old paper article review, still raw not finished

Francis Fukuyama, The end of history? The National interest; fundamentally, the article poses the question of struggle of ideas and the triumph Western liberal democracy as the ultimate solution for human governance. Although, it doesn’t imply contending ideas would not arise to test this economic and political liberalism. Its suggested religious fundamentalism which is dissatisfied with the context of liberalism might some day pose a challenge, particularly; Islam which provides a form of theocratic political and economic. In my opinion, I believe this to be true under the current circumstance, the hot beds for religious fundamentalism is arriving. The reemerges of religious theocracy in my home country is particularly as new actor to challenge the warlord mentality that existed for sometime. Although, the author hints the challenges to come from Islam to western liberal democracy, but miscalculate the forgeable challenge it brought currently dictate the global politics. Reference to post cold war, Fukuyama points this ideological evolution will govern the material world in the long term.

The idea of end of history is fallible construction and let examine historical change of the material world. The one the early driving forces of the end of history, Karl Marx and Friedrich Hegel. Marx argues for the communist utopia as definitive answer to sort out all prior contradiction. Historical development goes through a dialectical process with beginning and middle, and end original belong to Hegel. Marx theory was never realized fully but, it was good opponent of liberal democracy. There some aspect of Marx theory I would agree with such as the state as welfare institution. I don’t be there will every a classless society in the world. In contrast, Hegel’s doctrine suggest that history is product of mankind, “progressed through a series of primitive stages of consciousness on his path to the present, and that these stages corresponded to concrete forms of social organization, such as tribal, slave-owning, theocratic, and finally democratic-egalitarian societies, has become inseparable from the modern understanding of man.” These ideas are very similar but different that Hegel’s believes that history to ends; when rational form of society and state became victorious. To elaborate Hegel’s concept history better much end a more specific date in 1806 at the time of the battle of Jena. State took a transformation Monarch to a revolution which sought to be the vanguard of humanity. The defeat in essence is the measure of the leap of power to hand of the people and realize liberalism as precursor for human civilization to exist. Hence, this stage of human history mandates states to flow a liberal value which is the “universal homogenous state” which allows for all the prior contradiction to be concluded and all desire of mankind are met. Clearly this implies that human are satisfied to and there is no need for conflict of ideas to exist in the larger since because it has been all worked out. In Hegel’s view, ideas are essential different entity which material world doesn’t conform. Perhaps, the material world operates ideological explicit forces that are impugned in the example of the gun which consciously motives the launch of projectile when human needs are not met. These ideas that drive these human needs are share collective desires imbedded almost innate like culture. These collectivism manifests to shape events of material world as safeguard step from events in the pasts, in history. Marx merges the material world and ideal world as super imposed superstructure. Its all determine by mode of production on which these collectively are share from nationality, culture, political and etc. Fukuyama focuses on the class issue of as impeding forces that could disable the cohesion of the Hegelian perspective of liberalism. The end of history and remarkable stages we are in today to weed out larger contradiction. These are the little difference that distinguishes as from one another as simple as food we eat.

In contrast, Stigler focuses nationalism and institution that embodied the western idea to transform the developing world. Here particular he speaks of the IMF, World Bank which hinder developing countries abilities realize western democracy. The interject points of these are the important of ideas and their implementations in the world stage. The emphasis lies with mindset and how ideas take rook in the material world. People that run these institutions are only concern with the immediate crunch of number rather than the other effect they trigger such social safe nets reducing poverty might increase world productivity. There is lagging in social norms of capitalism that cases the scopes of realties and how we perceive it. That Stigler points that the IMF and World Bank needs to reform in how they do business with non-western nations. These institutions are the lenders of last resort for any developing world. There is a sort of double dealing and bias toward nonwestern nations. Internationals institution has shift from their core principle of center approach and the way they have been design to operate. One, they place large burden on developing countries to liberalize their economy and offer stringent regulations on debt they hold. These expectations most of time force countries to experience more turmoil upsetting social standards. The prescribe solutions intervene the way domestic market operates. These countries become subject to abject poverty. Financial interest and commercial interest are the main motivators of these institutions. The author is saying these institutions a necessary although inefficient to large respect. The question he poses is if, we are to demolish these institution other similar organization will fill the vacancy. As an insider of these institutions, he calls for reform and advocates for changing the mindset of the hierarchy we import decisions that effect day to day life. But on the flip side developing world see’s this institution as of agent of the more developed countries. For any of the developing countries to adapt the Washington consensus as whole could be political and social suicide for the country. The remedies to reform are in seven key areas as Stigler puts it. Firs, that companies in west must accept dangers of capitalism that comes from liberalize markets. Those nations whose companies decide engage in FDI should market risk and circumstance. The higher risk you a companies decides to access the big both failure and rewards will be. Therefore, intervene on behalf of your national companies is wrong to procure leverage for them. Secondly, Bankruptcy reforms and standstills create moral hazard that trickles down to economy. Defaulting on pay is not something that happens on its own. The message here is don’t give loans to people who are less likely to pay back. If you lend money and will be used solely for the purpose of consummation then there is problem and immediate corrective action is needed. Thirdly, there should be less reliance on bailouts. There is misuse of bailouts in subsidiary or financial sectors in developed world. IMF tells to the developing world subsidiary are bad but, another hands western companies are being rescue by the same institutions. There is mindboggling message that contradicts the persuasions of these institutions. We need a level plain field to realize free market values that these institution are trying to instill developing countries. Fifth point, we need to revisit and improve the banking regulations that contribute to bad lending practices. The currently situation of packing loans and selling to investor pose threat to the integrity of sound market. We need fail safe to manage moral hazard that nearly eat the world economy today. Sixth points of reform, is the need to improve risk management in the volatile markets such exchange rate markets.

Feels we need to:

1. Accept the dangers of capital market liberalization

2. Bankruptcy reforms and standstills. Don’t give loans to people who are less likely to pay back

3. Less reliance on bailouts- don’t give government subsidies out to developing countries. Bailout is the contradiction.

4. Improve banking regulations- west should contribute to bad lending practices.

5. Improved risk management in exchange rates.

6. Improved Safety Nets- Increase social programs.

7. Improve response to crisis.

Enjoy as always...keep the heritage alive