I don't think I have to go over the details of a modern-day application of the golden goose story; just re-read last week's column, if you need to. Suffice to say, there's a lesson here for all of us in how we handle the golden goose of economics.
You will recall that the two options are to either foster its growth or kill it slowly through taxation and regulation. The choices are really quite simple: sustain its development by sound financial and common sense rules or run it out of town, to flourish elsewhere.
With this business model, I suppose there's a third option, though it's tied into the second one: Keep it alive, somehow, but restrain and restrict it so much that it may survive but will never thrive. I see this happening in my travels throughout the province. My angst is the loss of what could be happening.
And when I speak of business, I don't limit my thoughts to huge corporations. That's a good place to start, but I'm also thinking of fast-food outlets, agriculture-based businesses and dealerships, and all types of services agencies, just for starters.
Actually, the metaphor of the golden goose has yet another application. Not a better one, necessarily, just another one: Lessons about individual families and people agencies are easily found in this metaphor.
The golden goose = families and agencies) will produce so much gold (= service, volunteerism, and charitable giving). Muzzle them, deceive them, even control them, and we get...well, we get what I see developing here in Alberta.
I side with the Oxford Canadian Dictionary , by the way, because it defines families this way: [they are] comprised of "a couple and their children regarded as a basic social unit." I am not excluding singles or grandparents, or other volunteer organizations, not for a moment. In fact, I see them them as extensions of both.
When families and agencies are unleashed, and are allowed to carry out their heartfelt, genuine response (and responsibility) to meet certain needs, there is no limit to what "golden eggs" of goodness and random acts of kindness they can produce.
How? Let me repeat those three ways: service, volunteerism, and charitable donations. What part of the free-will giving of time, money, and availability do you not get?
I do not have documented facts and figures at my fingertips, in terms of the power of a free and freed people. But I have read of the disproportionate giving (of selves and money) that marks this element of society. Curtailing consistent goodwill would be a devastating blow to our economy.
I speak specifically of service agencies, camps, schools, medical clinics, homes for abused women and children, street ministries, drop-in centres for youth, food banks, soup kitchens, thrift stores, and the list goes on. Multi-generational and multi-layered areas of society rely heavily on the good work and goodwill of dedicated volunteers, without one dime of government money to help.
Denying, then destroying, the populace the opportunity to serve, volunteer, and give, is the mark of a short-sighted leadership. Then to finally do away with the golden goose of free labour is detrimental to a huge component of the society that benefits the powers-that-be both time and money. Why don't they get it?
I know of many from this area who have volunteered their time for decades in Haiti and seen their success there. I've heard of others recently who went to help in Puerto Rico, for example, after its recent devastating hurricane.
Then there's a parallel account for both countries, except the workers were paid. Which model had the most publicity? Right. But which one had the most success? Right again. And which one didn't cost the government a nickel? Boy, you're good!
My point is that there is a real shortsighted danger—even "irresponsibility"-- to disregard the goose producing the golden eggs of "service, volunteerism, and charitable donations" by over-taxation and over-regulation.
My computer is starting to steam, so I better back off. I'll finish next week.
No comments:
Post a Comment