- Messages
- 10,603
- Location
- My mother's basement
I have read her work but think it argues a perspective that doesn't capture, IMHO, the true source of the creative genius behind the wealth.
Looked at from one perspective, Henry Ford didn't do much - it was all those assembly line workers who did the "real" work. And at a certain level that's true - they did the manual work that made the cars. But the genius was, first, all the groundbreaking work Ford did on designing the car itself and then the genius of applying the aborning assembly line concept to auto manufacturing and, of course, organizing it all into a successful company.
Ford was the wealth creator. It was his drive, his creativity, his work, his insight that revolutionized the manufacturing of cars that drove down their price to a level that allowed them to become a mass market product which - by making transportation cheaper and more efficient - greatly increased the wealth of the country.
Watson and Crick had the intellectual insight into genetic code that, eventually, led to incredible advances in medicines - which has made society healthier and wealthier - whose later-stage products (the drugs we buy) are made by millions of workers. IMHO, the wealth creators were Watson and Crick who advanced the intellectual capital of the country forward. The workers on the pharmaceutical assembly line - who work hard and should be proud of their work - wouldn't have jobs if Watson and Crick hadn't had the spark of genius, the creative passion and effort to move the intellectual ball forward.
Creating, organizing, improving, advancing - the people who invent new items, discover new things, the managers who improve processes or organize tens or hundreds of thousands of people more efficiently - are the creative geniuses that increase wealth, raise living standards, improve health - they are the geniuses that, basically, make a country healthier and wealthier.
Yes, somebody has to do all the physical and lower-level intellectual work to execute on those ideas - and that work is important, hard, impressive and irreplaceable - and as one of those people and not a creative genius, I personally have great respect for all those people as I'm one of them - but IMHO we aren't the prime mover of the economy.
If FDR was a genius, his genius was in part creating a plan to put millions of people back to work in all those gov't programs. The people who got those jobs had been on unemployment lines until someone - a creative genius - created a plan, process and construct to put them to work. Their muscle was always willing, but it lay fallow until one or a few people built the government programs that put them back to work.
Before I am excommunicated from FL, let me at least be clear that I am not arguing what someone should be paid, whether the system we have today is fair or equitable or, in truth, any of the current political battles. My argument is, IMHO, a philosophical one - who creates the wealth of a nation. My view is that it is the few that have invented / created / discovered / advanced new ideas, products, process, etc. that have improved our wealth and health - even if it required an army of workers to accomplish the end result - that are the movers of our economy.
I am not one of those people. I am a worker bee; I know that every job I've ever had is owed to a super-creative genius / organizer (albeit at a much lower level than a Ford or Watson or Crick). Without armies of people like me, nothing these super geniuses come up with will get done, but the advances in quality of life are owed to the super geniuses.
There are many exceptions to the above ten or so paragraphs that greatly oversimplifies a complicated economic and social system. Books by people far smarter than I have been written arguing for and against it. The above doesn't address all the points and counterpoints; it lays out a high-level, overly brief view that I have and that I'm 100% fine with others not sharing.
I have a lot of respect for a work ethic - American or anyone's - but it is not, IMHO, a talisman against a bad outcome.
I believe success is made up of a combination of hard work, applied intelligence and luck (or impaired by bad luck). An outsized amount of any can overcome a lot - I've seen smart people overcome setbacks with incredible intelligence and others with an insane amount of hard work, but I've also seen bad luck swamp very smart and very hard working people.
At a population level - the harder workers, the smart ones who can apply their intelligence tend, overall to do better, but good or bad luck can greatly skew many people's personal experiences. I have no doubt that Lizzie grandfather worked hard and smart, but was undone by bad luck (a decision outside of his control and not directed personally at him). Conversely, there are secretaries who worked for Microsoft in the early days who are millionaires now because of a lucky job choice.
What works at a population level - hard work, applied smarts, luck - says nothing about what any individual's experience within that population will be. People who never smoke die of lung cancer and lifelong smokers live to 100. The population statistics will prove that smoking is dangerous to your health, but they don't tell us what any individual's experience who smokes or doesn't will absolutely be.
It's frustrating and maddening that one can do all the right things - work hard, work smart, live healthy, be kind - and have bad luck ruin their life.
As one who had a closer view of the early years at Microsoft than I realized at the time, I can offer that luck and legalized theft had more to do with it than genius. The technologies that made the company were in largest part either purchased or copied from others.
Who was it is that said "behind every great fortune is a crime"? I don't know that I am in complete agreement with that, but I've witnessed more than enough "geniuses" get (or take) credit for others' best ideas.
Last edited: