Responses to Arnold and Reg

During the second day of our DS 101 class, Arnold asked when the idea of "development" emerged. Reg also asked a question about post-modernists. During the third day of class, Reg asked what was meant by "nation-building" given the heterogeniety of Philippine society.

Let me react to Reg's questions first.

Post-modernity and pragmatism. I remembered the pragmatists recently, because I was reading an article about Obama. My teacher, Randy David read a lot of Rorty before he was absorbed by Luhmann and Rorty could be considered a pragmatist along with John Dewey and William James. Pragmatists are anti-foundationalists (there is no firm ground on which anything stands, even science is not a "mirror of nature" as Rorty would say).

But pragmatism isn't nihilism. The way we understood it is that pragmatism is about looking for what works. There may be no (firm) ground for things but certain ways of looking at things work better than other ways of looking at things. The pragmatists also have a firm commitment to democracy and education (which makes me think that maybe Sen is a pragmatist).

So I take back what I said in class. Most students now are pragmatists, not necessarily post-modernists.

Nation-building and poverty. Reg brought up that interesting point about what nation-building means. I think the danger is to associate nation-building with (narrow views of) poverty. There's nothing wrong with helping people to attain a basic standard of living but we should not neglect other aspects of life such as the development of culture.

Development. As for Arnold's question, the points below are shooting off the hip and probably drawn from stuff I've read before but whose citation I fail to remember now. Cryptomnesia.

First, people like Adam Smith and Thomas Malthus were writing in the context of debates about particular policies (free trade policies and the Poor Laws respectively). So I suppose, by then, there was already concern for questions of economic and social policy.

Second, I remember reading somewhere that the Russians (in the context of a socialist state) were the first to put into place 5-year plans. That would be the equivalent of our present day Medium-Term Development Plan (but on a much more ambitious scale.

Third, "Development Studies" as a field emerged during the period of decolonization after World War II. That's a pretty standard statement from introductory DS books (there are such books). Now that all these areas are newly independent, how do they proceed to develop.

A Tale of (at least) Two Economies

In recent days, my family has been able to save a comfortable amount of money, not much but enough for us to be noticed by banks and enough not to be afraid that if we approach a stockbroker, we don't have to be afraid of being spurned for not having enough.

While I have graduate training in economics, it was only when we were able to generate some savings that economics became personal. Exchange rates became relevant as we had to decide when the right time to buy/ sell dollars was. Saving our money in checking accounts didn't make sense as inflation losses started to become noticeable. Then stocks became a possibility.

Things like foreign exchange rates, inflation and interest rates became personal. Even things like fiscal deficits and US slowdowns/ recessions began to matter insofar as they affect foreign exchange rates, inflation rates and interest rates which in turn affects our money.

This is not to say that foreign exchange rates, inflation rates and interest rates are not relevant to those without savings. It is just that a family that does not have a comfortable amount of savings is primarily concerned with earning enough to meet expenses and foreign exchange, inflation and interest rates are exogenous to their decision-making algorithms rather than something to be played with.

In fact, on that level, especially among those who face difficulties earning basic needs, other things become relevant. 5/6, paluwagan, sanglaan, guarantors, palista sa sari-sari store, things which would not be relevant for those with substantial savings. For these people, 26% poverty incidence is not just a statistic, it's personal.

In this sense then, we can talk of (at least) two economies. The economy of those with substantial savings and the economy of those without substantial savings.

When PGMA says the economy is doing well, she's (probably) not lying. It's just that what she is referring to is the economy of those with substantial savings. Fiscal deficits have been reduced which reduced pressure on inflation and interest rates. Inflation has been tamed, by and large. The stock market recently reached record highs. These things and the creation of a stable economic environment make the Philippines more conducive for those with substantial savings.

The rest of the economy, however, is not that vibrant and beyond window displays, there really has been nothing substantial done for those without substantial savings. In fact, the poverty incidence increased from 24+% to 26+% at the same time that the economy was enjoying 6 years of uninterrupted growth. This goes to show that when the economy of those with substantial savings improves, it does not necessarily translate into the improvement of the economy of those without substantial savings. In fact, in this case, the situation of those without substantial savings has deteriorated.

So when we say that PGMA is good for the economy, we need to be clear what economy we are referring to.

Events

I do not know if it is just a function of media society but I have a feeling that organizational identity is increasingly identified not in terms of their functions but in terms of their events. This is not to say that organizations that are restricted to their functions do not have any identity. It is just that organizations that are restricted to their functions are increasingly considered second-class organizations (or mere bureaucracies).

When is something an event? I think it is when people outside the organization can get involved in the activity. There is a dynamic interaction between the organization and the people in its environment.

More than that, the people in the environment must know of (or have the means of knowing about) the event. It must be communicated, otherwise, no matter how terrific the activity, it is a non-event. Where I work, something becomes an event when there is an email blast to all employees about the activity and/or there are posters (although this is becoming less popular) and/or written invitations (which seems to denote something more formal), and/or tarps strewn all over campus (which denotes an event of some significance).

Organizations in the age of events must learn the language of events if they want to be recognized as having positive trajectories (something which is highly prized in modern society).

NBA Labor Power as Commodity

The NBA has been abuzz with news of "blockbuster" trades before the trade deadline on February 21. Pao Gasol going to the Lakers. Shaquille O'Neal going to Phoenix. And the impending trade of Jason Kidd to Dallas. Being a Utah Jazz fan, the trade that matters most for me is the acquisition of Kyle Korver for Gordan Giricek.

All this activity seems to be a good demonstration of what Marx said many, many years ago. In capitalism, everything is commodified and an essential capitalist commodity is labor power. Just like any other commodity labor power has value (expressed in the NBA in terms of how many players of what quality plus draft picks is equivalent to the desired player) and can be traded.

Kyle Korver seems to say it best in this quote from the Salt Lake Tribune (http://www.sltrib.com/jazz/ci_8247368) "You know what?'' Korver said. "The NBA is great for a lot of reasons. Location and stability in those ways is not one of them. You can get traded at any time. Your team can just move, apparently. There's a lot of great things about playing professional basketball. Knowing where you're going to be tomorrow is not one of them. That's just the nature of the business."

Yes, Mr. Korver, it is the nature of that business, a business which shows, more than most (because how many other companies trade their workers?) that in capitalism, labor is a commodity.

When Everything is Past

I learned last Friday that a friend of mine, a mutual acquaintance really (i.e someone whom I know and who knows me and I have worked with and talked to even if briefly), who is only in his 40s, is dying from cirrhosis and that he has been told he only has four months to live.

This evening, I was reading Luhmann and his concept of time and the "present", that there are two presents, the chronological present (as measured by the clock, for example) and the lasting present. The chronological present is irreversible. It is a present that at some point, passes into the past. I think the concept of the lasting present is tricky but my own take on it is that it is the horizon of the present where one takes for granted that there is a future "present", that there will be a "present" later or tomorrow or next year or that one will still be present/ alive at some future time.

While reading this I remembered my friend and imagined that his temporal horizon must have changed. It must have gotten shorter, for one. It must have become a temporal horizon where four months is of supreme relevance (how many others give a horizon of four months any meaning?) It must have become a temporal horizon where chronological time has taken over and must appear to him now similar to an hourglass, slowly and visibly shifting sands.

I suppose for my friend, the concept of lasting present ceases to have meaning and more and more the present for him is defined as an increasing accumulation to the past and the past, especially given his situation of being in a hospital and not being allowed to see visitors, is increasingly becoming irreversible just as his future is now defined not by reversibility (of the past and present) and choice but irreversibility.

This is not to say that there is no lasting present after death. But the lasting present after death, even in Christian belief, cannot undo whatever happened in the lived past. As such, when everything is past (in the sense that there is no more present or future), the past becomes irreversible.

Maybe that is why people who know they are dying, if they can take hold of themselves, seek to use their time to engage in processes of healing and reversing because they are finally confronted with the prospect of impending definitive irreversibility.

Life is so fragile. I can only hope that this becomes an occasion of tremendous grace for my friend.