Maggie's Farm

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.

At this point, aren't you supposed to write, "Nevermind"?

LOL. Very true.

I do miss Emily.

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.