Atlas Did Not Shrug

Economic theory, a varied and confused mass, where few have certain answers and fewer still can make accurate predictions. Beyond the basics of Keynesian or classical theory, there is little that truly resembles the real world simply because the situation is far too complex. But what of the discussion of the power of a single individual? How much does one man matter?

Individualism, with one of the most extreme forms in Ayn Rand's objectivist philosophy, accentuates the power of a single person to make for herself based on her own will power and skill. For Ayn Rand, it became a concept where a few people truly ran society and caused it to progress. In her novel Atlas Shrugged, an oil magnate disappears overnight and an oil well immediately spews its black gold and fire high into the sky. But in fact, such an ideology is ironically an argument against itself. If only a few people could truly achieve then it would make the argument for collectivism all the stronger; place these few people in charge of everyone and run society in a socialist dictatorship.

Beyond this, the general American mood on the issue is likely more accurately portrayed by the nebulous concept of the American Dream; any person can achieve to be the wealthiest most powerful man on Earth but at any given point in time, only one person holds the position. Therefore, by definition, the vast majority of people are in lesser positions. This culture reveres the successful businessman but the adoration of financial acumen intrudes upon society an unhealthy focus on a single aspect of skill. Why else, in contrast to Atlas Shrugged, does a corporation not immediately implode upon itself should its founder disappear? Whereas, in Atlas Shrugged an oil magnate disappears and the oil wells immediately breakdown into ill use, in the real American world, the workers would still continue their duties with someone taking up the mantle of leadership in due time. In fact, the larger the corporation, the less likely the loss of leadership would greatly affect it. Individualism succeeds because, in the real world, the vast majority of people are naturally motivated to work and only this complete skill set does it allow for success. A factory succeeds because a scientist discovered the theory that allowed the engineer to design it. It succeeds because the technicians, skilled labour and menial workers toil in its machinery. It succeeds because the leadership holds to a vision and its management efficiently handles morale and work distribution. Thus, the best addition to the economy is the holistic view of organizations to better understand them.

In the corporate world of today, marketing and sales construe the vast majority of personnel at any given organization. Beyond small businesses, additional workers are mostly non-producing individuals. These are administrative positions, advertising positions, sales positions and so on. When the vast majority of your workforce produces nothing but corporate propaganda and media advertisements, in the false cry of capitalism, it creates a sense that society can achieve much more if these workers had instead produced something tangible, even ideas or simply better products. The engineers, the menial workers, the general staff is largely unaffected by the upper echelons of management beyond the fourth or fifth level. Sales are predicted by the success of advertisements and not product quality. Maple Leaf foods can be responsible for the worst number of deaths due to food poisoning in recent history but still maintain its dominant market position without any adverse affect simply because it handled the public relations issue well. It matters little if the food is any safer. Small businesses are made up mostly of the individuals who produce the product and only a minority perform the business and marketing. If the economy were made up solely of small businesses, efficiency would rise, in terms of workers producing products but one does lose the economies of scale afforded by large corporations. Poorly run businesses with little market share and no power over price would immediately fail but corporations can outlast turmoil by brand recognition. Still, it is hard to predict the actual effect of small business capitalism.

When we see society, especially after the subprime mortgage crisis precipitated by short sighted lenders, dominated by the same individuals who decade after decade cause economic upheaval but government unable to form legislation to combat the waste then we see democracy undermined by financial interests. The corporate entity becomes inefficient because, depending on the industry, once it grows beyond a number of individuals, the extra individuals no longer actually produce tangible products. Thus, for large corporations, they do not obtain money from a superior product but rather from superior market share. Any single person has not the time or patience to sift through the possible products and thus most make a choice on either price or brand; brand if there is something recognizable, price otherwise. This results in a society where government is unable to purchase open source software because it has no one liable for a lawsuit should some component fail to run correctly. It results in people paying for over priced goods because they are unwilling to trust unknown companies. In this world, you never obtain the market price. Corporations become the same entity with all the wastes we blame on government; inefficient bureaucracy, incompetent leadership, money squandered to a few individuals, mass nepotism. No longer true is the argument that corporations fail if inefficient, such only occurs at the small scale but the adage "You're too big to fail" can be seen with only a quick glance to the American bailout packages for banks and lenders (whereas individual people who similarly suffered during the economic crisis obtained nothing, as if to accentuate the point that if you are small you receive no assistance whatsoever).

So, do we have a society where only a few truly run it, or do we not? Perhaps one can take a peek at statistics.

From http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil105g-eng.htm
Ontario population in 2006: 12,160,282
Welfare recipients: 391 800
Above 250k Income: 67,020

So, if we unrealistically presume all individuals above 250k are inheritance bums and all individuals on welfare are also welfare bums then 3.8% of the population consists of complete moochers. This gives us a certain idea of the number of non-contributors to the economy. It also gives us an idea of how few people can actually be moochers in a society with a good economy and stable government. Should the number of economic non-contributors actually rise to 3.8%, it is likely the effects would be readily apparent and beyond this number would seem like an anarchist state in constant conflict and misery.

From http://www40.statcan.gc.ca/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
Above 35k income: 3,737,310
Median Total Income Per Family: 66,600 CAD

This gives us a rough idea that most people are in the middle class, a situation that is most desirable for society.

As individuals come and go, any number of people can take their place in society and continue on. The idea that a single man can be a focal point is not only inaccurate but a dangerous idea to behold. Uplifting single individuals above that of others leads to worship of dictatorial situations, where the collective gives up its right and wealth to a few individuals, to paradoxically support the notion of individualism. Instead, this philosophy should be defined by the idea that every person contributes to society because, as an individual, they possess a unique set of skills necessary for a particular facet of the economy. Much as communists contend that a factory cannot run without workers, capitalists also contend that businesses cannot run without businessmen. One does not need to take any philosophy to an extreme. A holistic view of the situation would ask only one question of any person; what is your skill so that it can be best positioned in the economy?