Читать книгу Stalled - Michael Hlinka - Страница 3

Canada has been very good to the Hlinka family.

My grandfather was born in Litminova, Czechoslovakia, a tiny village in the Tatra Mountains, in the year 1900. Litminova was then part of the Austrio-Hungarian Empire. My grandfather came to Canada in 1926 when his first-born son, my father, was three years old. He made a difficult decision and left his family behind to come to the New World. His plan was to take all the risk, establish something, then reunite his family. It took nine years for him to make his dream come true. He brought his wife and two children over and he never looked back.

My father was born in 1923, and came to Canada in 1935 when he was twelve years old. It was in the midst of the Great Depression. Several years ago, I asked him what his first impression of his new home was and he replied: “I couldn’t believe that there was so much wealth in the world.” That tells you everything about where he came from. My grandfather came to Canada when he was twenty-six years old. He grew to a height of just over five feet tall. My father arrived in Canada at the age of twelve. My father stands about five feet, six inches tall. I was born and raised here and I’m almost six feet, average height for a native-born Canadian. If that isn’t a metaphor for what Canada has provided people from all over the world, I don’t know what is. This was the Land of Opportunity, and everyone, recent immigrants and the native-born alike, have shared in the country’s success and grown, both figuratively and literally, in this great land.

However, I believe that something has happened. Something regrettable. The Land of Opportunity has transformed itself into the Land of Outcome. Canada has lost the pioneering spirit and appetite for risk that made it so worthwhile, trading the certainty of mediocrity for the possibility of excellence. We’re seeing this in many different facets of life but most obviously in the Canadian economy.

There were fifty extraordinary years, from approximately the end of the Second World War to the beginning of the current millennium, where the average citizen — the average — enjoyed a quadrupling of his or her standard of living. And I’d argue that the quality of life grew even more exponentially. This was something the world had never seen before, a truly remarkable transformation. Yet, in the past fifteen years or so, the economy has more or less stalled — something that I never thought would happen when I was growing up.

This is a big problem for Canada. But it’s one that has a solution. In this book I’ll be looking at Canada’s stalled economy and suggesting what can be done to fix it.

I will attempt to explain three things:

 What were the factors that drove the Golden Age of growth from 1950 to 2000?

 What caused a once vibrant economy to stagnate over the past decade and a half?

 What will it take to get the Canadian economy growing and moving again so that Canada can provide future generations the same kind of opportunities that were afforded me?

I hope that readers note these words carefully. This is not a doomsday tract, warning that the end is nigh if we don’t change our ways. Rather, what I think far more likely is that if we proceed in the current direction (and there’s no indication that we’re not going to, at least that I can see), most of you reading this book will lead good lives. Older Canadians — and here I include myself — will guarantee that our comforts are provided for, at the expense of younger generations if need be. And to many of my fellow citizens, this might be acceptable.

To me, it’s not.

When I undertook this project, there were a couple of questions that I was asked frequently:

 Why are you writing this book?

 To whom is it directed?

The “why” is easy. I’ve had a lifelong love affair with reading, and several different books have had a profound impact on my life, fundamentally shaping who I am and the roads I’ve travelled. It may be optimistic to think that this book could have a similar impact on others and I understand that in this desire I may flatter myself … but if I don’t, who will?

There’s another reason why I’m writing this book. And it’s the Number One Reason, hands down. I want Stalled to be a bestseller. Or perhaps more accurately: I want it to be a runaway bestseller.

To be considered a bestseller in Canada, five thousand copies must be sold within twelve months of publication. Keep in mind that more than two million people watch Jerry Springer daily. That provides some context about what being a Canadian bestseller signifies. I’ve been told by industry people I trust explicitly that twenty-five thousand is huge.

I’ve got my own number in mind … and we’ll get to it … in a moment.

As for the question of who this book is aimed at, let me answer that in a somewhat roundabout way.

Throughout this book, I’m going to demand more of my readers than most authors. On numerous occasions, I’ll be asking you to join me in working through some basic math and exercises in probabilities to illustrate different points.

Here’s our first go at it.

Canada’s population is approximately thirty-five million. I’m not sure that Stalled is suitable for young Canadians (fourteen and younger). That knocks off about 5.5 million people. Let’s round things off and say the market is thirty million. My hunch is that if everyone were forced to read Stalled through to the end, at least 33 percent of the population would bemoan the fact that capital punishment was abolished years ago. Perhaps 17 percent would go so far as to write their MP and see if Canada couldn’t put public stoning to a vote of conscience in the House of Commons. (Stalled will ruffle some feathers.) But I’ve got an even stronger belief that there is a significant number (my hunch is that it’s about 33 percent of adult Canadians) who will read Stalled and think: Finally! This is the book I’ve been waiting years for. Finally, someone has made sense out of what I’ve been seeing around me, someone has the guts to say what has to be said and state the obvious!

Warning: There will be a great deal of stating the obvious. In numerous conversations I’ve had about the book I’ve found general agreement with my thesis that the economy has gone nowhere lately. There will certainly be less agreement with my recommendations for getting us out of the rut we find ourselves in. But I can live with that, if you can.

As for my target market: anyone who is interested in understanding what turns the economy’s wheels. This could include people with “formal” training in economics, either from a college or university. But Stalled will have a very different focus than traditional economics courses, because it will stress the importance of microeconomic decision-making and how values impact behaviour and how behaviour in turn fundamentally drives economic performance.

A quick note here: Economics has two branches. Microeconomics, to paraphrase Investopedia, looks at individuals and firms to understand their decision-making processes. Macroeconomics deals with the aggregate economy. But without microeconomics, there is no macroeconomics.… If we understand the former, the latter falls neatly into place.

Stalled might be particularly appealing to those who have a general interest in economic matters but whose life journey hasn’t allowed them the leisure to think about these issues as much as I have. People whom I consider experts (here I think of fellow early-morning YMCA-ers like Jay and Bill) will at least appreciate some of the legwork I’ve done, even if the conclusions are self-evident to them, while others with seemingly superficial knowledge (this includes every Canadian politician I’ve heard speak over the past thirty years and Bank of Canada governor Stephen Poloz) might at least be enlightened, should they stumble upon a copy.

My belief is that economics is singularly easy to understand. Its basic operations are understood intuitively. I hope to provide a framework to clarify things.

Those who can, teach. Those who can’t, teach gym.

Those who can’t teach gym become tenured professors (if they’re lucky) in Ontario’s community college system.

I have been teaching full-time at George Brown College’s downtown Toronto campus in the Faculty of Business since the autumn of 2000. To say that I’m happy is an understatement: You couldn’t get me out of here with attack dogs and water cannons (more about this later).

I think that for most of the young people I’ve worked with, it’s either “love him or hate him.” There is a website, www.ratemyprofessors.com, that posts these assessments from former students:

 “Most stupid teacher I have met, don’t waste your time to take this class, waste [of] money and waste [of] time, really really unhelpful.”

 “He’s the best teacher ever! Some students don’t like him or are scared of him, but if you look closely, Mr. Hlinka is the easiest person to deal with. He’s [a] very straightforward, no nonsense type of person. Though he’s tough, he actually has a heart of gold. Very engaging, intelligent, extremely helpful, & a great motivator.…

 Don’t believe what the other “comments” say because he wrote them all. This guy is a waste [of] time.…1

Let’s call it a hung jury and leave it at that. Yet, even though the reviews are mixed, I think that virtually every former student of mine would agree that I test more frequently than most other instructors. There are several reasons for this. Attendance is frequently an issue at George Brown College and I have this crazy idea that attendance and academic success are positively correlated.

A point about this concept. When we say that things are positively correlated, what is implied is that when one increases the other increases or when one decreases the other decreases, and that a causal relationship exists. That is, better attendance leads to higher grades and vice versa. An example of negative correlation might be the relationship between hours spent with Netflix and grades: the more time a student watches movies, the lower his grades. Correlation — both positive and negative — will be a recurring theme in Stalled because I’m trying to determine what caused the economy to grow and which factors are responsible for it flatlining over the past fifteen years.

There are other reasons why I test as frequently as I do. It keeps students on top of the material throughout the semester, rather than encouraging them to cram for a single final exam. And because education really should be about the learning (shouldn’t it?), testing is a wonderful feedback mechanism. It lets students know whether they understand the subject matter or not.

I am an old dog and testing is one of my tricks. Therefore, I’m going to be testing you, good reader, throughout this book. Interspersed among these two-hundred-and-thirty–odd pages are one hundred questions. I would encourage you to fill them in manually or check them off mentally. Of course, you can ignore them altogether, although I hope you don’t. They will help focus your thinking about whether the arguments I present are persuasive and enable us to agree on a path that will lead to a brighter future for everyone.

But first: seven questions to measure your interest in proceeding. I’ve already introduced myself as a tenured professor at George Brown College. Some of you might recognize me from my business commentary on CBC Radio. I also teach at the University of Toronto’s School of Continuing Studies, running their Chartered Financial Analyst (CFA) and Canadian Securities Course (CSC) programs.

One of the important features of the University of Toronto courses is that they provide students with the opportunity to attend a couple of classes, then decide if the methodology is right for them. If it’s not, they get a full refund. I like this policy. It helps students make informed decisions about going forward — or not — because the worst mistake anyone can make in the short time we have on this planet is to waste time.

That’s what these questions are about. There aren’t right or wrong answers, per se. But they will help you determine at a very early stage whether you should dedicate a good number of hours reading Stalled, or do something else from which you’ll derive more value.

Value and values will be important words in Stalled. Robert Pirsig, whom you may know as the author of Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, followed up with another book, one that I found infinitely more interesting: Lila: An Inquiry Into Morals. Pirsig talks a lot about values in Lila. According to him, our values express what is most important to us, and what is most important to us determines how we go about acting every day. I agree with him.

So, I’ve decided it’s best to start with a few questions that will help you see if your values and mine are in sync. Now for the questions!

QUESTION 1

Are people rational economic actors?

Allow me to explain why I’m asking this.

My experience has been that people use their reason to help them get what they believe is best for them at a particular point in time. It must be noted that all of us are subject to “bounded rationality.” That is, our ability to reason is imperfect and frequently coloured by emotion. The assertion that we’re rational doesn’t mean that there isn’t the possibility of a temporal mismatch, that is, what seems good for us in one instant might not seem so if we adopt a different time horizon. (“Sure, Ben, one more for the road.…” That fourth draft at the Crown and Dragon at 10:30 p.m. on Sunday evening sure felt good going down, but it failed to take into account that in six short hours I’d have to rise and shine, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, for my 6:45 a.m. business commentary on CBC Radio.) It doesn’t mean that my decision was irrational — it just wasn’t particularly well thought through.

One more thing. The term rational economic actor implies the use of reason by a person when making economic choices, not that every decision revolves solely around “profit-maximizing” grounds. Let me return to that “fourth draft” example. I know that if I have that extra brewski, I’m going to have less money in my wallet. But I also believe that my overall utility (a fancy word for well-being) will be enhanced by it, making the decision a rational one.

Bottom line: Being a rational economic actor doesn’t guarantee that one makes the “right” decision; it implies only that thought went into the decision before it was made.

QUESTION 1

Are people rational economic actors?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 2

Would you agree that human nature hasn’t changed in the past several thousand years and is unlikely to change in the next few thousand?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 3

Do incentive systems determine behaviour?

We are at the same time self-interested beings and social animals. Incentive systems are designed to encourage us to act in a manner which is consistent with the general good, which means that frequently they “tilt” against our natural instinct.

Telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth may not always be the best thing for witnesses in, say, a courtroom setting. This is why we penalize those who lie under oath. Think of perjury sentences as a stick.

In free and competitive markets, doing hard, dangerous, and high–value added work is rewarded more than doing easy, safe, and low–value added work. Think of the extra compensation as a carrot.

And civil society needs both sticks and carrots.

QUESTION 3

Do incentive systems determine behaviour?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 4

Do you agree that actions speak louder than words and that individuals demonstrate what is truly important to them by the actions they take, not what they say?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 5

Do you agree that self-interest drives principle?

When I was younger and far more naive, I believed that most individuals figured out (by whatever framework made the most sense to them — religious, secular humanist, whatever) what was “right” and what was “wrong,” and then this was the North Star that guided behaviour. But as I’ve become older, I increasingly believe that what most of us (you can pretty much read everyone) do is figure out what serves our self-interest (subject to bounded rationality), and then construct the belief system that best supports it after the fact.

I think — and I’m certain you do as well — that slavery is singularly immoral (we’ll return to this topic and the why of it later on). But I’m equally certain that previous generations reasoned that it was perfectly moral, largely because they believed it made their lives better, and came up with the necessary rationalizations to justify it.

QUESTION 5

Do you agree that self-interest drives principle?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 6

Do you think that Canadian society should be understood as a collection of individuals, rather than a collection of groups?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

QUESTION 7

Do you think that people should be held accountable for the choices they make?

The city I live in, Toronto, just went through a tumultuous period. Its then-mayor, Rob Ford, caused a great deal of controversy because he allegedly smoked crack cocaine. His defence seemed to be: first, you can’t really prove it was crack cocaine, now can you? And even if it was — I was so badly intoxicated that I didn’t know what I was doing, so I can’t be blamed.

Okay. But he made the choice to drink that much in the first place. An adult should realize that if sufficient quantities of alcohol are consumed, judgment is impaired. Therefore, even if we allow that smoking crack was an unforeseen consequence of alcohol abuse, it doesn’t stand as a valid defence.

On the other hand, one may well think that greater forces explain what we do and, if so, it would be unfair to hold individuals responsible for what they cannot control.

Do you believe in free will or not?

QUESTION 7

Do you think that people should be held accountable for the choices they make?

☐ Yes.

☐ No.

Time for full disclosure: I agree with all of those statements. Wait, let me take that back. I strongly agree with all of those statements. And everything that follows in Stalled will flow out of them as purely and, I hope, forcefully as a mountain stream fed by melting snow in the springtime.

If you don’t see the world this way (anything under five out of seven is a red flag), then do yourself a favour: put the book down right now. Let me quote Salt-N-Pepa: “This dance ain’t for everybody. Only the sexy people.”2

On the other hand, if you agreed with at least five out of seven, then fasten your seat belt and enjoy the ride!

Just one last thing: this book is going to be very anecdotal. Once you get into it, you’ll see that there is no shortage of research. But how we see the world is coloured to a great extent by significant events and single moments. Most of the anecdotes I’m going to relate can’t be “proven.” In some cases, they come from conversations I had years before. And I suspect that at least a couple of them may seem unbelievable to you because that’s how they seem to me, even today.

Skeptics may think I made them up. Critics may accuse me of being a “liar, liar, pants on fire” and I can’t defend myself except to say that at least a few of the anecdotes that can be proven are equally unbelievable as the ones that can’t.

Here’s how Stalled is organized.

Part One is a primer in neo-classical growth theory. This school of thought dominates contemporary thinking when it comes to explaining what causes economies to grow over time. Following the primer, I’m going to provide my unique addendum to neo-classical growth theory, because it seems to me that there is a missing link, as it were, in the economic growth evolutionary chain.

With the theoretical framework established, we move on to Part Two. It is divided into five main chapters that deal with the decades of the 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Each of these is followed by a shorter chapter that provides a little more detail about an important topic or idea touched on in the chapter.

My thesis — as I’ve already alluded to — is that over these fifty years Canadians of my generation enjoyed something unprecedented in human history: a half-century when the average citizen enjoyed a gigantic improvement in his or her standard of living.

I’ll be the first to admit that some arbitrary distinctions will be made along the way. Things develop over time. The crisp categorizations I’m making serve the goals of simplicity and clarity. I will be taking a bit of poetic licence (but just a bit) with timelines, et cetera. The purpose is to serve the narrative and to keep our eyes firmly fixed on what this book is about, and that’s an explanation of the swift economic ascent that followed the Second World War and of the flatlining we’re now experiencing.

Part Three covers the period from the year 2000 to the present day.

Part Four offers a set of very specific recommendations to jump-start a Canadian economy that I believe has stalled.