Stand On Your Own Two Feet

[Staunton]

Here are two BBC Radio 4 offerings from the last few weeks which reveal the deceit at the heart of the neoliberal claim that we should all stand on our own two feet and that the state should be reduced to force this bogus doctrine upon us. (Listen on BBC iPlayer)

 

 

You and Yours, BBC Radio 4, 7 October 2021, presenter, Winifred Robinson

 

Robinson: Why do you think it is that few black owned businesses in the UK have burst through into this unicorn group of people?

 

Kent-Braham: It starts really at the very start of an entrepreneur's journey. One of the biggest barriers to overcome is raising capital. If you're from a certain background and you haven't essentially gone to a very good school and a very good university, you don't have the network to be able to raise capital from friends and family and venture capitalists. And so venture capitalists will often say, 'look, for me to invest in you, you need to have a warm intro to us.' But that warm intro's really easy to get if you literally went to the same school as someone or to the same uni, it's very hard to get when you're from a very different background. And so already there's a big barrier there.

 

Robinson: And how about you, did you have those warm links that helped ease you in?

 

Kent-Braham: We just got very, very lucky. Part of our first investment round, we just, someone we worked with knew someone at Monzo Bank who then we had a coffee with, who then offered to introduce us to one of their investors. And so we got that warm intro. It was just really, really lucky.

 

Robinson: That was Oliver Kent-Braham, one of the founders of Marshmallow Insurance. (31:15 – 32:17)

 

Today Programme, BBC Radio 4, 8 October 2021, presenter Justin Webb

 

Webb: A new play is being staged next week: Grenfell: Value Engineering, Scenes from the Inquiry. It uses transcripts from the inquiry into the 2017 fire which caused the deaths of 72 people, that inquiry of course still going on. It opens at the Tabernacle in nearby Notting Hill, it moves then to Birmingham. And it aims to give an overview and access to some of the most important evidence that's been heard so far at the inquiry. Nicola Stanbridge has been to meet the people involved. (1:21:26 – 1:21:57)

 

Stanbridge: Yvette Williams' campaign group Justice 4 Grenfell is working with the production:

 

Williams: I've lived local for thirty something years, called to the fire on the night because a friend of mine lives underneath, the horror of it. I know two people that lived in the tower who died amongst the seventy two. Now I've been in the inquiry when evidence was given. None of the corporates mention people, you know, you hear about money, you hear about, you know, free lunches, you hear about them getting contracts for their mates... (1:22:25 – 1:22:59)

 

 

As ever, it's who you know not what you know that eases the path to privilege and opportunity. Independent school and the right university are basic requirements. Without that privilege, and those warm intros and jobs for their mates, standing on our own two feet is a very difficult and precarious thing to achieve and maintain.

[carosio]

2 hours ago, Staunton said:

As ever, it's who you know not what you know that eases the path to privilege and opportunity. Independent school and the right university are basic requirements. Without that privilege, and those warm intros and jobs for their mates, standing on our own two feet is a very difficult and precarious thing to achieve and maintain.

That goes for international diplomacy, too.

 

When you start/run a business you are at liberty to employ who you wish, even if it proves to be a bad decision. That's why we see "& Sons/Daughters" in the title. Irrespective of their suitability, it's what you know of them, rather than what you might not know with an outsider.

I should add, it's also a personal bias because they are trying to give the best chance in life to their offspring. Doesn't always work out, of course.

Edited October 23, 2021 by carosio
afterthought

[Mr Bloke]

22 minutes ago, carosio said:

That goes for international diplomacy, too.

 

When you start/run a business you are at liberty to employ who you wish, even if it proves to be a bad decision. That's why we see "& Sons/Daughters" in the title. Irrespective of their suitability, it's what you know of them, rather than what you might not know with an outsider.

 

Hmmm...

 

I agree!

Surely it's common sense that if you're investing any money or time/effort into something, then you pick a person or business who you know the most about, and who you can relate to and feel the most comfortable with?

 

So, let's turn the tables a bit!

 

Let's say, in a purely hypothetical (made up) case, a person who has made a lot of money on the streets (maybe through illegal activities, maybe not) decides to invest/launder some of their wealth in a young, up and coming "businessperson's" idea.

 

They have a choice between backing two equally unqualified/unproven, but nonetheless enthusiastic and hard-working individuals (I did say it was purely hypothetical).

 

One is from 'the other side of town', and the other comes from 'the same postcode' as the investor.

 

Which one do you think our budding investor would trust to look after their money?

[Anna B]

So true Staunton, and it's getting steadily worse.

Not only do they have all sorts of advantages, once they've made their pile they can afford to buy up /close dowm all the opposition so that they are the last man standing. A perfect example of Neoliberalism at work, and why our high streets are full of corporate chains and very few independent shops.

It's reckoned that only 6 giant corporations own nearly everything across the world.

Edited October 23, 2021 by Anna B

[Janus]

@Mr Bloke

I acknowlege the hypothetical aspect, and ongoing with that. I don't see any difference between the two people in your example. However, if one was known for their integrity it would trump the post code & hard working element everytime for me.

[Anna B]

14 minutes ago, Janus said:

@Mr Bloke

I acknowlege the hypothetical aspect, and ongoing with that. I don't see any difference between the two people in your example. However, if one was known for their integrity it would trump the post code & hard working element everytime for me.

The point is, all things being equal, the person with money and connections will always win out in just aboout any situation. There's legislation to try and even up every group of people, black, minority groups, transgender, female/male, etc. But very little to even up rich/poor, connected/ unconnected, who have very little support. Look at the failure figures for people starting their own businesses from scratch.

Richard Branson would have failed if it wasn't for his mother shelling out half a million quid to stop him going bankrupt early on in his career.

 

Edited October 23, 2021 by Anna B

[Janus]

I'd say that the power of money and connections is well known. As the saying goes it is not what you know etc. 

[carosio]

1 hour ago, Anna B said:

So true Staunton, and it's getting steadily worse.

Not only do they have all sorts of advantages, once they've made their pile they can afford to buy up /close dowm all the opposition so that they are the last man standing. A perfect example of Neoliberalism at work, and why our high streets are full of corporate chains and very few independent shops.

It's reckoned that only 6 giant corporations own nearly everything across the world.

It's always an advantage in having money (or plenty of it), else there is no point in seeking it.

I think the 'they' you refer to are the large corporations who are governed by competition rules (or should be, if not).

 

It might be that the independents can't afford the high rent and rates.

 

If Staunton were to choose between two candidates, one being a multi-millionaire and the other of more modest means, should he reject the rich one even though his/her qualifications were much superior? If he did, this would be a form of prejudice in itself.

[the_bloke]

On 23/10/2021 at 10:22, Staunton said:

As ever, it's who you know not what you know that eases the path to privilege and opportunity. Independent school and the right university are basic requirements. Without that privilege, and those warm intros and jobs for their mates, standing on our own two feet is a very difficult and precarious thing to achieve and maintain.

It's also easier to landscape a garden or decorate a house with the help of some mates. Is it a privilege to have a mate with a van, or another who can make a cake for your child's birthday, or a mate who works behind a bar and serves you first? At what point does knowing someone who can help cross the line into 'privilege and opportunity'?

 

I suppose in a socialist utopia, the state owns and controls all so you don't actually need anyone else and you can remain isolated personally and professionally (which is also a great way of suppressing the population).

[Waldo]

On 23/10/2021 at 10:22, Staunton said:

As ever, it's who you know not what you know that eases the path to privilege and opportunity. Independent school and the right university are basic requirements. Without that privilege, and those warm intros and jobs for their mates, standing on our own two feet is a very difficult and precarious thing to achieve and maintain.

Yes, having good contacts will always be beneficial.

 

As for going to the right schools and universities; good educational establishments are probably much better at instilling self-discipline, high self-esteem, sense of entitlement etc etc. I suspect success in life, is a lot more to do with those factors, than who you know.

Edited October 24, 2021 by Waldo