Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Ludwig von Mises


Today we celebrate Ludwig von Mises for his life-long defense of capitalism.

Mises was born September 29, 1881 in Lemberg, Austria. As a young student at the University of Vienna, Mises discovered what he would spend the rest of his life teaching and defending: the importance of a free-market economy.

Former student and fellow Austrian economist, Murray Rothbard, described Mises:

One of the most notable economists and social philosophers of the twentieth century, Ludwig von Mises, in the course of a long and highly productive life, developed an integrated, deductive science of economics based on the fundamental axiom that individual human beings act purposively to achieve desired goals. ...Mises concluded that the only viable economic policy for the human race was a policy of unrestricted laissez-faire, of free markets and the unhampered exercise of the right of private property, with government strictly limited to the defense of person and property within its territorial area.

For Mises was able to demonstrate (a) that the expansion of free markets, the division of labor, and private capital investment is the only possible path to the prosperity and flourishing of the human race; (b) that socialism would be disastrous for a modern economy because the absence of private ownership of land and capital goods prevents any sort of rational pricing, or estimate of costs, and (c) that government intervention, in addition to hampering and crippling the market, would prove counter-productive and cumulative, leading inevitably to socialism unless the entire tissue of interventions was repealed.


Mises' work concerning the effects of government intervention extended to monetary theory. In fact, Mises and a fellow Austrian economist, Friedrich Hayek, were of the few economists of the day to predict the crash of 1929 and subsequent depression.

For more on Ludwig von Mises, his ideas, and discussion of the relevance of his theory today, follow the sources and additional links below.

Sources:

Mises.org (biography)
Wikipedia

Links
Blog: The Austrian Economists
Blog: Ludwig von Mises Institute
Mises'works (Newschool.edu)
EconLib.org

2 comments:

entrepreneurshipeconomist said...

Growthology tries to trump Mises.org without acknowledging it: Is it Ethical for Dane Stangler to Backdate Research? While Carl Schramm ignores Hayek and Mises in his anti-intellectual books?
By entrepreneurshipeconomist
“Can Carl Schramm win a Nobel Prize for discovering the Mises Insititute via a search engine? Does discovering Hayek’s page on wikipedia constitute original “growthology” research for Dane Stangler?”

While the Mises Institute dwarfs growthology in popularity and traffic, Dane Stangler and the well-funded Schrammenomomics disciples refuse to acknowledge/link to it:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mises.org+growthology.org

It is simply amazing what Schrammenomics will do–the vast and sheer power of Schrammenomics to influence the young mind. Because Schramm sits atop a $2.5 billion foundation, he has the power to deter a young lad from seeking the truth himself and googling the following without Schramm’s permission: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=mises+entrepreneurship&btnG=Search

Dane Stangler is definitely working for Schramm’s comedy team. He is now responding directly to this blog, trying to claim that Schrammenomics is actually all about Austrian economics (via backdating phantom research), even as Kauffman/Growthology refuse to link to or cite mises.org. Schramm mentioned neither Hayek nor Mises in his book GOOD CAPITALISM BAD CAPITALISM, while wiring hundreds of millions to univeristy Statists who oppose Austrian economists in all their actions, while also never teaching nor reading the Austrians, as Schrammenomics redefines entrepreneurship in S?chramm’s/the Statist’s image.

In his most recent post at the “growthology” blog which was launched on Kauffman’s dime in a web 2.0 attempt to cloak Schramm’s incompetence and gloss over the seven-year erosion of the economy and spirit of entreprenuership by anti-intellectual/anti-entrepreneur/anti-Austrian, pro-Statist Schrammenomics, Stangler writes, “A generation of entrepreneurs becomes the next generation’s elite, the position of whom is then challenged by newer entrepreneurs. Henri Pirenne knew this; Joseph Schumpeter and his intellectual cousins, the Austrian economists and German historicists, knew this. We are apparently rediscovering it today. (AHAHH HA HA HA ! HAHAH HA!) Research we have been working on the Kauffman Foundation, soon to be released, will confirm this broad theme.”
http://www.growthology.org/growthology/2009/04/the-next-economic-wave.html

The blog post is so hilarious, I don’t know where to begin. Stangler ways “We are apparently rediscovering it today,” and by “We” he means the three anti-intellectual lawyers/anti-economists who just learned how to google “Austrian economics entrepreneurship” and think that that counts as a “discovery,” just because they are funded by Kauffman’s misappropriated millions to gloat about their “discovery.”
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=austrian+economics+entrepreneurship&aq=f&oq=

Look at how much traffic Mises.org gets compared to Growthology.org:
http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/mises.org+growthology.org

Stangler saying that he and his Kauffman/Schrammenomics cohorts are the first to “rediscover” Austrian economics is like Carl Schramm walking outside his lavish office/Schrammenomics/Kauffman compound and stating “I have discovered America!!”

I can see Stangler applying to the Nobel Committee as he and Schramm patent thier use of google to search “austrian economics entrepreneurship,” being the very first maverick pioneers to discover the over 65,000 results.

Stangler is a classic Statist in training. Truth and wisdom do not derive from the individual, but they must wait for Schrammenomics-funded Stangler to discover it on google, whereupon it then becomes offical State wisdom, just as long as he wears a tie while blogging about it. Without Kauffman’s/Schammenomic’s billions backing it, the research has not yet gained its apotheosis. It is not until the Austrian views on entrepreneurship are distilled, dumbed down, edited, deformed, destroyed, and repackaged by Stangler et al that they become worthy of the world’s Statists. It is not until the Austrian wisdom, born by free-thinking rugged individuals such as Mises and Hayek who never received posts nor salaries such as Schramm’s multi-million-dollar CEOship, it is not until the Austrian wisdom is quoted by one of Schramm’s employees that it becomes pertinent and real. It is not until Schramm and his Harvard MBA’s/JD’s coin a buzzword such as “growthology” and slap it on the Austrian’s work that the Austrians have any use or merit. It is not until Schramm announces to the group that Hayek and Mises are OK to talk about that the group is allowed to talk about Hayek and Mises without fear of their funding being cut. For Schrammenomics is a benevolent beast. Whereas Hayek and Mises were individuals who found it difficult to find univeristy posts and employment, Schramm is the superior man–the CEO and groupthink leader–the second hander and distiller who makes the individual glory, genius, and intellect of Mises and Hayek safe for the Statist, by eroding it, disparaging it, and destroying it–in the same way Schrammenomics has eroded the academy and economy. Hayek predicted what would happen to both Kauffman and the US Economy under Schrammenomics:

“Perhaps the most alarming fact is that contempt for intellectual liberty is not a thing which arises only once the totalitarian system is established but can be found everywhere among those who have embraced a collectivist faith (growthology’s faith that Schrammenomics is teh one, true way). The worst oppression is condoned if it is committed in the name of socialism (growthology/schrammenomics). Intolerance of opposing ideas is openly extolled (Stangler et al are 100% loyal to Schrammenomics–Schramm exiles indpenent thinkers); The tragedy of collectivist (growthology) thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason. There is one aspect of the change in moral values brought about by the advance of collectivism which provides special food for thought. It is that the virtues which are held less and less in esteem in Britain and America are precisely those on which Anglo-Saxons justly prided themselves and in which they were generally recognized to excel. These virtues were independence and self-reliance (not Stangler who backdates Kauffman’s research to make Schramm look good), individual initiative and local responsibility (it takes a village of Schrammenomic bloggers to run growthology) , the successful reliance on voluntary activity, noninterference with one’s neighbor and tolerance of the different, and a healthy suspicion of power and authority (as Stangler ever questioned Schramm’s power and authority, even as Schrammenomics collapses teh eocnomy/academy). Almost all the traditions and institutions which have molded the national character and the whole moral climate of England and America are those which the progress of collectivism and its centralistic tendencies are progressively destroying (look at how worshipping growthology and Schrammenomics leads to the unethical backdating of unreleased research–why doesn’t Styangler just hurry up and post some quotes form the Austrians–why must it all first be compressed, distilled, and de-souled.”

How does Schramm expect to win the Nobel prize by funding a team of lawyers to “discover” all that he has been ignoring and rejecting throughout his entire life, as well as throughout the past seven years of Schrammenics whence a vast and great opportunity was lost to inspire entreprenuership across the land. Schram could have saved the economy by funding not arrogant Dane Stangler lawyer/conformists/Scrhammenomics research-backdating cleanup crew/PR specialists, but by funding entrepreneurs and innovators. Dane has the hardest job in the world–ignoring the beuaty and glory of the Austrians for the sveen years of Schrammenomics while backdating Kauffman research to make it look like Schrammenomics embraced the Austrian economists all along, while, in reality, you will find not one mention of Hayek nor Mises in his book GOOD CAPITALISM, BAD CAPITALISM. How the hell one could write a book on modern capitalism WITHOUT MENTIONING HAYEK AND MISES is beyond us, and it is certainly an accomplishment in itself.

A great thing about Schramm stepping down from Kauffman is that he will take Stangler et al with him, and rather than focusing on campaigning for the Nobel in economics while ignoring the intellectual giants who defined modern free markets, the new president will be able to invest in entrepreneurs and innovators instead of Stanglers. A thousand flowers will bloom when Schramm steps down, and no longer will Kauffman be defined in an opaque, undefined manner, as Schramm took great pride for in a recent WSJ article, but Kauffman’s definitive vision of supporting entrepreneurs and entreprneurship–of supporting wealth creation and education–as opposed to Schrammenomics–will be realized.

Just as ethics have corroded in our corporations, ethics have corroded in our Foundations. Hayek notes that when the truth ends, the worst rise to the top, and by suprressing Hayek’s and Mises’ beuatiful truth, genius, and wisdom, Schramm rose to the top in a characterless, Machiavellian, doublespeaking, anti-intellectual manner; refusing to hire/fund anyone smarter than him, while employing conforming PR lawyers/MBAs to laud Schrammenomics. He is campaigning for the Nobel in eocnomics via corproate methods, as he truly thinks that Scholariship does not derive from the individual and original thought, but that it best defined by funding Stangler lackeys to pen PR and backdate Kauffman research as they are the first to “discover” Austrian economics. Schramm lacks both the character and intellect to a) admit to his blown opportunity which resulted in the Schrammenomics devastating our academies and economy while placing students and the nation in unprecedented debt and b) truly embrace the Austiran economists on any profound level which will actually change the course of Kauffman. You can’t teach an old dog new tricks, and although you can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make in think. The fact that Schramm was allowed to run Kauffman for seven years while ignoring/rejecting the Austrians is related to the fact that under his leadership and the era of Schrammenomics, entrepreneurship and academia have been dumbed down, as rather than funding courses on Austrian economics, Schramm wired hundreds of millions to college adminsitrators/MBAs putting on the best dog and pony shows and coming up with new buzzwords such as “growthology” which means growing Schramm’s chances for the Nobel in economics by backdating Kauffman research which Schramm never performed in the first place, as Schrammenomics completely ignored Hayek and Mises in his lackluster one-star book which helped creater the economy by its very indecipherableness, which displaced the Austrians on the bookshelves due not to Schamm’s intellect and vision, but dude to the fact that he commandeered the a $2.5 billion foundation to poer his Austrian-free, Orwellian-entrepreneurship vanity press: Good Capitalism, Bad Capitalism. Good Capitalism is Schrammenomics–using words to obscure and deceive and never define (as Schramm takes great pride in in the WSJ), failing to match word and deed and hiring corporate laywers to backdate research while exiling Austrian economists for over seven years. Bad Capitalism Schramm defines as honest, rugged risk taking, independent, individualistic thought, innovation, and growing the economy via innovation, which is why Schramm refuses to fund innovation and innovators but only corporate lawyers/Harvard MBAs/policy wonks who make him look good and allow him to take credit for entrepreneurship’s true glory as the economy declines.

Schrammenomics = backdating Kauffman research to make him look good while ignoring the Austrians for decades and then suddenly “discovering” all those who did the research by googling “Austrian economics entrepnereurship.” Can Schramm win a Nobel Prize for discovering the Mises Insititute via a search engine? Does discovering Hayek’s page on wikipedia constitute original “growthology” research?
Schrammenomics = ignoring intellectual giants such as Hayek and Mises in penning a book about economics.
Schrammenomics = wiring hundreds of millions of dollars to univeristy adminsitrators who never read nor teach the classical economists, rewarding them for raising student tuitions and ugmenting student debt in an unprecedented manner, as they dumb down the campus by teaching Schrammenomics instead of Hayek and Mises
Schrammenomics = campaigning for the Nobel prize not by standing upon the shoulders of giants so as to see further, but by a) ignoring them and then b) trying to take creidt for everything that was already said far better.
Schrammenomics = campaigning for the Nobel prize utilizing cut-throat corpoate methods, hiring a team of Kauffman laywers/PR specialists to backdate research and say “really we were working on this all along, but Schramm is a humble man and did not want to share his genius, lest it seem prideful.”

Unless I miss my guess, Stangler’s “research” will be a dumbed-down survey of the Austrians, taking them out of context and using them not to inspire an entrepreneurial renaissance, but only to serve his boss’s campaign for the Nobel in economics.

It is hilarious that Kauffman’s “best and birghtest”, handpicked by Schramm who refuses to employ anyone smarter them himself who might outshine the master, are just now realizing that there is a School of Auistrian Economics, after Schramm spent seven years dumbing down univeristy campuses and funding programs excluding Austrian economists to please his Statist friends, wiring hundreds of millions to university administrators who throw him lavish parties for his speeches, hoping to get a cut of the $2.5 billion, while, like Schramm, never reading Hayek nor Mises.

Is it ethical for Stangler to backdate unreleased research with “Research we have been working on the Kauffman Foundation, soon to be released, will confirm this broad theme,” while Schramm has been consitsently and constantly ignoring and rejecting the Austrian economists in his books and works, while wiring hundreds of millions to the Statists who also oppose Austrian economics by their very nature–by their very actions? After seven years of Orwellian Schrammenomics, look at what has happened to the economy, to the DOW, to the national and personal debt, and to entrepreneurs and small businesses which are now reuglated more than ever, as Schramm wires hundreds of millions to univeristy administrators and legal scholars, as opposed to entrepreneurs and those who respect them, such as Hayek and Mises.

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/A-cult-finance-protecting-failed/story.aspx?guid={A581A991-DEB6-4DBE-ADC2-316FDD493450}&ref=patrick.net

While Schramm funds statists and anti-intellectual, innovation-free goryupthink growthology buzzword bloggers, Mises rewards entrepreneurs:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=InVKpxhsUus

I challenge Stangler to link to any of this, as although it might seem like a sure bet to a lawyer/Statist, I am not sure ho wmuch longer Schrammenomics will be allowed to erode the economy and spirit of entrepreneurship.

It is time for Schramm to step down and liberate Kauffman’s funds from his single-minded, anti-Austrian, anti-intellectual, anti-entreprenuerial campaign for the Nobel Prize/Statist approval, and let Kauffman’s vision be realized. A thousand flowers will bloom when Shramm steps down and entrepreneurs are given the chance to define entreprnuership, rather than Schramm’s handpicked “growthology” Schrammeconomists.

entrepreneurshipeconomist said...

The Entrepreneurship Economist's Interview With Leading Schrammenomics Disciples Bo Fishback and Dane Stangler: The economy shrank at a worse-than-expected 6.1 percent pace at the start of this year.

Welcome Bo Fishback and Dane Stangler of growthology and the Schrammonomic school of economics/schrammenomic incubators/ as we celebrate seven years of schrammenomics! Let us begin by reflecting on today's news:
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Economy-shrinks-at-apf-15067036.html?.v=12

EE's question: Over the past seven years, how has Schrammenomics helped the economy?

Dane Stangler's answer:
Bo Fishback's answer:

EE: Cool! I see Carl Chramm has joined us. He can join it at any time!

EE's question: Why do Schrammeconomists ignore the Austrian economists? In Schramm's recent masterwork, GOOD CAPITALISM, BAD CAPITALISM, why is there no mention of Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek nor Ludwig Von Mises?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Me too.

EE's question: Dane and Bo. Bo and Dane. Danebo and Bodane. If you were running the Kauffman Foundation, would you accept a George Eastman Kodak Medal from Rochester Univeristy, even though Kauffman wired millions of dollars to Rochestser, like Carl Schramm did? Is this not a conflict of interest?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'll take this question! I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Me too.

EE's question: Why do you link to freakanomics and other entertainment lite sites at growthology as the economy crashes and burns in massive scandals and why do you never link to mises.org nor dailyreckoning.com nor patrick.net, who offer solutions and commentary from an Austrian standpoint, and who also pass judgment on the ocrruption? Are you afraid your doublespeaking, anti-entrepreneurship Harvard MBA friends and bailed out fiat bankers who never worked a real day in their life won't talk to you and recommend you for cash prizes and honorary medals for your campaign against the taxpayer and true entrepreneur via "growthology" Harvard-MBA buzzwords?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Me too.

EE: What does the MBA-inspired buzzword "growthology" mean and has chanting it in unision every day over th last year helped or hurt the economy?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: In a recent WSJ article, Carl Schramm took great pride in the fact that under his leadership, nobody really knows what it is that the Kauffman Foundation is or does. Is it not a leader's responsibility to be more definitive, expecially in the entrepreneurial realm? For example, Steven Jobs lets defines his company and mission with a clear, articulated vision. Is Schramm hiding something, such as, well, a lack of vision? Or is it just strategically easier to take credit for others' successes by never committing nor signifying nor string oneself?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Recently Bo Fishback has been emphasizing the fact that entrepreneurial success lies not with the individual, but with the bureuacratic model. He is basing an incubator/conservatory on this this postulate which must discount reality, emprical observations, and exalted economic theory form F.A. Hayek and Ludwig Von Mises. Have you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: For instance, the following companies did not begin in a bo fishbackian conservatory/incubator lorded over by a Harvard MBA: Microsoft, Google, Facebook, Starbucks, Walmart, Myspace, Twitter, Blogger, and Yahoo. Microsoft and Facebook were started by Harvard dropouts, and Google and Yahoo were started by Stanford grad-school dropouts. Thewre were no MBAs involved, nor incubators, nor schrammenomic models which have been killing the eocnomy for teh past seven years. In fact, tehc/entrepreneur incubators have a vast record of general failure, because they neglect Hayek and the reality of innoavtion--that the MBA's first instinct is to ignore the innovator and their innovations while serving himself with his pretentious modles that never work. Do you think that past failures is a great way of predicting future success?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Kauffman had meant his funding to go to entrepreneurs and innovators--not to the secondhander "Masterminds" who exalt themselves over true innovators and entrepreneurs, thuslky killing the spirit of entreprneurship which has lead to the epic failure of the Kauffman campuses to produce more wealth than was wired to the administrators under the rule of Schrammenomics. Have you read Hayek's Road to Serfdom?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: In the following passage, F.A. Hayek describes why the Kauffman Foundation is failing. Calling Harvard MBA incubators "Conservatories" will not change this. Do you not think that the Kauffman Foundation should fund entrepreneurs and innovators and true academics (who quote Mises and Hayek) directly, as opposed to funding bureaucratic buzzword bloggers and innovation-free, technology-free "incubators" and models whose sole purpose is not to serve the entrepreneur and innovator, but line Bo Fishback's pockets, in the same way that the goal of Schrammenomics is not to illuminate, but to darken the world while dismissing exalted economists Hayek and Mises so as to heiten Schramm's chances for a nobel prize, just as Fishback dismisses the actual, exalted entrepreneur in all his MBA "models," while allowing Schramm to spend Kauffman's funds in purchasing George Eastman Kodak Medals, and transforming the Kauffman Foundation into a Schrammenomics vanity press/ATM for those who support his campaign for the Nobel Prize, while neglecting to fund rugged entrepreneurs, academics, and innovators?

Hayek wrote: The tragedy of collectivist thought is that, while it starts out to make reason supreme, it ends by destroying reason because it misconceives the process on which the growth of reason depends. It may indeed be said that it is the paradox of all collectivist doctrine and its demands for “conscious” control or “conscious” planning that they necessarily lead to the demand that the mind of some individual should rule supreme—while only the individualist approach to social phenomena makes us recognize the superindividual forces which guide the growth of reason. Individualism is thus an attitude of humility before this social process and of tolerance to other opinions and is the exact opposite of that intellectual hubris which is at the root of the demand for comprehensive direction of social purpose. –F.A. Hayek, The End of Truth, The Road to Serfdom

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

In light of the following article and conflicts of interest, how might you--Bo or Dane--lead the Kauffman Foundation differently? Do you feel that character and integrity are important in the entrepreneurial realm?

http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php

Posted by John Bunch, Ph.D., May 03, 2007 8:50AM

It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:

“In light of the public allegations of a departure from Mr. Kauffman’s intent, lack of appropriate oversight by the Board of Directors, and certain instances of conflicts of interest. ” (http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2004/kauffmanreport030404.htm#conclusion)

See also this editorial from the Kansas City Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/09/15/editorial1.html)

Ewing Kauffman was famous as an ethical leader. Carl Schramm is not.
–http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: I'm with them.

EE: Is it important to match word and deed as a leader? Is it not important to behave in a moral manner, and turn down awards from Rochester when one's commandeered foundations wired cash to said institution? Is it not wise to avoid confilicts of interest while one is receiving millions of dollars from a foundation that was left to benefit the public, and not a private vanity press/campaign for the Nobel prize?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: does not Carl Schramm lack intellect? Suppose you were to write a treatise on philosophy and leave out Aristotle, Plato, and Socrates. Suppose you were to write a treatise on physics and leave out Einstein and Newton. Schramm wrote a treatise on kapitalism and he left out Nobel Laureate F.A. Hayek and his teacher Ludwig Von Mises. Conduct a search in GOOD CPITALISM: BAD CAPITALISM. 0 results for ‘hayek’ 0 results for ‘mises.’ Dane and Bo. If you were to write a treatise on economics, would you also completely neglect the Austrians and sound money--the entrepreneur's money?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist and so are they.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Successful entrepreneurs are never afraid to hire people smarter than themselves. Carl--would you consider yourself a successful entrepreneur?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Over the past seven years, have Harvard MBAs created more wealth, or transferred and destroyed more welath?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: In reading the following article, do you consider yourselves to be a part of the "best and brightest?"


http://www.alternet.org/story/111376/?page=entire "The Best and the Brightest Have Led America Off a Cliff

By Chris Hedges, Truthdig. Posted December 9, 2008.

The multiple failures that beset the country, from our mismanaged economy to our shredded constitutional rights to our lack of universal health care to our imperial debacles in the Middle East, can be laid at the feet of our elite universities. Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Stanford, along with most other elite schools, do a poor job educating students to think. They focus instead, through the filter of standardized tests, enrichment activities, advanced-placement classes, high-priced tutors, swanky private schools and blind deference to all authority, on creating hordes of competent systems managers. The collapse of the country runs in a direct line from the manicured quadrangles and halls in places like Cambridge, Mass., Princeton, N.J., and New Haven, Conn., to the financial and political centers of power.

The nation’s elite universities disdain honest intellectual inquiry, which is by its nature distrustful of authority, fiercely independent and often subversive. They organize learning around minutely specialized disciplines, narrow answers and rigid structures that are designed to produce certain answers. The established corporate hierarchies these institutions service -- economic, political and social -- come with clear parameters, such as the primacy of an unfettered free market, and with a highly specialized vocabulary. This vocabulary, a sign of the "specialist" and of course the elitist, thwarts universal understanding. It keeps the uninitiated from asking unpleasant questions. It destroys the search for the common good. It dices disciplines, faculty, students and, finally, experts into tiny, specialized fragments. It allows students and faculty to retreat into these self-imposed fiefdoms and neglect the most-pressing moral, political and cultural questions. Those who defy the system -- people like Ralph Nader -- are branded as irrational and irrelevant. These elite universities have banished self-criticism. They refuse to question a self-justifying system. Organization, technology, self-advancement and information systems are the only things that matter. " --http://www.alternet.org/story/111376/?page=entire

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: As millions of entreprneurs lose their businesses and credit lines, as millions of people lose their homes and jobs, how do you feel about the Kauffman endowment and the financial industry benefiting in a massive mnner from the TARP bailouts--from the taxpayers--from those very same entreprneurs losing their lines of credit as Bo, Carl, and Dane fly overhead in first class, barking "growthology" and mastermindning new business models?

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Do you ever read Tolstoy? “I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.” –Tolstoy Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.

EE: Finally let's finish with a joke I recently heard. A Harvard MBA and two lawyers walk into a bar during a massive depression to discuss their plans for inspiring entrepreneurship. One of the lawyers says, "Three scotch and gins--put it on Kauffman's tab."

Carl Schramm's answer: I'm a schrammeconomist.
Dane Stangler's answer: Me too.
Bo Fishback's answer: Word up.