tu no estas solo o sola EN ESTE MUNDO SI TE GUSTO UN ARTICULO COMPARTELO, ENVIALO A LAS REDES SOCIALES, TWITTER, FACEBOOK

jueves, mayo 10, 2012

EMPRENDER: De Fantuzzi a Farkas: Recetas y Claves para los Emprendedores .

De Fantuzzi a Farkas: Recetas y Claves para los Emprendedores

Como periodista he dedicado los últimos 10 años a generar contenidos sobre temas de innovación y al mundo pyme. He entrevistado a cientos de emprendedores chilenos y extranjeros que me tratan de explicar cómo construyeron sus sueños, en qué fracasaron, cuáles son sus próximos pasos y qué los motiva a emprender. Ahora, en mi rol de relator y consultor en estos mismos temas, he procurado traspasar a las audiencias ese aprendizaje propio y el de mis entrevistados para que pueda llegar a más personas y Emprendedores puedan conocer las competencias, habilidades y experiencias reconocidas.

Comparto con los lectores de PYMESUR tan solo algunos de las declaraciones de personajes reconocidos por muchos de ustedes, y que estoy seguro les servirán como recomendaciones para sus propios emprendimientos.

"El emprendedor es un tipo escaso, que corre riesgos. Es creativo. Es el que se la juega con la casa, el auto y con todos sus bienes sabiendo que puede perderlo todo. Y es que en Chile el empleado creativo no tiene espacios. Si uno deja los espacios a los trabajadores de dar sus ideas, las cosas serían distintas" - Roberto Fantuzzi, Presidente de Asexma

"Si uno habla de artesanos se entiende que éstos hacen las cosas artesanalmente, es decir, mal. Y eso es una tontera. Lo mismo con el microempresario, que se le mira como algo ínfimo, insignificante y eso tampoco es así. Si fueran insignificantes, entonces podríamos eliminar a los microempresarios de la economía nacional y todo seguiría igual. Un absurdo" - Felipe Berríos, Sacerdote Jesuita.

"Yo quebré y fracasé varias veces antes de lograr lo que tengo hoy. Fui, entre otras cosas, criador de conejos angora, productor de frambuesas y todo eso terminó muy mal. ¡Si hasta estuve a punto de trasformar todo el terreno de Buin en una plantación de kiwi!" - Ignacio Idalsoaga, dueño del BuinZoo

"En mi familia todos siguieron el camino de la empleabilidad y yo el único que emprendió. Por eso no tenía redes de contactos que pudiese heredar, ni un apellido conocido en el ámbito empresarial. Solamente ganas, convicción y mucha seguridad en que lo hacía como profesional y como persona. Y lo hice" - Álvaro Portugal, Socio de BlueCompany

"En Chile se puede partir de abajo y llegar a lo más alto. ¿Cómo? siempre hay que pensar como si uno fuese el dueño de la empresa. El actuar así te permite marcar la diferencia, hacerte notar y ser útil para los objetivos de la organización para lo cual trabajas. Si haces lo mismo con tu propio emprendimiento, éxito seguro" - Nicolás Larraín, Empresario y Comunicador

"Hasta el empresario más sencillo del mundo debe sentir orgullo por lo que hace, de lo contrario, mejor que no emprenda. Si no se valora él primero ¿quién?" - Juan Pablo Sáez, Actor y Empresario

"El emprendedor y el empresario tienen una gran diferencia: Este último es el que saca las cuentas y luego hace las cosas, en cambio el emprendedor hace las cosas y después saca sus cuentas. Es verdadero tejedor de puentes" - Alejandro González"Coco" Legrand, Empresario y Humorista

"No se trata de usarlo todo o nada en las Redes Sociales, más bien hay que ser selectivo y utilizar las tecnologías que realmente te sirven para el negocio. ¿Es útil tener un blog de tu empresa si no quieres que opinen sobre tu producto? Claramente no" - Nicolás Copano, Emprendedor creativo.

"Los consejos de mi padre son los que más oigo. Actuamos y tomamos decisiones parecidas, pues pensamos de la misma forma. Creo que trabajar en familia tiene riesgos pero siempre son mayores los beneficios" - Carolina Correa, Chef y Empresaria

"Cuando uno arma una empresa debe trabajar con gente en la que confía, especialmente en mi caso donde debo viajar mucho. Pero no se trata de trabajar sólo con la familia o con los mejores amigos, sino con personas transparentes, sinceras y con preocupación los clientes, la misma que tiene uno" - Angélica Castro, Modelo y Actriz.

"En Chile falta más cultura de emprendimiento, esto es, que si yo tengo una idea que requiere de un millón de dólares, lo primero que debo hacer es juntarme con 10 amigos y preguntarles su opinión. Lo que me digan ellos es una materia prima que nadie trabaja y termina desperdiciada. Acá aún hay mucha desconfianza a la hora de compartir una idea" - Tim Delhaes, Presidente de First Tuesday

"El emprendedor debe tener una cuota importante de humor, ser perseverante, constante y disciplinado. No debe aislarse ni perder el contacto permanente con la gente. Debe ser un buen conversador, pero especialmente un muy buen "escuchador", que es aquella persona que pone todos sus sentidos al servicio de lo que otro te está comunicando" - Pilar Sordo, Psicóloga.

"Hasta los siete años mi objetivo, mi meta en esta vida, era correr como lo hacían mis amigos. Yo no podía hacerlo, y cuando lo intentaba tenía que tomar infusiones e inyectarme penicilina si se tornaba más grave. Pero mi actitud siempre fue ganadora y quizá por eso siempre fui capitán de todos los equipos donde jugué. Luego vino la poliomelitis y tuve que aprender a caminar de nuevo. Tenía once años y todos los días me sentaba en la cama a mover los dedos de los pies. Empecé con esfuerzo a dar los primeros pasos, hasta que un día me pude levantar y llegar solo al baño. A los 15 ya debutaba en Primera División" - Elías Figueroa, ex futbolista y empresario

"En 1978 quebré por confiado. Quedé endeudado, muy mal, pero tenía claro que no me iba a ocurrir otra vez. Logré mantener la confianza de mis acreedores, pude mantener el local abierto y gracias a eso pude ir pagando poco a poco cada peso. Hace poco vino el incendio y volví a perderlo todo, pero ya está superado. Ya me volví a poner de pie a puro ñeque" - Coco Pacheco, Empresario Gastronómico.

"Todos creen que con la filantropía busco ser famoso y eso no es así. Soy los que creen en que si gastamos el dinero comprando cosas, los negocios que reciben ese dinero también lo gastan en otra cosa y así se mueve la economía. No entiendo a los que acumulan la riqueza. ¿Para qué?" - Leonardo Farkas, Empresario Minero.

"Los jóvenes están cambiando la economía en todo el mundo sencillamente porque se atreven a soñar. Y yo soy de los que piensa que los sueños si se cumplen" -  Leonardo Farkas, Empresario Minero.

------------------------------

¿Y tu qué aprendizaje has tenido en el camino del emprendimiento? A ver si te animas y compartes tus propias recetas aquí, justo donde termina esta columna. Un abrazo.

Leonardo Meyer
Consultor, Director de NewsHolding y fundador del DiarioPyme


Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Sandra Cabrales presenta una colección para 'Mujeres Reales'

Círculo de la Moda
 

 Sandra Cabrales presenta una colección para 'Mujeres Reales'


Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile

Previous Mises Daily IndexThe Rawlsitarian Paradox

The Rawlsitarian Paradox

Mises Daily: Thursday, May 10, 2012 by

A
A

[Free Market Fairness By John Tomasi • Princeton University Press, 2012 • Xxvii + 348 pages]

Free Market Fairness

To write about bleeding-heart libertarianism is no easy task. Self-professed bleeding-heart libertarians, who include well-known political philosophers, now run their own website, and the movement has aroused among libertarians considerable interest. But the bleeding hearts do not profess a unified philosophical point of view. If someone is a Rothbardian, e.g., or an Objectivist, you at once know what views you need to address; not so for a bleeding heart.

If the movement professes no fixed body of doctrine, though, many bleeding hearts seek to combine support for the free market, albeit often in an attenuated form, with a favorable view of social justice, and, in particular, of John Rawls's theory of justice.[1] Though Rawls was of course far from a supporter of the free market, a number of the bleeding hearts believe that his views can, suitably modified, provide a powerful defense of classical liberalism.

John Tomasi does not in Free Market Fairness call himself a bleeding-heart libertarian, but his excellent book offers the best and most comprehensive defense yet to appear of the position just described. Tomasi is a distinguished and imaginative political philosopher who teaches at Brown University, and every reader of his book will learn a great deal from it.

Tomasi describes in an engaging way what led him to what appears at first sight a mixture of incompatible commitments. On the one hand, he found classical liberalism appealing; on the other hand, he was attracted to a conception of justice usually taken to be inimical to that position.

Two classical-liberal ideas especially attracted him. The free market enables people to mold their own lives; no longer need they passively react to the wishes of others.

Growing prosperity seems to give an ever-wider range of people a sense of power and independence. It encourages a special form of self-esteem that comes when people recognize themselves as central causes of the particular lives they are living — rather than being in any way the ward of others, no matter how well meaning , other-regarding or wise those others might be. (p. 61)

Many have criticized the free market because, in Marx's phrase, it is an "anarchy of production": no central body coordinates the vast array of market prices. But this is of course not a failing but a virtue. Hayek has through his notion of "spontaneous order" done a great deal to illuminate why this is so, and Tomasi is impressed:

I am also drawn to the libertarian idea of "spontaneous order." … Friedrich Hayek argues that a free society is best thought of as a spontaneous order in which people should be allowed to pursue their own goals on the basis of information available only to themselves. Along with the moral ideal of private economic liberty, I find the libertarian emphasis on spontaneous order deeply attractive. (p. xii)

Among his fellow political philosophers, support for the free market is decidedly a minority view. Classical liberalism has been overthrown by what Tomasi, following Samuel Freeman, calls "high liberalism":

The distinctive political commitment of high liberals is to a substantive conception of equality. Perhaps as a result, high liberals are skeptical of the moral importance of private economic liberty. Unlike the classical liberals and libertarians, the high liberal ideal of equality leads them to affirm a conception of social or distributive justice. (p. 54)

Clearly, you cannot at the same time consistently be both a classical liberal and a high liberal. But Tomasi makes a surprising claim. The most important theorist of high liberalism is John Rawls, but Tomasi argues that Rawls's conception of justice as fairness, which he accepts, can be adapted to the defense of "market democracy," Tomasi's version of classical liberalism.

Rawls's theory is not the only left-liberal account of social justice on offer, and Tomasi does not intend to "marry market democracy to the Rawlsian program" (p. 105). But "I [Tomasi] choose justice as fairness simply because, once it has been adjusted and corrected according to market democratic principles, it is the conception of liberal justice I find most compelling" (p. 175).

In order to understand Tomasi's claim and to judge its success, it is important to grasp what market democracy means. It is by no means the same as the libertarianism of Rothbard and Nozick.

Within the framework of market democracy, economic liberties can properly be regulated and limited to advance compelling interests of the liberal state.… Unlike strict libertarians, market democrats can join high liberals as well as classical liberal thinkers such as Milton Friedman, F.A. Hayek, and Richard Epstein, who say that the liberals state should be given the power to provide a social minimum funded by a system of taxation. (pp. 91–2).

Tomasi also favors government support of education, e.g., through a voucher scheme. (A complication, which will not be pursued here, is that Tomasi distinguishes two versions of market democracy, democratic laissez-faire and democratic limited government; the second allows somewhat more direct government intervention than the first.)

But even if Tomasi is not a strict libertarian, does not his position differ entirely from that of Rawls, who expressly repudiates as inadequate the "system of natural liberty"? How then can Tomasi arrive at a Rawlsian defense of market democracy?

Tomasi's answer is not the obvious one that will first occur to most readers. Rawls's difference principle allows inequalities that make the worst-off class in society better off than they would otherwise be. Suppose that a great deal of inequality turns out to be to the advantage of the worst off because, e.g., economic incentives strongly motivate people. Would we not have a Rawlsian justification of inequality?

We very well might; but this is not the line that Tomasi takes. The point just considered depends on an empirical hypothesis about how people in the actual world are motivated. Tomasi prefers to operate at a higher level of abstraction. He is concerned, like Rawls himself, with "ideal theory." This consists of two tasks of identification. The first of these

involves identifying a set of principles of justice that expresses our commitment to treat citizens as free and equal self-governing agents. The second identificatory task concerns institutions … we seek to identify institutional regime types that "realize" the principles of justice. (p. 206)

What Tomasi has in mind, then, is this. Rawls's own social-democratic views are simply interpretations of his theory of justice. If we accept Rawls's principles of justice, we are not bound by Rawls's own views about how these principles are to be implemented, and the door to a market-democratic interpretation of Rawls lies open. To think otherwise, Tomasi holds, is to fall victim to what he calls an "ipse dixit" fallacy. "At the extreme, the exegetical approach treats justice as fairness as a plot in the archaeology of ideas rather than as a living, growing research paradigm" (p. 179).

For each of Rawls's principles of justice, then, Tomasi offers an interpretation congenial to market democracy. Rawls's first principle specifies a set of liberties that enjoys lexical priority to the distributive requirements of the second principle.[2] Rawls does not include rights to acquire and hold productive property among the set, but Tomasi does. The ability to engage in business often proves an excellent way to develop one's moral powers. Why, then, exclude it from the list of protected liberties? Tomasi intends this point to apply to what Rawls terms the "special conception of justice," where "social conditions are favorable to the attainment of social justice" (p. 181). He contends that with "prosperity, the existence of thick private economic liberty is for many citizens an essential condition of responsible self-authorship" (p. 183).

Tomasi offers his own understanding of other Rawlsian principles. For fair equality of opportunity, Tomasi stresses the need for each person to have a wide variety of choices, as opposed to efforts to counter the effects of status. For the difference principle, he emphasizes the need to increase through economic growth the wealth of the worst-off class. Not for him are efforts directly to reduce inequalities, e.g., through progressive taxation.

Those of libertarian inclination will find Tomasi's political program far more acceptable that Rawls's own program, but I do not think that Tomasi succeeds in making a Rawlsian case for market democracy. The problem as I see it is that he does not take adequate account of the originality of Rawls's approach to political philosophy.

The situation that drives Rawls to his theory is that of people in a large society like the United States who are divided by conflicting conceptions of the good. Some of these conceptions may be better than others, and one may in fact be the correct one: Rawls does not commit himself on this question. But none of these conceptions can be shown to be true in the strong sense that it would be unreasonable for anyone to reject it. This state of affairs Rawls terms "the fact of reasonable pluralism."

Given reasonable pluralism, it would be wrong for the holders of one conception to impose their views on others; respect for others requires that we defend our political views with reasons others could acknowledge. Our aim, Rawls holds, should not be a mere modus vivendi with those who profess other conceptions of the good. Rather, we should seek a stable society in which people decide disputed questions by democratic discussion.

He intends the principles of justice to give the conditions under which such democratic decisions can take place. Herein lies Rawls's originality. By inquiry into the conditions of a stable regime, given the fact of reasonable pluralism, one can avoid appeals to controversial moral intuitions or problematic moral theories like utilitarianism. His approach to justification is "political, not metaphysical."

Why did I embark on this elementary account of Rawls's theory? The reason is to bring out that to adopt a Rawlsian account of justice, one must accept democratic participation in a strong sense. For Rawls, the people in a society are bound to one another by special ties and decide political questions together. The echoes of Rousseau here are not accidental.[3]

Tomasi, it is clear, is not committed to this sort of democracy. People on his account need not value at all the process of deciding questions together with other citizens (though of course they are not precluded from doing this) He seems to me entirely right that productive business activity has great value; but this claim, right or not, derives from a particular conception of the good, not from asking for the presuppositions of democratic decision making under the condition of reasonable pluralism. In like fashion, the egalitarian implications Rawls finds in his principle of fair equality of opportunity and in the difference principle are not simply interpretations of his own that reflect distaste for wealth. Rather, once more they are plausibly taken as necessary conditions for the type of democratic participation Rawls favors.

Why does any of this matter? Suppose Tomasi responds that he rejects the democratic solidarity that Rawls wishes to promote. If he does this, though, then his defense of his interpretations of political liberty, fair equality of opportunity, and the difference principle depend on his own conception of the good. Like most political philosophers, he is reduced to his own moral intuitions or moral theory. He has abandoned the distinctive Rawlsian method of political justification.

I do not at all contend that he is wrong to do so: I am not a Rawlsian.[4] But Tomasi ought to be clear that, though he has adopted some Rawlsian themes, he has proceeded in an un-Rawlsian way. Many of the words of Rawls are present in Tomasi's book, but not the music.

Taken apart from the misleading Rawlsian framework, Tomasi's book contains many good arguments in defense of classical liberalism. But the intuitions that underlie these arguments must be weighed against other intuitions and arguments, in particular those that support the more stringent libertarianism from which Tomasi recoils.

Tomasi has little use for strict libertarians. They consider property rights "absolute"; by this he appears to mean that they would not allow the interventions by government such as the social-safety need and provision of vouchers that he thinks acceptable. He remarks that libertarians, like high liberals,

single out the economic liberties for special treatment. But instead of lowering the status of the economic liberties, libertarians elevate them above all others. Economic liberties become the weightiest of all rights. Indeed, libertarians such as Jan Narveson assert that liberty is property. (p. 48, emphasis in original)

But if, as Narveson and Rothbard think, all rights can be analyzed as property rights, how does it follow that property rights are more important than other rights? To the contrary, the conclusion negates the premise. If there are no rights besides property rights, property rights cannot be more important than property rights. If Tomasi means that libertarians believe that property rights in the ordinary-language sense exceed in importance other rights such as civil liberties, this by no means follows from the libertarian view of property. In fact, it is directly contrary to Rothbard's own view that self-ownership is the primary right.

I do not want to close on a critical note. My favorite passage in the book is this:

From George Washington's warning to avoid the dangers of exclusive economic and military pacts with other countries … to James Madison's proposal of a constitutional amendment requiring political leaders wishing to go to war to raise funds from current taxes (rather than hiding the costs through borrowing), advocates of limited government have long been among the strongest critics of the politico-military establishments common with contemporary states … the very idea of a large publically funded military-industrial complex runs against the grain of market democracy. (p. 263)

That is well said indeed.

Fuente:

Saludos
Rodrigo González Fernández
Diplomado en "Responsabilidad Social Empresarial" de la ONU
Diplomado en "Gestión del Conocimiento" de la ONU
Diplomado en Gerencia en Administracion Publica ONU
Diplomado en Coaching Ejecutivo ONU( 
  • PUEDES LEERNOS EN FACEBOOK
 
 
 
 CEL: 93934521
Santiago- Chile
Soliciten nuestros cursos de capacitación  y consultoría en GERENCIA ADMINISTRACION PUBLICA -LIDERAZGO -  GESTION DEL CONOCIMIENTO - RESPONSABILIDAD SOCIAL EMPRESARIAL – LOBBY – COACHING EMPRESARIAL-ENERGIAS RENOVABLES   ,  asesorías a nivel nacional e  internacional y están disponibles  para OTEC Y OTIC en Chile