Paul Krugman knows his economics. You may know that he is a Nobel Prize winning economist and author, he can also think fast on his feet in a language most of us can understand. This video from the BBC showcases his handle on the subject, even when double teamed. He makes a point about the conflation of the small state idea vs. dealing with the economy. The finance experts on the right first begin talking about economic measures, then seamlessly segue into how the state should be shrunken; Krugman calls that out for the ideology that it is. Ideologies and actual tactics may both be relevant to this debate, but they are not the same conversation. The whole nine minute clip is worth watching, but check out 3:53- 5:50 for the bit about ideology vs. pragmatism.
Hat tip to Tom Sullivan at Scrutiny Hooligans.
Every business book I’ve read says that you are living in a dream world if you expect to turn a profit from your business in the first year or even two. Ms. Leadsome, believes young college graduates should be starting businesses, not looking for jobs, so my question is what are those college graduates supposed to eat and shelter themselves with
while if their business gets off the ground? Are we now asking those parents of young adults to continue the “upkeep” of their capable and energetic – but very green – offspring, who may be losing money rapidly in a deteriorating economy and undoubtedly thin experience with the dog eat dog market. If the corporations are also growing ever larger via subsidies, why would they not prey on the vulnerability and fumbles of a brand new entrepreneur? In this country it is morally and legally wrong for a corporation to fixate on anything but the bottom line; we are reminded of this regularly with an it-can’t-be-helped kind of shrug. A new business is a fresh new critter, naked to the world, ignorant and vulnerable; it’s kill or be killed. The fact is that most new businesses are killed.
In the capitalist philosophy, the bottom-line-is-all-that-matters philosophy, young businesses are supposed to die. People that can’t make it in the harsh economic environment are supposed to fail – they are drags on society according to that way of thinking. If a person can’t be made to profit someone financially, they are ballast keeping the rest of us down.
Dog eat dog is for the dogs. We are humans. Should we differentiate ourselves from the rest of the animal kingdom? By using our skills, talents and compassion to build society, we can make room for the financially ambitious as well as those nurturers that support, care for, and enliven our communities with those tasks that are not rewarded very well financially…like teachers, environmentalists, artists, caregivers, janitors, gardeners, farmers, counselors, spiritual guides, writers, the elderly – the list is long and could go on.
Once again those in favor of venture or “vulture” capitalism assume that, like them, the rest of the world is focusing on hoarding money; the rest of the world is not. The rest of the world may have lives to live where money is only necessary to stay fed and dry, and our attentions are focused on more important matters (like caring for for humans, planting food, expressing creativity, etc.). There are enough resources to do this, but only if we recognize, relate, and remain human – not dogs, not machines, not widgets, but humans, flesh and blood, fallible, and fantastic.