|
|
#41
10-20-2005, 07:16 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Conservative Perception of Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think anyone is inclined to propose solutions that won't work - I'm not sure what accountability has to do with it; which isn’t to dismiss accountability as being important. [/ QUOTE ] I think a great many are inclined to propose just such solutions--inadvertently, of course. It's often not easy for even highly experienced and knowledgeable persons in a given field to come up with truly workable solutions, especially to knotty problems. I'm just suggesting that those in insular, non-accountable environments may be more likely to propose solutions that sound good in theory but fall short in real-world application, than would be their counterparts who are actually out there "doing." On another tack, compare successful CEOs or owners of large successful companies with professors of business. Granted, their realms of expertise may both overlap and have distinct parts, but who is more likely to be able to take over a failing Chrysler Motors Corporation and turn it around (as did Lee Iacocca)? The devil is often in the details, and the star CEO well may be a better businessman, even if his purely theoretical knowledge is in some regards less than that of his professorial counterpart. And while some may be motivated purely by love of learning and teaching, the hugest financial rewards are in performance--so on average the very best business minds are probably out in the field applying their skills rather than staying in academia (does not apply to ALL; just on average). Proposing solutions without having some accountability in the sense of real-world application--and its success or failure--is a likely ticket to a failed attempt. On another note, look how miserably the centrally-planned and centrally-owned economy of the USSR performed--and compare it with the Chinese economy, which allows a stake in ownership for a great many people. Hands-on ownership/business management is vastly superior to hands-off/distantly planned, for the most part. 
|
|
#42
10-20-2005, 07:35 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conservative Perception of Liberals
Wow q/q, isn't the left always attacking the right? Or am I imagining it?
|
|
#43
10-20-2005, 07:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conservative Perception of Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
I think a great many are inclined to propose just such solutions--inadvertently, of course. [/ QUOTE ] We might not be on the same page yet, but I think I disagree. See below. [ QUOTE ] It's often not easy for even highly experienced and knowledgeable persons in a given field to come up with truly workable solutions, especially to knotty problems. [/ QUOTE ] I agree on this point. [ QUOTE ] I'm just suggesting that those in insular, non-accountable environments may be more likely to propose solutions that sound good in theory but fall short in real-world application, than would be their counterparts who are actually out there "doing." [/ QUOTE ] I think it depends on the problem. I don't think many business schools are interested in crafting solutions to particular business problems, but merely to provide a foundation of theoretical knowledge, which students are expected to build on post-graduation. [ QUOTE ] On another tack, compare successful CEOs or owners of large successful companies with professors of business. Granted, their realms of expertise may both overlap and have distinct parts, but who is more likely to be able to take over a failing Chrysler Motors Corporation and turn it around (as did Lee Iacocca)? [/ QUOTE ] Certainly, I'm going with the successful CEO/owner of a large successful company almost every time, unless there's some special circumstance. I can't even envision a situation where I'd take the professor, so for simplicity's sake, let's just say I agree: pick the CEO/owner to rescue a failing corporation. In fact, I'm not sure a business professor would be best suited to save a failing company. I would guess (although again, I defer to those with better knowledge than I) that you might find better results with a professor of industrial engineering, or some other sub-discipline in an engineering field that specializes in business efficiencies. [ QUOTE ] The devil is often in the details, and the star CEO well may be a better businessman, even if his purely theoretical knowledge is in some regards less than that of his professorial counterpart. [/ QUOTE ] I agree. A star CEO probably has a whole host of skills, tangible and not, that a vast majority of professors do not. [ QUOTE ] And while some may be motivated purely by love of learning and teaching, the hugest financial rewards are in performance--so on average the very best business minds are probably out in the field applying their skills rather than staying in academia (does not apply to ALL; just on average). [/ QUOTE ] I don't disagree. Although I think many of the professors at leading business schools also have experience in the highest level of business/corporate management - or they teach while simultaneously performing the duties associated to their respective businesses. [ QUOTE ] Proposing solutions without having some accountability in the sense of real-world application--and its success or failure--is a likely ticket to a failed attempt. On another note, look how miserably the centrally-planned and centrally-owned economy of the USSR performed--and compare it with the Chinese economy, which allows a stake in ownership for a great many people. [/ QUOTE ] I don't think business schools are engaged in this kind of work, to be honest. By that, I mean – I don’t think many are involved in teaching students how to centrally-plan an economy; but I think they’re taught (in macro-economic classes, for instance) the mechanisms behind aggregate economic behavior. [ QUOTE ] Hands-on ownership/business management is vastly superior to hands-off/distantly planned, for the most part. [/ QUOTE ] I agree with this, too.
|
|
#44
10-20-2005, 08:09 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Conservative Perception of Liberals
[ QUOTE ]
Wow q/q, isn't the left always attacking the right? Or am I imagining it? [/ QUOTE ] To reiterate: What the right-wing is attacking is not "the left". It is a collection of propaganda images designed to generate Pavlovian responses and provide a false caricature of their opponents. For example: the right-wing doesn't want to talk about their horrendous fiscal irresponsibility, so they find some poor black woman on welfare to attack. They know that progressives will (rightly) defend her, and that this will then enable them to characterize their opponents as "defenders of those (evil racial minority) welfare queens". They know exactly what they are doing, and you can see this over and over and over again in their rhetoric. You respond by saying "well, the left attacks the right too, so what's the problem?". But that response completely ignores my point, which was the NATURE of the attack-techniques that the right-wing propaganda machine is using. They are purely propagandistic and dishonest, and the end result is little more than a collection of Pavlovian responses to conditioned images of "the evil other". It isn't just that progressives are being screwed by this Pravda-like approach that the right-wing is using. It's also that most right-wingers themselves are simply being played for fools. q/q
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
