Posted by harold at May 8th, 2008

One of the greatest human conflicts does not follow any established political lines. What I’m talking about is the tension between MAKERS and TAKERS. MAKERS are people who come up with new ideas, make new products, and provide genuine services. TAKERS are people who commandeer others’ work for their own disproportionate gain. In the dysfunctional limit, the MAKER is the starving artist, and the TAKER is the conniving sociopath.

MAKERS and TAKERS appear at all social levels, and can often both be found in the same occupation. The primary distinction between MAKERS and TAKERS is a matter of intent, and action on that intent. The chief architect who designed a building and a carpenter involved in its construction are both equally likely to be MAKERS. Similarly, the CEO of a large bank and a homeless person living off public aid could very well both be TAKERS. Then again, the opposite could also hold: the architect could push all the effort onto his underpaid assistants and save the credit for himself; the carpenter could spend most of his time on break and expect an inflated salary; the CEO may work to provide fair lending and accept a reasonable salary; and the homeless person may genuinely be making use of public training programs to make something of himself.

I don’t know exactly why some people are MAKERS and some are TAKERS. It’s a complicated problem of psychology and sociology. But whatever the reason is, it heavily affects our lives. That’s because TAKERS and MAKERS play by different rules. A TAKER has no qualms with asking for a sweet deal or assuming a position of power for which he may not actually be qualified. The primary criterion isn’t whether he should get it, but whether he can get it. A naive TAKER may overstep his bounds, while a savvy TAKER knows how to play the odds. This situation is confounding for the naive MAKER, since she may assume the TAKER has some good reason that he is qualified to take power. Usually, the only reason is “because I can.” A savvier MAKER might objectively assess a TAKER on his abilities to provide actual benefit. For example, an engineer might assess a TAKER on his ability to make sales.

But does the ability to provide benefit make a TAKER a MAKER? I don’t think so. TAKING versus MAKING is a matter of intent; performance is a matter of effects under certain conditions. The fact that a TAKER benefits others is primarily incidental to benefiting himself. I don’t believe you need to be a TAKER to be successful in any field—be it sales, management, politics, or even as a welfare recipient. It might be easier for a TAKER, since he can shamelessly take without any pressure to make. But I think a MAKER who understands how MAKERS and TAKERS work and knows who is a MAKER and who is a TAKER could do better. For example, if a product or service truly does provide value, a MAKER can do just as well as a salesperon, so long as she understands who the TAKERS are who might stab her in the back. And a MAKER salesperson makes a much better business partner for a MAKER engineer.

Moral of the story: Know the difference between MAKERS and TAKERS. When you find a MAKER, work with her. When you find a TAKER, kick him in the nuts.

Footnote: Homo economicus—the idealized “economic person”—is an archetypal TAKER, focused on extracting value from the market. While it’s certainly true that two selfish people can engage in a transaction from which they both gain (otherwise, one of them wouldn’t participate), I do not believe that is justification for the TAKER mindset.