Talent in Society

Leave a comment

Extremely talented individuals are often lauded for their achievements in apparently furthering human endeavour and accomplishment. While effort and hard work is a vital component of any great achievement so too must we recognise that particular individuals are especially gifted by nature in one way or another and that lesser beings such as ourselves have little hope of matching the achievements of these people, however hard we might work.

However, the precise talents that we are wont to recognise and celebrate today all appear to be concentrated in highly specific areas. The artistic and sporting talents of actors, directors, football players and so on – and the often very lucrative salaries that professionals in those areas can attract – receive not only a (sometimes obsessive) degree of praise and attention but also an overwhelming amount of encouragement and nourishment. Television shows such as The X-Factor and Britain’s Got Talent attempt to attract hidden singers and artists amongst the general public; children at school are persuaded to “express themselves” and find their “artistic personality” and to “aspire” to “creative” achievements.

There is nothing basically wrong with any of this, of course, and talent should be encouraged where it is found – although with children one might to wish to ensure that they are literate and numerate before attempting to find their “inner selves” and deceiving them too much into thinking that they are likely to emerge as anything other than normal, regular taxpayers. The problem is that when you strip out any highbrow rhetoric all of these talents – even great art, stirring music and record-breaking sporting achievements – basically achieve little more than provide entertainment; they are luxuries that must be funded out of more basic, material productive accomplishments. One very vital talent, the one talent that both provides all of the resources that maintain our standard of living and provides the wherewithal for us to enjoy art and sport is ignored. This is the ability to serve the needs of consumers as the head of a productive enterprise – in short, entrepreneurial talent.

The role of the typical leader of a multinational business, far from being lauded as a pinnacle of accomplishment and receiving praise and adulation for directing scarce resources to the ends that consumers most desire, is usually painted as a greedy, overpaid “fat cat” who exploits his workers and customers. Although it is true, of course, that many of these large firms are in bed with government and do not necessarily achieve their riches through voluntary trade, somehow one does not sense that this is the consciously acknowledged reason for the zealous lambasting thrown in the ir direction and that this attitude exists in spite of, rather than because of, any government ties. So-called “public service” – in other words, becoming a bureaucrat who leeches off productivity rather than creates it – is seen, for its alleged selflessness and altruism, to be a more noble pursuit that stooping into the grubby gutters of business. In reality the contrast between entrepreneurial talent and political talent is completely the other way round. Entrepreneurs have to be able to direct the scarce goods available to their most highly valued ends in order to bake a bigger pie; politicians, on the other hand, do nothing more than persuade everyone else why you and your sponsors should have a larger slice of that pie without adding anything to it.

Our inability to recognise and nurture this very vital talent upon which our lives depend is nothing short of tragic. Even television programmes that highlight the entrepreneurial spirit paint aspiring entrepreneurs as either whimsical and unrealistic day dreamers to be laughed at (such as in The Dragon’s Den), or as hard-hearted, self-centred and antagonistic (such as in The Apprentice). Popular entrepreneurs such as Richard Branson have had to mould their image as an underdog, portraying the mainstream, established business community as greedy and exploitative of the consumer.

Of course it is hard to believe that the entrepreneurial spirit will ever be entirely killed as there will always be people hot on the heels of any profit opportunity. But when we are doing all we can to kill or ridicule the entrepreneurial spirit and when we create more “profit” opportunities through fleecing the public rather than serving them we have to begin to wonder how our standard or living will be maintained in years to come. At the very least, the great entrepreneurs of the future – the John Rockefellers, the Henry Fords, the Andrew Carnegies, the Bill Gates– are unlikely to be from the West, and Asia will take over as the productive power house of the world. We in the West will simply become lazy and dependent, expecting our mouths to be filled with goodies by someone else’s spoon. Although all of this might seem like a relatively minor issue compared to what else is going on in the collapsing Western Empire – debasement, debt, war, and so on – it is all part of the same calamitous catalogue of problems that we face. By recognising the true origin of productivity and encouraging the genuine virtue in entrepreneurship then we can, at least, begin to pull some of the nails out of not the West’s coffin and bring us on a path towards resurrection.

View the video version of this post.

Advertisements

Politicians and Entrepreneurs

Leave a comment

When perusing much public discourse concerning those in government and those who, say, are businessmen and entrepreneurs, one of the more striking aspects is how their economic roles and motivations are viewed as the complete opposite for what they really are.

Even though their achievements may, from time to time, be lauded, the businessman, entrepreneur or capitalist is almost universally despised for what appear to be his motives of greed, selfishness and exploitation. Central to this is the profit-motive, a factor that seems to receive exclusive attention at the expense of any other. Yes, it is true that people are in business to make money and usually as much of it as possible. But this completely overlooks the fact that no businessman is in a position to force anyone to contribute to his income. He can only gain a return on his investment if he is able to accurately devote the scarce resources available to the most highly valued ends of consumers. Even if he has no charitable motivation or any emotive feeling towards the people whom he serves, at the very least he is required to have a superior empathetic understanding of their tastes and desires. If he fails in this regard then the result is not a bumper profit but an eye-watering loss. All transactions, therefore, between businesses, their customers and their employees are entirely voluntary. People enter voluntary transactions because they expect to be better off as a result of them. Nobody is therefore put into a worse position through his interaction with a business, or at least they expect not be.

Counter this with the view of the politician. Reading the list of supposed motivations for government office one would think that only those with an angelic disposition need apply. Not only are they expected to be selfless and altruistic, thinking only of their “people” and of their “nation”, they are also supposed to be utterly devoid of any kind of personal ambition. Asked whether he/she has any eye for high office, one is normally retorted with the rhetoric of “public service” and the apparent fact that the budding statesman is just there to “do his job”.  In short, the implication is that government employment produces universally good and wonderful things that apparently require some kind of sacrifice for which there is very little reward. Nothing could be further from the truth. Government receives its revenue from taxation, and taxes are paid compulsorily. Whereas the entrepreneur has to risk the entirety of his wealth in order to persuade his consumers that what he produces is worthwhile spending their money on, a politician faces no such restraint. They can charge as much as they like, deliver services that are despicably dire and command a personal income that far exceeds what they would be able to obtain in the free market. Furthermore, because the funds for all of their boondoggles have been levied by the threat of force, there is a very real loss experienced by the taxpayers, even if the resulting service is relatively “good”. For none of them would need to be forced to pay up if the government’s ends where truly what they most highly desired to do with their money. Whereas an entrepreneur makes everyone – himself and his customers – better off, the politician only makes himself and the recipients of his tax loot better off. Those who have been forced to pay are left substantially worse off.

These fallacious views have played themselves out recently in the whole debacle of corporate tax avoidance. Few overlook the fact that the likes of Amazon and Starbucks rake in large revenues (if not apparent accounting profits) that somehow requires them to “give something back” to “society”. Yet what is forgotten is that they have only been able to obtain these revenues and profits through voluntary exchange because they have created employment and served the needs of customers by providing them with products that they want to buy. Yet for some reason we think it is just to charge them for this “privilege” of serving our needs. Further, is there not something incongruous about the whole rhetoric of “giving back”? I want a coffee so I go to Starbucks; I give them money, they give me coffee; they have already given in the form of a product that meets my needs. If Starbucks has to “give back” then why don’t I have to “give back” their coffee? Why am I, through the route of taxation, effectively allowed to renege on my side of the bargain?

A similarly related fallacy is that anyone who “owns resources” (i.e. land and capital goods) effectively just has to sit back and earn a perpetual income by virtue of this ownership. Although space precludes a detailed examination of the economics, a net return can only be earned from such ownership if the good is directed to a use more highly valued than that anticipated by other entrepreneurs. Failure to do this will simply result in losses. Try telling the owners of Woolworths, HMV or Blockbuster that ownership of resources is a path to perpetual wealth and income. If anything, it is the government that yields a perpetual income from resources. For it can confiscate anything it wants by force, and display zero entrepreneurial talent with its use by spending it on any wasteful project it deems desirable to itself and its cronies. The only say we have in the matter is an “election” between approved and screened candidates once every four to five years.

Whenever one is presented, therefore, with an opinion on the characters of businessmen on the one hand and of politicians on the other it is best to assume that the stated characteristics should be reversed.

View the video version of this post.