Tuesday, July 24, 2012

Mutual Interdependence Admits Relative Contribution


 The latest useless debate between Obama and Romney has to do with whether or not business owners or other successful business people did it on their own. Obama says that we all benefit from some help from somewhere. Romney interviewed business execs who pointed out how much they sacrificed to get where they are. This is like them debating whether my mother or my father was responsible for my birth. Geez guys, this is a no-brainer – this is another red herring (no offense to smoked kipper) to keep our eye off the ball.

No business executive could honesty say that he/she never got any help from anyone. We can be bright and driven but surely somewhere along the way a lion pulled a thorn from our paw. At the same time, in addition to friends and luck, success usually requires long and hard hours and family sacrifice. People who put in the time often get rewarded. People who don’t work so hard or who choose less risky occupations get less rewarded. Mentors often tell you that you have to be in the right line if you are going to receive the benefits of luck. You have to buy that lottery ticket if you are ever going to win the lottery. Young people find it hard to see why learning math is worth all that effort. Parents tell them to keep working because someday that effort will pay dividends. Those who do not follow that advice take themselves out of the math benefits line. 

While it is true that both sides are correct, the question is which one is “more-correct” when it comes to influencing the economy. That is, if you want to improve employment and output, where do you aim most of your policy? Here I am going to say a few things that seem very practical and normal to me – but I may stir the beast in some of my friends and family. But what’s a blog for if not to lose friends and gain enemies? J

An accounting or a snapshot of a mature business firm finds it with owners, managers, machines, real estate, and labor and 6,000 lawyers. There are a lot of components to make a business tick. Each is critical to the outcome. If one part fails to do its job then the business suffers. The human body has a lot of parts. If one loses a hand or foot then the whole body performs less well. This snapshot suggests that we all rise and fall together.

But depending on the specific company, there are parts that are more or less important when it comes to the overall functioning of the business. Some small firms in some lines of business may not need a lawyer. Those firms can get by with someone who wears a coat and tie, bathes daily, and looks and smells like a lawyer.
Other firms need an inventor or entrepreneur to get started and to continue being competitive. Let’s face it there are many lines of business today whose continued existence is based on staying ahead of the competition. In that kind of firm, a particular plant site or machine might not be so important. To stay alive that firm needs a particular kind of scientist or engineer or manager. Lose that professional and the firm and all its parts go under. Losing a machine or administrative assistant means a challenge. Losing a key professional means losing the firm.  

Many start-ups would have never gotten started without a capitalist. A capitalist is a saver who decides to take an equity or ownership position in a new company. This capitalist believes there is a chance that the new company will succeed but understands that it might not. Most new companies fail. Capitalists also provide money for existing companies and the equation is the same. They give their money for a return not knowing in advance how big that return might be. Capitalists are indispensable. Talented professionals and high tech machines matter little if the firm cannot adequately buy or finance them.

Am I putting you to sleep? Good. I am told that a lot of my friends don’t get enough sleep. I am happy to help. Now where was I?

You hopefully are getting my drift that depending on the company some components are more critical or important than others. Most basketball teams need five players but let’s face it – Lebron and Wade get paid more and are more important than the others.  Somehow the other members of the team get this fact and are not insulted by this reality.

Now we get back to Obama and Romney. Obama is right that it takes a village to help a company succeed. So we should pay attention to all the parts. But let’s not mistake the fact that many companies exist and survive because someone took the financial and personal and family risk. A worker or manager in that company is important but it is usually much easier to find another assembler or industrial engineer than it would be to replace the guy or gal who spent endless hours and gallons of perspiration getting the company started to begin with. To ignore this basic intuition is to put logic on its ear. It not only puts the cart before the horse but it puts the horse in the cart! And that makes the horse very uncomfortable.

This point applies to many companies—large or small, new or old. Betty asks me what I do all day now that I am retired. Much of what I do is read the FT and the WSJ as I sip a nice JD – and learn about companies. Okay I also fume about Paul Krugman’s latest brain-fart but I spend a lot of time reading about companies. Every time I do that I thank my lucky stars that at age 21 I decided to never work in a business. I don’t have the nerve or the stomach to run a business. It is a dogfight out there folks. Ask the owners at Nokia or Research in Motion how they are doing financially. Ask the guy who just started a new restaurant in your town how much he is raking in.
 
Some workers are lucky. All they have to do is come to work and follow the company manual and not smoke funny cigarettes in the parking lots at lunch time. They have an "investment" in their company and they depend very much on that employment but in no way does that compare to what others put in. Some distant and rich investor might have a billion dollars tied up. The entrepreneur may have planned, dreamed, and put his/her life on hold for years to get the company up and running.

Note: I recognize that some firms are run by incompetents. Some of you read the last paragraph and fumed about the fact that you are a key employee and if given the chance you would run the company better after you fired the existing management. You might be right. My point in no way supports the existing management.  My point underscores that some productive inputs are more effective and important than others. When firms get this backwards then they do not succeed. You are proving that point. It must be very frustrating to work in a company like that. Luckily you have the freedom to argue your point or to move on to another company to show that you are right.

While this might seem normal and practical to me some of you are already saying that I have given the working class or the middle class short-shrift. I don’t mean any insult and have tried to say above that all parts are important and valuable to a company. I also fully understand how the income distribution has changed and I know that many middle income Americans have lost ground.  My concern, as is yours, is the best bath to help these Americans improve their lives. It seems backward to help them at the expense of investors, entrepreneurs, and innovators. It seems more sensible to focus on the mutual dependency among the parts. Let’s make sure rewards for entrepreneurial activity are commensurate with the risks. Let’s make sure that our companies can compete as effectively as possible. Let’s improve our education and training. Let’s remove impediments to hiring and firing workers. Let’s take away all those loopholes and stupid illegal and immoral relationships between business and government.

There is a way to move this country out of recession. We do it by valuing mutual dependence with a mature understanding about what it takes to both create and sustain competitive labor and product markets. We all work hard but that does not mean that some are not more vital than others. Our policies should celebrate this fact and not pit one side against the other with inane arguments about whether someone got help or not. 

18 comments:

  1. Another simple example would be farmers (a seemingly benign corporation). They borrow to buy the land, equipment, and seed. They also put a lot of time in. But at harvest time, they hire migrant workers at low wages, while the farmer gains huge profits from the crop. It is easy to look at the toil of the migrant, after all, had they not harvested, there would be no crop. This is where poor logic as you noted comes in. The farmer needed good credit, husbandry expertise, and entrepreneurial spirit to start the farm, something the migrant did not possess. If a drought occurs, the crop fails. The farmer loses, but the migrant just shifts to a factory.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Robert -- that helps. I was also thinking of a huge factory with thousands of people each doing semi-skilled work at various machines. It seems pretty obvious that the people who designed the efficient layout and continue make sure it works each day play a very special role that deserves recognition. This is not a chicken or egg question.We know what came first when it comes to creating and sustaining those jobs.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Sounds like my elevator speech to my elite customers on August 1....thanks for the content. I have a business. It was created both by sweat, tears and stress. It also had help from mentors and some government contracts as well as training programs. We have not always been at the right place at the right time but we manage to make a positive income in a negative market. The biggest thing that holds us back is not the government or regulation...it is our own certified installer base .....hat want to build walls around themselves and keep the other guys out. Times have changed and more transparency and well as fluency are required...but the top gun is collaboration. India and China will not win the economic war because of size..... they will win because they must collaborate and the US has forgotten how.
    I think Obama and Romney need to quit playing to their constituents and start providing leadership. I am fed up with both of them. After 4 years of Obama with minimal leadership I do not see his counter point offering too much different and we cannot afford to "return to the days of yester-year" because socially, economically and technically we no longer are "yester-year people or culture". Things change so adapt or go hide in a cave.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Government 'help' to business is just as disastrous as government persecution... the only way a government can be of service to national prosperity is by keeping its hands off." - Ayn Rand

    ReplyDelete
  5. Fuzzy, given the state of the world today Ms. Rand would be very disappointed. I think the genie is out of the bottle.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Larry, I believe that you give the Prez too much credit. His comment reflects directly his opinion of the free markets. He's all for capitalism as long as the government can control every aspect, a la China. The back-and-forth between Obama and Romney shine a very large light on that fact. You minimize their argument as one kid trying to one-up the other. I see them as true indicators of which way the President wants to take us as a country, and the differences between the two philosophies is glaring and should be highlighted. I agree with you on one aspect...it does take a village to raise an idiot.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear LSD. Amongst all the chatter ‘bout who deserves the most credit . . . govomit or the private sector . . . . . and particularly Obummer’s continuous denigration of the latter . . . is his complete ignorance of the fact that it is the private sector/fee market that makes possible govomit spending. You’d think he’d embrace the private/free ‘cause without private/free there would be no public.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Seems to me Charles that there are plenty of examples where the government has completely controlled or tried to control the private/free so there are models for that approach. I don't particularly like those models but they are in the choice set. But in fairness to both sides I think we are arguing about marginal movements in one direction or the other and not wholesale changes. I doubt that even Obama has desires to take us back to a Soviet style economy.

      Delete
  8. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dear LSD. I side with the Fuz-meister’s comment that you give Obummer too much credit . . . but . . . not to imply you sympathize with Obummer . . . but to further my point that Obummer dislikes/detests capitalism . . I posit this extreme what-if.

    What if his dislike/detestation is real and he effectively neuters private sector business/capitalism/motivation/incentive to the extent there is no profit to tax and therefore no revenue by which to further public spending. He, then, has effectively soiled his own mess kit. I expect you will say, “Well, that will never happen and besides we need to find common ground.” Problem: no one has yet to articulate what that common ground is, and we will die of senility before that sun ever rises. What if #2 he is less than completely successful in neutering free market/capitalism but only cripples it to the tipping point? What then? Where does the funding come from that will pay for his largess? How long, if ever will it take for free market/capitalism to recover . . . if ever? We will be taking the eternal dirt nap.

    I assume your reference to examples of complete govomit control models refer to Utopian, socialist, Marxist, fascist, or communist approaches, which, fortunately have proven unequivocal failures on this and European continents . . . so I don’t consider a return to them even in the context of marginal movements realistic. Doubting that Obummer desires to take us back to a Soviet style economy is . . . . . well . . . almost uncommentable since the U.S. never has endured that wunnerful economic philosophy. Haven’t been there; haven’t done it.

    However, doubting that Obummer desires to move us to European socialism is not . . . . well . . . doubtable; he is in fact trying to do that. And, that is the problem, because it is marginal “improvements” in that direction . . . . which, in fact has been the case since Johnson’s Great Society, that will do it. Put a frog in water and gradually increase the temp to 212 plus and it won’t know it’s been boiled until it quits kicking.

    No, I don’t agree those models are in the choice set. The trend toward bigger govomit at the expense of free market/capital must be reversed. We’ve got to avoid the tipping point at all costs . . . . including compromise and equivocation.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Charles,

    As you said in the beginning both of us agree that the risks of too much government are real and growing. I love your example with the frog bath. So we both agree the trend is something to acknowledge and reverse. I am a little less worried than you that Obama would or could move us to extremes of profits and revenues that you mention in your paragraph 2. He does like government and he does like income distribution but I don't think he is so stupid to kill the goose that laid the golden egg. I guess time will tell...

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Fuzmeister!" I like that one, Charles! Larry, he may not be stupid enough to kill the goose, but he sure has put it on life support.......and he's holding the living will.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Fuzzmeister! This discussion is making me hungry for pate.

    ReplyDelete
  13. In that case, don't go to the Land of Fruits and Nuts. They just outlawed it.

    ReplyDelete
  14. An interesting piece from Heritage this morning:

    "The millions of Americans who are unemployed are an important focus for the upcoming Presidential election. The unemployment rate has also also been a potent campaign tool, as both parties have accused the other of “outsourcing” and “sending jobs overseas.”
    “Outsourcing” continues to make headlines. But an important question goes unaddressed: what are its real consequences?

    There are a lot of myths about outsourced jobs, particularly in the manufacturing sector. The truth is that the U.S. actually leads the world in manufacturing, producing 21 percent of global manufactured products. And several big manufacturers are building new plants in the U.S., including BMW and Airbus, creating more jobs.

    If the goal is to reduce unemployment, policymakers should focus on problems like red tape and over-regulation that discourage job creation. The U.S. regulatory burden continues to increase, making businesses more expensive and more difficult to operate."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Thanks Fuzzy. It is too bad that these simple and obvious facts are not known to our so-called leaders.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Where is John Galt?

    ReplyDelete