"What are the largest barriers to faster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth??"
Their post on Mark Cuban's post about barriers to growth is interesting. Why don't we have folks in Harrisburg who care about making Pennsylvania more competitive? I think the tenure of outgoing DEP Secretary Katy McGinty shows that you can have entrepreneurial leadership in government. Since Miss McGinty came into office the state has been a lot more competitive at luring green jobs and clean tech firms to the state, not to mention she has worked with Governor Rendell to bring some interesting green projects to the state and even here in Western PA. There is still a ton more we can do on the green front but that's just an example of how one bright forward thinking individual can help bring about change through government.
Are you and your neighbors better off now than you were seven years ago, before Schrammenomics redefined entrepreneurship, eonomics, and academia in Schramm's own image? Recently Schramm took great pride in a WSJ article in the fact that nobody quites knows what it is that the Kauffman Foundation is or does. Well, entreprnuership is the very opposite of this. While Statists use language to obscure and complexify, entrepnruers use language to exalt and inspire--to create wealth in a definitive manner where there was none before.
Growthology tries to trump Mises.org without acknowledging it: Is it Ethical for Dane Stangler to Backdate Research? While Schramm ignores Hayek and Mises in his anti-intellectual books? April 23, 2009 by entrepreneurshipeconomist “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 according to Dane Stangler?”
While the Mises Institute dwarfs growthology in popularity and traffic, Dane Stangler and the well-fiunded 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–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 this 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 (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 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 the 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-intelletcual 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. 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 rediscovered 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 first 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.
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.
2 comments:
"What are the largest barriers to faster innovation, entrepreneurship, and economic growth??"
Their post on Mark Cuban's post about barriers to growth is interesting. Why don't we have folks in Harrisburg who care about making Pennsylvania more competitive? I think the tenure of outgoing DEP Secretary Katy McGinty shows that you can have entrepreneurial leadership in government. Since Miss McGinty came into office the state has been a lot more competitive at luring green jobs and clean tech firms to the state, not to mention she has worked with Governor Rendell to bring some interesting green projects to the state and even here in Western PA. There is still a ton more we can do on the green front but that's just an example of how one bright forward thinking individual can help bring about change through government.
Are you and your neighbors better off now than you were seven years ago, before Schrammenomics redefined entrepreneurship, eonomics, and academia in Schramm's own image? Recently Schramm took great pride in a WSJ article in the fact that nobody quites knows what it is that the Kauffman Foundation is or does. Well, entreprnuership is the very opposite of this. While Statists use language to obscure and complexify, entrepnruers use language to exalt and inspire--to create wealth in a definitive manner where there was none before.
Growthology tries to trump Mises.org without acknowledging it: Is it Ethical for Dane Stangler to Backdate Research? While Schramm ignores Hayek and Mises in his anti-intellectual books?
April 23, 2009 by entrepreneurshipeconomist
“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 according to Dane Stangler?”
While the Mises Institute dwarfs growthology in popularity and traffic, Dane Stangler and the well-fiunded 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–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 this 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 (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 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 the 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-intelletcual 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.
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 rediscovered 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 first 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.
Post a Comment