The aggregate produce of the labour of a savage tribe is small, but each member is capable of an independent life. He can build his own habitation, hew out or stitch together his own canoe, make his own clothing, manufacture his own weapons, snares, tools and ornaments. He has all the knowledge of nature possessed by his tribe-knows what vegetable productions are fit for food, and where they may be found; knows the habits and resorts of beasts, birds, fishes and insects; can pilot himself by the sun or the stars, by the turning of blossoms or the mosses on the trees; is, in short, capable of supplying all his wants. He may be cut off from his fellows and still live; and thus possesses an independent power which makes him a free contracting party in his relations to the community of which he is a member.
Compare with this savage the labourer in the lowest ranks of civilised society, whose life is spent in producing but one thing, or oftener but the infinitesimal part of one thing, out of the multiplicity of things that constitute the wealth of society and go to supply even the most primitive wants; who not only cannot make even the tools required for his work, but often works with tools that he does not own, and can never hope to own. Compelled to even closer and more continuous labour than the savage, and gaining by it no more than the savage gets-the mere necessaries of life-he loses the independence of the savage. He is not only unable to apply his own powers to the direct satisfaction of his own wants, but, without the concurrance of many others, he is unable to apply them indirectly to the satisfaction of his wants. He is a mere link in an enormous chain of producers and consumers, helpless to separate himself, and helpless to move, except as they move. The worse his position in society, the more dependent is he on society; the more utterly unable does he become to do anything for himself. The very power of exerting his labour for the satisfaction of his wants passes from his own control, and may be taken away or restored by the actions of others, or by general causes over which he has no more influence than he has over the motions of the solar system. The primeval curse comes to be looked upon as a boon, and men think, and talk, and clamour, and legislate as though monotonous, manual labour in itself were a good and not an evil, an end and not a means. Under such circumstances, the man loses the essential quality of manhood-the godlike power of modifying and controlling conditions. He becomes a slave, a machine, a commodity-a thing, in some respects, lower than the animal.
I am no sentimental admirer of the savage state. I do not get my ideas of the untutored children of nature from Rousseau, or Chateaubriand, or Cooper. I am conscious of its material and mental poverty, and its low and narrow range. I believe that civilisation is not only the natural destiny of man, but the enfranchisement, elevation, and refinement of all his powers, and think that it is only in such moods as may lead him to envy the cud-chewing cattle, that a man who is free to the advantages of civilisation could look with regret upon the savage state. But, nevertheless, I think no one who will open his eyes to the facts, can resist the conclusion that there are in the heart of our civilisation large classes with whom the veriest savage could not afford to exchange. It is my deliberate opinion that if, standing on the threshold of being, one were given the choice of entering life as a Terra del Fuegan, a black fellow of Australia, an Esquimaux in the Arctic Circle, or among the lowest classes in such a highly civilised country as Great Britain, he would make infinitely the better choice in selecting the lot of the savage. For those classes who in the midst of wealth are condemned to want, suffer all the privations of the savage, without his sense of personal freedom; they are condemned to more than his narrowness and littleness, without opportunity forthe growth of his rude virtues; if their horizon is wider, it is but to reveal blessings that they cannot enjoy.
…namely over at my newest blog, The Celebrity Industrial Complex, over at True/Slant. Today’s celebrity-based blog topic? Pondering the purchasing power of prominent posteriors. And Irish saints. Because we’re all eclectic an shizz.
Pidato Lengkap Boediono Tanggapi Paripurna DPR Kasus Century
lokasi: Home / Berita / FOKUS / [sumber: Jakartapress.com]
Jumat, 05/03/2010 | 18:27 WIB
Jakarta – Mengenakan baju warna biru tanpa jas, Wakil Presiden (Wapres) Boediono menyampaikan pidato menanggapi hasil paripurna DPR kasus Century selama 20 menit. Boediono menjelaskan mengenai bailout Bank Century. Dia menegaskan tidak mengambil keuntungan pribadi sedikit pun.
Boediono menyampaikan pidatonya di Istana Wakil Presiden, Jalan Medan Merdeka Selatan, Jakarta Pusat, Jumat (5/3). Boediono didampingi Menko Perekonomian Hatta Rajasa, Menko Polhukam Djoko Suyanto, dan Menkeu Sri Mulyani.
Seperti biasa, Boediono menyampaikan pidatonya dengan intonasi yang cukup datar. Berikut pidato lengkap Boediono:
Bismillahirrohmanirrohim
Assalamualaikum Warohmatullahi Wabarokatuh, Salam sejahtera untuk kita semua
Saudara-Saudara sebangsa dan setanah air.
Sekarang sudah saatnya saya berbicara mengenai persoalan Bank Century.
Pertama-tama, perkenankan saya menyampaikan bahwa dalam Pemilu Presiden April lalu, saya terpilih sebagai wakil presiden mendampingi Bapak Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY). Hasil pemilihan umum itu telah disahkan oleh Mahkamah Konstitusi dan Komisi Pemilihan Umum (KPU).
Konstitusi mengamanatkan, presiden dan wakil presiden terpilih menjalankan fungsi eksekutif penyelenggaraan negara. Begitu pula DPR sebagai hasil pemilu yang sah menjalankan fungsi legislatif, termasuk fungsi pengawasan terhadap eksekutif. Fungsi yudikatif dijalankan oleh Mahkamah Agung dan Mahkamah Konstitusi.
Pembagian tugas ini adalah untuk menjamin bahwa tidak ada satu pun institusi penyelenggara negara yang mempunyai kekuasaan tidak terbatas. Masing-masing menjaga dan dijaga, agar roda penyelenggaraan negara berjalan dengan transparan, akuntabel, dan penuh tanggung jawab.
Kebijakan penyelamatan Bank Century pada penghujung 2008 yang lalu, adalah langkah untuk menyelamatkan perekonomian nasional dari badai krisis yang melanda seluruh dunia. Sejauh ini, hasilnya sudah terbukti. Kita selamat melalui krisis global tersebut.
Tidak terbersit sedikitpun niat dari saya maupun Ketua KSSK, Sdri. Sri Mulyani Indrawati, untuk mengambil keuntungan pribadi dari kebijakan itu. Apalagi berniat merugikan negara.
Sejauh ini belum ada kerugian negara sebagai akibat dari penyelamatan Bank Century. Seandainya pun kelak kerugian itu terjadi, saya yakin biayanya akan lebih kecil ketimbang kerugian nyata yang pasti terjadi bila Bank Century ditutup pada waktu itu, dalam bentuk pembayaran jaminan simpanan.
Namun, kerugian yang justru jauh lebih membahayakan jika Bank Century ditutup adalah rusaknya sistem keuangan dan perbankan kita karena terseret krisis global. Jika sistem perbankan kita rusak, bukan hanya bankir atau pemiliknya yang menanggung akibatnya. Dampaknya akan memukul seluruh rakyat, baik yang memiliki dana di bank maupun yang tidak.
Kita tentu belum lupa bagaimana krisis keuangan pada 1998 yang lalu sedemikian parahnya mengguncang ekonomi kita, bahkan mengguncangkan sendi-sendi sosial politik negara kita.
Saudara-Saudara Sebangsa dan Setanahair,
Pada saat mengambil keputusan untuk menyelamatkan Bank Century, saya mendapatkan laporan bahwa Bank tersebut dalam keadaan memprihatinkan. Di dalam bank itu sendiri belakangan terungkap banyak terjadi salah urus dan manipulasi oleh manajemen maupun pemiliknya. Pelanggaran hukum itu juga sudah terbukti di pengadilan. Namun demikian, sebuah keputusan harus diambil dengan cepat demi menghindari risiko yang lebih besar.
Pada waktu itu, Bank Century ibarat sebuah rumah yang terbakar di sebuah kampung yang rentan oleh bahaya api. Rumah itu harus kita selamatkan agar api tidak menjalar, meskipun pemiliknya seorang perampok. Jelas, si perampok harus ditangkap, tetapi kita tak bisa membiarkan kebakaran di rumahnya turut memusnahkan seluruh kampung.
Sebagai Gubernur Bank Indonesia saat itu, saya juga sadar akan berbagai kekurangan di lembaga yang saya pimpin. Kekurangan-kekurangan itu baru mulai saya benahi dalam bulan-bulan awal penugasan saya di tempat baru ini. Tetapi kekurangan ini tidak boleh menjadi penghambat sebuah tindakan yang harus dilakukan dengan cepat. Sebuah pilihan yang sulit harus dijatuhkan demi kepentingan yang lebih besar.
Saya yakin, keputusan yang saya ambil itu benar dan terbaik bagi perekonomian kita pada waktu itu. Oleh karena itu saya mengatakan bahwa saya siap mempertanggungjawabkannya di dunia dan akhirat.
Dalam momen-momen yang sulit dan penuh ketegangan itu kita melihat ada pejabat-pejabat di berbagai instansi yang dengan niat tulus bekerja untuk mengatasi keadaan kritis yang kita hadapi pada waktu itu. Kepada mereka saya menyampaikan penghargaan sebesar-besarnya.
Saudara-Saudara sekalian,
Setelah menguraikan dasar-dasar kebijakan itu, perkenankan saya sekarang menyampaikan pandangan mengenai situasi politik di negara kita.
Dalam upaya bersama membangun demokrasi, saya sangat menghormati DPR RI dan semua unsur masyarakat yang bersungguh-sungguh berupaya menciptakan pemerintahan yang bersih dan efektif. Saya juga memahami dan menghargai dibentuknya Panitia Angket Bank Century. Ini untuk menegakkan prinsip transparansi dan akuntabilitas dalam sebuah pemerintahan yang bersih.
Namun demikian, harus kita akui kontroversi penyelamatan Bank Century ini telah menyita begitu banyak waktu dan energi bangsa ini. Perhatian kita beralih dari berbagai tantangan berat bangsa untuk memperbaiki nasib rakyat banyak. Karenanya saya berharap, bila kemudian langkah-langkah lanjutan perlu diambil, langkah-langkah itu dilaksanakan secara proporsional, berkeadilan, dan dilakukan oleh lembaga hukum yang berwenang.
Saya berpandangan, DPR dan partai politik adalah pilar-pilar penting demokrasi, di samping kebebasan pers dan masyarakat madani. Kiprah masing-masing pilar demokrasi ini perlu dipelihara dengan ketekunan dan kesabaran, dengan menghindarkan diri dari desakan nafsu jangka pendek terhadap kekuasaan.
Kita membangun demokrasi bukan untuk saling menghabisi pesaing atau lawan. Tetapi untuk berlomba-lomba menciptakan kemakmuran yang berkeadilan. Belajar dari sejarah di negeri kita sendiri, dan negara-negara lain, nafsu berpolitik sempit yang berlebihan dapat menghancurkan cita-cita dan sistem demokrasi itu sendiri. Kita tentu tidak ingin mengulang kesalahan di masa lalu itu.
Saudara-Saudara Sebangsa dan Setanahair,
Apa hikmah yang bisa kita petik dari perjalanan kontroversi penyelamatan Bank Century ini?
Telah terkuak beberapa kelemahan dalam sistem administrasi kenegaraan kita. Kasus ini antara lain menimbulkan kekhawatiran akan terhambatnya proses pengambilan keputusan eksekutif. Muncul kegamangan para pejabat negara untuk bertindak cepat karena tidak ada kepastian hukum dan tingginya risiko politik. Masalah ini harus kita atasi bersama.
Saya juga sangat bersyukur kepada Tuhan Yang Maha Kuasa bahwa selama ini saya telah mendapatkan kesempatan untuk mengabdikan diri kepada bangsa dan negara dalam batas-batas kemampuan saya. Saya berterimakasih kepada Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono yang telah memberi kepercayaan kepada saya untuk mendampingi dan membantu beliau sebagai wakil presiden.
Saya menganggap jabatan itu sebagai amanah. Saya tidak pernah memandang diri saya sebagai seorang politisi. Saya tidak pernah memperjuangkan sasaran-sasaran politik kelompok maupun partai tertentu. Dalam melaksanakan tugas pedoman saya selalu kepentingan negara.
Harus saya akui, saya tidak pernah memperkirakan sebelumnya bahwa jabatan ini dapat menjadi beban politik bagi Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono dan beban pribadi bagi keluarga saya.
Berlarut-larutnya persoalan Bank Century telah menyita waktu dan pikiran Presiden sehingga sedikit banyak mengganggu konsentrasi beliau dalam melaksanakan mandat rakyat untuk menjalankan pemerintahan.
Saya sadar benar, jabatan saya saat ini adalah jabatan politik dan karenanya saya harus siap setiap saat menghadapi tantangan-tantangan politik, baik dalam bentuk kritik maupun hujatan.
Saya juga mendengar tekanan bertubi-tubi dari beberapa kelompok agar saya sebaiknya mengundurkan diri. Tuntutan sebagian pihak tersebut saya dengar. Tapi, bila saya memenuhi tuntutan tersebut, saya akan tercatat dalam sejarah sebagai pemimpin yang lari dari tanggung jawab, sebagai pemimpin yang melecehkan kehendak rakyat yang telah memberikan suara. Di samping itu, saya tidak akan mengkhianati kepercayaan Presiden dan meninggalkan beliau.
Semua ini tidak dimaksudkan untuk mengatakan bahwa jabatan saya sebagai wakil presiden tidak dapat dihentikan di tengah jalan. Bila mayoritas wakil rakyat di Majelis Permusyawaratan Rakyat (MPR) menghendaki, dan bila semua ketentuan dalam Undang-Undang Dasar dan peraturan perundangan lainnya terpenuhi, apapun keputusan akhir MPR akan saya patuhi.
Marilah kita jaga agar demokrasi kita berkembang dengan leluasa dan mantap. Untuk itu marilah kita jaga salah satu asas utama hak asasi manusia, yaitu asas praduga tak bersalah. Marilah kita tidak menjadikan demokrasi kita sebagai arena adu massa dan adu kekuatan dana.
Hanya dengan itu, kita bisa bekerja bersama untuk masa depan Indonesia yang lebih jaya.
Amin ya robbal alamin.
Wassalamualaikum warohmatullahi wabarakatuh.
“Drop the ‘mickey mouse’ degrees” says head of Royal Society of Chemistry
It’s silly season again. According to a blog post from Richard Pike of the RSC:
‘Mickey Mouse’ degree courses should be swept away, and priorities in university education and research should reflect the challenges facing the country over the forthcoming decades. No longer should the government be paying 18-year-olds to start courses on celebrity journalism, drama with waste management, or international football business management.
This seems to be prompted by new constraints in HE funding and suggests that not only is utilitarianism a primary consideration but that university autonomy is also secondary to the perceived national need. Anyway, whatever the philosophical basis of the approach it’s always fun to pick on bonkers degree courses. Which probably explains why the story was swiftly picked up by the Telegraph which quotes Dr Pike:
“We need a population with an enduring set of skills, such as an understanding of the physical world around us, literacy and communication, numeracy, how to function and continue to learn in a complex society, and above all creativity, rather than an ability to satisfy some ephemeral demand that in 10 years’ time will be viewed as a curiosity.”
Further analysis of the courses he lambasts is also offered by the paper:
Celebrity Journalism is a new three-year course to be offered at Staffordshire University from this autumn. It includes topics such as interviewing celebrities and understanding celebrity culture. International Football Business Management is offered by Bucks New University and covers coaching, government policy, and issues in sport and leisure, among others.
All highly entertaining stuff therefore and really nothing new as previous posts on the launch of an MA in Beatles Studies and the offer of a degree in Northern Studies show. For the really masochistic there is also a podcast on “bonkers or niche” degrees.
Earlier this month I was able to attend the New Partners for Smart Growth conference in Seattle. I’ve been meaning to post a recap of what I heard there, and I still hope to, but today I’d rather write about something mentioned by one of the keynote speakers, Angela Glover Blackwell, the President & CEO of PolicyLink. She spoke about the role of smart growth in relation to social equity and creating a sustainable, green economy. The thing that struck me from her speech was her view of the three E’s of sustainability (environment, equity, economic). Most all of us would agree that equity often gets shoved aside in favor of economic and environmental concerns and that it should be given equal consideration among the three. Blackwell, however, argued that equity should rise above the other E’s and be the “growth model” going forward.
I’m not sure if this is a familiar argument or not, but it was the first time I’d heard it put this way and it got my attention more than anything else she spoke about. Too often we think of “growth” as both necessary and good. But what do we mean by growth? Typically it is measured by GDP, but does that really measure anything positive? I would argue that it doesn’t. Prior to the current recession, we saw America’s GDP rise, but the gap between rich and poor grew and incomes for most everyone but the wealthy remained stagnant. Putting GDP on such a pedestal and assuming that its growth leads unquestionably to good things has in reality lead to some pretty negative results. Much of our population, certainly those most in need, has been left behind by growth. From an ethical perspective, this is obviously quite bad. Unfortunately, many people look at things through a primarily economic lens and lose sight of the various externalities that result.
It doesn’t have to be this way. As Blackwell argues, we can achieve both “growth” and increased equity for everyone simultaneously. First, though, I think we need to either drop the term growth or at least redefine what it means. At minimum, a new measure needs to be developed that measures overall quality of life improvements. Gross National Happiness is an example of this, although I think it would have to be renamed in the United States to have any hope of catching on with the business community. This way of thinking falls in line with what that of the Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen. Sen argues that economic growth should not be our concern, but instead human development. Development is defined as enhancing human capabilities through greater political freedom, increased economic opportunities, better social opportunities, increased transparency, and protective security (think social safety nets). Sen sees these elements as the expansion of human freedoms and as both the ends and means of development. If we used increased human development as our overarching objective (with the Human Development Index (HDI) as our metric), we would then be working towards a greater quality of life for all populations. I would argue that this would result in a much better outcome for nearly everyone, rather than pursuing growth for growth’s sake. Maybe the elite will accumulate slightly less wealth, but the rest of the world would be in much better shape.
I worry, though, that this approach is too pie in the sky given the general culture and nature of politics in our nation. We’ve basically developed our entire economic philosophy around the notion that a growing GDP is necessary for increased prosperity. The frustrating thing is that the vague objectives we all generally associate with growth are not that different between growing GDP and growing HDI. The idea is to improve our overall standard of living, but our chosen metric of GDP doesn’t actually measure that. It seems to me that this isn’t widely understood and that resistance would be quite stiff to ditching GDP in favor of HDI or some other similar metric. Perhaps the best chance would be to take advantage of the recession and attempt to explain this issue. In conjunction, some sort of panel or committee could be appointed by the President or Congress that would develop a new metric that fits the American ethos but does a better job of actually measuring growth in equitable prosperity rather than growth in goods produced. Of course, even if we actually started using a new measure (likely alongside GDP at first), it would probably take a generation or two for our national philosophy to shift to supporting HDI. But the rewards could be great and I’d still like to see us try, even if it is a long shot.
Does anyone think otherwise? Are there better ideas out there? I’d like to hear what you’ve got to say.
Companies operate in a world of uncertainty. Candidates for employment can only communicate so much information to differentiate themselves, with the result that firms search for innovative ways to identify talented graduates.
Whether you call it networking, cronyism or simply the Old Boys’ Club – using contacts and connections to obtain an edge in the job market seems necessary in today’s competitive world. Should proponents of meritocracy really condemn such mechanisms?
Graduate recruiters spend an awful lot of time and money trying to identify talented prospects, something which is only profitable because it is so difficult to do well. For example, this author has been brought to dinner on more than one occasion by firms simply by virtue of being a scholar.
This uncertainty can be a frustrating curse or fortuitous blessing, depending on your perspective. However, it is certainly something which can be exploited for your interest. How? Since firms are seeking credible demonstrations of talent, students in their penultimate year of university should by all accounts be competing as vociferously for internships as they will for eventual employment – knowing that such a policy will reap dividends the following year. But such action though might not even be enough to land employment with the best firms. Why?
Frustratingly, many positions seem to the outsider stitched up by virtue of connections and contacts. The solution: adapt to market conditions by choosing your references wisely, and considering any possible links that you or your lecturers might have to the organisation in question. Of course, the alternative would be to claim that the market is corrupt and full of nepotism. Does this imply that it’s not meritocratic? Not necessarily.
When your connection make a plea on your behalf, it’s not a costless endeavour for them. If you secure a job for a friend or (say) family member who turns out to be completely useless, it hurts. Your networking contacts will see you as either a poor judge of candidate quality or a more concerned with nepotism than providing reciprocal and mutually beneficial recommendations. Either way, they won’t be listening to your advice in filling future positions.
So if a friend puts in a good word for you, it’s a credible signal of your talent because it costs your friend to put his reputation on the line. It’s a credible signal that you’re determined too. How can we deduce this? Presumably, because otherwise you wouldn’t be getting your friend to do the favour for you. After all, there’s no such thing as a free lunch and you must be offering him something in return for getting you the interview (or whatever).
In the end, employers will only adhere to recommendations from the Old Boys’ Club if they end up being profitable. Otherwise, such companies will lose custom to more efficient competition and perhaps go out of business. There’s still plenty of room for abuse through cronyism – After all, your recommendation need only be slightly better than operating under uncertainty to be worth listening to.
There are limits to the extent that the Old Boys’ Club contributes to meritocracy. If contacts are incredibly important in the actual business of work, then talent may eventually take a back-seat. This is clearly unfair to individuals who are talented but didn’t have the benefit of attending the right school or mixing in the right social circles.
There’s also collateral damage to these same people even if cronyism does make the market more efficient. If employers couldn’t receive advice from networks and connections, they would have to find the most talented recruit using more conventional methods. Unfortunately for some, that would make the company less profitable than under the status quo.
Last week, just prior to the Health Care Summit, the president posted his “final” word on the proposed legislation. It was basically the Senate bill with a few of the House versions more egregious programs tacked on. This was the party line until this afternoon. Now we hear that he will instead offer a stripped down version this week. The polling numbers really sucked over the weekend and now it’s a free for all.
The Summit failed to sway anyone, and the president’s poll numbers dropped. Over the weekend, Nancy Pelosi stated that “The health care bill can be bipartisan even though the vote may not be bipartisan.” She said this on CNN and the peanut gallery is still howling with laughter.
A number of leading Democratic senators have come out against using the reconciliation process to pass the health care bill, and with the opposition of various factions in the House to each others nonnegotiable demands, the whole thing is turning into a Marx Brothers movie with guns. Meanwhile, Charlie Rangel is hiding in the closet hoping no one knocks on the door.
The Republicans, who actually made a little sense at the summit, are on the sidelines almost as confused as everyone else except they’re avoided stepping in the dog poop. They have been very clearly told they are irrelevant, so now the Democrats have no one to blame but themselves.
On the funny pages also known as Op/Ed, Paul Krugman has taken leave of his senses and is now drooling in the corner after a nervous breakdown while E.J. Dionne is restating the party line faster than Pravda during Glasnost. His latest on the subject is that the reconciliation mess staring Congress in the eye is actually a great big fuzzy bunny because the Senate already passed a bill and all the House has to do is agree. Al Hunt is urging the president to go gangster on Congress and strong arm them the Chicago way into doing his bidding.
Pretzel logic is the order of the day. It would actually be funny if we didn’t have so many other pressing matters.
Companies operate in a world of uncertainty. Candidates for employment can only communicate so much information to differentiate themselves, with the result that firms search for innovative ways to identify talented graduates.