architects (from the matrix) talking to each other...
mapapa wow ka. ambot lang though if in agreement or in confusion.

im happy to know though that this thread, most people are basing
on facts and not just on hearsay.
and wishing someone death if someone disagrees hahaha...


cheers!

[bungot25]

you have a point Ka Roger, but the problem is how to convince the officials and the people. your looking into economic stability but the question is how do you make a solution?

[grovestreet]

There are a lot of decent people, brownprose. But decent people, they are not perfect. They falter too. There are actually a lot of people in gov't whose intentions are good, but they are not perfect, they falter. No person on this earth is morally incorruptible. We are humans, imperfection is in our genes. Mao nang bisan unsa pa nga isms, naa gyud na'y deperensya kay human creations man na.

i agree... even if the most ethical people are elected to political office, if we have insufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. There would still be stealing, corruption etc. What we need is the intelligent management of resources.

[gareb]

The_Child:

i do not think that it was just Marx's (prophetic) phraseology that warrants a second look at marxism in the current socio-economic milieu where the limits of the various flavors of capitalism has become too obvious to ignore. spectre or not, marxism is important because it offers a critique of of the foundations of classical liberalism, hence neoliberalism as an extension.

this is even more important now considering the fact that the two main feuding strains of capitalism, neoliberalism and Keynesian economics both cannot achieve sustained growth rates in prolonged period of times without bursting again and again; the prolonged sustained growth rates that have become harder and harder to achieve as almost all of the significant 3rd world markets have become supply saturated.

not just that, but the short-sighted ideological-purity driven implementation of laissez-faire capitalism under the aegis of 'globalization', whether or not to cover up for the fact both consumer oriented and export oriented economies desperately need to open up new markets or simply fail, has become a means for exploitation in varying degrees the world over. it is not a secret that the gap between rich and poor countries has exponentially widen with the advent of neoliberalism, despite the well-touted 'trickle-down economics' of the supply-side economists.

true, the social, economic and political terrain that marx described during his time has drastically evolved beyond his wildest imagination, and the inter-relationships between producers, commodities and consumers have become way too complex. but this cannot discount the fact that the inherent shortcomings of the classical economic liberalism and the capitalist system as it evolves, as described by marx, is still true today.

the one simple short coming of marx, i believe, is that his socio-economic theory is named after him. to update his theory so that it can offer an alternative to the ailing global economic order would essentially no longer render it 'marxist'. a few label themselves 'neo-marxists' but i still have to aquaint myself with what they present.

[gareb]

Right. And no matter how much we blabber on the best ism for an economy, it brings you back to the idea of who's in charge. If the one in charge is not going to act like the doctor that he is supposed to, he therefore becomes the disease. And that's exactly what's happening today. In all their grandiose and the seeming coherence of the economic systems they (governments) so arrogantly flaunt, it makes you wonder why we always find a decent man ashamed of the government he lives under.

There are a lot of decent people, brownprose. But decent people, they are not perfect. They falter too. There are actually a lot of people in gov't whose intentions are good, but they are not perfect, they falter. No person on this earth is morally incorruptible. We are humans, imperfection is in our genes. Mao nang bisan unsa pa nga isms, naa gyud na'y deperensya kay human creations man na.

i agree... even if the most ethical people are elected to political office, if we have insufficient resources, we would still have the same problems. There would still be stealing, corruption etc. What we need is the intelligent management of resources.

a socio-economic system, and by extension, a political system, must always include a check-and-balance mechanism to see to it that the use of power is not abused. and that can only be achieved if political power, by means of socio-economic planning, is, more or less, evenly distributed.

in layman's terms, it is democracy that goes a few steps ahead from mere elections.

[brownprose]

a socio-economic system, and by extension, a political system, must always include a check-and-balance mechanism to see to it that the use of power is not abused. and that can only be achieved if political power, by means of socio-economic planning, is, more or less, evenly distributed.

in layman's terms, it is democracy that goes a few steps ahead from mere elections.

Yes. And it goes without saying that the problem really is not per se the choice of Economic system but rather, eventually, the fate of an economy is determined by the amount of planning and good governance being poured into the system.

[The_Child]

The_Child:

i do not think that it was just Marx's (prophetic) phraseology that warrants a second look at marxism in the current socio-economic milieu where the limits of the various flavors of capitalism has become too obvious to ignore. spectre or not, marxism is important because it offers a critique of of the foundations of classical liberalism, hence neoliberalism as an extension.

this is even more important now considering the fact that the two main feuding strains of capitalism, neoliberalism and Keynesian economics both cannot achieve sustained growth rates in prolonged period of times without bursting again and again; the prolonged sustained growth rates that have become harder and harder to achieve as almost all of the significant 3rd world markets have become supply saturated.

not just that, but the short-sighted ideological-purity driven implementation of laissez-faire capitalism under the aegis of 'globalization', whether or not to cover up for the fact both consumer oriented and export oriented economies desperately need to open up new markets or simply fail, has become a means for exploitation in varying degrees the world over. it is not a secret that the gap between rich and poor countries has exponentially widen with the advent of neoliberalism, despite the well-touted 'trickle-down economics' of the supply-side economists.

true, the social, economic and political terrain that marx described during his time has drastically evolved beyond his wildest imagination, and the inter-relationships between producers, commodities and consumers have become way too complex. but this cannot discount the fact that the inherent shortcomings of the classical economic liberalism and the capitalist system as it evolves, as described by marx, is still true today.

the one simple short coming of marx, i believe, is that his socio-economic theory is named after him. to update his theory so that it can offer an alternative to the ailing global economic order would essentially no longer render it 'marxist'. a few label themselves 'neo-marxists' but i still have to aquaint myself with what they present.

the phraseology: ein gespent geht..., if i may, is merely an expression that best encapsulates the object of analysis . It should not be misinterpreted as the "center" of which my earlier assertion is based upon.
The problem is more than purely economic, the strains of Austrian v. the Keynesian, since if we are to pit it in mere economic terms, we are seeing only a glitch in the system and not the system itself as a whole.
Thus, we are left to concern ourselves with a sort of academic regionalism, where in attempting to analyze the global situation we are merely focused with the inherent tensions of economic systems and leaves us with controlled alternatives either Austrian or keynesian, A1 or A2, but still unable to go beyond A as a whole.


Marx's prophecy of mondialisation, (some french academic bastard "gaulinized" it from the german) is nothing more than the english equivalent of Globalization we are all experiencing.


my point of calling it 'marxist' is not to consider our times, as a product of a puritan marxist ideology, but rather, that it is marxist and at the same time neoliberal because both contending discourses requires each other in order to lend the other intelligibility.

the neo-marxists? theyre dead too. it ended up most importantly when the french students finished the term during '68 and thus went to vacation. That was neo-marxism - a short lived life, born after the New Left, and begat her own bastard child - french poststructuralism, a marriage between marx and saussure.

i had the fancy of calling myself once a neo-marxist, but i realized that i already smelled myrrh.
and it seems that i have not cleanse myself entirely of some old fancies, the avatar is proof enough.