I read an article about Mariana Mazzucato’s new book in the FT today. The title (of the article) is more than sufficient to attract audiences and ignite public debate:

‘The McKinsey and the Deloittes have no expertise in the areas that they’re advising in.’

Well, who doesn’t enjoy the jokes about how consultants don’t actually know what they are doing? Haha.

But anyway, I once read Mazzucato’s opinion in the Guardian about how governments should do more to handle COVID-19, that more than capitalism alone would be needed to help us at the time the article was written. When doing my graduate thesis, I gobbled her book—The Entrepreneurial State—in one go. Although I did not include her book in my thesis, I found it fascinating.

I am not sure where she stands—as FT wrote, her ideas “have appealed to those on both the left and right.” But it’s enough to make me pique my interest in how much the government should intervene in the free market without entirely opposing economic liberalism, which is inevitable in our current timeline. It fuels the sentiment of economic nationalism inside me (but with notes that we need a proper technocratic government to bring maximum benefits to people).

What made me write this is the FT (heated) comment section, which includes the following:

“Mazzucato is advocating the right ideas and she is good at it, even-though these are recycled ideas. She is even better at media and PR.”

Many also pointed out how she probably used her new book to promote her own consultancy by bringing down other firms.

But what I am about to say is not about Mazucatto. I am not defending or criticizing her. Nope. I am interested in a lot of her thoughts, but no matter how much leftist (?) thoughts resonate with me, sometimes the ideas are too grand to apply in the real world.

It’s not about capitalism vs the role of governments either. I am too dumb to actually think about it.

This is just a simple passing thought that I will summarize below:

The thing about nonfiction books or opinion pieces (or even random comments in the readers’ section) is that you don’t have to fully agree with them.

Sometimes, I keep reading because I find new and agreeable ideas or information. Sometimes, they give reasons to contemplate different things altogether. On other occasions, I read until the end just to criticize the whole book.

They either give me new perspectives, change my paradigm, or reiterate my prior understanding.

Strangely, whether you like the authors or thinkers or not, their writings can also serve as a wake-up call. For example, whether the idea is novel or recycled, Mazzucato’s piece in the Guardian made me question the limited authority governments can exercise to address market failures.

Or, as Ms. M said somewhere else, “There is a lot of flesh to be put on the bones—but there is at least an opening for a more pragmatic, less ideological debate about how to build economies that work for people within the limits of our planet.”

Again, it’s too grand, but at least it sparks a bit of conscience to make changes–starting with myself.

Navigating the landscape of ideas and debates, the actual value lies not in wholehearted agreement but in the stimulation of thought, the provocation of questions, and the broadening of horizons. Engaging with thinkers like Mazzucato, those commenters, or random books and articles we find on the net, regardless of the ideological spectrum, offers a lens through which we can examine our own beliefs and the world around us.

The richness of discourse stems from its diversity, pushing us to think more critically about the gap between grand ideas and tangible action.

So, do you find what you are read silly, but you are still somehow hooked? Keep going–there must be reasons why you bother to spend your precious time anyway.