We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
OK, this may be one post that goes over some people's heads, but I'm having a chuckle over it. For context, if you're unaware, the Austrian School of Economics is not about Austria, but about a group of economists who were primarily Austrian (von Mises, Hayek, Schumpeter), and support free market economics. The Chicago School was comprised of economists from the University of Chicago, of whom the most notable was Milton Friedman.
Apparently, it doesn't take much schooling to become a CEO, just the ability to shake hands, tell anecdotes, and generally be personable.
Although I do find it is surprising that the CEO of an insurance company would be unaware of the Austrian school. I would expect him to brush it off as nonsense in a debate such as that, since Keynesian economics can be used to justify government corporate support such as ING receives.
it doesn't take much schooling to become a CEO, just the ability to shake hands, tell anecdotes, and generally be personable
Those corporate biggies all have something that I don't have. They have the ability to make others think they really believe in what the corporation is really doing. My career has been hampered by not being able to get over the silliness of being a true believer.
Same here. It took me 5 moves over 15 years to figure out what it takes to get ahead. Of course, by then, there were other headwinds starting to drive the economy (new media) and I had to learn a whole new industry from the ground up. It's proven, after another 10 years, to have been very fruitful.
The issue isn't really being "a true believer", but just making it seem like you're a true believer (as you pointed out), while being able to make legitimate points against policy along the way. I'm currently embroiled in an interesting situation where a CYA vice president, who prefers to let others do real work while he does nothing, has allowed the company's sales goals to be missed in 3 successive years. This year, he's being exposed as a fraud and questions are swirling around his competence. These are all questions that have been asked by many of us for the past few years, but gently enough that senior management has kept an eye on the situation. It exploded last week and should make for an interesting next couple of months.
But you're right. It's a tough slog if you don't have the skills. I've been there.
By the way, you're right that Keynesian economics can be used to justify corporate support, but that wasn't the question asked. It was a question of comparing the Austrian view to Bernanke's. While Keynesian views can justify it, you have to believe you suffer no loss at any point in the system. The Austrian view points out where the losses are being incurred for the purposes of immediate (and very specialized) gain.
"Central bankers and interventionists need to stop approaching the system as one driven by random shocks, because this mind-set leads them to manipulate and attempt to control the system — a cycle that destroys far more in the long run than it saves temporarily. The longer their erroneous thinking persists, the more out of balance things become, until there is a tinderbox of malinvestment ready to ignite in a massive, uncontrollable inferno."~Mark Spitznagel
Just got sent to me by a friend, and I think underscores the difference between Bernanke and the Austrian School.
Haha, this is great! Actually, it's not. It is a sad day when a CEO does not know what the Austrian School of Economics is. CEOs should be lobbying for the policies of the Austrian School of Economics.
Bird Dog just did a post dissing organic soap, but don't diss all things organic. The Austrian School of Economics leads to what I call an organic economy. More thoughts here (scroll down or search for "organic"):
I didn't think it was a diss on organic soap, just kind of a question on whether 'organic' is meaningful.
I wonder if it is, in reality. Studies have shown there is no advantage to using 'organic' as opposed to any other kind of food. I still don't see anything specifically beneficial (I'll cop to eating GMO foods, though my wife is too skeptical of them).
I wouldn't ever diss 'organic', though, for a few reasons. First, my mom was all about 'organic' when I was growing up, so I've lived (and hated) it. Second, the jury is still out one way or the other. If a study suddenly shows up and it says "100% of all people who eat organic foods are stronger and healthier and all non-organic food is creating havoc in human DNA," then I'll drop everything and go organic. Finally, it's about choice. You want to eat 'organic', then fine, eat organic. I want to eat GMO, then fine, let me eat GMO.
I think, ultimately, the issue here revolves around the 'holier than thou' behavior of 'organic' people. I can't stand the comments they make to me about my eating habits. I work with a woman who looks at my food, sneers, and says "YOU really need to start eating healthier food, come with me to the organic store."
I just say "Let me eat what I want, you eat what you want, and we'll all be happy. I'm willing to bet I'm healthier than you, though." (no way to prove it, but given her provocation, I think it's fair)
I agree that Austrian Economics is 'natural', though. It's all about human behavior, and accepting people's choices as being the primary driving force in society, and finding the best ways to expand those choices effectively.
Where it gets really funny is when the organic person is overweight and taking several medications, and probably doesn't like themselves to boot. Me? Haven't changed size (5'10",170#'s) since puberty 35 years ago, eat as much as I can, no prescription medications.
Organic, unnatural? It gets sooo tedious watching all the space ships landing to off load their inorganic, unnatural wares. Just like when I'm irrigating. All that water drifting off into space, never to return.
(returning to original topic) Economic theory: We are so screwed.
My bad. I worded that comment poorly. It was not my intent to get into the pros and cons of organic food. My point was that "organic" is the perfect word to describe an economy based on the Austrian School of Economics. It is (intentionally) an ironic use of the word, since many of the fans of organic food will not be fans of the Austrian School of Economics.