Originally Posted by JonLaw
Originally Posted by uppervalley
I am a little uncomfortable with the business bashing. Keep in mind where the Davidsons' money came from, where money that funds universities and the arts largely comes from, and what gets groceries to our table.

Universities are currently funded by massive federal debt origination.

Groceries arrive at my table because of cheap energy. (Absent these groceries, I would be eating a ton of shrimp, fish, and crabs.)


I totally would not be eating those things. Well-- maybe the fish. But I'm also not most people, even in my region. And they most certainly WOULD be eating those things. And sea lion. And deer.

Which makes me wonder what sea lion would taste like--

Chicken of the Sea?


(Sorry. Someone had to do it. wink )

Seriously Bostonian, I have to agree with Jon here that executives are mostly serving ANALYSTS these days... and while I agree with your list in theory-- it sure doesn't tally with what I've actually observed over the past 14 years any more than the Keynesian econ that I learned in high school (and which my DD also learned, ironically, during the 2009-10 year) tallies with what transpired in the "deregulated" "smart" market in 2008.

There are some things wrong with both models/theories. Clearly.

I'd also (respectfully and seriously) submit that being IDEALLY intelligent is probably even more critically important for an executive/CEO/COO than it is for most of the people working in technical positions for that person. Why? Because so much of that job is about understanding other people and being able to successfully communicate with them. The higher your LOG, the more difficult a proposition that becomes. I do think that those people probably have very particular areas of giftedness, and that they are highly gifted in those areas.

Schrödinger's cat walks into a bar. And doesn't.