Collective Activism and Erosion of Rational Investment
Have we Lost our Fundamental Understanding of Capitalism and Individualism?
Have we Lost our Fundamental Understanding of Capitalism and Individualism?
Editorial Piece By Christopher O'Brien, MBA, MSEM - Published 09 March, 2019 17:51 PT
Note: This piece is meant to weigh the roles of collective action in policy making and how it can affect rational investment. All words are utilized in economic terms; they are not meant to target a specific group or audience. Primary research has been cited to bring context to the editorial piece.
"Who is John Galt?"
"Who is John Galt?"
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
This line, opening the fourth and final novel of Ayn Rand’s work, captured the greatest scope of her philosophy, objectivism. In her own words, Rand writes, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”[i] Born in 1905 in St. Petersburg, the Empire was in the midst of the Russian Revolution. As a high school student, she witnessed firsthand the Kerensky and Bolshevik Revolutions, watching as her father’s pharmacies were stripped away following the communist victory. While attending college, she observed the communist takeover of her university and pressures to reduce free and intellectual thinking. In 1925, she received authorization to visit family in the United States with the unvoiced intention of never returning.[ii] A playwright, philosopher, political, and ethical visionary, she hinged her fictions on dreamers that moved the world – architects, titans of industry, and those that rose up to battle principles of shared wealth and ownership, woman and men alike.
This line, opening the fourth and final novel of Ayn Rand’s work, captured the greatest scope of her philosophy, objectivism. In her own words, Rand writes, “My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.”[i] Born in 1905 in St. Petersburg, the Empire was in the midst of the Russian Revolution. As a high school student, she witnessed firsthand the Kerensky and Bolshevik Revolutions, watching as her father’s pharmacies were stripped away following the communist victory. While attending college, she observed the communist takeover of her university and pressures to reduce free and intellectual thinking. In 1925, she received authorization to visit family in the United States with the unvoiced intention of never returning.[ii] A playwright, philosopher, political, and ethical visionary, she hinged her fictions on dreamers that moved the world – architects, titans of industry, and those that rose up to battle principles of shared wealth and ownership, woman and men alike.
Ayn Rand’s work of fiction describes a dystopian United States, held together with of railroad (the only economical source of transportation) and producers of wealth, talent, skill, and drive. John Galt is a man that becomes disillusioned with an experiment in social equity at a motor corporation where he worked, aimed to pool their resources and act as a family. Employees were to be paid based on assessed individual need based in ‘moral code,’ regardless of productivity. Galt recoils with no, he will not stand for actions that refuse to reward individual achievement and value. Each man’s utility to the company wasn’t equal – be it intellectual, managerial, or productivity driven – and the loudest voices with the most need were served first.
Ayn Rand’s work of fiction describes a dystopian United States, held together with of railroad (the only economical source of transportation) and producers of wealth, talent, skill, and drive. John Galt is a man that becomes disillusioned with an experiment in social equity at a motor corporation where he worked, aimed to pool their resources and act as a family. Employees were to be paid based on assessed individual need based in ‘moral code,’ regardless of productivity. Galt recoils with no, he will not stand for actions that refuse to reward individual achievement and value. Each man’s utility to the company wasn’t equal – be it intellectual, managerial, or productivity driven – and the loudest voices with the most need were served first.
The overall novel looks at the role of man’s mind in ruling existence – more philosophical than political – but holds some very real truths about the roles of collectivist mentality on rational[1] thought and investment. Ultimately, Rand explores the effects of adoption of collectivist economic policies - the seizure of businesses and profits for a sense of greater moral good.
The overall novel looks at the role of man’s mind in ruling existence – more philosophical than political – but holds some very real truths about the roles of collectivist mentality on rational[1] thought and investment. Ultimately, Rand explores the effects of adoption of collectivist economic policies - the seizure of businesses and profits for a sense of greater moral good.
In a pure capitalist society, no person has the right to a standard of living and specific sets of goods/services. Utility is sacrificed or gained by each party in a transaction.
In a pure capitalist society, no person has the right to a standard of living and specific sets of goods/services. Utility is sacrificed or gained by each party in a transaction.
Capitalism in business consists corporations run by private, rather than public, entities - for profit. People are rewarded for work with a measure of equivalently assessed utility. In a pure capitalist society, no person has the right to a standard of living and specific sets of goods/services. Utility is sacrificed or gained by each party in a transaction. If someone is unable to produce the needed 'utility measurement' to purchase an object or service they are excluded. Currency, a societally supported construct, provides a base unit for exchange. The result is the principle of supply and demand, as each person decides if the utility gained from a good or service is worth what utility they sacrifice – if a need or want is a rational investment. In a pure capitalist society, needs are not always able to be met if an individual is unable to trade equivalent value. Notions of moral superiority rationalizes ‘stealing,’ by means of command and control policies or force, another’s earned utility (human capital x time) to ensure that needs are met as a whole.[2],[iii]
Capitalism in business consists corporations run by private, rather than public, entities - for profit. People are rewarded for work with a measure of equivalently assessed utility. In a pure capitalist society, no person has the right to a standard of living and specific sets of goods/services. Utility is sacrificed or gained by each party in a transaction. If someone is unable to produce the needed 'utility measurement' to purchase an object or service they are excluded. Currency, a societally supported construct, provides a base unit for exchange. The result is the principle of supply and demand, as each person decides if the utility gained from a good or service is worth what utility they sacrifice – if a need or want is a rational investment. In a pure capitalist society, needs are not always able to be met if an individual is unable to trade equivalent value. Notions of moral superiority rationalizes ‘stealing,’ by means of command and control policies or force, another’s earned utility (human capital x time) to ensure that needs are met as a whole.[2],[iii]
Competition and innovation are marked factors for growth and development, integrated for business success. If a corporation pours a stronger, lighter steel they can build sustainably[3] for a fraction of the cost of conventional steel, they gain a competitive advantage. Corporations can spend exorbitant amounts of capital on research and development to identify and exploit them. The competitive advantage, if accepted by the consumer and industry, may result in a shift of customer base. Competitors must look for additional methods or means to compete by cutting costs, innovating, or diversifying – by maximizing resources and human capital to generate the most profit (Figure 1).[iv] A firm will operate sustainably by attracting and retaining human capital (through incentives including pay, equated as utility to the firm), effectively utilizing resources to allow for future growth and exploitation, and maximizing profit to encourage economic growth and reinvestment. Capitalism naturally gravitates to sustainable investments: rational decisions based on cost-benefit analytics and the drive to persist are required for a successful firm. Communal practices stress equitable treatment of the populous though direct seizure of capital, with no requirement for innovation or drive to conserve resources and the environment – production is maximized so wealth can be redistributed according to moral principles. In the triple bottom line, this is equity, comparison of people and profit (Figure 1). Given a significant shift of consumer base or inability to innovate for competitive advantage, competition may face sale, bankruptcy, or closure from failing to remain relevant in the market. Best summarized as “adapt or die.”[v]
Competition and innovation are marked factors for growth and development, integrated for business success. If a corporation pours a stronger, lighter steel they can build sustainably[3] for a fraction of the cost of conventional steel, they gain a competitive advantage. Corporations can spend exorbitant amounts of capital on research and development to identify and exploit them. The competitive advantage, if accepted by the consumer and industry, may result in a shift of customer base. Competitors must look for additional methods or means to compete by cutting costs, innovating, or diversifying – by maximizing resources and human capital to generate the most profit (Figure 1).[iv] A firm will operate sustainably by attracting and retaining human capital (through incentives including pay, equated as utility to the firm), effectively utilizing resources to allow for future growth and exploitation, and maximizing profit to encourage economic growth and reinvestment. Capitalism naturally gravitates to sustainable investments: rational decisions based on cost-benefit analytics and the drive to persist are required for a successful firm. Communal practices stress equitable treatment of the populous though direct seizure of capital, with no requirement for innovation or drive to conserve resources and the environment – production is maximized so wealth can be redistributed according to moral principles. In the triple bottom line, this is equity, comparison of people and profit (Figure 1). Given a significant shift of consumer base or inability to innovate for competitive advantage, competition may face sale, bankruptcy, or closure from failing to remain relevant in the market. Best summarized as “adapt or die.”[v]
Figure 1. Common interpretation of John Elkington's Triple Bottom Line (1999).v
In a state-supervised or communal system, all property and goods are effectively public – there should be no exclusion and each person should maintain equal ‘profit.’ People are allotted goods from the public pool based upon their needs and they work to the best of their ability at a task they are assigned – the world mirrored in Atlas. These systems must face neutral or constant growth in relation to ‘year zero,’ paralleling population and work force increases or face severe shortages and/or surpluses of produced goods and materials.vii Re-investment in the economy by successful firms is impossible as profits are stripped away. Economic dislocation is common, especially in light of technological advancements, state oversight, and military expansion, drawing
In a state-supervised or communal system, all property and goods are effectively public – there should be no exclusion and each person should maintain equal ‘profit.’ People are allotted goods from the public pool based upon their needs and they work to the best of their ability at a task they are assigned – the world mirrored in Atlas. These systems must face neutral or constant growth in relation to ‘year zero,’ paralleling population and work force increases or face severe shortages and/or surpluses of produced goods and materials.vii Re-investment in the economy by successful firms is impossible as profits are stripped away. Economic dislocation is common, especially in light of technological advancements, state oversight, and military expansion, drawing
populations into urbanized environments where individuals are also able to receive the most state benefits.[vi] Since each man should value the society above themselves, there becomes a two-caste system – the governors/policymakers and the governed.
populations into urbanized environments where individuals are also able to receive the most state benefits.[vi] Since each man should value the society above themselves, there becomes a two-caste system – the governors/policymakers and the governed.
Investment and oversight are relegated to a select few, in alignment with morality and equity rather than cost benefit analytics to determine the most rational courses of action. Money becomes an abstract construct or even disappears – supply and demand principles, coupled with limited stock and ever-increasing needs of a population, create rampant inflation as people vie for the same goods (compounding inelastic demand). Dissolution of currency results in the concept of breadlines; each individual receives an issuance directly from the government, resulting in a negative feedback loop that creates a culture of sanctioning the victim (further pressing populous into areas where they receive the most benefit).
Investment and oversight are relegated to a select few, in alignment with morality and equity rather than cost benefit analytics to determine the most rational courses of action. Money becomes an abstract construct or even disappears – supply and demand principles, coupled with limited stock and ever-increasing needs of a population, create rampant inflation as people vie for the same goods (compounding inelastic demand). Dissolution of currency results in the concept of breadlines; each individual receives an issuance directly from the government, resulting in a negative feedback loop that creates a culture of sanctioning the victim (further pressing populous into areas where they receive the most benefit).
Communal systems require the state to fund costs of innovation, exploration, and education – and the populace must support it with human capital and resources. Innovation can severely disrupt markets – advancements in a field, since technology is shared, would have to be implemented across the entire sector of production. Unless stockpiled or readily available, resources must be diverted or refinement increased to meet the new requirements. In a capitalist society, the state may help finance research and development and/or create stockpiles of a resource or good to ensure economic and political stability (or secure future resources for a region), but costs of research and development are generally passed onto a consumer from a private firm. If done rationally and responsibly, these state investments can pay dividends, reaped through increased spatial productivity, sustainability, job growth, and tax potential. Since the state does not solely fund the costs, they also mitigate losses if ultimately an endeavor proves little to no fruits.[4],[vii] Markets in a capitalist society are allowed to self-correct to technological advancements (including pricing strategies), since new technology, taking the form of competitive advantages, supports a company persist and gain market share. Technology is also is excludable – there is no assumed ownership or required supply of an item. Capitalism requires individuals to assessed if the utility gained from a good or service is equal or more than the price of human capital[5],[viii] they expended to earn that good.
Communal systems require the state to fund costs of innovation, exploration, and education – and the populace must support it with human capital and resources. Innovation can severely disrupt markets – advancements in a field, since technology is shared, would have to be implemented across the entire sector of production. Unless stockpiled or readily available, resources must be diverted or refinement increased to meet the new requirements. In a capitalist society, the state may help finance research and development and/or create stockpiles of a resource or good to ensure economic and political stability (or secure future resources for a region), but costs of research and development are generally passed onto a consumer from a private firm. If done rationally and responsibly, these state investments can pay dividends, reaped through increased spatial productivity, sustainability, job growth, and tax potential. Since the state does not solely fund the costs, they also mitigate losses if ultimately an endeavor proves little to no fruits.[4],[vii] Markets in a capitalist society are allowed to self-correct to technological advancements (including pricing strategies), since new technology, taking the form of competitive advantages, supports a company persist and gain market share. Technology is also is excludable – there is no assumed ownership or required supply of an item. Capitalism requires individuals to assessed if the utility gained from a good or service is equal or more than the price of human capital[5],[viii] they expended to earn that good.
Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive, but strips away, by way of moral contract, the ability to define and pursue self-success.
Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive, but strips away, by way of moral contract, the ability to define and pursue self-success.
In the world of Atlas Shrugged, the state grows increasingly present in the business sector to combat an economic crisis, eventually appointing Czars for complete oversight. Profitable companies are ‘taxed’ via command and control policies to fund less profitable firms, leaving no room for expansion or reinvestment. Innovation is discouraged and denounced by state institutions to maintain a steady stream of products and services. Each man gets their ‘fair share’ regardless of their human capital provided to society. Marriage between the rich and the ‘less fortunate’ became a badge of honor and pride. Politicians and figureheads threw out money in the streets, ensuring people knew who it was from. The measure achievement was not what one created, but what he forfeited for another’s sake. Playing on the naiveté of the masses and under lobbyist’s thumbs, business becomes impossible due to oppressive legislation passed on the notion of a greater moral code. Galt convinces the producers to strike – walk away from the current world of ‘looters’ in order to create it again once the final lights went, ruled by the principle that no man should profit for another’s achievements.
In the world of Atlas Shrugged, the state grows increasingly present in the business sector to combat an economic crisis, eventually appointing Czars for complete oversight. Profitable companies are ‘taxed’ via command and control policies to fund less profitable firms, leaving no room for expansion or reinvestment. Innovation is discouraged and denounced by state institutions to maintain a steady stream of products and services. Each man gets their ‘fair share’ regardless of their human capital provided to society. Marriage between the rich and the ‘less fortunate’ became a badge of honor and pride. Politicians and figureheads threw out money in the streets, ensuring people knew who it was from. The measure achievement was not what one created, but what he forfeited for another’s sake. Playing on the naiveté of the masses and under lobbyist’s thumbs, business becomes impossible due to oppressive legislation passed on the notion of a greater moral code. Galt convinces the producers to strike – walk away from the current world of ‘looters’ in order to create it again once the final lights went, ruled by the principle that no man should profit for another’s achievements.
I’m not here to advocate destroying businesses and walking away from society. Completely abandoning an economic safety net is not advisable either; when implemented sustainably, by any means. Galt’s protest was extreme, to destroy a world to remake it anew, and a work of fiction.
I’m not here to advocate destroying businesses and walking away from society. Completely abandoning an economic safety net is not advisable either; when implemented sustainably, by any means. Galt’s protest was extreme, to destroy a world to remake it anew, and a work of fiction.
Rand, having lived through the rise of the Soviet Union, saw how dangerous collectivist policies were to free-thinking and innovation. Culture has marked implications in how individual’s construal the sense of ‘self.’ In any culture, there is a notion of family. In an independent culture, individuals are seen as paramount and separate entities (forming small family units), while interdependent cultures the family group is more flexible, defined through external and public status, roles, and relationships (Figure 2).[ix]
Rand, having lived through the rise of the Soviet Union, saw how dangerous collectivist policies were to free-thinking and innovation. Culture has marked implications in how individual’s construal the sense of ‘self.’ In any culture, there is a notion of family. In an independent culture, individuals are seen as paramount and separate entities (forming small family units), while interdependent cultures the family group is more flexible, defined through external and public status, roles, and relationships (Figure 2).[ix]
Figure 2. Conceptual representations of the self (A: Independent construal. B: Independent construal). Modified from Markus and Kitayama, 1991.x
Figure 2. Conceptual representations of the self (A: Independent construal. B: Independent construal). Modified from Markus and Kitayama, 1991.x
This initial proposal by Markus and Kitayama explored differences of Japanese and United States citizens by identifying cultural definitions and behaviors particular to these societies as a whole, coining the phrase ‘self-construal.’x Subsequent studies have concentrated on within-culture variation of the concept, aiming to better understand psychological phenomena, but have maintained the significance of the Markus and Kitayamax study.[x] Although all individuals possess both interdependent and independent tendencies, cultural context can lead one or the other to appear more strongly in a group of individuals.x,xi,[xi],[xii] The summary of key differences examines the separations between the independent and interdependent construals of self (Table 1).x
This initial proposal by Markus and Kitayama explored differences of Japanese and United States citizens by identifying cultural definitions and behaviors particular to these societies as a whole, coining the phrase ‘self-construal.’x Subsequent studies have concentrated on within-culture variation of the concept, aiming to better understand psychological phenomena, but have maintained the significance of the Markus and Kitayamax study.[x] Although all individuals possess both interdependent and independent tendencies, cultural context can lead one or the other to appear more strongly in a group of individuals.x,xi,[xi],[xii] The summary of key differences examines the separations between the independent and interdependent construals of self (Table 1).x
Table 1. Independent and Interdependent Key Differences of Construals of Self. (Modified from Markus and Kitayama, 1991x).
Table 1. Independent and Interdependent Key Differences of Construals of Self. (Modified from Markus and Kitayama, 1991x).
Independent and interdependent cultures find a mix in most societies; however, each has a self-fulfilling prophecy. Collectivist policies in Atlas Shrugged limited business ownership to one, stripped away patents in the form of ‘gift certificates,’ and mandated production and sales in each business sector. Adjusting the self-construal from the capitalist notion of “I” to the communal notion of “we,” individuals with the motivation or drive to innovate are decreased. Diverse emergence, through the means of technological development, poisons the social atmosphere of collectivism and the drive to occupy one’s proper space. Open innovation instead fosters creativity and encourages individualism, supporting open innovation.[xiii] These negative and positive feedback loops reinforce themselves (runaway loops), leading to societies further and further defined by the social self-construal and requirement (or lack thereof) for open innovation (Figure 3). As with innovation, collectivism breeds collectivism: people have no choice but to become increasingly dependent on the state as rational decision-making capabilities are incrementally stripped away. Atlas Shrugged saw incremental policy changes in magnitude, starting with taxes on profitable companies and ending at business seizures for complete state supervision. After Galt is captured, the looters enable Galt to do whatever he wants to spur the economy in the role of Economic Dictator while they ruled the political realm – he replies simply: “Get out of the way.”[xiv] In this statement, we can see the reasoning of Galt, his motivation for the strike: collectivism could not be defeated simply by a select few producers, increasing stifling legislation, nor be decreed by a dictator. Radical changes in societies’ self-construal was necessary in order to realign the priorities of the nation and strip the culture of sanctioning the victim. Fundamental alterations to encourage individualism and innovation to propel the economy forward. Once caught in the negative feedback loop of collectivism, a nation sees decline of reasoned and rational thought as the masses become increasingly ruled and dependent upon the state.
Independent and interdependent cultures find a mix in most societies; however, each has a self-fulfilling prophecy. Collectivist policies in Atlas Shrugged limited business ownership to one, stripped away patents in the form of ‘gift certificates,’ and mandated production and sales in each business sector. Adjusting the self-construal from the capitalist notion of “I” to the communal notion of “we,” individuals with the motivation or drive to innovate are decreased. Diverse emergence, through the means of technological development, poisons the social atmosphere of collectivism and the drive to occupy one’s proper space. Open innovation instead fosters creativity and encourages individualism, supporting open innovation.[xiii] These negative and positive feedback loops reinforce themselves (runaway loops), leading to societies further and further defined by the social self-construal and requirement (or lack thereof) for open innovation (Figure 3). As with innovation, collectivism breeds collectivism: people have no choice but to become increasingly dependent on the state as rational decision-making capabilities are incrementally stripped away. Atlas Shrugged saw incremental policy changes in magnitude, starting with taxes on profitable companies and ending at business seizures for complete state supervision. After Galt is captured, the looters enable Galt to do whatever he wants to spur the economy in the role of Economic Dictator while they ruled the political realm – he replies simply: “Get out of the way.”[xiv] In this statement, we can see the reasoning of Galt, his motivation for the strike: collectivism could not be defeated simply by a select few producers, increasing stifling legislation, nor be decreed by a dictator. Radical changes in societies’ self-construal was necessary in order to realign the priorities of the nation and strip the culture of sanctioning the victim. Fundamental alterations to encourage individualism and innovation to propel the economy forward. Once caught in the negative feedback loop of collectivism, a nation sees decline of reasoned and rational thought as the masses become increasingly ruled and dependent upon the state.
Figure 3. Dynamic Relationship between Individualism and Collectivism in Open Innovation (Modified from Yun et al., 2017).
Figure 3. Dynamic Relationship between Individualism and Collectivism in Open Innovation (Modified from Yun et al., 2017).
Galt’s idealized society held the dollar as champion – it was a reward for expending individual talents and cultivated human capital. Individuals gravitated to best leverage skills to exploit personal competitive advantages. This is the marker of a capitalist society – you are separate from others, able to form an identity, pursue goals, and develop your own human capital out of greed and fear of failure. Utility in capitalism is not a static concept; rational personal judgements and talents, leveraged properly, can shape a path to personal growth and success. Inevitably, there are inequalities that form from differences of human capital – however inequality is not the same as inequity.[6] Inequalities allow an individualism to flourish and society to function, since not everyone shares the same goals, talents, or measures of success and fear of failure.[7] Collectivist notions in Atlas Shrugged de-incentivized personal cultivation of human capital – creating the two-caste system: the state and the populous.
Galt’s idealized society held the dollar as champion – it was a reward for expending individual talents and cultivated human capital. Individuals gravitated to best leverage skills to exploit personal competitive advantages. This is the marker of a capitalist society – you are separate from others, able to form an identity, pursue goals, and develop your own human capital out of greed and fear of failure. Utility in capitalism is not a static concept; rational personal judgements and talents, leveraged properly, can shape a path to personal growth and success. Inevitably, there are inequalities that form from differences of human capital – however inequality is not the same as inequity.[6] Inequalities allow an individualism to flourish and society to function, since not everyone shares the same goals, talents, or measures of success and fear of failure.[7] Collectivist notions in Atlas Shrugged de-incentivized personal cultivation of human capital – creating the two-caste system: the state and the populous.
A common notion of the collectivist self-construals development states ‘the nail that stands up gets hammered down.’
A common notion of the collectivist self-construals development states ‘the nail that stands up gets hammered down.’
It should be noted that in a collectivist society, people are unable to define themselves as an individual – they assume the goal of survival of the masses, dictated and supported by the state (Figure 2). Interdependent cultures base self-esteem on the ability to adjust, restrain self, and maintain harmony with the social context (Table 1).x A common notion of the collectivist self-construals development states ‘the nail that stands up gets hammered down.’ Effectively all status, roles, and relationships are public – interactions in specific contexts define the notion of self (Table 1).x Self-esteem, seen as a ‘western’ independent phenomenon, is replaced by self-satisfaction of fulfilling a culturally mandated task (Table 1).x The ‘nail that stands up,’ referring to diverse emergence and traits of individualism, is seen as ‘different’ from the group since they place their own form of greed (in the form of uniqueness, self-expression, development of internal attributes, and promotion of personal goals) ahead of societal norms (Table 1). Collective calls for greater equity by the populous are the only voices they retain – and leads to a negative feedback loop as the culture only increases reliance on the state. Effectively, people become a number without attributes attached – another mouth that needs to be fed, indoctrinated, and trained for a specific task of benefit to society. Cultivation of latent human capital is discouraged: no nail should stand alone. These disincentives for individual behavior development and open innovations lead inevitably to the problem of collective action – the loudest voices receive the most need, regardless of assessed human capital they bring to a profession. Quite simply, it creates a negative feedback loop of sanctioning the victim – the greater poverty, the greater benefit an individual would receive. Rational investment falls victim to notions of moral superiority by the ruling class - dictating how best to assess the 'need value' of each individual. Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive, but strips away, by way of moral contract, the ability to define and pursue self-success.
It should be noted that in a collectivist society, people are unable to define themselves as an individual – they assume the goal of survival of the masses, dictated and supported by the state (Figure 2). Interdependent cultures base self-esteem on the ability to adjust, restrain self, and maintain harmony with the social context (Table 1).x A common notion of the collectivist self-construals development states ‘the nail that stands up gets hammered down.’ Effectively all status, roles, and relationships are public – interactions in specific contexts define the notion of self (Table 1).x Self-esteem, seen as a ‘western’ independent phenomenon, is replaced by self-satisfaction of fulfilling a culturally mandated task (Table 1).x The ‘nail that stands up,’ referring to diverse emergence and traits of individualism, is seen as ‘different’ from the group since they place their own form of greed (in the form of uniqueness, self-expression, development of internal attributes, and promotion of personal goals) ahead of societal norms (Table 1). Collective calls for greater equity by the populous are the only voices they retain – and leads to a negative feedback loop as the culture only increases reliance on the state. Effectively, people become a number without attributes attached – another mouth that needs to be fed, indoctrinated, and trained for a specific task of benefit to society. Cultivation of latent human capital is discouraged: no nail should stand alone. These disincentives for individual behavior development and open innovations lead inevitably to the problem of collective action – the loudest voices receive the most need, regardless of assessed human capital they bring to a profession. Quite simply, it creates a negative feedback loop of sanctioning the victim – the greater poverty, the greater benefit an individual would receive. Rational investment falls victim to notions of moral superiority by the ruling class - dictating how best to assess the 'need value' of each individual. Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive, but strips away, by way of moral contract, the ability to define and pursue self-success.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[1] Rational decisions are described as gaining the most profit per unit of work.
[1] Rational decisions are described as gaining the most profit per unit of work.
[2] Seizures of wealth are done through command and control policies by the state, by decree or regulation. Since these seizures are done to spread out profits, they are taken not by the means of a social contract, but threats of force.
[2] Seizures of wealth are done through command and control policies by the state, by decree or regulation. Since these seizures are done to spread out profits, they are taken not by the means of a social contract, but threats of force.
[3] Stainability is assessed by the incorporation of the triple bottom line (TBL) – person, planet, profit.
[3] Stainability is assessed by the incorporation of the triple bottom line (TBL) – person, planet, profit.
[4] Solyndra is an example of irrational investment by the United States Government. Predicated on faulty information and missed opportunities by the Department of Energy (DOE) to “critically analyze the information,” a loan guarantee was secured for $535 million dollars under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Company executives were ultimately blamed on inaccurate reporting and knowingly providing false statements to the “failure to ask specific questions, and require specific assurances” and breakdowns of critical communications that would have stopped the loan from proceeding.
[4] Solyndra is an example of irrational investment by the United States Government. Predicated on faulty information and missed opportunities by the Department of Energy (DOE) to “critically analyze the information,” a loan guarantee was secured for $535 million dollars under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Company executives were ultimately blamed on inaccurate reporting and knowingly providing false statements to the “failure to ask specific questions, and require specific assurances” and breakdowns of critical communications that would have stopped the loan from proceeding.
[5] Human capital is defined as “intangible collective resources possessed by individuals and groups within a given population. These resources include all the knowledge, talents, skills, abilities, experience, intelligence, training, judgement, and wisdom possessed individually and collectively, the cumulative total of which represents a form of wealth available to nations and organizations to accomplish goals (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2018).” Each person in a society holds varying amount of human capital, natural or cultivated, to generate value for a firm. Capitalist society seeks to leverage and exploit human capital for the generation competitive advantages and material wealth.
[5] Human capital is defined as “intangible collective resources possessed by individuals and groups within a given population. These resources include all the knowledge, talents, skills, abilities, experience, intelligence, training, judgement, and wisdom possessed individually and collectively, the cumulative total of which represents a form of wealth available to nations and organizations to accomplish goals (Encyclopædia Britannica, 2018).” Each person in a society holds varying amount of human capital, natural or cultivated, to generate value for a firm. Capitalist society seeks to leverage and exploit human capital for the generation competitive advantages and material wealth.
[6] Global Health Europe describes the differences in inequity and inequality: “Inequity and inequality: these terms are sometimes confused, but are not interchangeable, inequity refers to unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption or cultural exclusion while inequality simply refers to the uneven distribution of health or health resources as a result of genetic or other factors or the lack of resources.” Inequality is required for a capitalist nation to function – not everyone holds the same value to society nor holds the same goals. Rational investment and leveraging latent human capital. Inequity attempts to correct some personal wrong or harm due to avoidable differences.
[6] Global Health Europe describes the differences in inequity and inequality: “Inequity and inequality: these terms are sometimes confused, but are not interchangeable, inequity refers to unfair, avoidable differences arising from poor governance, corruption or cultural exclusion while inequality simply refers to the uneven distribution of health or health resources as a result of genetic or other factors or the lack of resources.” Inequality is required for a capitalist nation to function – not everyone holds the same value to society nor holds the same goals. Rational investment and leveraging latent human capital. Inequity attempts to correct some personal wrong or harm due to avoidable differences.
[7] As each person has a different amount of human capital they can employ, it is rational to develop and cultivate latent abilities for success. Success is defined by an individual in relation to their own self-construal and drive: to some, it is the stay-at-home parent, for others, a neurosurgeon. Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive – but strips, by way of ‘moral contract,’ the ability to define and pursue self-success.
[7] As each person has a different amount of human capital they can employ, it is rational to develop and cultivate latent abilities for success. Success is defined by an individual in relation to their own self-construal and drive: to some, it is the stay-at-home parent, for others, a neurosurgeon. Collectivism gives each person the needs to survive – but strips, by way of ‘moral contract,’ the ability to define and pursue self-success.
Citations:
Citations:
[i] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; p. 1074.
[i] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; p. 1074.
[ii] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; pp. 1072-1073
[ii] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; pp. 1072-1073
[iii] Ammi, Ken. Ben Shapiro on Indoctrination of America's Youth in Universities, YouTube, 12 Jan. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5LdzBE1V4.
[iii] Ammi, Ken. Ben Shapiro on Indoctrination of America's Youth in Universities, YouTube, 12 Jan. 2015, www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5LdzBE1V4.
[iv] Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, 2002.
[iv] Elkington, John. Cannibals with Forks: The Triple Bottom Line of 21st Century Business. Capstone, 2002.
[v] Page, Sam. “Adapt Or Die -- Businesses Must Embrace Change To Remain Relevant.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 1 Dec. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2017/12/01/adapt-or-die-businesses-must-embrace-change-to-remain-relevant/#6277f80061b5.
[v] Page, Sam. “Adapt Or Die -- Businesses Must Embrace Change To Remain Relevant.” Forbes, Forbes Magazine, 1 Dec. 2017, www.forbes.com/sites/forbescommunicationscouncil/2017/12/01/adapt-or-die-businesses-must-embrace-change-to-remain-relevant/#6277f80061b5.
[vi] Sullivan, Lawrence. The Collapse of Communist Economic Theory. Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Apr. 1961, fee.org/articles/the-collapse-of-communist-economic-theory. Washington: GPO, 2015. Web 27 Jan 2019. (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f26/11-0078-I.pdf)
[vi] Sullivan, Lawrence. The Collapse of Communist Economic Theory. Foundation for Economic Education, 1 Apr. 1961, fee.org/articles/the-collapse-of-communist-economic-theory. Washington: GPO, 2015. Web 27 Jan 2019. (https://www.energy.gov/sites/prod/files/2015/08/f26/11-0078-I.pdf)
[vii] United States Off. of Inspector General. The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee to Solyndra, Inc.
[vii] United States Off. of Inspector General. The Department of Energy’s Loan Guarantee to Solyndra, Inc.
[viii] Huff, Richard. “Human Capital.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 4 Oct. 2018, www.britannica.com/topic/human-capital.
[viii] Huff, Richard. “Human Capital.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 4 Oct. 2018, www.britannica.com/topic/human-capital.
[ix] Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
[ix] Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224-253. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224
[x] Cross, Susan E., et al. “The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 2010, pp. 142–179., doi:10.1177/1088868310373752.
[x] Cross, Susan E., et al. “The What, How, Why, and Where of Self-Construal.” Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 15, no. 2, 2010, pp. 142–179., doi:10.1177/1088868310373752.
[xi] Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
[xi] Singelis, T. M. (1994). The measurement of independent and interdependent self-construals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 580-591. doi:10.1177/0146167294205014
[xii] Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506
[xii] Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96, 506-520. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.506
[xiii] Yun, Jinhyo Joseph, et al. “Collectivism, Individualism and Open Innovation: Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Technology, Open Innovation, Markets and Complexity.’” Science, Technology and Society, vol. 22, no. 3, 2017, pp. 379–387., doi:10.1177/0971721817736439.
[xiii] Yun, Jinhyo Joseph, et al. “Collectivism, Individualism and Open Innovation: Introduction to the Special Issue on ‘Technology, Open Innovation, Markets and Complexity.’” Science, Technology and Society, vol. 22, no. 3, 2017, pp. 379–387., doi:10.1177/0971721817736439.
[xiv] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; p. 1006.
[xiv] Rand, Ayn. Atlas Shrugged. 50th Anniversary (25th printing) ed., Signet, 1996; p. 1006.