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.
andrasthehun.ca 