Author

Guest Post

Browsing

by Patrick Wood

In a stunning revelation from a 2009 UN document titled “Rethinking the Economic Recovery: A Global Green New Deal“, it is discovered that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez’ (AOC) Green New Deal is not a new movement of the people, but rather a crafty (and plagiarized) creation of a small group of global elite working through the United Nations.

This 144-page report was headed by Edward B. Barbier, a professor of Economics and Finance at the University of Wyoming at the time, but specifically prepared for the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP)

It was UNEP that sponsored the infamous 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro that catalyzed the doctrine of Sustainable Development and produced the Agenda 21 book labeled The Agenda for the 21st Century. UNEP has been at the root of every intellectually bankrupt scheme to flip the world into its resource-based economic system while driving a fatal nail into Capitalism and Free Enterprise. In my books Technocracy Rising and Technocracy: The Hard Road to World Order, I have extensively documented that Sustainable Development is nothing more than warmed-over Technocracy from the 1930s.

Barbier credits a number of people as important contributors to his paper, but two in particuiar ring a loud bell: the Center for American Progress (CAP) and the Peterson Institute for International Economics. (PIIE)

Center for American Progress

CAP was founded by John Podesta, a prominent member and operative of the Trilateral Commission. Podesta was the principal architect for the U.S. environmental policy for well over 2 decades. He served as Bill Clinton’s Chief of Staff, Special Counselor to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Campaign Manager. In July 2002, the UN Secretary-General appointed him to the High-Level Panel On Post-2015 Development Agenda that created the text for the Paris Climate Agreement in 2015.

The Board of Directors for CAP includes Sen. Tom Daschle (Chairman), Stacey Abrams, Donald Sussman, and California billionaire climate activist Tom Steyer.

Peterson Institute for International Economics

PIIE was founded by Peter G. Peterson (1926-2018), a principal member of the Trilateral Commission for decades. PIIE’s Board of Directors is a Who’s Who of the Trilateral Commission and includes Lawrence Summers, C. Fred Bergsten, Richard N. Cooper, Stanley Fischer, Robert Zoellick, Alan Greenspan, Carla A. Hills, George P. Schultz, Paul A. Volcker, and Ernesto Zedillo. The PIIE paper cited by Barbier was A Green Global Recovery? Assessing US Economic Stimulus and the Prospects for International Coordination

Plagiarized: Familiar Language

Echoing AOC’s rhetoric,  the Barbier’s UNEP report states,

The multiple crises threatening the world economy today demand the same kind of initiative as shown by Roosevelt’s New Deal in the 1930s, but at the global scale and embracing a wider vision. (p. 5)

In an article by VOX titled Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is making the Green New Deal a 2020 litmus test, it stated,

Until now, the Green New Deal has been more of an idea than an actual policy. This week, an Ocasio-Cortez resolution is set to make its debut. The plan prioritizes climate change, but its strength lies in its symbolic ties to one of the Democratic party’s biggest historical successes: the original New Deal under President Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

The comparison to Franklin Delano Roosevelt has been prominent from the first day that Ocasio-Cortez became a public figure.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Philip Leigh

In 1965 Texas novelist William Humphrey wrote:

If the Civil War is more alive to the Southerner than the Northerner it is because all of the past is, and this is so because the Southerner has a sense of having been present there himself in the person of one or more of his ancestors. The war filled merely a chapter in his… [family history] … transmitted orally from father to son [as] the proverbs, prophecies, legends, laws, traditions-of-origin, and tales-of-wanderings of his own tribe…. It is this feeling of identity with the dead (who are past) which characterizes and explains the Southerner.

It is with kin, not causes, that the Southerner is linked. Confederate Great-grandfather…is not remembered for his (probably undistinguished) part in the Battle of Bull Run; rather Bull Run is remembered because Great-grandfather was there. For the Southerner, the Civil War is in the family.

Clannishness was, and is, the key to his temperament, and he went off to war to protect not Alabama but only those thirty or forty acres of its sandy hillside, or stiff red clay, which he broke his back tilling, and which was as big a country as his mind could hold.

Statue critics say he fought for slavery. But fewer than 30% of Southern families owned slaves. In truth, according to historian William C. Davis, “The widespread Northern myth that Confederates went to the battlefield to perpetuate slavery is just that, a myth. Their letters and diaries, in the tens of thousands, reveal again and again that they fought because their Southern homeland was invaded. . .”

Few today appreciate the magnitude of their sacrifice. About 300,000 Confederate soldiers died when the region’s population was only nine million. If the United States were to suffer proportional casualties in a war today our losses would total 11 million, which would be twenty-six times greater than our dead in World War II.

Given such oblations, the Confederate soldier’s surviving family members wanted to memorialize them. Memorial Day evolved after Federal occupation troops observed Southern women spreading flowers upon the graves of their husbands, sons, and brothers during the war. A year after the war the ladies of Columbus, Mississippi strewed flowers on the graves of both the Confederate and Union dead in the town’s Friendship Cemetery. Their gesture started a movement that spread and in the North May 30th became selected as National Memorial Day in 1868.

Since the war had impoverished the South, the Southern ladies could do little more than lay down flowers. There was no money for statues and Union veterans opposed permanent Confederate memorials. But when the sons of Confederate veterans eagerly joined the U.S. Army thirty years later to help win the Spanish-American War, the aging Union Civil War soldiers concluded that their former rivals were also Americans, deserving of memorial recognition.

Thus, the twenty years from 1898 to 1918 witnessed the installation of 80% of the signature courthouse square Confederate statues still standing in many Southern towns. During that period the typical surviving Confederate soldier aged from 58 years to 78 years. Memorial placements—North and South—surged between 1911 and 1915 because it was the war’s semi-centennial and the old soldiers were fading away.

Today a vocal minority holds the Confederate soldier in contempt, much like the many Americans who sneered at returning Vietnam veterans in the 1960s and 70s. Amid chants of “Hey, hey, LBJ, how many babies did you kill today?” some civilians insulted the soldiers. Today most Americans old enough to remember cringe with shame when recalling such episodes.

As reported in The New York Times, for example, in 1968 a one-armed vet was accosted at a Colorado college.

Pointing to the missing limb another student asked, “Did you get that in Vietnam?”

The veteran said yes.

“Serves you right,” said the student.

It took years, but eventually, the public abandoned the mockers and gave Vietnam vets due credit thereby underscoring the maxim: “Whoever marries the spirit of this age will find himself a widower in the next.” Thus, we should be aware that decisions to tear down century-old monuments put us at risk for unassuageable remorse in the future. Dishonoring such monuments demeans later generations of American warriors who were inspired by the courage of the Confederate soldier.

Consider, for example, that post-Civil-War Southerners consistently came to our nation’s defense more readily than did other Americans. Presently, 44% of our military are from the South even though it represents just 36% of the nation’s population.

spin was put on their history. In response, George Orwell warned:

The most effective way to destroy people is to deny and obliterate their own understanding of their history.
George Orwell

Read the Whole Article at The Abbieville Institute

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Clare Donovan

Meaningful innovation education exposes kids to this vital element.

I love watching the rise of makerspaces in schools. More and more students have access to 3D printers, kid-friendly coding programs, and other great technical tools. This investment in STEM project-based learning means that students with all kinds of learning styles are directly engaged in issues critical to their future.

But there’s a key ingredient missing. When you give students access to awesome tools and the freedom to design, what happens when they hit on something great? Most often, that’s where the project stalls. In the business world, that’s when a patent comes in.

Teaching patenting concepts at a young age is not only feasible, but I believe it’s a way to help women and other underrepresented groups play a bigger role in tech.

Tinker While You Learn

At the Future of Education Technology Conference in Orlando, Fla., I saw some amazing curricula and technology demos [Ed. note: Clare spoke there]. Schools have a huge selection of tools to teach engineering to young students.

Engineering, however, is only one component of the innovation process. Creativity, business and the law also play a critical role. Patents motivate people to invest in the arduous process of inventing by giving them economic ownership for continued development. For a startup, a patent buys you time to do the hard work of bringing your idea to life. Patent education is an important ingredient in helping kids become real-world problem solvers.

Patent education also lays a foundation for financial rewards in the workplace. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office finds that wages in patent-based industries are 74% higher than other verticals, and this premium is growing. This is according to the USPTO’s latest update to “Intellectual Property and the U.S. Economy.”

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

By Donald J. Boudreaux

Frédéric Bastiat (1801-50) is known today among economists—if he is known at all—as at best a brilliant polemicist. An economic theorist he most certainly was not—such is the common opinion.

I believe this common opinion to be mistaken. To explain why first requires a discussion of the nature of a theory.

A Theory Is a Story

As I tell students in my Principles of Microeconomics courses, a theory is a story that assists us in making better sense of reality. And a theorist is a storyteller who offers this assistance.

A story that explains the price only of bread is not a proper theory of prices, even if it is highly believable.

Stories, of course, differ in their believability. A story that explains, say, the Industrial Revolution as being the result of new knowledge imparted to us by aliens from another galaxy is completely unbelievable. Some other, more believable story is called for—one, say, that features a change in people’s attitudes toward commerce and innovation.

But for a story to deserve to be called a theory requires that it also be generalizable.

In economics, supply-and-demand analysis is a general account of how prices are formed and change. It’s not a story about the formation of the price of only one item, such as bread. It’s an outline for telling believable stories about the formation of all prices—from the prices of toy planes to those of jumbo jetliners, from the wages earned by motel maids to those earned by Tom Hanks. A story that explains the price only of bread is not a proper theory of prices, even if it is highly believable.

To be generalizable, a story whose creator wishes it to be regarded as a serious theory must make that story abstract. Being abstract, however, makes the story—standing alone—barren. As such, it engenders no understanding of the physical or social world. But it proves itself to be a good theory if, when relevant details of reality are added to it, those of us who encounter this story go, “Aha! Now I understand reality better than I did before!”

The core purpose of all theories is the creation of improved understanding. A theory that does not cause those who hear or read it to go, “Aha!” is worthless.

Bastiat the Theorist

And so we return to Bastiat. He’s one of history’s most brilliant tellers of economic stories. This fact, I’m convinced, justifies calling Bastiat a great economic theorist.

Who can read Bastiat’s satirical portrayal of sunlight as an unfairly low-priced import and not go, “Aha!”

Consider Bastiat’s famous 1843 “Petition of the Manufacturers of Candles.” In this short essay, Bastiat radiantly conveyed economists’ understanding that artificially contrived scarcities make the general population worse off even if they increase the wealth of a small handful of individuals. Who other than the most benighted protectionist can read Bastiat’s satirical portrayal of sunlight as an unfairly low-priced import and not go, “Aha! Of course, inexpensive imports that ‘flood’ into a country no more impoverish that country than does the light sent to us free by the sun!”

Another example is Bastiat’s even-shorter essay “A Negative Railway.” Here Bastiat revealed the flaw in the argument of a gentleman who insisted that if a railroad connecting Paris to Bayonne were forced to have a stop at Bordeaux, the wealth of the French people would be enhanced. The hapless target of Bastiat’s brilliance based his conclusion on the correct observation that forcing trains to stop at Bordeaux would increase the incomes of porters, restaurateurs, and some other people in Bordeaux.

Yet Bastiat didn’t settle for drily noting that, after paying these higher incomes, railways and their passengers would have less money to spend on goods and services offered by suppliers in locations other than Bordeaux. Instead, Bastiat followed the proposal’s logic in a way uniquely revealing: If forcing trains to stop at Bordeaux will increase the total wealth of the people of France, so too will the total wealth of the people of France be increased if trains are obliged to stop also at Angoulême. And if also at Angoulême, then the French will be enriched even further if a third stop is required at Poitiers. And if at Poitiers, then at each and every location between Paris and Bayonne.

Bastiat revealed the proposal to be flawed by showing that, if its logic were sound, the railway that would do the most good for the French people is one that is nothing but a series of stops—a negative railway!

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Zanne Domoney-Lyttle

Comic Books. Graphic Novels. Cartoons. Illustrated Pictures. The ‘Funnies.’ Methods of visual storytelling through sequential art have been around for centuries, yet this mode of narrative-sharing is often looked down upon, branded a lowly form of popular culture that is ‘just for kids’.

The label ‘just for kids’ is derogatory on three levels; firstly, children are inexorable in their ways of combining learning through fun, and that is nothing to be ashamed of. To suggest children’s literature is less important is to devalue the very education systems we pride ourselves on. Secondly, branding comic books as something that only the lower echelons of society can and should access, diminishes the amount of collaborative effort and work it takes to produce the things in the first place.

Thirdly, it does not take into account how comic books are often used as visual aids for learning in higher education institutions, as well as in homes around the world. In fact, you could argue that active modes of learning have frequently centred upon the combination of image with word to get its point across; pictures, as the saying goes, are worth a thousand words.

This is a concept that Bible illustrators have known for a long time. Consider, for example, the Garima Gospels, an illustrated Bible manuscript which dates back to the 5th-century CE. Biblical texts are incredibly difficult to read, understand interpret in some parts, so illustrating biblical texts was seen as a natural way to either clarify Scripture, or potentially fill in the gap between text and understanding. They are a form of visual exegesis if you will.

Post-publication of the Gutenberg Bible in the 15th-century, there was something of an explosion in the number of illustrated Bibles being produced. Ian Green argues that the reason biblical illustrations and illustrated Bibles grew in popularity at this time partly resulted from an increase in demand for visual aids as a well as a return to a more moralistic reading of Scripture, which meant readers wanted increased access to biblical texts.

Biblical illustrations were used either as visual aids to Scripture (for example, Biblia Pauperum which were printed block-books visualising typological narratives from the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament), and as decorative items to adorn the bookshelves of wealthy households. Poorer households were not left out of the picture-Bible trend. For the less-wealthy connoisseur of biblical illustrations, cut-and-paste sheets of biblical imagery were produced.

Wenceslaus Hollar (1607-1677) was one artist who produced such images. Born in Prague, a centre of arts, science and ambition in the early 17th-century, Hollar was a prolific artist who produced over 2,000 pieces of art, mostly in the format of etchings. Subjects varied from geographical and topographical scenes to portraits, fashion, visualizations of ancient and classic figures, and biblical motifs. On the last theme, Hollar produced visual interpretations of the classic stories of the Bible and drew inspiration from major figures such as Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and Paul.

Hollar

Hollar produced two cut-and-paste sheets on biblical stories; one on Abraham’s story between Gen. 12-24 (see image below) and one on Jacob and Joseph (Gen. 25-48). Both are unsigned, untitled and undated. Cataloguer of Hollar’s works, Richard Pennington suggests that these prints were most likely produced as cheap, visual aids for the Bible reader, meant to be cut up and stuck in personal Bibles, or to be used as a cheap and alternative way of decorating walls. The format of each image supports this – the grid-like pattern and the annotations to each image shows where to cut, and where to paste.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Tyler Cowen

Amazon is valued at nearly $800 billion, yet the company reportedly paid $0 in federal income taxes last year. Why?

The main reason Amazon as a corporate entity does not pay much in taxes is because the company so vigorously reinvests its profit. The resulting expensing provisions lower their tax liabilities, in some cases down to zero or near-zero.

That is, in fact, the kind of incentive our tax system is supposed to create, and does so only imperfectly, noting that many economists have suggested moving to full expensing.

(NB: You can’t hate both share buybacks and profit reinvestment!)

Amazon pays plenty in terms of payroll taxes and also state and local taxes. Nor should you forget the taxes paid by Amazon’s employees on their wages. Not only is that direct revenue to various levels of government, but the incidence of those taxes falls somewhat on Amazon, which now must pay higher wages to offset the tax burden faced by their employees.

Creative Commons Licence

Check out the Foundtation for Economic Freedom

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

China’s state-run press agency has welcomed its first female AI anchor who will join its growing team of virtual presenters. The female AI newsreader will make her professional debut during the upcoming meetings of the country’s national legislature and top political advisory body in March, according to Xinhua at a press conference on Tuesday. Modeled after the agency’s flesh-and-blood journalist Qu Meng, the AI newsreader was jointly developed by Xinhua and search engine company Sogou.com and can ‘read texts as naturally as a professional anchor’.

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Kumar Mehta

Despite the countless books and articles written about innovation, we don’t have a good understanding about what drives innovation within organizations. Instead, we have multiple, often conflicting, theories about what makes innovation happen. We follow the one that resonates best with us or is in vogue. As a result, innovation efforts at many companies suffocate as they stumble along, thinking they are on the right path but not really knowing where they are headed.

The way to build an environment where innovation happens consistently is to make certain that the foundational building blocks that drive innovation are present. Few companies have built such an environment, what I call an innovation biome . The companies that have built this environment are the ones we admire as they are the ones that bring the most innovative offerings to the world.

In the rest of the companies, though, the most common reason that innovations fail is this: others reject an idea because they don’t have the right tools to evaluate the idea.

Overcoming disbelievers and naysayers

In most companies, when someone has an idea it has to climb up several layers of management, requiring a yes at every level for it to keep climbing.

A single no going up the management staircase can kill an idea. Since no one is ever penalized for saying no (you only get hurt for saying yes to the wrong thing), companies often develop cultures that are conservative and not conducive to innovation.

Just about every major innovation in history was rejected by the experts of the time.

Whether it was the earliest people who believed the earth is round, or Darwin’s theory of evolution, or Pasteur’s theory of germs, disbelievers and naysayers have always shown up in full force. This has never stopped. Experts thought the Personal Computer would not be successful, nor the automobile, nor the telephone (presumably the telephone was never supposed to catch on because there was no shortage of messenger boys).

This still happens every day in companies around the world.

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by Barry Brownstein for FEE.org

By now you have probably heard the exhortation “stay woke.” To be woke means a person is “an informed, questioning, self-educating individual” who “look[s] past the provided narrative.” Yet, most among the self-proclaimed woke are still fast asleep. They may have a facile way of imparting narratives about issues, but those narratives are often based on neither sound facts nor theories.

In his book Factfulness, Hans Rosling, the late great professor of international health, offers 13 fact questions to test “our knowledge about the world.” One of those questions is foundational to our beliefs about the state of the world:

In the last 20 years, the proportion of the world population living in extreme poverty has …

A: almost doubled

B: remained more or less the same

C: almost halved.

The answer is C:

“Over the past twenty years, the proportion of the global population living in extreme poverty has halved.” Rosling considers this a “revolutionary” change—“the most important change that has happened in the world in [his] lifetime.” He adds, “It is also a pretty basic fact to know about life on Earth. But people do not know it. On average only 7 percent—less than one in ten!—get it right.”

About this dramatic change in the reduction in the world’s poor, most are not woke. Many of the self-proclaimed woke cling to a variation of the narrative that capitalism is impoverishing the world. Their illusions may be shared by many, but that doesn’t make them right.

Rosling adds these pointed observations:

The Democrats and Republicans in the United States often claim that their opponents don’t know the facts. If they measured their own knowledge instead of pointing at each other, maybe everyone could become more humble. When we polled in the United States, only 5 percent picked the right answer. The other 95 percent, regardless of their voting preference, believed either that the extreme poverty rate had not changed over the last 20 years, or, worse, that it had actually doubled—which is literally the opposite of what has actually happened.

If you think the “better-educated” would do better, you would be wrong. Rosling writes:

I have tested audiences from all around the world and from all walks of life: medical students, teachers, university lecturers, eminent scientists, investment bankers, executives in multinational companies, journalists, activists, and even senior political decision makers. These are highly educated people who take an interest in the world. But most of them—a stunning majority of them—get most of the answers wrong. Some of these groups even score worse than the general public; some of the most appalling results came from a group of Nobel laureates and medical researchers.

Those sharing their opinions on social media, professional pundits, and professors are mostly profoundly ignorant about basic facts. Worse, Rosling writes:

Not only devastatingly wrong, but systematically wrong. By which I mean that these test results are not random. They are worse than random: they are worse than the results I would get if the people answering my questions had no knowledge at all.

The systemic bias is in one direction: “Every group of people,” Rosling surveyed, “thinks the world is more frightening, more violent, and more hopeless—in short, more dramatic—than it really is.”

If You Can Observe a Thing

Why, Rosling asks, “is the misconception of a gap between the rich and the poor so hard to change?” Rosling writes, “Dividing the world into two distinct sides is simple and intuitive, and also dramatic because it implies conflict, and we do it without thinking, all the time.” Thus, Rosling observes, journalists “prefer stories of extreme poverty and billionaires to stories about the vast majority of people slowly dragging themselves toward better lives.”

Rosling offers many other cognitive biases, such as a “negativity instinct,” that prevent us from seeing the tremendous progress occurring in the world. These biases are significant, and behind these cognitive biases are theoretical biases.

Albert Einstein observed to his colleague Werner Heisenberg, “Whether you can observe a thing or not depends on the theory which you use. It is theory which decides what can be observed.”

If you understand why free markets have lifted billions out of poverty, you will see the evidence.

If you understand why free markets have lifted billions out of poverty, you will see the evidence. If you are waiting for a socialist revolution to help people rise above poverty, you will be blind to the billions who already have.

According to Rosling, “The picture that most Westerners see in the media and carry around in their heads” is this: “The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer; and the number of poor just keeps increasing; and we will soon run out of resources unless we do something drastic.”

How Woke Are You?

To complement Rosling’s fact-based quiz, I offer this 15-question economics self-assessment taken from a 45-question assessment developed by me and my wife Deborah, a marketing professor, for an MBA economics and business environment course.

This self-assessment will measure your understanding of the conditions under which society can continue to progress and lift billions more out of poverty. Theoretical grounding will help you look past the “provided narrative” blaring at us daily that bigger government is needed to alleviate suffering and save the world.

How woke are you? The real woke understand economics.

On a scale of “1 to 7,” where “1” means “strongly disagree” and “7” means “strongly agree,” select the number that best represents the extent to which you agree or disagree with each of the following statements:

  1. I have trouble conceiving of an economic order that is not deliberately made for a specific purpose.
  2. It is likely that a group of well-intentioned government energy experts can direct energy research toward the next breakthrough in sources of efficient energy.
  3. Because resource scarcity constrains the economy, the government must have the power to allocate resources.
  4. As markets become more complex, the need for government regulation becomes greater.
  5. There is a conflict of interest between consumers and corporations earning profits on a free market.
  6. Government planning is needed to bring order and coordination to what would otherwise be chaotic social and economic conditions.
  7. If other countries refuse to lower tariffs, it is in the interest of the United States to raise tariffs.
  8. There must be a level playing field for international trade to be fair.
  9. Individuals or small groups of people can know only a fraction of the knowledge that society uses.
  10. Humanity can achieve more than “individual human reason could design or foresee.”
  11. The basic economic problem is to use bits of knowledge that are dispersed and not held by anyone in totality.
  12. Freedom to succeed or fail is a necessary condition for discovering the terms of mutually beneficial exchange.
  13. It is not large corporations but government-created barriers to competition which are the most harmful to consumers.
  14. Only the conduct of the players, but not the outcome of the game, can be said to be “just” in economic matters.
  15. Spontaneous order can coordinate the conflicting actions and plans of different individuals and corporations.

Your Woke Score:

For questions 1-8, add your points. A real woke person will score 8; that is, they will strongly disagree with all of these statements.

For questions 9-15, add your points. A real woke person will score 49; that is, they will strongly agree with all of these statements.

Becoming More Woke

If you want to improve your theoretical understanding, I offer this short reading list of essential essays. The self-proclaimed woke are fast asleep, but you don’t have to be.

F.A. Hayek: “Cosmos and Taxis” in Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 1: Rules and Order

F.A. Hayek: “Individualism: True and False”

F.A. Hayek: “The Use of Knowledge in Society”

F.A. Hayek: “‘Social’ or Distributive Justice” in Law, Legislation and Liberty, Volume 2: The Mirage of Social Justice

F.A. Hayek: “Planning and Democracy” and “Planning and The Rule of Law” in The Road to Serfdom

Israel Kirzner: “Competition, Regulation, and the Market Process: An ‘Austrian’ Perspective

Murray Rothbard: “Justice and Property Rights”

Ludwig Von Mises: “Profit and Loss”

Creative Commons Licence

Checkout the Foundation for Economic Education

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!

by FirstRound

In 1989, Liz Wiseman took her first job out of business school at a mid-size startup called Oracle. With no previous experience, she was recruited as a technical trainer, charged with teaching programming to all of the company’s new engineering recruits. She admits she barely knew what the company did, much less how to teach engineers. A year later, she was promoted to manage the training department and make CEO Larry Ellison‘s vision for what he called ‘Oracle University’ a reality. She was 24.

“I really didn’t know what I was doing. All I knew was that this was a grown-up job and I wasn’t quite grown up yet, but no one seemed to be bothered by that but me,” says Wiseman. It was scary then, but looking back, she sees clearly how being a rookie made her an ideal candidate for the blue-sky project. “My real value didn’t come from having fresh ideas. It was having no ideas at all. When you know nothing you’re forced to create something.”

Little did she know that she’d spend the next 17 years leading the University effort and Oracle’s global human resources. Since then, Wiseman has written three books about what makes people effective as employees and leaders, and has conducted extensive research on how management can maximize performance inside organizations. Now president of the Wiseman Group, training executives around the world, she recently spoke at Stanford’s Entrepreneurship Corner and shared her findings about the advantages of the rookie mindset, how knowing too much can be dangerous for innovation, and what leaders can do to help everyone around them achieve their potential.

The Power of Being a Rookie

Harkening back to her experience spearheading Oracle University, Wiseman breaks down why her beginner’s mind was such a strength: “When you’re forced to create something and you don’t know how to do it, you go out and you ask,” she says. “All I knew was how important product knowledge transfer was inside of the company, so I went out and talked to every single one of the product bosses. I asked them what problems they had getting people to learn. I talked to the people who needed the knowledge.”

Based on these interviews, she knew she needed to keep things simple to lower the barrier to entry, and she needed to leverage the incredible amount of knowledge existing employees already had. “Instead of hiring instructors and technical experts that we’d need to bring up to speed, we went back to the product bosses and asked them to take on the additional responsibility of teaching trainings. We knew they’d be the best at it. It was the best, most accurate, fastest solution.”

Eventually, the program got so big that management made moves to replace Wiseman with a more seasoned executive, but the experts she had recruited to teach stepped in and demanded that she stay at her post. “It turned out that by not really knowing anything myself, I was able to stay much closer to all of the important stakeholders. And, because I needed to prove myself, we operated in thin slices — what we would today probably call a lean or agile approach — to deliver quick wins. We were giving people what they needed when they needed it because I knew no other way of working.”

When you’re a rookie, you’re also a pioneer. You’re out there on the frontier without confidence, so you have to focus on the basics. You end up operating very lean.

Rookie Smarts

While researching her book ‘Rookie Smarts,’ Wiseman studied 400 different scenarios where people were new to something or not: Taking on pieces of work, debugging a program, writing a proposal, teaching a class, etc. Her team looked at how experienced people handled tasks and compared it to people doing them for the very first time. Here’s what she found:

Experience creates a number of blind spots. “With time, we obviously gain knowledge, wisdom and more data points to inform our power of intuition. We build confidence and networks, but we’re also creating blind spots.” When your mind recognizes a pattern, it tends to stop innovating. You’re no longer looking for outlier possibilities, you miss opportunities. Generally speaking, you stop making things up. You gloss over the gaps.

Studies have shown that if misspelled words are strung together in a sentence, people can still read them with ease because all that matter is the first and last letter of a word. Our brains fill in the rest. The same thing happens when we face situations where we have experience. Our automatic response is to reach for what we already know. “We start answering questions before they’ve been asked. We stop seeing new data points or contrary points of you. We stop seeking feedback and input from others.”

We develop scar tissue. The more experience you gain, the more likely you’ll have some bad experiences that will leave scars behind, continually reminding you of your mistakes. “I have a whole set of scars that remind me not to do things that didn’t seem to work out very well the first time,” Wiseman says. “You also have to realize that you will have ideas that touch on other people’s scar tissue. They will quickly say, ‘No, no, we tried that and it didn’t work.’ This is a major way that experience can create a number of troubling blind spots.”

Ignorance can drive top performance. “If you envision a really steep learning curve, it starts in a phase of ignorance, this really gentle part of the curve. This is where, even when we’re given important and hard tasks, we can say to ourselves, ‘How hard can this be? I can do it,’” says Wiseman. “It’s only when we start to dig in and become more aware that we realize how hard something is. We start seeing the gap between what we can do and what the people around us can do. Then we move into a state of desperation. We start to panic. We look around for someone who knows what they’re doing who can help. This is where we start to reach out.”

The most powerful form of learning comes when we’re desperate. When we have no choice but to learn.

Wiseman’s research showed that in fields requiring specialized knowledge, inexperienced people tend to outperform their experienced peers by a small margin. “But where they really outperform is when the work is innovative in nature,” she says. “Rookies are a lot faster than people with experience because they are desperate and uncomfortable. When we get comfortable, that’s when we start to teach and mentor other people.” But it’s also where people slow down and stop contributing as much.

“As I looked at top performing rookies, I found this really interesting type of person: the perpetual rookie. These are people who are successful professionals, leaders, entrepreneurs with years of mastery who, despite that, maintain their rookie smarts — their ability to think and approach their work as if they were doing it for the first time.” As she investigated the attributes of perpetual rookies, Wiseman identified several traits they have in common:

  • They are risk mitigators, not risk takers. They learn how to operate in thin slices, test, and de-risk their progress.
  • They are never satisfied. “There’s an abhorrence of mediocrity that they share.”
  • They are curious. They always want to learn about everything, even if it’s not related to their job or immediate challenges.
  • They are humble. “I don’t mean in the sense of low self-esteem. I mean willing to learn from anyone and everyone no matter where they are in the hierarchy.”
  • They are playful. “It’s not like they try to create fun amid the work. For them, their work is just fun.”

So how can someone go about holding on to their rookie smarts? “As I looked across so many of these leaders and professionals, they all had a deliberate ritual — something that helped them go back to their rookie roots,” Wiseman says.

She cites Bob Hurley, founder of a surf company called Hurley Sports that eventually sold to Nike. “He said that at every juncture of building his business he had no idea what he was doing, and it turned out to be an advantage.”

When Hurley finds himself stuck in a rut, he thinks back to something that happened many years ago on Huntington Beach when he was an avid surfer himself. He ran into Wayne Bartholomew, the reigning world champion surfer at the time, who said he preferred surfing with beginners because they gave him energy. “So Bob told me, ‘Now when I have bad days, I go out and surf with the amateurs,'” Wiseman says. “He spends his time talking to them, hanging out with them, and he says it revitalizes his point of view.”

Read the Whole Article

Do you find these posts helpful and informative? Please CLICK HERE to help keep us going!