I just heard Nobel economics laureate Joseph Stiglitz interviewed on NPR, and noted a fascinating fact: in his estimation, only a tiny share of the so-called “1%” are entrepreneurs. He said that the large majority of 1-percenters are people who have inherited wealth, investors, and other sorts of finance jocks (i-bankers, hedge fund managers, traders, venture capitalists, etc.).
What does that say about where America’s incentives lie, in this land where 400 people own more than the poorest 150 million?
Do the the rewards accrue to the inventors, the innovators, the skunk-workers? To the people who have truly improved our lives? Or does money simply make money?
When the revolutionaries raise capital gains taxes and carried interest taxes to the earned income tax rate, perhaps they can also figure out a way to eliminate taxation completely from truly value-creating entrepreneurship in technology and other vital areas…
What do we mean by the word “improvement?” What are we incentivizing for? What is “value-creating?” To me, understanding these questions, and their import, may lead to even more radical solutions. Our entire socio-economic model was built upon the idea of “improvement” and incenting people to create value and get us there. All of our parents said, we want our children to have better lives (improved materially) than we had. And where has that taken us collectively and individually? We are exactly where you do not think we should be, professor. At least that is my read on your postings. So what can we really do to alter this trajectory? Or are things now on autopilot? All my best, kC, sandy
Mr. Sandy kulturcritic, thank you for posing these questions. They force us to return to some of the nasty issues we (or at least I) subconsciously tend to shy away from.
I personally (and sadly) feel that we are collectively (i.e., the whole world) on autopilot. Why do I say this? Because I see our macro-crises, ecological and human, as emergent phenomena that manifest on much larger scales than our individual actions, and because I think they will continue to unfold for a very long time because of positive feedback loops such as the release of tundra methane and human tragedy-of-the-commons behavior. The larger trajectory appears set.
Ironically, in the midst of all this, humans can exercise considerable autonomy, and since we don’t know the ultimate duration or severity of the combining crises, there is a possibility that humans and other species will find a way to thrive despite the odds. We can and should set our individual trajectories in a moral and reasonable way.
That demands creativity and initiative – new thinking – the entrepreneur as a basic behavioral option. We’ve thrust so much change upon ourselves that our thinking and action must change. Who is going to experiment, and show us possible ways?
I’d like to believe that, somewhere along the long continuum between “all is lost” and “we are masters of our fates,” the entrepreneurs among us (along with the nurturers, peace-makers, teachers, craftsmen, and all the other roles humans play) will make needed contributions to our survival and thriving. Moral entrepreneurship – i.e., exercised within tight social constraints – is needed.
That is NOT to say that I uncritically worship any old entrepreneur for whatever Hostess Twinky, Hummer, high-fructose corn syrup, DDT, Call of Duty shooter game, Big Slurp drink, suburban sprawl, mountain-top removal, nuclear plant, drone, or other invention they have foisted upon humanity, with our complicity, of course.
Love the last sentence!! WOW – had to read it over a few times. The problem with moral limits to creativity is that such limits are promulgated and enforced by means of the SAME logic that drove us to this point in the first place. It is a construction of the engineers who invented this thing called civilized society. I do not care if your morals are religiously or humanistically based, they amount to the same logic of stewardship,a.k.a. management and control. Further, the inventiveness of this curriculum leads us down a path of global assault, by necessity, as you have referenced. More later. In peace, sandy
Some further reflection…
I think you are looking to do something worth pursuing. But, your language is the language (and thus the concepts and baggage) of the Old Kingdom, the Ancien Regime. An entrepreneur is a salesman, a marketer, and a pitchman. And really, nothing more; not really. Every politician, even those who do not get elected, are entrepreneurs. They are selling themselves and their new programs to the public. Furthermore, all entrepreneurs (including politicians) are raised and schooled (not by you.. but also by you) in the economics of competition, including branding, merchandising, etc. It is a game; played by those who are looking to make their mark or take their place within the system. Even their desire to “change” the system is drenched in a search for accolades systemically generated. Perhaps you want to alter the landscape, but it will still fit inside the picture frame they have constructed for you. I look forward to our eye to eye discussion. best, sandy
I love the notion of the Curriculum of the West, even though I am still trying to get my head around it. Another phrase I have for it is “logic of modernity.” Also, “industrial paradigm.” Whatever you call it, the global human economy in the broad sense seems to be mostly about generating short-lived quality of life for the powerful by transforming resources into entropy faster than nature can renew them. When I talk about social constraints and moral entrepreneurship, I am imagining societies/communities in which long-term quality of life is achieved for all by transforming resources into entropy at a slower rate than nature renews them. At some level of population and technology, I think this is possible. Will we see this? Who knows? We have to try. And it may just happen anyway (the painful way, with lots of taboos and community-based institutions to show for it).
Could such an outcome be designed and landed on softly? If you believe that, you are truly an optimist! But not necessarily crazy.
For visions of such societies, see: “Avoiding Ecological Surprise: Lessons from Long-standing Communities,” by Andy King, now at Dartmouth’s Tuck School of Business, in The Academy of Management Review, Vol. 20, No. 4 (Oct., 1995).
URL: http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&sqi=2&ved=0CFAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fmba.tuck.dartmouth.edu%2Fpages%2Ffaculty%2Fandrew.king%2Fdocs%2Flong_standing.pdf&ei=eEHST8njJdOJ6gGUm8n6Ag&usg=AFQjCNEat7yti-HOmTaG_yEGlAxd0pQW4w