While the Ivany commission’s 243-page report makes for interesting reading, it’s not quite as interesting as people’s responses to the tome.

After all, the commission on the Nova Scotian economy last week called for a change in Nova Scotians’ attitudes, so it’s paramount to understand what those attitudes are. After listening to people discuss the report, and reading social and conventional media, I think there are two attitudes that sing out for change: the belief that the Maritime way of life is superior to that of places like Toronto because we’re not corrupted by wealth, and the outrage of some that too much public money is given to wealthy people in the guise of economic development.

I find it hard to criticize the report itself, in part because I was contracted to write a passage on what could be done to boost startups. (My recommendations are on page 176 of the report.) And anyone who has read my writing should know I agree with the conclusion that demographic and economic realities mean the Maritime provinces must change.

Others are more sanguine. You frequently read that Nova Scotians (or other Atlantic Canadians) say they prefer our pleasant lifestyle to the pursuit of riches. I’m always dumbfounded by such an attitude, especially in light of the Ivany commission’s findings. We have an aging population, negligible GDP growth, an exodus of young people and more than $14 billion in provincial government debt.

Yes, a greater focus on private sector growth would mean more rich people, and some would be vulgar in displaying it. But a failure to grow private business would reduce tax revenue. That would mean a continuing loss of young people, worse health care, educational cuts, longer wait times for seniors homes, crumbling infrastructure, and lower environmental investment.

The fact is, our cherished way of life is threatened not by too many people trying to get rich but by too few people actually succeeding.

It’s logical, then, that the government has to foster private sector growth, but that can lead to outrage at governments handing money to plutocrats. What would surprise many critics of government largesse is how many business people agree there are problems with giving too much money to specific companies or individuals.

Federal and provincial governments have some great — I mean really great — programs that give money to young businesses to help them through their growth phase. Most people support these programs, and I hope people applaud if these companies succeed and their owners grow wealthy. History has shown successful businessmen feed their wealth back into the community.

It’s critical that people who are offended by businessmen getting rich change their attitude.

It stands to reason, then, that it is also essential that governments refrain from giving huge sums of money to individual businesses, because that excites anti-business attitudes. Successful businesses should be directed to a private bank. Struggling businesses, including struggling startups, should be allowed to fail. Certainly there will be special cases, but governments must understand that every big cheque for businesses perpetuates our attitudinal challenges.

The McNeil government has already signalled it wants a greater number of smaller initiatives in economic development, which is a move in the right direction. It will be interesting to view its success and to see if it has any effect on the glacial process of changing attitudes.