Read this for these reasons:
- to know why underdeveloped countries tend to grow a system of entertainers and activists. (This is the most revealing part for me).
- to know why entrepreneurs with financial (and social) safety nets tend to become more successful in entrepreneurship
if you've been curious why the Gulf Nations - with all their stupendous wealth, don't compare to less rich nations that embrace a culture of rebellion + know-how + government policy support
- to have a perspective on India's current trick of ensuring and sustaining a vibrant economy through know-how + a permission for rebellion
- if you've always wondered (like me) why France attracts plenty workers' strike
- to understand that there are forces outside "competition" that sustains Capitalism, and the dynamics of Capitalism.
- to know how countries with strong financial system, strong technical know-how and that allow rebellion tend to be more successful than the rest.
This excerpt especially resonates with me:
When there’s neither capital nor know-how to start and grow companies, rebellion finds other ways: political movements, social activism, artistic creation, and crime. Marginal artists in Berlin, punks in England, and social activists in Porto Alegre are primary examples of what dominates a subsistence economy. It gives birth to great art, it drives social and political changes, it certainly stirs up anger, but it doesn’t help build great business empires. An economy fueled only by rebellion resembles many of the least developed countries: know-how is scarce due to the failure of the higher-education system or massive talent emigration; capital is spirited away by a fearful elite. Those who stay are the people in need who just try to make ends meet; charitable NGOs try to help them out; merchants make a business out of scarcity and extract the residual value out of a failed economy.