An economic whimsy
April 22nd 2011 22:08
“I find you impossible to follow,” said my dinner guest. “One moment you are bleating like a socialist, the next you are bellowing like a capitalist. Which are you?”
“I am neither a bleater nor a bellower,” I said.
“Then you’re a nothing. You have to be believe in one or the other.”
“Why must I believe in one or the other?”
“Because otherwise you are a fence-sitter, a man of no convictions, a leaf blowing in the wind. You can’t expect to sway opinion, to motivate people, to get things done, if you don’t have firm convictions.”
“It seems to me that firm convictions of the writ-in-stone kind you propose achieve little except lively dinner party conversations. My convictions are based on the practicalities of current circumstances, not the ideologies of ivory tower generals.”
“Then you are looking at the small picture. You don’t understand that ideas motivate masses. Therein lies real power.”
“And you don’t understand how much damage that mantra has wrought. You think as a politician, not an economist. An economist can be both a capitalist and a socialist.”
“And achieve nothing.”
“On the contrary. It is the people who insist on promoting only one side of a two-sided problem – and most problems are two-sided – that achieve nothing, unless you count notoriety. The real achievers are the pragmatists and negotiators, people more interested in outcomes than ego.”
“Those people work for me, and if they know what’s good for them, they will do as they are told.”
“The implication being that what’s good for them is what’s good for you. I prefer economic definitions of wellbeing.”
“That figures,” said my guest and, laughing at his own joke, poured some more of my wine.
| 19 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
