Who is right?

Life is very instructive from time to time. One learns incredible, unimaginable things from jokes or sarcastic remarks, from various experiences over the course of time, and most importantly, from criticism. In today's article, I would like to share with my valued readers, in the context of my own learning and without overstepping my bounds, my crumbs of thought on how things should be considered.

Since we will be discussing less-than-serious, somewhat playful topics in this article today, let's start with a joke. One day, a car entered a one-way street in the wrong direction. A traffic radio announcement was being made, warning that a vehicle had entered the wrong way and that all drivers should be careful. The driver of the vehicle that had entered the wrong way, hearing this announcement, thought that it wasn't just one, but all the other vehicles that had entered the wrong way, and shaking his head, he continued on his way, saying, “Good heavens, the announcement must be wrong.” I don't know the end of the story, but you can guess.

In economics, almost all theorists have generally made pessimistic predictions about the future of societies. As is known, the most famous of these is Malthus. According to Malthus, the imbalance between world population growth and food supply growth in favor of population growth would lead to famine and destruction in the future. The famous Keynes also made negative prophecies. As is known, Keynes's main prophecy, or rather his foresight, concerned the Second World War. Keynes stated that the burden placed on the Germans at the end of the First World War would definitely be avenged by the Germans in the future, and he even wrote a book on this subject. Marx made the most accurate prediction about the future with his view on crises and revolutions. However, even though the vast majority of the world's wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few people and the majority of the world is struggling with poverty, mainstream economic doctrine remains indifferent and organizes programs to distribute Nobel prizes. And the words liberalism, democracy, and freedom suit this system! I always give the following example on this subject. Let's say a disease is taught in medical schools and the diagnosis of the disease is taught; when the graduating doctors encounter the symptoms they learned in their professional lives, they apply the treatment method they were taught, but unfortunately, the disease cannot be cured, and on the contrary, it progresses and leads to deaths. Now, would this medical school be protected, would education be allowed to continue in a university that provides such training, and would its professors even be rewarded with prizes like the Nobel? My dear readers, there is a great social benefit in thinking about this issue in the context of education policy, especially for the field of economics.

Please forgive my disrespect, for I have advised you to think without thinking too much myself. Yet, before I gave you my humble advice, I should have thought that our thoughts and ideas, especially on social issues, are not 100% unique to us as we think, but are thought patterns created and disseminated in society in line with the interests of the dominant segments. Despite this being the case, I still want to be a little persistent in my first idea and invite you to think about the expressions in the next part of the article.

Let's come to the example of the car that entered the wrong way. Here I want to talk about two institutions. One is TÜSİAD, an organization formed by famous industrialists known as a business association, and the other is the ruling party, or rather the partnership, that is dominant in political administration today. Although the word “men” in the name of the first institution suits the institution, it seems a bit crude to me. Anyway, let's get to our topic. Yes, the manager of the “industry and business people's” association made political statements at their meeting the other day regarding issues they are uncomfortable with in the administration. At first glance, it might be thought that what was said is acceptable. My dear readers know, there is a saying: “When something is said to you, you should look at who is saying it, not at what is said.” If we follow this saying and question in which order the members of the organization in the capitalist system reached those positions and how much they contributed to society, we will have placed what they said in its proper value.

Going back a bit, didn't these illustrious business people, without getting hung up on concepts like democracy and social political participation, focus solely on their own business and profits and argue that coalitions slow down business? Didn't these business people applaud the political cadre that came to power as a strong single party at the beginning? Today, things have changed. Yes, that's true, but one should have seen today from that day. Can it be the behavior of a prudent business person to believe in instant politics without being able to see ahead, just like the “not enough, but yes” fools?

The image on the political front of the business also resembles the reverse reflection of the business people. Coming to power, initial promises, some practices even if small, and even quite justified and promising expressions directed at the oppressive regimes of past governments, etc., seemed quite hopeful to the people. Well, when we look at the point reached today, when we look at the actions taken, we see a system that neither provides peace of conscience in society in general nor is compatible with contemporary trends. So, what is intended to be done? While the middle-income group is evolving towards poverty, and while the world is moving towards smart machines and artificial intelligence, is it in the country's interest to remain indifferent to the departure of our educated youth, our doctors, and our engineers who will carry our country into the future, as if shining a light on their path? Are the education system, the legal system, foreign relations, and most importantly, the understanding of economy and democracy suitable for where our country should be?

The attitude taken towards criticism is related to the level of culture and understanding of the one being criticized. A culture that meets criticism with reaction is simple, undeveloped, and insecure. On the other hand, seeing criticism as a kind of mirror held up from the opposite side, identifying the points that can be corrected, and working to correct them reflects a developed, mature, and self-confident behavioral style. It is very clear that we have failed in the TÜSİAD-politics clash. I don't think I can see it, but perhaps we will move up a class by learning to grow a little more and take criticisms as a kind of advice or suggestion. Maybe!...