Economist piece

This a piece I wrote for the Economist, which was attached to my application for a position I applied to. Needless to say I didnt get the job but I do like this little effort, so I decided to re-post it here.

“Greek Entrepreneurship – Stagnation or Apathy?”

Ever since the financial crisis hit Greece at full capacity the country has witnessed a massive brain drain, probably bigger than the one suffered during the post-war Greek diaspora if we are to consider both numbers and the education of the citizens abandoning the country for better opportunities elsewhere.

This phenomenon is part of the vicious cycle of the lack of entrepreneurship and of opportunity, of new markets, in the Greek area. This lack is to blame for the brain drain, because of the few jobs available, and in turn the lack of human resources only cements the problematic conditions. But unfortunately for Greeks the situation is far more complex.

The lack of new markets, new businesses, and slim evidence of entrepreneurship in general, make it very hard for one to start a business in Greece. Confusing and often contradictory legislation, confounding red-tape, and the creation and sustaining of an unfriendly environment to businesses, especially due to the government’s actions through their mixed messages to the private sector, all pile up to make things even tougher for people, condemning consumers and producers alike. The Greek Left has decided that the issue of helping entrepreneurship, of creating a new market, of re-focusing the country as an economic entity, which is something we’ve seen happen several times in countries facing dire economic situations, is secondary to the issue of safeguarding the public sector. At the same time most Greeks will point out to the public sector, it’s corruption and it’s inefficiency as responsible for a big chunk of the blame for the situation in Greece. A sentiment that is in no way unrealistic, considering that for a new business to be created it has to go through the process of dealing with the necessary public services.

Trying to assist things as much as possible is a group of private investors that wish to help out by promoting entrepreneurship in Greece, fighting to keep the youth from leaving and offer them the means to start up their companies. Athens recently has had a considerable number of such initiatives take place and the response by the unemployed youth has been enthusiastic. But is it enough? After all, how can they thrive in such an environment?

Some political parties try to push for progress in the form of parliamentary debates but they rarely walk the talk since nobody wants to face the problems head on. So far the ‘easy’ (read least provocative) way out has been taken time and again. Taxes are still on the rise and liquidity is drained out.  Again the private sector shoulders the weight. The parties that tried to push for market stability and further alterations on tax legislation, arguing that at least this way people can manage their finances, were edged out by the government and ignored by the media. The parties that did manage to enter parliament continue the Greek tradition of being pro-socialist in a very weird sense, and only provide words of feeble encouragement to the private sector. Some of those parties believe that the problem lies with the lack of foreign investment, but only claim so whilst being at the same time in complete ignorance of the conditions they’ve helped create that makes dealing with Greece and Greek businesses a toxic hazard investors are more than happy to keep away from.

If the government insists on waiting for some all-solving magic wand and doesn’t face up to what is eating away at the foundations of the country’s economy, they will keep on digging themselves in a deeper and deeper hole.

That sounds like a good idea

I have always been fascinated by the thought processes that go through people when gathered in masses. They say that a person is smart but people are dumb and from what I’ve seen both from first hand experienced, and read from historical documents, that seems to be the case.

Being always interested in cognition due to my background, I keep asking myself the question “what were they thinking” when I see a group of people engaged in a behaviour I would find repulsive or simply contrary to rationality. “How can someone do that?” These examples are unfortunately abundant in today’s world, but the example I always return to is coups, and specifically the ‘colonel’s coup’ in Greece

A simplified version of the events boils down to this. Amidst the tension of the time, a group of military officers decided to take matters in their own hands and carried out a coup d’etat, overthrowing the government and establishing themselves as rulers. The instant that always make me wonder is the day where these officers announce to the soldiers that they command (who could have been me, since military service is mandatory in Greece. I just happened to be born at a different time and served under different officers) that they will be taking over the country.

“Soldiers! Today is the day where we seize power”

And every single one of them must have thought “I think that sounds like a good idea”, for else how could they coup have succeeded.

This raises several questions. First of all, how is the power of the colonel actualized over his subordinates. He has no essential power over those people, he only has because of some ancient protocol. The only reason he actually has any power is because, well, he does. We follow what he says because that’s how it is. Even when his orders are something as ridiculous as that. The second problem then is the issue of “just following orders”. This is followed by the question of whether or not we are to question these orders at any point.

It is said that the military is held together by a very fine thread which is discipline. If that breaks it all comes down, and its true. Supposedly under dire situations people need to be told what to do so that the plan will be a success and some form of order is maintained to actually have functionality. Essentially… don’t think! Which is exactly what the thousands of soldiers (I cant be sure of their exact number but they must have been in the thousands for them to take over a country) did exactly that. They didn’t think. They followed protocol, even the ones who didn’t belong to any far right ideology beforehand.

This is why, for me, people shouldn’t join the army before going to university. It is important that a person knows how to think before any attempt to tame that power takes place. When you’re 18 you are not mature enough to think in large terms and see the whole picture. Putting you within a military framework shapes you in a way that prohibits your flourishing in this way. If however you enter the army after university, chances are that it’s too late for them to change the fact you think for yourself.

Would people today think it’s a good idea? Is it ever a good idea to follow protocol blindly? Dont we at least need to understand the context in which the protocol applies and for what reason it’s there so that we can think outside it?

This, mentality of the masses, surprises me and scares me. It is something I’ve witnessed firsthand happen and it shows no sign of going away. For now, this phenomenon can only be used for my arguments in favour of better education. Only by thinking for ourselves can we break away from traditions and protocols and other institutions that have custom as their only raison d’être.

P.S

For more on mass psychology I suggest reading the work of this man. It’s a little outdated but it still very interesting.

Anarchy at the LSE

So apparently a group of, so-called, “anarchists” swarmed a talk by the mayor of Athens during his visit to the London School of Economics. I read the news about it from a student-operated website, of dubious political affiliation (since “a revolution” is hardly a political position), and unfortunately it is not the first time something like this has taken place in foreign soil, causing nothing but harm to the image of Greeks abroad.

I said “so-called anarchists” for many reasons. In the past, especially in recent time where the economic crisis is what everyone seems to be talking about, I have found myself arguing with people from every point of the political spectrum, from the far right to the far left, to people who have declared apathy of all maters political, and with people who consider themselves “anarchists”. Unfortunately my experience every time I try to talk with someone who is part of a dogmatic position, be it of social nature or of economical nature, I have had trouble understanding their way of thinking for the simple reason that I always realise that these people are actually very ignorant of the significance, implications, and meaning of their own positions.

When it comes to anarchists, especially in Greece, the term has mutated into a feeling of political apathy and rejection. The people who call themselves anarchists simply are “against the government”, identifying it as the enemy and the only source of trouble and pain for the people. This is a far cry from the anarchy of Kropotkin and all the other academic anarchists, who are rarely understood or even read by these “anarchists”. I recently had a discussion with a professor of political philosophy, who called himself an anarchist, and claimed that anarchy is quite simply the ideology in which meritocracy is in no way a means or qualification for power or rule. In the case of my country, anarchism has been partnered with leftist ideology, sometimes even going as far left as communism (which in some sense is completely backwards, since anarchists want no social powerhouse and communism seeks to empower the state as much as possible, albeit under a specific pretext) making it appear as it they are the fighters who are at war for the liberties and rights of the people. The Robin Hoods to the King Johns personified by the government. And it has worked. Their numbers have increased in recent times regardless of the sometimes violent and chaotic actions (such as the one at the LSE) and I believe the reason for that is the faulty image they project which all comes down to their poor understanding of their own ideology.

Even if we ignore this fact, the question remains: what could they hope to achieve with their actions? How different was what they did from the football fans who scream at each other urging strangers to support their team and jeer at their opponents? They probably see their actions as a prequel to some form of social paradigm shift, a watered down version of the social revolution so many great thinkers have written about. In reality though, they miss a very important point. Their approach is actually hindering their own effort. The democracy which rules this country is the only political system that allows for the legitimization of a different ideology become the norm and alter our way of government. That’s how extremist regimes of the near past came to power, through the legitimization by the people by democratic voice. The actions of “anarchists” such as the one at the LSE can do nothing but harm to their cause, assuming of course the people really understand the significance of their ideologies. Unfortunately part of the blame belongs to the government for treating them as opponents and using rhetoric reserved for other situations. This stance by the government absolves them in the eyes of the public, who perceive this stance as “hurting the ruling class where it hurts”, making them think that they are actually succeeding in what they are after.

By ignoring this fact they will never manage to get the majority to join them, since their fight is not supported by all. I am grateful for that, for if they realise that will actually have to argue for their position they will be easily called out as ignorant and unbalanced.

Hardly the traits for someone who wishes to shape the world in any way that might affect others.