I often read as a given that what motivates the entrepreneur is profits. This is funny to begin with, since most schools of economics disagree as to the definition of profits. Let's go with the loose definition of money left over after expenses, which is likely the definition of the common man, but in debate in academia.
I am yet to meet a thriving entrepreneur who is motivated by profits. As I argued below, the motivation is lifestyle, not profits. But this also applies to big business and big government.
Let's take the example of the pure play in profit taking, the bank. Its job is to make money on money, so we would assume that profit is motivation number one. If so, then why the corporate jet? The executive lunchroom and restroom, to name just a few perqs? Why the huge payouts into tax-exempt plans in spite of profit or loss? Why the gilded offices and frequent junkets for "presidents club" and other performance recognition events? Their excessive salaries are just trash cash compared to the cost of supporting their corporate lifestyles.
The game is the lifestyle, spending on themselves as business expense the 24/7/365 lives required to be a titan of industry, or to be near the top, working your way up.
In government, the motivation is exactly the same, and profit does not even enter into the picture. Large banks precipitate large government regulation organizations to assure such powerful entities stay on the up and up. And what do we see? The game is the lifestyle, spending on themselves as government expense the 24/7/365 lives required to be a censor of industry, or to be near the top, working your way up. Now think of big pharmacy and FDA, Big Ag and USDA, Big Education and the Dept of Education, and so on.
Look at a description of the Ming Dynasty, just before it fell:
"Not surprisingly, it was a constant temptation to enjoy the perquisites of rule, and abandon the responsibilities by delegating them to trusted subordinates. If these subordinates were unscrupulous, there was little that honest and critical members of the bureaucracy could do, since the ultimate court of appeal was the emperor, and the way to him was blocked. Hence late Ming critics like the members of Tung-lin and Fu-she academies were generally frustrated if not doomed."
Page 110, Jonathan Spence, Chinese Roundabout.
Is this not an exact description of USA today? There is no path to have complaints heard, neither by vote or lawsuit, as the bureaucracy is self-absorbed with perquisites (present office and future pension), and they block the way to any appeal.
It is not an accident that we are in a Ming style decline, and China has the Jewel in the crown when it comes to free markets, Hong Kong.
Hong Kong and USA were formed at the same time, by people of the same economic philosophy. They proceeded along until in desperation at the political corruption of the spoils system in USA, in 1883 USA adopted a civil service system based on the chinese civil service system, the system of a country that the adopters perhaps did not realize was soon to disintegrate. China has a relatively anarchistic system. Today USA is in decline and crisis, while China is ascendent.
0 comments:
Post a Comment