Capitalism: A Happy Ending? Indeed, capitalism is now the dominant force in the global economy.

With the exception of a few, isolated 'communist' states, the world it seems has adopted to the fast-paced and dizzy ways of the market, with people, goods and capital being exchanged in the world's economies. Globalization has been not just a buzz-word but a way of life, seems that the world has been reduced to a click of the mouse. With this soap opera called Capitalism, can we consider it a happy ending? If it really is, who are the protagonists who won, and the antagonists who lost? Does it even matter to the real audience; the people? It all started with the debates of the world's thinkers during the 20th century. There was Keynes, the one in favor for planning and big government, and Hayek, who wanted the market to be free in its affairs. The early 1900s in itself is a turbulent time, with wars making the balance of world affairs very fluid. The communists are fastly rising, starting in Russia. New personalities (or should I say, 'actors') arrived; there was Lenin and Stalin, Hitler, Churchill and Roosevelt, among others. Starting with World War II, the world saw itself in a state of depression. Economies fell, especially in the US, and there was anxiety as more people lost their living and war is approaching fast. World War II came; and after the war, the world saw itself in a great divide, much resembling a couple separated by the circumstances. Suddenly, the world was divided by an 'Iron Curtain'. Communism suddenly controlled a third of the world's population, introducing central planning, and argurably, restriction to people's freedoms. On the other hand, Western nations has shifted their outlook to Hayek's theories. Capitalism, as the West advocated it, is something equivalent to freedom, that a free market gives people the key to their own destinies. World leaders such as Margaret Thatcher steered their governments in the attainment of economic freedom, in turn laying the foundations for globalization. Labor unions were tamed, government privatized its assets, and certain sectors of the economy was opened for all, even those from outside the country. The 1990s came, and as events have turned, communism has fallen into its destiny. The Iron Curtain was dismantled, and the world was finally united under the banner of capitalism. It seems that it will become the inevitable.

The promise of capitalism, however, has mixed results. While it has opened the world's markets to new sources of capital and overflowing goods and services, its downside has became very obvious the gap among the rich and the poor widened excessively, and the world's resources, such as minerals and gas, transferred to a few hands. And while globalization has made us interconnected to one another, it has eroded national and cultural identities, seems to be a trend towards a global culture. Then, who are those who got their happy ending in this soap opera? Some countries, such as China and the ASEAN, used globalization to develop their economies, later on stumbled in the midst of the Asian Financial Crisis. While developing nations rise fast as they unlock their potentials, European countries and the United States saw themselves in the middle of a credit crunch. The world economy has now been so linked that an event in one nation could stumble another in just a few seconds. There is also an argument that globalization has made nations useless entities. Indeed, it is now the age of the trans-national enterprise, with global brands, owned by not just one but many nationalities, controlling majority of the world's businesses. It is not surprising to have products in the market under American or Japanese brands when in fact, they are produced in China or some low-wage country. Business, it seems, has also been very flexible. As nations push forward to liberalize their economies, Foreign Direct Investment entered their gates, paving the way for their entry on local economies. While they offer more competition, their effect on local industries has been detrimental, most of them succumbing to foreign companies. Agriculture, mining, and even utilities such as electricity and water became accessible to everyone, including trans-national entities. Labor has been very creative, with innovations such as contractualization transfroming the individual to a mere service provider. But if you ask the majority of the world's population, I do not think they can treat globalization as a happy ending. A farmer, who does not own the land he tills, will protest about companies converting agricultural land for industrial or commercial purposes. Indigenous peoples may also argue about foreign mining copanies extracting minerals in their land without giving them compensation. Ordinary homemakers may

also grumble about the fast-rising prices of consumer goods, now that oil and gas prices has been sky-rocketing. College graduates may end up in a call center or be forced to migrate abroad due to lack of opportunities for them in the country. While developed nations live effortlessly, majority of the world still lives in the realities of hunger, poverty, war and disease. I do not want to consider globalization to be a happy ending, much more and ending in itself. History, by its terms, does not just end abrputly. While globalization is now the norm, in itself there are so many events that can change anytime. Who could have thought that China will embrace capitalism, much more to become as a global superpower? Who would have predicted America's debt crisis 10 or 20 years ago? As the world becomes a dizzying market, we could expect nothing but change. And while these countries, world leaders and businesses write and direct the story of the global economy, we should remember that we are not just mere audiences in this story. People themselves should be involved in the script because they are the ones who will be affected by the story. The effect of decisions made by government and business are not just limited to themselves alone, but to the people whose lives depend on the course of the global economy. For majority of people, they do not really care about globalization and the things happening in politics everyday, what matters most is for them having a job that could take care of their needs. But when they are in a situation where their needs are not being provided, you could not prevent them to stand up and change the script. The Occupy movements, the Arab Spring and similar undertakings are not just manifestations of discontent, rather a plea of people to have the story of capitalism work for their advantage. Capitalism and globalization is not a work of the devil, but they could be if people would not stand up against its excesses. The story of capitalism will only become a happy ending if it will become the way where people will fulfill their needs and attain the hopes and dreams they long for.