Month: March 2026

Challenging Common Myths in Business and Economics


March 26, 2026

Do you sometimes hear a statement that seems false to you? You think that this cannot be right. Sometimes such statements could be exaggerations; it is the way some people talk. But other times, a statement may be paritally or totally false because you know the subject matter. How do you react in such situations? You may not be able to argue with a statement on live TV or in a large lecture hall. In a small group, though, you might voice your contrary opinion or choose to ignore the statement. At times, it may feel futile or unnecessary to engage, but in other cases, especially when the subject matters to you and you can respond, speaking up might be appropriate.

I recently listened to a university business professor talk about global economic trends. He introduced himself as nonpolitical and explained that the many charts he will present come from reputable sources. In other words, his presentation will be unbiased. He also mentioned that he’ll puncture some “shibboleths” or “urban myths”. So, I looked forward to his lecture.

The professor spoke enthusiastically, and I enjoyed his comments. What stood out most were the remarks that challenged my views—not because I didn’t understand, but because I disagreed. Here are three ideas from his lecture I take issue with.

He began by sharing that he always asks his students what motivates businesspeople and, according to him, the answer is invariably profit: business exists to make money. However, he always counters the students’ view by explaining to them that when he shops for vegetables, he expects the store to sell vegetables; therefore, the store, a business, exists to offer those goods. The owner may have been a gardener initially and decided to sell produce. This made sense, but I also knew that selling continues only if the store makes money. In other words, the owner would not sell vegetables at a loss, would he or she? (In some situations, the business would sell at a loss as when going out of business). The professor had not broken any shibboleths for me with his example; the purpose of the vegetable store is to sell merchandise, but at a profit.

And then a second item came up with which I had trouble agreeing with. The professor said he might be unpopular by suggesting doing away with programs with universal application. For example, he questioned the need for universally free kindergarten, asking why people who can afford it should benefit. He advocated means-testing, in other words. This argument seemed reasonable until I considered Canada’s own universal programs. We provide public schools free for all, and Canadians are proud of their universal healthcare (although not all healthcare services are free). The trend in Western countries is to expand free, universal services, not reduce them. Whether such policies continue depends on political will and affordability, and the direction seems toward greater universality.

A final example that stirred my mind was the professor’s advice about Canada’s resource sector. He argued Canada should sell more natural resources to create jobs and generate revenue, contrary to the traditional view that resources should be developed domestically for added value.

Reflecting on this lecture, I did not think that the professor changed my mind on the three items above. But I must say that his perspectives added to my understanding of the issues. Maybe I have become coopted to the current wisdom on the subjects discussed and have become rigid in my opinions. So it was useful to hear a fresh argument on these three subjects; that business starts with an idea before money is considered, such as selling books on line, the origin of Amazon, that we should not take for granted that universal programs are always the preferred alternative and that Canada could still improve its economy by selling resources to a diversified global market. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to question the professor on these subjects due to his eighty plus slides that he showed, leaving no time for questions.

The Echoes of 1956 in Today’s Middle East


February 5, 2026

One stated aim of this Middle Eastern war is to help the Iranian people replace their current regime. As the argument goes, the Iranian economy is weak, and with the pummeling of the country by bombs, this is an opportune time for the people to take over and establish the form of government they wish to have. This situation feels familiar to me, I remember the Hungarian uprising of 1956, when the US encouraged the Hungarian people to take over their government, leading people to hope for support that never materialized.

Let me go back to my memories. In my youth, I tinkered with bicycles, and then built a basic crystal radio. I am talking about the 1960s; we have come a long way technologically since crystal radio.

The “people’s radio” with one channelwas the standard radio set in Hungary in the 1950s. the channel boadcast government propaganda and communist/socialist ideas, tracing their routes back to Marx and Engels. I learned that a “rheostat” could change all that, and I bought one at the local hardware store. Once I installed it into one of the “people’s radios, I was ecstatic and danced around in my room, hearing all the foreign stations (German, French, English).

Mind you, reception was not good; all the foreign channels except the Hungarian official channel were jammed. I discovered that reception was better at night, and the foreign channels moved to different frequencies to avoid the jamming. Of course, the jammers searched for the moving stations, but during the time the jammers discovered and logged on to the new frequencies, I heard music and news.

It’s important to understand that altering people’s radios was against the law, as was tuning in and listening to foreign radio stations. I am not sure how the secret police could monitor people listening to foreign stations, but illegal activities were punished by jail and torture, so just knowing that something was illegal was enough to deter such activity.

Aware of the political atmosphere, I did not tell my parents what I had done; in fact, they could have gotten into trouble by an accusation that they let their son engage in an illegal activity. So, I listened to my new device at night and hid the radio under my blanket listening to foreign channels.

And this is how I heard it: in Hungarian, Radio Free Europe (FRE), a US agency, advocating the overthrow of the then-current Hungarian government. And the voice on RFE encouraged the Hungarian people to organize mass demonstrations on Budapest’s major streets and to take over the government.

Behind the RFE messaging was the view of John Foster Dulles, the Secretary of State under President Eisenhower, advocating the overthrow of the government. Hungarians were ecstatic; they thought the US was about to help the revolution by sending soldiers and ammunition. And they waited. And waited. But help never came.

Reading historical notes now, I learned that although Dulles encouraged the uprising to move to take over the government, but he later changed his mind, considering that Hungary was not a potential ally and that assisting the uprising might antagonize the Russians. He was also preoccupied with the Suez Canal crisis happening at the same time. But he took the Hungarian situation to the UN Security Council, proposing a diplomatic approach to resolve the uprising. The Russians, knowing the Americans would not interfere, came in with tanks on November 4, 1956, and crushed the uprising, which started on November 23.

The Russian tanks had taken a few weeks to reoccupy the country. By mid-November the situation appeared hopeless, and my brother and I walked out to Vienna (Austria) on the highway. Subsequently, we found our way to Manchester (England), and finally, to Vancouver, Canada, as refugees. I wonder how many Iranians are considering, or able, to leave their country.

All these memories came back when I heard the US encouraging the Iranian people to take over the government. Clearly, Hungary and Iran are vastly different countries; one has a population of 9 million, while the other has 92 million. Also, Hungary did not have nuclear ambitions. But inciting local populations to rebel and take over their government is a bold and drastic initiative with major consequences. The lack of follow-up to keep the uprising going, encouraged by the messaging of Radio Free Europe, was a crushing disappointment for the Hungarians in 1956.