Stalled. Michael Hlinka

Чтение книги онлайн.

СКАЧАТЬ administration, to ensure the careful selection and permanent settlement of such numbers of immigrants as can be advantageously absorbed in our national economy.

      It’s hard to argue with any of that. A “careful selection” of immigrants and efforts to ensure that immigrants would be quickly integrated into the fabric of Canada would be a win-win situation for both Canadian-born citizens and immigrants.

      However, Mackenzie King wasn’t finished. He continued, “The people of Canada do not wish as a result of mass immigration to make a fundamental alteration in the character of our population. Large-scale immigration from the Orient would change the fundamental composition of the Canadian population.”10

      This is much easier to argue with, particularly given present sensibilities. But it did reveal something important about the thinking of the day. And that was that most Canadians were more “comfortable” with immigration from Europe than from other continents.

      This is something that Canada has struggled with and continues to struggle with — and it speaks directly to one of the questions posed earlier: Should this country be understood as a collection of individuals or groups? Mackenzie King saw it in terms of the latter.

      However, one of the positive and unintended consequences of this world view was the policy of allowing many “displaced persons” to enter the country from Europe. With so much of that continent in ruins, many people didn’t have a home to go back to. Between 1947 and 1962, 250,000 displaced persons were admitted into Canada, which was more than the rest of the overseas countries (United States, Australia, and New Zealand) combined.11 This was a case where this country did the right thing and benefitted immensely.

      Many of those folks are still alive today, and if you’re reading Stalled I have one thing to say: “THANK YOU!” Because you helped build what I’ve enjoyed all my life.

      Think about the self-selection process that made someone leave the Ukraine or Germany or Poland and roll the dice in a strange land. It’s not right to stereotype, I know, but I’m going to anyway: If there were one single characteristic that bound them all — men and women — it was that they had cojones the size of bowling balls. In most cases, these brave people came to Canada with the shirts on their backs and nothing else. The cultural barriers were huge; the social safety net non-existent. All they had were all the disadvantages anyone needs if they want to truly succeed, and succeed they did, making both their lives and those of future generations that much richer because of their hard work and sacrifice.

      Before we leave the 1950s, a few anecdotes that tell us so much about the zeitgeist of the age.

      The 1950s was the Golden Age of television. Shows like Gunsmoke and Have Gun —Will Travel were especially popular, and hearkened to a past where individual, strong men did the right thing and ensured that justice was done.12 Those stories inspired future generations, but none more than the series Perry Mason.

      It was America’s longest running and most successful show about lawyers. Canadian-born Raymond Burr, starring as Perry Mason, week after week took the side of an innocent person accused of murder, and by the end of the hour, not only had he exonerated the innocent, he’d broken down the guilty party and elicited a confession!

      Who wouldn’t want to be a lawyer? It seemed the noblest profession known to mankind.

      Of course, Perry Mason was a fictional character, but there were men doing great things in real life. In his book The Right Stuff, Tom Wolfe writes about a group of combat aviators who later became test pilots and ultimately the first American astronauts. A story from the book tells of a dogfight during the Korean War. I’ll let Wolfe take it from here:

      Combat had its own infinite series of tests, and one of the greatest sins was “chattering” or “jabbering” on the radio. The combat frequency was to be kept clear of all but strategically essential messages, and all unenlightening comments were regarded as evidence of funk, of the wrong stuff.

      A Navy pilot (in legend, at any rate) began shouting, “I’ve got a MIG at zero! A MIG at zero!” — meaning that it had maneuvered in behind him and was locked in on his tail.

      An irritated voice cut in and said, “Shut up and die like an aviator.”13

      “Shut up and die like an aviator.”

      This era unapologetically saw courage as a virtue and, to some degree, demanded and expected it. It wasn’t about being touchy-feely and feeling sorry for yourself; it was about getting it done and showing grace under pressure.

      In 1953, Charles Wilson was CEO of General Motors when then-President Dwight David Eisenhower tapped him for Secretary of Defense. In hearings before Congress (there were concerns about his holdings of GM stock and whether he could be objective), he made the following statement: “For years, I have thought that what was good for our country was good for General Motors, and vice versa.”14

      This quote may surprise many of you. There’s a widespread misconception that he said “What’s good for General Motors is good for the United States, and vice versa.” I’ve heard several people use that statement as an indictment of the 1950s, that is, business came first at the expense of the general good.

      Let’s revisit Wilson’s actual words. He was implying that steady, non-inflationary growth, a rising tide that lifted all economic boats, along with peace and prosperity — the phenomenon that people organize into political units to help achieve — would by definition benefit General Motors, which happened to be the biggest consumer discretionary company in North America at that time.

      The 1950s taught us that sound public policy dovetails with strong economic growth.

      One of GM’s rivals was AMC, the American Motor Company. Its CEO from 1954 to 1962 was George Romney. When he took the helm, AMC was floundering and there’s a compelling argument that he saved it from bankruptcy, before making it extremely profitable.

      The company’s board of directors believed that he should be rewarded. Romney was making a salary of $225,000 (this was at a time when the median family income was $5,600) and they thought he deserved $100,000 on top of that (equivalent to $1.5 million in today’s dollars) — Romney refused.15 His argument was that no one needed any more money than he was already getting.

      What do you think that did for morale at AMC? I’m sure there were some workers who thought, Look, the guy is already making so much money that he can’t know what to do with it! But I’m equally certain that there were more than a few who argued: “He didn’t have to turn it down. Pretty righteous thing to do, if you ask me.”

      Romney was making about forty times the median family income. According to the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, Canada’s one hundred top-paid CEOs make 171 times more than the average Canadian worker. By 1:11 p.m. on January 2 — the first working day of the year — members of this select group have earned more than the typical working stiff makes in twelve months.16

      There has always been income disparity in North America. It is likely that there always will be. But a symbolic gesture like the one Romney made matters and was a sign of the times.

      The 1950s in fifty words: Immigrants join the native-born in building the country. Massive wealth-generating infrastructure projects are initiated, even while government reduces debt. Individuals take responsibility for their own futures, saving mightily. And while Canada’s population went up by 30 percent, real GDP per capita increased at an annual rate of 2.5 percent for each year.17

      And the next ten years would be even better.

      Wealth СКАЧАТЬ