The capitalist crisis and the conditions facing the youth

[paenggoy]

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/au...pers-a31.shtml

[vicmesar]

as the Chinese used to say, personal crisis offers new opportunities.

in a broader scheme, social crisis or imbalance of key elements in a capitalist society may give rise to a new order that is still within the realm of capitalism.

whether it is capitalism with an element of socialism or vice versa is basically nominalism- a matter of name-calling.

The article under consideration is very much valid in the Philippine society, high rocketing tuition vis-a-vis basic daily wage. This is an opportunity for us to re-think our approaches or mentality in terms of obtaining education, e.g., from formal to informal; from white paying jobs to field-work (agriculture, forestry, mining). Or, better still, create job generating activities that do not require formal education.

Going school is a way of life to every formal education, but it (going to school) is not really critical/necessary in obtaining education/knowledge (e.g., the case of Open Universities).

Without the students going to school on daily basis, the demand for facilities (buildings, professors, computers and the likes) will be less. The effect: less tuition and other financial charges.

Acquiring knowledge starts from reading and validating it either thru reflective thinking, professor consultation, and conducting experimentations.

Reading can be done at home (very true in law studies). The costly nature of formal education starts from the premise that every student has to be in school on daily basis to check whether he reads the assignment. History had shown that some leaders that changed the world have no formal education.

Maybe in the near future, going to school on daily basis is a luxury; and, paying high rocketing tuition is a joke.

[galileo_]

At least now, I am beginning to appreciate the existence of sectoral representatives in Congress. Kudos to Kabataan Party List for initiating a bill that would penalize schools adopting a "no-permit, no exam" policy.

[Lady Chablis]

This article is a scare tactic in the guise of concerns for students and young people amidst the current world-wide economic crisis. It is socialist rhetoric for recruiting youths to the International Students for Social Equality (ISSE), a student organization of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). That’s not surprising since it’s being published online in the World Socialist Web Site. The ICFI’s stated mission is “to build a new party that fights for the establishment of a workers government and socialism”. If that sounds too familiar it’s because it’s a Trotskyist ideology. Leon Trotsky is a Russian Marxist revolutionary and theorist during the Bolshevik Revolution.
The author has to stop dwelling on the faults of ideologies. None of these – socialism, communism, and capitalist – has all the answers for all our current problems. Communists who scream for equality and a classless society for all men can become corrupt with absolute power to dispense the wealth. The wealthy of the capitalist can succumb to greed and horde corporate wealth for their own selfish interest. Socialists can become lazy and want all entitlement money to come so they don’t have to work. The problem is not the ideology. The problem is us.

[paenggoy]

This article is a scare tactic in the guise of concerns for students and young people amidst the current world-wide economic crisis. It is socialist rhetoric for recruiting youths to the International Students for Social Equality (ISSE), a student organization of the International Committee of the Fourth International (ICFI). That’s not surprising since it’s being published online in the World Socialist Web Site. The ICFI’s stated mission is “to build a new party that fights for the establishment of a workers government and socialism”. If that sounds too familiar it’s because it’s a Trotskyist ideology. Leon Trotsky is a Russian Marxist revolutionary and theorist during the Bolshevik Revolution.
The author has to stop dwelling on the faults of ideologies. None of these – socialism, communism, and capitalist – has all the answers for all our current problems. Communists who scream for equality and a classless society for all men can become corrupt with absolute power to dispense the wealth. The wealthy of the capitalist can succumb to greed and horde corporate wealth for their own selfish interest. Socialists can become lazy and want all entitlement money to come so they don’t have to work. The problem is not the ideology. The problem is us.

Or it can be a commentary on what is actually happening. Even mainstream newspapers are talking about the issue:

"Generation Limbo: Waiting It Out"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/01/fa...-to-begin.html

In the end, it won't matter what one's ideological beliefs are because physics takes over:

"Our Oil-Constrained Future"

http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/20...trained-future

In which case, what we're looking at is a global economic system that's heavily dependent on increasing production and consumption of resources, in turn leading to greater profits, with some profiting from financial speculation. The result of the second is one credit crunch after another, and of the first a resource crunch, which the last article explains. That is, when oil demand goes up due to more people entering the middle class (and that includes plans to work in corporations or engage in professional careers), then demand hits a production ceiling that hasn't gone up, resulting in an oil price spike and a recession. Banks and governments pump in more credit to revive the economy, leading to more financial speculation, increasing demand which hits the ceiling again, leading to another recession.

Change the system to state capitalism, and the result is in the long term the same.

Oil production has not gone up because oil discoveries peaked in 1964, and the easy oil is gone. We can't switch easily because over 90 pct of our manufacturing and mechanized agriculture are dependent on oil.

And when oil production starts dropping....

[Lady Chablis]

It's a matter of graduating at the wrong time in a downturn economy. So far, they are better off than the rest. Their unemployment rate is still far lower than for high school graduates and those without high school diplomas. This high level of new graduate unemployment in the midst of a recession becomes relevant only if it does not improve with economic recovery. By then, it becomes an indictment of institutions of higher education for failure to match the aspirations of their graduates with employment opportunities available to them.

[paenggoy]

It's a matter of graduating at the wrong time in a downturn economy. So far, they are better off than the rest. Their unemployment rate is still far lower than for high school graduates and those without high school diplomas. This high level of new graduate unemployment in the midst of a recession becomes relevant only if it does not improve with economic recovery. By then, it becomes an indictment of institutions of higher education for failure to match the aspirations of their graduates with employment opportunities available to them.

There will be no problem if economic recovery takes place. But as Fatih Birol of the IEA points out, in order to maintain just current global economic growth, we will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia every seven years. Unfortunately, global oil production (on which much of mechanized agriculture and mass manufacturing are based) has been in a plateau since 2006, and at best the IEA estimates that we will get only a 9-pct increase in energy production during the next two decades. Meanwhile, for China alone to maintain its economic growth it will need the equivalent of one Saudi Arabia for itself, and more oil will be needed to maintain economic growth for the rest of BRIC and the emerging markets.

This problem is in turn coupled with an economic recession caused by increasing debt and which governments and businesses are trying to solve by...adding more debt.

Ultimately, what will take place will be an indictment not only of higher education but of economic systems that require continuous economic growth in a world with limited resources.

[paenggoy]

"UK students priced out of university education"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/se...fees-s21.shtml

[paenggoy]

"The Mad As Hell Generation: 20 Reasons Why Millions Of Americans Under The Age Of 30 Are Giving Up On The U.S. Economy"

http://endoftheamericandream.com/arc...he-u-s-economy

[paenggoy]

"Majority of US college students never get degrees"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/oc...grad-o04.shtml

[Lady Chablis]

The “Mad as Hell Generation” cites 20 reasons why they are giving up on the U.S. economy. They are not by any means an indictment of American capitalism. They are an indictment of politicians in collusion with abusers of the free capitalist system.

At the moment, Americans stand at a crossroad with two paths to choose for American capitalism. One path is to channel popular rage into political support for genuinely pro-market reforms—limits to the power of financial industry and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism. The alternative path is to soothe popular rage by implementing measures that play to the crowd at the moment, but threaten the financial system and the public standing of the American capitalism in the long run. For now, it looks like the current administration has chosen the latter path.

[paenggoy]

The “Mad as Hell Generation” cites 20 reasons why they are giving up on the U.S. economy. They are not by any means an indictment of American capitalism. They are an indictment of politicians in collusion with abusers of the free capitalist system.

At the moment, Americans stand at a crossroad with two paths to choose for American capitalism. One path is to channel popular rage into political support for genuinely pro-market reforms—limits to the power of financial industry and restore those fundamental principles that give an ethical dimension to capitalism. The alternative path is to soothe popular rage by implementing measures that play to the crowd at the moment, but threaten the financial system and the public standing of the American capitalism in the long run. For now, it looks like the current administration has chosen the latter path.

The phrase "abusers of the free capitalist system" should be questioned.

[rabii]

Parang mali naman ata na i_attriibute na dahil maraming problema sa US economy ngayon ay failure ang capitalism. Bakit sa ibang bansa, tulad ng Canada, katabing bansa, okay naman ata a. Baka mali lang ang policies at palakad ng gobiyerno. Hindi siguro tama na -iconclude na failure ang capitalism at mas okay ang socialism. Pag buhay pa si Ayn Rand , magagagalit yon.

[pedropinduko]

The problem is us.

I also came up with this conclusion last night as I was planning our itinerary for South Korea. (been pondering why the 2 Koreas never again reunited)

[paenggoy]

Parang mali naman ata na i_attriibute na dahil maraming problema sa US economy ngayon ay failure ang capitalism. Bakit sa ibang bansa, tulad ng Canada, katabing bansa, okay naman ata a. Baka mali lang ang policies at palakad ng gobiyerno. Hindi siguro tama na -iconclude na failure ang capitalism at mas okay ang socialism. Pag buhay pa si Ayn Rand , magagagalit yon.

The fundamental problem is increasing production and consumption of goods financed by increasing debt and needed for continuous economic growth. Ultimately, a resource crunch will take place. See the threads about peak oil and others in LAFI for details.

The second problem is financial speculation brought about by increasing debt. That is what we're seeing right now.

Finally, problems for the U.S. began with a combination of both, and may be seen in other countries. For example,

"Canada's Household Debt Hits Record High"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...876867866.html

"Canada's banks: Next dominos to fall?"

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...876867866.html

[rabii]

Yon nga siguro ang dahilan ng main problem, naging masyadong lax at liberal ang mga banking at financial institution na mag pautang kaya naging madali ang funds para sa mga consumers na gumastos para sa mga luxury goods, bahay, sasakyan,etc. at hindi naman nanggaling yong pera sa savings nila kundi utang. Tapos noong ang dami nang nag-dedefault sa loans at credit , ayon financial trouble at crisis ang ilang financial institutions at nagkaroon na ng domino effect. Tapos imbes na hayaan na lang sana na i-suffer ang consequence ng mga financial companies ang kanilang in-efficiency, incomptence and poor judgement e, come to the rescue naman ang ginawa ng federal government at bail out at nag-pautang pa uli sa mga palpak na institution, kasi ayaw nila yatang ma-ulit yong great depression during the 20's or 30's ba yon? Parang na-reward pa ang in-efficiency.
Tapos laki pa ng gastos sa maintenance ng troops sa Iraq at afghanistan. Sana pag yong ginastos sa war at mainenance ng troops, digurado hindi lang ang mga current students ngayon ang pwedeng pag-aralin kundi pati ang future generation.

Sana hinayaan na lang ng Federal government na bankcrupt kong bankcrupt, what must break should break na lang sana ang naging attitude. Medyo severe and shocking man ang naging result pero at least short lived naman kaysa naman sa ginawa nila na kumuha ng pondo from the taxpayers money para i-bail out ang mga financially distress na companya. Kaso long term naman at detrimental ang naging effect at ramdam pa rin ngayon. Ganoon ang capitalism siguro, if you make the wrong judgement and wrong decisions, you have to suffer the consequences. So siguro, more na kasalanan ang gobiyerno, kinunsinti sa pag bail out yong mga palpak na mga financial institution at hindi dahil sa meron flaw ang capitalism.

[Lady Chablis]

The USA’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis. In January 2001, with the budget balanced and the outlook so rosy for the next decade, political leaders chose to cut taxes (three times during the Bush Administration), jack up spending and wage two expensive wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) with borrowed funds. Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of 2011. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S history. As government policymakers grapple with the legacy of the mistakes of the past decade, a demographic wave of senior citizens (the Baby Boomers) is crashing at their doorstep, driving up the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Today, the forecasts are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever.

I don't think the fault is in the capitalist system, it is in the government policymakers.

[paenggoy]

The USA’s unnerving descent into debt began a decade ago with a choice, not a crisis. In January 2001, with the budget balanced and the outlook so rosy for the next decade, political leaders chose to cut taxes (three times during the Bush Administration), jack up spending and wage two expensive wars (Afghanistan and Iraq) with borrowed funds. Now, instead of tending a nest egg of more than $2 trillion, the federal government expects to owe more than $10 trillion to outside investors by the end of 2011. The national debt is larger, as a percentage of the economy, than at any time in U.S history. As government policymakers grapple with the legacy of the mistakes of the past decade, a demographic wave of senior citizens (the Baby Boomers) is crashing at their doorstep, driving up the cost of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security. Today, the forecasts are unrelievedly gloomy, showing huge deficits essentially forever.

I don't think the fault is in the capitalist system, it is in the government policymakers.

More like thirty years ago:

"Krugman and the pied pipers of debt"

http://blogs.reuters.com/rolfe-winkl...ipers-of-debt/

and more if you count the move from the gold standard:

"When the US defaulted: 40 years since the collapse of the Bretton Woods Agreement"

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2011/au...pers-a15.shtml

And much of what eventually became the petrodollar was needed to prop up an economy that is still heavily dependent on consumer spending. This is not surprising, given that in capitalism one starts with manufacturing then moves on to financial speculation.

It gets worse when one discovers that U.S. banks are heavily exposed to over $370 trillion in unregulated derivatives, part of a quadrillion-dollar global market that hardly involves "government policymakers".

But all of these will be a walk in the park compared to the other effect of capitalism, which requires continuous economic growth in a world with limited resources, and that's a resource crunch. No amount of bailouts or casino capitalism will avoid that.

[paenggoy]

Yon nga siguro ang dahilan ng main problem, naging masyadong lax at liberal ang mga banking at financial institution na mag pautang kaya naging madali ang funds para sa mga consumers na gumastos para sa mga luxury goods, bahay, sasakyan,etc. at hindi naman nanggaling yong pera sa savings nila kundi utang. Tapos noong ang dami nang nag-dedefault sa loans at credit , ayon financial trouble at crisis ang ilang financial institutions at nagkaroon na ng domino effect. Tapos imbes na hayaan na lang sana na i-suffer ang consequence ng mga financial companies ang kanilang in-efficiency, incomptence and poor judgement e, come to the rescue naman ang ginawa ng federal government at bail out at nag-pautang pa uli sa mga palpak na institution, kasi ayaw nila yatang ma-ulit yong great depression during the 20's or 30's ba yon? Parang na-reward pa ang in-efficiency.
Tapos laki pa ng gastos sa maintenance ng troops sa Iraq at afghanistan. Sana pag yong ginastos sa war at mainenance ng troops, digurado hindi lang ang mga current students ngayon ang pwedeng pag-aralin kundi pati ang future generation.

Sana hinayaan na lang ng Federal government na bankcrupt kong bankcrupt, what must break should break na lang sana ang naging attitude. Medyo severe and shocking man ang naging result pero at least short lived naman kaysa naman sa ginawa nila na kumuha ng pondo from the taxpayers money para i-bail out ang mga financially distress na companya. Kaso long term naman at detrimental ang naging effect at ramdam pa rin ngayon. Ganoon ang capitalism siguro, if you make the wrong judgement and wrong decisions, you have to suffer the consequences. So siguro, more na kasalanan ang gobiyerno, kinunsinti sa pag bail out yong mga palpak na mga financial institution at hindi dahil sa meron flaw ang capitalism.

The problem is that governments need corporations to profit in order to receive tax revenues, and corporations need people to spend more in order to make more profits. And banks need corporations and people to borrow more because that's essentially how banks make money.

Thus, capitalism requires increasing production and consumption of goods in order to ensure continuous economic growth, which is just as well if growing numbers of people worldwide want a middle class lifestyle. Worse, in free market capitalism, more economic growth is needed as more want their wealth to grow faster than those of others. In time, more will want to make money by lending money.

Unfortunately, more lending means increasing money supply, which leads to credit bubbles popping. Increasing production and consumption leads to both resource depletion and environmental damage.

We are seeing the effects of the first problem today, and it is masking the actual cause of the recession, i.e., the increasing cost of extracting oil coupled with increasing energy demand from India, China, and emerging markets. Behind all that is the long-term effects of environmental damage and pollution, which is contributing to higher food prices, etc.

[Lady Chablis]

The problem is that governments need corporations to profit in order to receive tax revenues, and corporations need people to spend more in order to make more profits. And banks need corporations and people to borrow more because that's essentially how banks make money.

Thus, capitalism requires increasing production and consumption of goods in order to ensure continuous economic growth, which is just as well if growing numbers of people worldwide want a middle class lifestyle. Worse, in free market capitalism, more economic growth is needed as more want their wealth to grow faster than those of others. In time, more will want to make money by lending money.

Unfortunately, more lending means increasing money supply, which leads to credit bubbles popping. Increasing production and consumption leads to both resource depletion and environmental damage.

We are seeing the effects of the first problem today, and it is masking the actual cause of the recession, i.e., the increasing cost of extracting oil coupled with increasing energy demand from India, China, and emerging markets. Behind all that is the long-term effects of environmental damage and pollution, which is contributing to higher food prices, etc.

The main problem is: Americans are living beyond their means for years and it's catching up with them. In a consumer-driven economy, the government is encouraging them to spend.

On "Our Oil-Constrained Future": I think peak oil is a myth. The peak keeps moving farther away as unconventional source of oil and environment-friendly renewable source of energy are being discovered, developed and mass-produced.