sparks. i knew you would snicker. hehe.

seriously now, i disagree that politics and economics should be integrated. planned economies i think is the wrong way to go, even given the current market condition. i think it puts a constraint where none should. The longer banks are nationalized globally, the worst things will be. stabilizing the market is one thing. Keeping it going is another.

I think it is akin to having a patient in the ICU.

I don’t think economics can be put as simply as Strange and Polanyi expressed. even the best of us can be wrong. Einstein was wrong: God does play dice. Or at least that is common wisdom which we’ve learned from quantum mechanics thus far. As with many things in science, tomorrow could be a different kind of universe. A probabilistic universe seem to be the right one as far as our knowledge goes.

The crisis we are in will be studied generously for years to come. Its source, its consequences. It will shape economic policy for years to come.

Sun Tzu, in his Art of War emphasized logistics in winning a battle. Economics is the fuel that drives human achievement but it is politics that point where its focus should be. There is no doubt that underneath it all, there seems to be a search for a different kind of political philosophy, one that puts human achievement first. Perhaps this will be driven by a different kind of economics, less as an end but more of a means to an end.

Marion Fourcade-Gourinchas wrote this here.

An Indian born economist once explained his personal theory of reincarnation to his graduate economics class,” Paul Krugman writes in the opening paragraph of his Preface to Peddling Prosperity. “‘If you are a good economist, a virtuous economist,’ he said, ‘you are reborn as a physicist. But if you are an evil, wicked economist, you are reborn as a sociologist.’” Krugman then continues, “A sociologist might say that this quote shows what is wrong with economists: they want a subject that is fundamentally about human beings to have the mathematical certainty of the hard sciences . . . . But good economists know that the speaker was talking about something else entirely: the sheer difficulty of the subject. Economics is harder than physics; luckily it is not quite as hard as sociology.” (1994:xi)

I don’t know how this is going to sound, but… we tried turning the Liberal Party into something like a “real” political party.

I know many would contest what we accomplished, particularly during the “Liberal Family” years, roughly 2002 – 2004, but I think the best proof that we could present that what we were doing was WORKING were all those emails and even snail mail of ordinary people asking how to join the Party and be part of what we were doing.

It CAN be done, reforming our political parties into something “real” and relevant. Because I’ve seen it happening. God knows where the LP would be now if only… *sigh*

Like I said in MLQ3′s blog, Garci SUCKS.

Anyway. Yeah, I agree: Akbayan, for all its faults, seems to be a good template for an effective partylist organization. I’ve worked with them before, back in college, and I was more or less satisfied with what they and we did together, particularly with the Pandayan people.

Personally, I believe that organized political groups are needed to help deal with the malaise that’s turned our political sphere into a walking, stinking corpse.

As to whether effective political parties can still be created after Garci…*sigh*

The disillusionment is almost drowning.

a 2-party system (in the true sense) defined by real platforms, visions and a concrete blueprint for governance at least provides for a CHOICE vital to himself, his country and his people. it’s time our electorate be given an opportunity to use its collective wisdom to choose leaders that are committed to a definitive programs that have been presented, disclosed to, and analyzed by, the electorate beforehand, for its acceptance or rejection. let all candidates live or die through the issues that they espouse, not the size of their wallet, demagoguery or bubble popularity.

i do believe that the rules can aid or hinder good governance or at least, governance that isn’t doomed to be bogged down from the start. as far as this point goes, i sympathize with the president’s supporters who point out she didn’t have a fighting chance and really, no president under the present charter has had a fighting chance to govern effectively. what i dispute are the proposals put forward to fix things, usually coming from the unelectable who would rather pursue exotic solutions because they can’t accept the political culture we have. for example, good luck ever succesfully proposing a system where the national electorate doesn’t directly elect the head of government.

a run off ensure that however many candidates start out, only two have a showdown and necessarily this means one will have a majority. the importance of a majority mandate is something obvious to leaders ranging from de gaulle to our past presidents. we are a majoritarian culture, we respect those who have numbers and are truculent when faced with those with a minority basis of support.

the other way of course is restoring the two party system, since there are ever only two parties: those in power, those who aren’t (and a third party but outside the system are those in the hills trying to replace the entire system). again this limits those who can run and the choices of the electorate. which has good and bad sides to it.

then again if you do not take the path of reform, which assumes there is much that is valuable and meritorious in our political past and how we’ve developed, then the option left is a clean sweep. in which case as lenin said there’s no way to make an omelet without breaking eggs. but i can’t see myself being enthusiastic over people who view other people as omelets. it leads to pol pot.

but a run off in any case will be a good idea for the country.

Runoff voting can refer to:

* Two-round system – a voting system used to elect a single winner, whereby only two candidates from the first round continue to the second round
* Instant-runoff voting – an electoral system whereby voters rank the candidates in order of preference
* Exhaustive ballot – a voting system whereby rounds of voting continue (with or without elimination) until one candidate achieves a majority. Also called repeated balloting

That is just me.