That’s what I thought when you said “shrink government.” Incidentally, I also heard this from a friend last night when we ate out. He also says the electorate system will ease the burden on the people and eliminate worries on all the dagdag-bawas. Just vote the rep and let them reps fight over the elections. I’m open to the idea.

Yes, Chino F, I would. A parliament with less members than the 200+ congressmen and 24 senators that we have now. A parliamentary system would also provice (check me on this) that cabinet members be members of parliament too. This would make for a smaller government, which is good because that would entail less taxes on us.

Good thinking, my friend.

Thank you for that thought, Imelda.

Actually, there is a HUGE difference between corporations and government: Corporations have no control over you. You can refuse to buy whatever they’re selling. Whereas, Government has a lot of control over you. It has the the power to take your money, your liberty and your life. So who should we be watching more?

Would you support the parliament model, Uncle Pinoy? I’ve heard arguments for this. Or at least the electorate model.

Here’s an interesting article with more insights into how Australia got through the crisis:

http://www.bnet.com/2403-13239_23-352693.html?tag=homeCar

Why do we see government as a benevolent entity when we can plainly see that our political leaders are corrupt to the core? A big portion of the taxes that you and I pay go to the pockets of these politicians. For instance, it is common knowledge that DPWH is corrupt to the core, yet why is it that we get all jacked up at the private contractor when it is the politicians (aka government) who award projects to private contractors in order to receive kickbacks?

We accuse big corporation of bribing government officials – but it is patently obvious that government officials extort money from business (including big corporations). What is the salary of the average government executive? Php30,000 – Php50,000 a month? With a family (and maybe a mistress or two) where does he get the money to sustain that lifestyle?

We’ve made excuses for our favorite politician’s (like Obama’s) glaring and obvious failures, yet we are quick to point out the evils of corporation which we cannot substantiate. Big Corporations cannot tax you. Big Corporations cannot put you in prison. Big Corporations cannot force you to military conscription. Big Corporations cannot take your private property. Big Corporations cannot curtail your freedom of speech. Government and politicians CAN and they DO.

I am no apologist for big business. If Big Corporations do anything illegal then they should be prosecuted.
Always look at politicians and government with suspicion. Whether it be Noynoy, GMA, Erap, Villar, Bush, or Obama. We should not fall for their platitudes. They throw out words like “social justice”, “fairness”, “equality” and cheer when they say that they will go after greedy corporations and the fat cats, instigating a class war. That kind of talk has been going on for years but has it made life better for us? We were told in the 1980s that if we have land reform, we will eradicate poverty in the provinces. Has it?

And their social programs don’t work. Look at the GSIS and the SSS. It’s bankrupt! Think about it, the SSS and GSIS are nothing more than giant Ponzi schemes and we think they’re good programs. They’ve become a piggy banks from which the politicians steal! And how do they replenish the GSIS and SSS? By taxing us more! Ponzi scheme. And it is forced on us through taxes.

If we’re to be wary about anybody, we should be wary about government. My proposed solution: Shrink government. And with an upcoming cha-cha, we have the opportunity to do this.

in addition to what uncle has said about freedom to choose, it must also be said that lower prices allow for higher consumption. thats a good thing.

the key problem here is debt that allows individuals to borrow based on beliefs about future income. these beliefs can be wrong. if everyone is wrong at the same time, its trouble…

A bit more reaction:
You have a point on government contributing some of the problems. I read Bush encouraged people to borrow more and more during his term, and this contributed to the financial mess of the US. Obama inherited a really big headache.

On bank limitations on credit lines, I find that a necessary step to make sure the bank stays intact and operational. The US crisis proved this. I don’t think credit line limits necessarily curtail freedom to buy. For one thing, credit unrealistically encourages consumption without money on hand. I for one prefer to stick to cash as king, and buy only what my pay dictates.

And I see this from the above scenario: much of what really influences things and the decisions made happen in the informal sphere, rather than the formal. The formal sphere finalizes decisions and actions, but most of the thinking and planning happens in the informal sphere. People sign laws in sessions, but much of what leads to these laws id discussed over tea and toast. Same with purchase decisions, credit limit setting, and others.

I enjoy the discussion too. Makes us Google for more information.

No grand conspiracy to bring down big corporations, benign0? Maybe not, but I am reacting to these statements, my friend.

Chino F on October 14th, 2009 at 3:05 am

“I think it the big corporations – big business – are doing much of the damage. I point out the big corporations, especially those that wield a lot of influence and power, such as oil, sugar and military industries, that are the harmful ones.”

Chino F on October 13th, 2009 at 12:35 pm

“I believe some corporations bribe US congressmen and politicians, and others have personal connections, like Dick Cheney and Halliburton/KBR, which purportedly influence government decisions. Or they just put their people in office – I think George Bush is an executive in the oil industry.”

Imelda Ignacio on October 13th, 2009 at 9:29 pm

“People would not be in so much debt if they did not over-spend. People have moved on from basic needs to luxury items and it is the corporations who benefit most from the spending spree of each individual. This means that the poor have not benefited from all this consumerism. Again, this situation might eventually lead to conflict between the social classes.”

First off let me say that I admire Imelda and Chino for their passion and activism. I believe their motives are pure, and I respect their opinions. However, I think some of their premises are erroneous and it would be a disservice to them if i do not disabuse them of the errors. Chino, for instance, was honest enough to say that he does no know about corporations but writes about what he understands and read about them. And that’s fine. My exchange with him was to explain what a corporation does. To his credit, he read it and seems to have understood.

My issue with Imelda was her “need[ing] a new model to sustain world economy. Something that does not promote over-consumption”. Which sounded to me like advocating a system of governmental regulations to control freedom to consume. Now that she has clarified herself below, then I have no problem with her.

And I’ve never had problems with your posts here, benign0. i just think sometimes, and I mean this very respectfully, you’re off-tangent. Again thank you for the opportunity to discuss with you all.