Leading off.

Recently, our office was blessed with the presence of Mr. Clay Dowling, who as past president of the Saskatchewan Chamber of Commerce and a board director with the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, always shares some of his big-picture thinking as part of his dialogue.

In this meeting we were delighted to receive positive feedback from Dowling that our publication continues to serve as not only a champion of Saskatchewan business, but also as a strong voice for change--particularly in terms of a change in attitude within our province. We take great pride in that. We were also told that this message needs to be heard again and again in order to persuade the masses that the only logical solution to our situation is to not only embrace change, but to be a proactive part of it. So, at the risk of sounding redundant to past columns appearing in this space, we'd like to once again pound our message home.

Speaking from an ideological standpoint, as opposed to political (though some might argue it's impossible to separate one from the other) although it has many benefits and admirable qualities, there are far more instances where Saskatchewan is in drastic need of change. For example, the perception that prosperity is an evil thing--which, unfortunately, predominates our culture--is preposterous. Although it seems equally preposterous to have to state the following obvious statement, it nevertheless seems to be necessary (and largely unheard) but here goes: if there's no wealth created, there's certainly no wealth to be distributed.

The 'let's-pull-together' attitude that has permeated so many aspects of our provincial culture, which can be exemplified from the origins of such institutions as the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool, for example, may have served their purpose, and served them well, for their time. But times change, and so must we all in order to remain in touch with present-day situations.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Getting back to the topic of wealth creation, we should also address the fundamental principles of risk and reward in business. Let's look at two scenarios of one person investing $1 million of his or her money into a venture, compared to 1 million people investing $1 each into a similar venture. Obviously their returns (or lack thereof) would look drastically different in each scenario.

Just as the person risking $1 million of his or her money is the only one taking the risk, that same person obviously deserves to reap the benefits of such an investment and calculated risk-taking. Similarly, whether it's positive or negative, the 1 million people will also get the return they deserve. While they'd only lose $1 should the venture fail, their return on investment would also pale in comparison to that of the sole investor.

And the most ironic part of it, is that it's unlikely many of the $1 investors would put $1 million on the line even if they had the resources to do so. Yet they'd be the first in line to criticize the one brave soul, i.e. the wealth generator, who dared to do so.

Yeah, I'd say it's time for a change in attitude.

Keith Moen, Editor