The ignoramus Left looks for ways to exploit the unexploited.
Being both economic and free market illiterates, it’s no wonder that free market orientated people have to take time to spell out the obvious to Leftist ideologues. All they (the Left) know, is that capitalism, profit, property rights, as well as the right to restructure one’s own business to stay profitable, is evil, and they’ll keep repeating it like a person afflicted with Tourette’s syndrome til they’re blue in the face.
Enbuske: Gripping forced entrepreneurs
The Helsingin Sanomat reported last week that immigrants are more eager to establish businesses than Finns, and that they have become “forced entrepreneurs” in Finland. A Forced entrepreneur is one who is forced to work as an entrepreneur, because otherwise there would be no work to do.
Let’s think about what would happen in Finland, if there wasn’t any kind of “forced entrepreneurship”. It would mean that everyone would have an absolute right to get a job.
How would this right work in reality? Of course, it means that some other entrepreneur would be forced to employ an unemployed person. So, being forced, would be transferred from the employee to the employer.
This is not the only way real “non-forced entrepreneurs” are looked down upon.
Entrepreneurs are also blamed, if ”every single person in Finland hasn’t a job made available to them for what they were schooled for”
If someone wants to be a filmmaker, and as such will seek training, for some reason, he should have the right to make movies, even though no one would want to watch them.
Real entrepreneurs should, therefore, sacrifice, and be forced to offer up that desired similar work.
Thirdly, entrepreneurs are in trouble because of the prejudices of basic human thinking that deems all kinds of middlemen as thieves. And the middlemen are the ones who set up companies or trade in the products made by others. It seems that others believe they don’t do anything at all..
Sartre (Jean-Paul Charles Aymard) deemed merchants as useless as the laborer. Marx argued that the worker’s employer stole the extra value of the worker’s labor.
That’s awful. But it’s even more wrong, if the employer terminates the stealing of the extra value (profit) and fires them. Each option for the employer is therefore wrong in the mindset of the philosophers and researchers.
The fourth is a real example of bullying the entrepreneur.
Last summer, some ordinary summer reporter asked me, how come I can defend the market economy, when Nokia has just laid off a great number of people.
The journalist left my response unpublished. My answer was that of course Nokia – and any other company – who originally employed those people, can also let them go.
Without these firms being able to fire those people, there would never have been a workplace to begin with. Nor would the company have brought prosperity to the state. Worst of all, there would not have even been the firm’s product.
Going back to the ‘forced entrepreneurs.’
The Helsingin Sanomat’s immigrants had established a quite of ordinary companies, such as home-based business. They would hardly have thought themselves as being victims, unless the Finnish researchers in the story would have told them so.
Behind the Finnish “forced entrepreneurship” stories is often a freelance journalist, for example, which is a big media house that does not want to hire, but which buys, however, regular material.
In such a forced entrepreneurship as this, in fact, there’s much less force than in real entrepreneurship. A real entrepreneur, for example, the home-based kind of business being run by an immigrant, will have to put on his sales hat, brush his teeth, pry a smile on his face, and approach new customers.
This means the client for who the Finnish “forced entrepreneurs” are already in place for.