Alan Sugar has called for “enterprise lessons” in schools. While a capitalist economy may benefit from there being some people like Alan Sugar, I see absolutely no evidence that we need more of them.
The problem is that in his interview in the Telegraph, Sugar is essentially keen on encouraging children to grow up to be sharp wheeler-dealers like himself. The fundamental problem with this is that trading can only add so much value, and if your economy is reasonably efficient to start with, the room for adding value by better trading is limited
Traders also appear when they are needed. Communist countries certainly did not have entrepreneurship classes, but no one suggests that China lacks entrepreneurs. Traders spring up when needed.
The people who really add value are those who come up with really new ideas and products. One Google does more to make the world a better place than a thousand Amstrads. The former has genuinely invented new ideas. The latter merely does the same as every other electronics manufacturer: they do very little that would be left undone if they had never existed. Google was founded by post-graduate students with a deep interest in computer science, for its own sake, not just as a way of making money. Amstrad was founded by a Alan Sugar with his trader mentality.
The way to fuel economic growth, is not to have entrepreneurship classes to produce more Alan Sugars. It is to teach science and engineering better, so that we produce more of the passionate, curious, tinkering minds that advance technology.
Alan Sugar bemoans the lack of a work ethic. It is true that British people could work harder, but surely whether to work longer hours, or take risks, for a bit more money or to enjoy your leisure is a choice that individuals are entitled to make. Why should the state seek to push them to make more money? I share his dislike of outright dole scroungers, but these are still a minority.
There is also the question of what education is for. Sugar assumes that it is purely a preparation for work. This is utterly wrong. It fundamentally affects people’s lives and who they are. I have come across many people with poor education who have made far more money than I am likely to, but I would not swap a decent education for their wealth. In fact, I feel rather sorry for them.
Sugar my despise purely academic qualification. I like academia and admire scholarship. There is more to life than making money and unlike Sugar, I do think that greed is wrong. Ask yourself if you would rather live in a community of “useless” classical scholars, or Alan Sugar type wheeler dealers.
I’m inclined to agree. I certainly don’t think teachers should be teaching it unless they have been entrepreneurs in the past. Getting entrepreneurs involved in education might be a good thing. Not so much as part of the curriculum but as ‘extras’ – a bit like Young Enterprise I suppose. The aim shouldn’t be to give all children a grounding in entrepreneurialism (as if it were an academic subject) but perhaps spark the interest in naturally entrepreneurial children. They shouldn’t need much encouragement after that!
I agree with much of what Graeme is saying, and whilst I agree greed in itself is ugly, we can be greedy for more than money; knowledge; experiences are just other examples. I prefer to encourage focus on disciplines whether it be trading or technological advancement or anything else constructive. I think you and Alan are needlessly splitting yourselves into competing stereotypes when actually you enjoy a symbiotic relationship.
Both Alan and Graeme are snobs of sorts: It is great that we live in a country where people without the privileges of a business background or a cultured background, a wealthy upbringing or a highly educated upbringing, get some insight into these worlds via educationalists and entrepreneurs with a social conscience. Don’t scupper each other’s efforts. Any encouragement is a step in the right direction. Alan’s help will be a very welcome addition to the world of education, as a result, I hope more entrepreneurial children will emerge from non-business backgrounds and more scholarly children will emerge from less educated backgrounds. We may even get some entrepreneurial scholars, or scholarly entrepreneurs!
I feel the argument you make is correct. We are in capitalism a culture that values greed but promotes it as worth and value. Whereas you promote conscience. It seems that the two are in an head on collision. with the rise in TRUE religious beliefs and the collapse of the money based religion.