Last week I asked, “Can a country be run like a company?” and stressed in particular that the issue raised by Mr. Erdoğan is in fact a very interesting debate from an economic point of view. Towards the end of the article, I asked, “Can you imagine the businessmen in Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged running a country?” In fact, I changed the title just to that as I posted the article on Twitter. Then I received a message from Twitter that said, “What do the capitalist heroes of Ayn Rand have to do with this article?” A lot, if you ask me. Let me start once again…

Remember James Taggart? James Taggart and Orren Boyle have stuck in my mind from Atlas Shrugged as businessmen profiles. And the impression that Ayn Rand was pretty confused. I still have that impression. Why do I remember those chasing contracts in Washington, opting for the easy way out to keep their companies afloat rather than idealist heroes when I hear the word “capitalist”? Because businessmen are like water. They keep out of the hardship and flow towards the easy way.

If you see it this way, what would you do if the price of a commodity you sell has crashed, but your raw material and labor costs have remained the same? You probably wouldn’t think right away, “Let me make an innovation to cut the costs of production or improve productivity.” Let me tell you: A capitalist wouldn’t think of making an innovation right away. The first and foremost desire is to maintain the status quo. Lest there be no hazards, lest the current balances never shift. What would you want? If you cannot sell your commodity, if the price keeps falling, you would think of a measure that will cut costs. If the government can provide you with cheaper raw materials, all the better. If someone else, not you, is making that innovation you may even want the government to ban that innovation. The basis, the source of dynamics in our system is this, and there is nothing weird about that. Because that is the normal course of affairs, there are a zillion regulations on doing business with the government or decision-making in the public sector. This is precisely why the government is slow in its operations, this is why everyone checks and monitors the other. This is why there cannot be capitalism without the rule of law. Orren Boyle and James Taggart wouldn’t allow it.

So why can’t James Taggart et. al. think of anything other than a few measures that would be of direct interest to their companies? What is to be done if the price of a commodity you sell has crashed? Either a few of the facilities other than yours should be shut down to cut production volumes, or some other forced measure should be taken to cut production costs. Why? Because that is how the world appears when you look out from a single factory or a single enterprise. The difference between a successful businessperson and an economist is a difference of perspective. The perspective issue we know of since Plato’s allegory of the cave. That’s why I like the Chinese maxim that says, “The perspective changes the higher you climb up a mountain.” When you look at the state of affairs from the very top, you see the entire balance, you see the whole picture. I am not trying to say economists are good, businesspeople bad. I am just trying to point out the difference in perspective.

When I see it this way, the truth is, I believe the economic policy of the country should not be managed in the same way as James Taggart manages Taggart International. I want to point that out one more time. And why is that?

What is right for a single company is not necessarily right for the entire economy. Capitalism cannot be left to capitalists alone. If it was, the world would be an uninhabitable place, I’d say. What ensures the dynamism of capitalism and what makes it survive is the criticism coming from the left. Without criticism, there would be no system.

Here I am back with the same conclusion that I had last week. So, does Mr. Erdoğan have in mind the management of a country like a company in the sense of higher efficacy of the administration? Is it possible to repeat the model of Lee Kuan Yew, who passed away last week at the age of 91 and who was like the Atatürk of Singapore? Can Singapore be considered as an example of a country that has been managed like a company?

Could be, but remember: Lee Kuan Yew governed Singapore for 31 years as prime minister. The president was always someone else. Promise, I’ll write that the next time.

This commentary was published in Radikal daily on 27.03.2015.