11
juli
2009
Indrømmet, jeg havde det lidt med Palin, som de fleste havde - og har - det med Obama: Jeg vidste ikke rigtig, hvad hendes program gik ud på, men var lidt fascineret af hendes kandidatur. Pinligt bevidst om, at den ydre fremtoning og de populistiske slagord er et meget ringe grundlag at bedømme en eventuel leder af den vestlige civilisation, var det rart at læse Peggy Noonans klumme på Opinion Journal idag om Sarah Palin.
Selvfølgelig ville det være tosset at støtte Sarah Palin i trods. For der kan vist ikke herske tvivl om, at den mediemæssige dækning af hende, og de personlige angreb på familien undervejs og efterfølgende er ulækre og uværdige, men det er selvsagt ikke nok til at foretrække hende som den kommende præsidentkandidat. Selvom hun er kvinde, smuk og dygtig til at gå i høje hæle…
Så, hvad skal der til? Ifølge Noonan er fremtidsscenariet noget nær dommedagsagtigt, og det kræver sin M/K at håndtere:
Here are a few examples of what we may face in the next 10 years: a profound and prolonged American crash, with the admission of bankruptcy and the spread of deep social unrest; one or more American cities getting hit with weapons of mass destruction from an unknown source; faint glimmers of actual secessionist movements as Americans for various reasons and in various areas decide the burdens and assumptions of the federal government are no longer attractive or legitimate.
The era we face, that is soon upon us, will require a great deal from our leaders. They had better be sturdy. They will have to be gifted. There will be many who cannot, and should not, make the cut. Now is the time to look for those who can.
Hvem kan? Hvad med en type som ham her:
Peter Schiff på The Daily Show
Og hvis man imponeres over taler uden noter, så se denne omgang hos Mises. Her da en mand, som helt og aldeles ved hvad han taler om, og som ikke behøver en indopereret teleprompter…
Why the Meltdown Should Have Surprised No One
Det er måske ikke lige hvad Noonan leder efter, jeg ved det faktisk ikke. Men måske som del af en kommende frihedsorienteret amerikansk regering? Det ville ikke være helt dårligt…
Posted: Ikke kategoriseret
5
juni
2009
Dagens artikel fra Mises indeholder et interessant perspektiv på iværksætteren versus manageren - interessant, ihvertfald når man, som jeg, er stud.merc MIB (innovation og forretningsudvikling).
Artiklen er et uddrag fra Mises’ egen Human Action, og giver stof til eftertanke, når man sammenholder med den (store) del af faglitteraturen, der taler om, at medarbejdere kan/skal være iværksættere og innovative indenfor virksomhedens fire vægge. Og så giver den naturligvis også bredside til ideen om, at innovation og iværksætteri med fordel kan foretages med risikofrihed og for andre folks penge (læs: skattekroner).
Her et par citater:
The managerial function is always subservient to the entrepreneurial function. It can relieve the entrepreneur of a part of his minor duties; it can never evolve into a substitute for entrepreneurship. The fallacy to the contrary is due to the error confusing the category of entrepreneurship as it is defined in the imaginary construction of functional distribution with conditions in a living and operating market economy. The function of the entrepreneur cannot be separated from the direction of the employment of factors of production for the accomplishment of definite tasks. The entrepreneur controls the factors of production; it is this control that brings him either entrepreneurial profit or loss. It is possible to reward the manager by paying for his services in proportion to the contribution of his section to the profit earned by the entrepreneur. … But the manager cannot be made answerable for the losses incurred. These losses are suffered by the owners of the capital employed. They cannot be shifted to the manager.
Society can freely leave the care for the best possible employment of capital goods to their owners. In embarking upon definite projects these owners expose their own property, wealth, and social position. … For society as a whole the squandering of capital invested in a definite project means only the loss of a small part of its total funds; for the owner it means much more, for the most part the loss of his total fortune. But if a manager is given a completely free hand, things are different. He speculates in risking other people’s money. He sees the prospects of an uncertain enterprise from another angle than that of the man who is answerable for the losses. It is precisely when he is rewarded by a share of the profits that he becomes foolhardy because he does not share in the losses too.
(Jeg er naturligvis ikke stødt på Mises i cand.merc MIB pensum, men hvem ved… måske har jeg overset ham. Dog skal det retfærdigvis siges, at vi læser Michael Jensen, Harvard, som jeg vil påstå er enig i følgende af Mises’ udsagn om, hvad manageren skal foretage sig: “The only instruction required is self-understood and does not need to be especially mentioned: seek profit”.)
Posted: Ikke kategoriseret