News yesterday that Nova, the self-proclaimed McDonalds of English Schools in Japan, has gone into bankruptsy. I certainly won't bid a fond farewell to a company for whom staff and students were a long second to profits, whose infamous ticket system ripped off gullible clients and who, more recently, failed to pay their Japanese staff and foreign teachers.
Of course, Nadia and I did have a vested interest - our own little conversation school in Sanda-but that does not excuse the corporate greed that embodied the Nova system. I am truly sorry for the 4,000 or more foreigners who will now either have to find new work, or more likely, be forced to leave Japan. And for the decent people who signed up in good faith for English classes.
On another topic altogether, the house is only a few tantalising weeks from completion, or at least, complete enough for us to move in. Oh what a saga it has been!
And on a sad note, our choir friend Arthur, who has been fighting cancer for a couple of years now, is close to death. I know where he is going will be a brighter place for him: to see the very face of God! But we will miss him. Truly.
Sunday, October 28, 2007
Thursday, October 04, 2007
an 'f' in economics
Back in the days when there were two superpowers and just about everyone fitted into one camp or another, it was still possible to have a discussion about socialism. It was still possible to wonder whether there might be a better way to do things than what capitalism had to offer. One could posit the possibilities of systems other than those propounded by the Soviets or the Americans.
Come the 1990's and the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, capitalism emerged smugly triumphant, and so began the phase we might now call globalisation. Simply put, the markets should dictate where and why things are produced, what people are payed and how they are employed, irrespective of where they live on the planet. Underlining this logic, as with all capitalist endeavour, is the desire to make money, to up the profit, to safeguard the bottom line.
As pseudo-logical systems go, it seems to work rather well. Many folks in developing countries are being lifted out of poverty, developed nations have never had it so good. Governments can spend on the public good, if they desire, as a result of all this private inventiveness and hard work.
There are a few problems with this kind of reasoning. The environment is rarely factored in as a cost, so there is degradation, pollution and the potential for ecological catastrophe.
In developed countries, the gap between the rich and the poor has dramatically widened, with some governments taking a whip to the latter. Better to blame them for their own poverty, rather than the system.
And finally, isn't there something cynical and terribly wrongheaded about an economic system which is underpinned by human greed? Surely there is a better way to make a buck than at someone else's expense? Isn't the kind of consumption encouraged (actually demanded) by present day capitalism just plain bad? Not just frivilous or shallow, but wrong?
Which brings me back to socialism. Is there a new way of defining a socialist system, free from the authoritarianism of past blunders and flexible enough to let energetic people(ie. capitalists) make their own living if they want? A system that puts things back into a kind of balance.
I'm not an economist. Surely someone with the skills is thinking about it. Somewhere.
Come the 1990's and the fall of communism in Russia and Eastern Europe, capitalism emerged smugly triumphant, and so began the phase we might now call globalisation. Simply put, the markets should dictate where and why things are produced, what people are payed and how they are employed, irrespective of where they live on the planet. Underlining this logic, as with all capitalist endeavour, is the desire to make money, to up the profit, to safeguard the bottom line.
As pseudo-logical systems go, it seems to work rather well. Many folks in developing countries are being lifted out of poverty, developed nations have never had it so good. Governments can spend on the public good, if they desire, as a result of all this private inventiveness and hard work.
There are a few problems with this kind of reasoning. The environment is rarely factored in as a cost, so there is degradation, pollution and the potential for ecological catastrophe.
In developed countries, the gap between the rich and the poor has dramatically widened, with some governments taking a whip to the latter. Better to blame them for their own poverty, rather than the system.
And finally, isn't there something cynical and terribly wrongheaded about an economic system which is underpinned by human greed? Surely there is a better way to make a buck than at someone else's expense? Isn't the kind of consumption encouraged (actually demanded) by present day capitalism just plain bad? Not just frivilous or shallow, but wrong?
Which brings me back to socialism. Is there a new way of defining a socialist system, free from the authoritarianism of past blunders and flexible enough to let energetic people(ie. capitalists) make their own living if they want? A system that puts things back into a kind of balance.
I'm not an economist. Surely someone with the skills is thinking about it. Somewhere.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)