November 2021 #208
Editor: Jane Karchmar
When we see injustices that appear to be beyond our control, it is all too easy to engage in the blame
game and identify a culprit for all the apparent problems and consequences. Doing so lifts a load from
our shoulders and imparts to us a sense that we have a better understanding of the cause. Of course,
you well know that this simplistic approach will get us no closer to arriving at a workable solution.
Having just completed reading an otherwise well-written and deeply concerning book, I found the
author had ruined (for me) his reasoned approach by being all too quick to blame big business for the
ills he was addressing.
Poor fellow, he was giving the cleverness of big business far too much credit. Directors and executives
do not sit around the board table wondering how they can take money away from or otherwise screw
the little guy. At least in my fifty years in the business trenches, partaking in hundreds of board
meetings, I never have heard of any plot or negative references to the little guy. The businessperson’s
hostility, if any, was usually directed at the competition: How can we outsmart them? And that itself
was quite rare.
The clear, unquestionable, problem described in this book was the plight of the migrants at the border
between the U.S.A. and Mexico. No sensible person can fail to be concerned. The author, blaming big
business and the U.S. government, seemed to aim his solution at somehow taming these groups and
curbing their malpractice. However, if we wish to fix any problem, we must get to root causes;
otherwise, it will not go away. Immigrants/emigrants congregate at the U.S.-Mexico border because the
situation for them in their home country is intolerable. The solution-seeking should include assisting the
home country to develop more agreeable living conditions–no easy task, of course. Another, current,
somewhat related book by a female author, to her credit, in listing her six-point immigrant solution
program, has as her number 2 point, financial and social aid to the native countries of the more
populous immigrant groups. Effectively assisting countries is possible: the U.S.’s Marshall Plan rebuilt
Western Europe after its near-total destruction in WW II. However, my goal today is not to talk about
migrant solutions, but rather the related concept of blame 1.
Why Blame Doesn’t Work
In the first place, blame doesn’t work because blame, by its very nature, allocates some party to a
negative—that is, inferior—status within the group involved. Not only is the act of blaming
disrespectful, blaming usually fails the “Let he without sin cast the first stone” test. Secondly, blaming
someone else usually absolves the observer of any culpability for the situation and oftentimes permits
no self-correction—the only person we can really control being ourselves. Third, as noted above, solving
a problem involves a number of steps. Those problem-solving steps are: clearly defining the problem;
assigning a group to resolve it; ensuring that the group includes a sufficient number of the
1 An associate, on reading a draft of these notes, asked: “Since CCCC has a record of 100 percent success in solving problems around the globe, could CCCC solve this migrant problem?” The answer is “yes”; however, with one very big “if”’: If the conflicting parties agree to the CCCC problem-solving rules that entail respectful behaviour toward the opponent and having, at the table, the persons with authority or power on each side to take steps to enact the arrived-at solutions.
right stakeholders for the issue; making sure that the group has among them the power to do something
about the issue; 2 looking at all practical ramifications of the problem, including getting down to the root
causes; prioritizing the sub-issues; and working on the sub-issues one at a time, which leads to a solution
of the major issue. Does blaming contribute to any of these steps?
Ridiculousness of Blame
Blaming is just plain silly. As noted above, while blaming business for the ills of migration may appeal to
a mind that is not knowledgeable about business, in the final analysis, a business can’t be preoccupied
with issues that do not affect it directly. Businesses cannot afford the luxury of a digression. That is
because of the “5 % Profit Constraint” that they must live under.
3 I recall the public protest against high gasoline prices a decade or so ago, aimed at Standard Oil.
Somehow the public assumed that hundreds, if not thousands, of oil companies could agree among
themselves on an oil price to make the public suffer. It is hard enough to get two companies to agree on
anything, let alone a group. Then oil prices dropped (due to supply-and-demand factors) and the public
noise declined. This past year when we consumers enjoyed the lowest oil prices in ages, it follows from
this sort of thinking that the public should have been saying: “Thank you, oil companies, for being so
nice to us.” I don’t recall hearing that.
Another blame target is the wealthy: as if the wealthy people were all in a club conspiring against the
poor. People arrive at wealth because they become involved in a personally advantageous situation. It
might evolve from being the son who inherited a business from Dad; or the student of a new technology
finding that the public trend falls directly into his field of expertise; or a lottery winner. These are
ordinary people like you and me, all of whom have won a sort of lottery. Their focus is on themselves,
not on the poor; the plot-against-the-poor idea simply doesn’t make any sense.
A caring society understands the luck of the draw of being rich or being poor and the majority elects its
government to try to make things more equal. The building of a city’s $10 billion subway system, for
example, benefits the poor, since the middle class and rich prefer the convenience of their automobiles
for local travel in most cities. The government attempts to equalize by taxing the rich more heavily than
the poor, and by subsidizing the very poor. Some governments are more successful in this equalization
endeavour than others.
Mathematics deems that some sort of government intervention is necessary, otherwise all the wealth
will end up in the hands of a few (a situation seen not only today, but in Roman times and in Aztec
2 Of course, you, as prime minister, can’t attend every problem session of the country, but you can delegate the responsibility and assure your delegate that you will enact whatever agreement the delegate comes home with.
3 The 5% Profit Constraint is that when a business has profits above 5 percent, new competitors, attracted by the high profits, flood into the arena, forcing the prices down to a level close to 5 percent profits. On the other side, if profits are less than 5 percent, a business usually lacks the funds to move forward. (societies of thousands of years ago).
4 The dream of wealth equality (without intervention) remains an
impractical fantasy.
More Downsides to Blaming
Besides the obvious shortcomings of blaming mentioned above, in a blaming environment, people will:
Hide mistakes
Fail to take the risk to innovate
Choose not to co-operate
Find themselves unwilling to trust others
Waste time and mislead by beating around the bush
Choose not to take personal responsibility; that is, avoid taking their own direct action to resolve the issue
Taking Action
Talk is cheap. The question is: What are you going to do about the situation that you have deemed
inappropriate? What can the little guy do? Governments rise and fall because single individuals vote
them in or out. While my vote seems of little consequence, there is no doubt that all of our votes mean
a lot. So, the point is that you should take action to relieve the situation using the talents and
capabilities that you have personally. What action? Send $10 to the cause; write an article; mail a letter
to your senator; vote for the Green party; express your feelings through a protest group; recruit people
to your noble purpose. That is, do what you can within your personal control. You can and should—but,
for goodness sake, avoid the blame game!
Good luck
Bill
4 The CCCC newsletter, Winners and Losers, March 2020 (#186), points out the mathematics developed jointly (by U. of Maryland, Boston U., Tufts U., the Sorbonne in Paris, and Saha Institute in India). It came up with a precision of 0.3 percent when used year by year over a span of twenty-seven years in the U.S. and Europe. These activities demonstrated how wealth, irrespective of how earned or spent, or the financial starting point, will result, finally, with all the wealth in the hands of a few.