Stalled. Michael Hlinka

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ may be a different base of wealth between two villages or counties or countries or you-name-it, depending on resource endowment. However, once that is put aside, it’s only about hours worked, amount of capital, and total factor productivity. Right?

      Not exactly.

      It seems to me that neo-classical growth theory misses the single most important factor that has led mankind onward and upward and that is … but before I get to it, let me ask another question, one that I routinely pose to my George Brown College students early each semester.

      QUESTION 11

      Which country has the higher GDP per capita?

      ☐ Israel.

      ☐ Saudi Arabia.

      As soon as the words are out of my mouth, I can read the reactions of my students on their faces. “Sir, come on! What do you think we are? Stupid?!” (Some of those comments on ratemyprofessor.com were spot on!) “Saudi Arabia has oil … lots and lots of it.”

      This is an indisputable point. Saudi Arabia extracts 10 million barrels a day2 … 417,000 barrels an hour … 7,000 each minute … in excess of 100 barrels of black gold every single second of every single day. Yes, the answer is clear-cut and obvious.

      The country with the higher GDP per capita is, by a wide margin, Israel. According to the CIA’s World Factbook, Saudi Arabia has a GDP per capita of $31,300 while the corresponding figure for Israel is $36,200.3

      When I let this out of the bag most of the students sit in stunned silence.

      How can this possibly be?

      They know that Saudi Arabia has oil.

      But they don’t know what special resource Israel has. Until I tell them.

      Israel has … Israelis.

      People, properly organized and motivated, are the key drivers of both prosperity and progress.

      Uh-oh. My suspicion is that I’ve already stepped on some politically sensitive toes. But I’ve got some good news. When I worked for one of Canada’s largest publicly traded financial institutions, I attended “sensitivity” training, or as they termed it, a “Respect in the Workplace” seminar.

      One of the session’s key objectives was to teach me and my colleagues what was and what was not offensive. In Stalled, you will not encounter phrases like: “Another kick at the cat” (cruelty to animals is an inappropriate subject for metaphor); “Blind as a bat” (the visually impaired and/or crepuscular flying mammals might take umbrage); “It ain’t over ’til the fat lady sings” (female endomorphs have feelings, too!); or “Too many chiefs, not enough Indians” (wasn’t taking their land enough?!).

      Consider yourself warned. Hands up, chin down. We’re adults and I plan to speak about all topics honestly, including values and culture. And that’s almost un-Canadian.

      We’re a very polite people. We tend to be uneasy with frank discussions about culture. We’re much more comfortable when we trivialize it: “Went to a great Thai restaurant last night. Even used chopsticks instead of a knife and fork! Then to a Brazilian movie (subtitles only, dubbing is just so déclassé!). Capped it off with a cappuccino at an authentic Italian café … no Starbucks for me!”

      How cosmopolitan can ya get!

      I would agree that the foods we eat and our entertainments possess “cultural” elements. But the ultimate truths around culture address deeper questions and more profound issues. They may be discussed aloud around kitchen tables with families, or they may be with us in our thoughts:

       What is most important to us?

       What do we expect from ourselves?

       What do we expect from our friends and neighbours?

       What is the right way to live?

      Just off the top of my head, these are some critical cultural questions. I’m sure you’ve got others. That’s the essence of this book. Stalled will be a frank discussion of values and the cultural factors that were responsible for the astonishing economic growth from 1950 to 2000. Because how our values have changed goes a very long way toward explaining why the Canadian economy has stalled in recent years.

      A quick aside. To the extent that so-called polite society and the chattering classes discuss culture, it’s with an Animal Farm–like sophistication of “two legs bad, four legs good.” Developed cultures are by their very nature flawed. Primitive ones are inherently pristine. I’ve heard that argument a zillion times and it’s hogwash.

      This leads us to Question 12, and I think you know how I’d answer it:

      QUESTION 12

      Do you think that development is a good thing, that economic growth is desirable, and that progress is something we should embrace?

      ☐ Yes.

      ☐ No.

      Part Two

      The 1950s

      When I was sixteen years old, I started a landscaping business. That was what my grandfather did for a living (he ran his own crew), so I had access to the tools and expertise. In mid-March of my second-last year in high school, I went around the neighbourhood, knocking on doors and lining up work for when spring arrived.

      One of my first customers was a lovely couple, the Smiths. Mr. Smith was an older gentleman, retired, and didn’t have the energy to cut his own lawn anymore. Mrs. Smith was exceptionally kind, treating me almost like a grandson. There was always a glass of cold lemonade on a hot day. One afternoon she invited me into their home to drink it with them. It gave us time to get to know each other better. Up to then it had been mostly business.

      It was a modest home — but very much a home — with family pictures everywhere. One of the photographs that drew my attention was of a group of young soldiers; as it turned out, Mr. Smith was one of them. He had been born in 1899 and was fifteen years old when the First World War started. He lied about his age so he could enlist. His unit was among the first of the Canadian contingents to land in France, and Mr. Smith ended up spending four years in the mud and the blood, until the Armistice was signed in November of 1918.

      He returned home and married his high-school sweetheart — that was Mrs. Smith — and they started raising a family. Then war reared its ugly head again, and in 1939 Mr. Smith once more volunteered. He spent six years in different combat zones, finally returning home for good in 1945.

      At the time, I didn’t fully appreciate how truly extraordinary this gentleman was. And he was truly a gentle man — you could sense it through and through. Duty compelled him to do what he felt was the right thing, which was to throw himself into the line of fire for his country.

      QUESTION 13

      In twice volunteering during wartime, Mr. Smith was what?

      ☐ Noble beyond belief.

      ☐ A complete sucker.

      What Mr. Smith did was extraordinary. But he wasn’t alone. A total of 1.1 million СКАЧАТЬ