On last rainy Sunday I spent time with my good friends watching a children's favourite Yogi Bear. It never fails to strike me how films and the media in general depicts the concept of capitalism. In this case the topic concerned was profit and loss (and in my opinion Yogi serves as mere decoration for story line i.e. it does not really serve the film's purpose but it is there for its cuteness). The 'villain politician' was trying to close down a loss-making public park which is (surprise!) ran by one of the most lovely man you will ever come across. How evil he was trying to destroy the environment and tear down public spaces - is the expected reaction from a normal person. But I beg to differ.
The content of this film is primarily aimed towards children and the message it is trying to convey are: first, we should defend politicians from tearing down public parks under whatever circumstance. Second, we should let the park caretaker keep his job because he is a genuinely nice guy who really loves the environment regardless of his managerial performance.
And here are why I find the principle of the film questionable:
1. How can the park caretaker ('good guy') not get sacked a long time ago if he is turning the once profit-making park in to a wasteland. We all accept that he is a nice person - trying to save the environment and all - but surely there must be a more competent environmentally-loving person to replace him. If he had been replaced by a more innovative person then maybe the park will be making profit and no evil politician can make excuses to close down the park in the first place. Perhaps another mishap of governmental management?
2. Does the people protesting that the park should stay opened even though it is making a loss know that it is not the 'government' paying for the losses. It is the stakeholders, the consumers, the taxpayers - or in other words, you - who are bearing the cost of losses. Is it not immoral for the government (or IRS or etc) to forcefully take your hard earned income from you and subsidise the ill-managed park which you do not even use, let alone paying the wages of the dismal park caretaker. If the park is worth operating then you would have been its customer in the first place and it would not be making such losses.
3. People need to make hard decisions in order to move forward. What would have happened if the politician were not looking at which businesses were making a loss? He would have never identified this park as a liability and the park would continue to waste hard-earned taxpayer's money. It was only after the politician told the caretaker that the park will be closed down that he started coming up with attractive events. After all, maybe the park caretaker can take care of the park well, and perhaps a little threat from time to time is healthy. Imagine if he had owned the park and all the losses would mean a deficit in his own bank account, he would never let the park's account go red in the first place. Indeed, no body spend your money better than yourself.
Children are being taught only one side of the coin. The film neglects the concept of social responsibility so upheld these days. I contest that the general public - that's you and me - should not be paying the incompetent park caretaker for the failed management of the park. Where is his sense of social responsibility then? Does he know that by not generating new ideas for the park he is unnecessarily causing hardship to other people?
Whilst I accept the politician's intention (to gain POWER) is questionable, the unintended outcome of his actions were that the public is enjoying a newly refurbished park. So while we condemn him evil, we should also thank him for giving the park caretaker a massive reality check.
