The "Washington consensus" approach to development -- which urges other countries to emulate American capitalism -- misses one vital ingredient: the role that entrepreneurs play. Jump-starting growth in the developing world will require an understanding of the American entrepreneurial system, which involves four sectors of the economy.
Submitted by gregory h. (Apr. 24, 2009) on April 24, 2009 - 8:52am.
Carl Schramm’s “Schrammenomics” Creates Record Unemployment
By entrepreneurshipeconomist
Over the past seven years, Carl Schramm has presided over the least entrepreneurial and most corrupt era of American business. During these seven years he has done far more harm than good by redefining entrepreneurship in a Harvard MBA “growthology” buzzword manner that pleases his Statist friends. During the era of Schrammenomic “entrepreneurship/growthology” the government burgeoned (growthology) as tens of millions lost their pensions, savings, jobs, and homes while entrepreneurs lost their credit lines and the rising generation lost its future earnings, as the Kauffman Foundation’s endowment/hedge fund needed the TARP bailout funds to line Schramm et al.’s innovation-free pockets with millions upon millions, as the $2.5 billion endowment benefited from taxpayer bailouts for the Wall Street rich both directly and indirectly. MBA wealth-transfer, PR, hype, and the commandeering of a foundation to fund statist bloggers to further one’s personal career are the very opposite of both entrepreneurship and classical economics.
Instead of investing the Kauffman funds in entrepreneurs and innovators (as Mr. Kauffman intended), Schramm has pocketed millions for his corporate vanity press while leading and furthering double-speaking Statist philosophies, dumbing down and feminizing the university campus and replacing wealth-creating Ph.D.’s with wealth-transferring, buzzword-blogging MBAs/JDs, all the while saying one thing while doing another; as one cannot serve two masters. As Schramm’s campaign for the Nobel prize and fostering innovation and entrepreneuership are opposing endeavors, he had not the time to do both; and as he does not personally innovate nor invent nor create companies with actual names, he figured the former path would be the safer investment for the $2.5 billion endowment he inherited/commandeered.
Never has Schramm used his throne to speak out against massive student debt, but instead he has rewarded the administrations who augmented the student debt in an unprecedented manner and bought up more land and property with hundreds of millions of dollars–stolen capital that Kauffman had meant for entrepreneurs, rather than a private citizen’s campaign for the Nobel in economics.
When entrepreneurs innovate and create, according to Schramm, they do it for selfish motivations, and that is why Kauffman cannot fund them, but only take credit for their success, while leaving them with their failures as their lines of credit are cut off by Schramm’s satatist/banking friends. But when Schramm takes credit for the wealth created by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship via his elite Kauffmun-funded PR team and Kauffman-funded vanity-press buzzword bloggers, he does it for the greater good of humanity, and thus he is the one, true pre-ordained beneficiary of Kauffman, as he is more virtuous than you, because he neither innovates nor invents, which is considered to be a crime against the Statists and the State. And over the past seven years, he and his team of elite Statists have crusaded against the true entreprneurial spirit, while seeking to take credit for entrepreneurship’s wondrous wealth creation while funneling millions to the bureuacracies/university administrations that oppose it. Name one–just one–Kauffman venture that has sprung fourth form the millions they have invested in Statist technology transfer and university dog and pony shows.
Schramm sees entreprnuers as oddball risk-takers, and that is why he will only fund his risk-free bloggers who all wear suits and ties whenever they blog. As if a man does not wear a suit and tie like Schramm, can he be trusted? Small business owners and entrepreneurs sometimes must roll up their sleeves to get the job done, and thus it would be unseemly to have them seen around/blogging for the Kauffman Foundation, which must be kept clean and pure. In addition, what if the entrepreneur fails? Surely this would be a blemish on Schramm’s sterling, pristine reputation. That is why Schramm only hangs out with Nobel Laureates and wealth socialists, winking at them each time he says “entreprnuership.” For they, and not the entrepreneur, can give him the Nobel in economics, and it is thus they who he must serve first and foremost.
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.” –Tolstoy Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence (1886)
Scrhamm and his socialist friends would have dominated in the Soviet Union, as the Statists redefine entrepreneurship as a puerile Web 2.0 riskless/centralized blogfest/PR machine/vanity press.
Yes–America still loves its entrepreneurs, but Schramm is the opposite of the entrepreneur, funding university administrations and creating vast technology transfer/entrepreneurship education bureaucracies in Schramm’s image–filled with lifelong, professional Statists who are jealous of wealth creators and entrepreneurs and pull out all the stops in opposing them.
The Kauffman funds were meant to fund entrepreneurs all across the land–not to be concentrated in one central-planner’s hands so as to build his vanity press/buzzword blogfest and further his campaign for the Nobel in ecomics, as millions of entrepreneurs lost their homes, savings, pensions, and businesses over the seven years of the central-planners’ anti-entreprneuerial leadership. Under Schrammenomics government spending has burgeoned in an unprecedented manner while corporate corruption has soared. And all the while, Schramm has remained too big to fail as the eocnomy crumbled under his anti-leadership.
How many more years is the Kauffman Board going to sit idly by as Schrammenomics funds innovationless university administrators and Statists? How many more homes, jobs, pensions, businesses, and savings must be lost, before the Kauffman Board reallocates the hundreds of millions directed towards Schramm’s vanity press/soulless, dishonorable boomer blogfest filled to the brim with conflicts of interest?
http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php#comments
“It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:
Talk talk talk talk talk talk, PR release, soundbite, soundbite, blog, blog, talk, talk, talk, PR release, talk, fund blog to review schrammenomic books with kauffman funds, talk talk talk, blog, blog blog. And the DOW goes down, down, down, along with the economy, pensions, savings, and the American Dream. Hord. Hord. Hord Kauffman funds for personal profits/book promotions/book tours. Deny entrepreneurs funding while pocketing millions meant for entrepreneurs and funding friends and schrammenomic “team players.” Write another vanity-press book. Send to sycophantic buzzword Harvard MBA/JD bloggers.
Nowhere in the Kauffman mission statement did Mr. Kauffman say that one risk-free, Machiavellian man/Statist should so dominate and transmorgify the fruits of Mr. Kauffman’s vison, service, leadership, and entrepreneurship.
Over the past seven years as the DOW plummeted, housing prices plummted, and tens of millions of American’s lost their jobs/homes/savings/penisons to Schrammenomics, Schramm has pocketed millions and doled out hundreds of millions more to university administrators and elite blogger/lawyers supporting his campaign for the Nobel in ecomomincs.
Schramm had a vast opportunity to directly fund entrepreneurs and innovation–to lead an army of entrepreneurs; but as his major goal was the Nobel in economics and not fostering wealth creation and growth, nor saving the US Constitution nor economy; he focused on PR and “being liked” and surrounding himslef with syocphantic socialists who could put on the best entrepreneuership dog and pony shows. And after seven long years of anti-entrepreneur Schrammenomics, the unemployment rate has hit an all-time high:
Under Schramm’s anti-leadership (As the WSJ article states that he is proud that nobody knows what it is that Kauffman does), Kauffman will not fund entrepreneurs nor innovators nor risk-takers, but Schramm’s purloined empire will instead merely seek to take credit for the entrepreneurs’ innovation, work, and wealth creation via PR releases.
Notice what has happened over the past seven years since Schramm took the helm of the Kauffman Foundation and redefined entrepreneurship in his own elite, “never worked a day in my life,” “never filed a patent nor launched a company with an actual name,” “too big to fail” image.
This is because Schramm sees entrepreneurs as greedy, selfish people. And that is why he receives the lion’s share of the Kauffman funds to promote his vanity press and hire an entire cabal of “growthology” bloggers and Harvard MBAs to coin new buzzwords so as to transfer more wealth into Schramm’s pocket as the economy declines. For when entrepreneurs seek money, they do it for selfish reasons. But when Schramm’s “schrammenomic” Harvard MBA/blogger/lawyer friends seek money, they do it for the greater good of society.
When entrepreneurs innovate and create, according to Schramm, they do it for selfish motivations, and thus the Statist will not fund them. But when Schramm takes credit for the wealth created by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship via his elite Kauffmun-funded Harvard MBA/PR team and Kauffman-funded vanity-press buzzword bloggers, he does it for the greater good of humanity.
Submitted by Fabian U. (Sep. 30, 2009) on September 30, 2009 - 2:40am.
People who are rich and famous have the tendency to be sycophants. Occasionally we see the word sycophants in print- and the word has more than two syllables, which means that most people and definitely country music fans have no idea what it means. Sycophants, or a sycophant, are people that suck up – in lay terms – because they're getting something out of the deal. A synonym is obsequiousness. Celebrities who have an entourage – the entourage are sycophants. Congress and the White House, those are sycophants. Check that – those are parasites. The word has gotten in the news because of Wayne Gretzky's support staff – supposedly he just got a bunch of his buddies to run a professional hockey team. Sycophants aren't worth blowing any money, payday loans or otherwise on.
THE winds of economic nationalism are blowing strong in Latin America. This is evident in the nationalist and progressive régime in Peru, the rise and fall of the leftist government in Bolivia, the changes of policy in conservative countries like Colombia and Argentina and the spectacular election of a socialist government in Chile. There are also the numerous acts of nationalization in various countries, most of which have gone largely unnoticed, while others like the nationalization of petroleum in Peru and Bolivia, natural gas in Venezuela, aluminum in Guyana and copper in Chile have reached the headlines. Furthermore, there are restrictive foreign investment statutes unanimously endorsed by the Andean Pact nations, the limitations of various kinds imposed on foreign subsidiaries even in countries, like Mexico, otherwise favorable to foreign investment, the unaccustomed incisiveness of the Latin American protest against President Nixon's New Economic Policy voiced in the meetings of the Special Co-ordination Commission of Latin America, the Inter-American Economic and Social Council of the Organization of American States and the World Bank- International Monetary Fund Annual Conference, as well as the formal withdrawal of Argentina from the Inter-American Committee of the Alliance for Progress.
Will Russia be run by democrats or oligarchs? The signs are worrying. The West would rather not dwell on the extent to which Russia's market is dominated by robber barons and permeated by crime and corruption. Russia's democracy is weak, with unfair election campaigns, a compromised media, and few checks on the presidency. The West cannot afford to let Russia descend into chaos, which might mean losing control of Russia's arsenal of weapons of mass destruction, but its two-faced NATO expansion policy hurts the democrats' chances.
Developing countries seeking economic vitality should court venture capitalists, the gutsy investors bent on creating Silicon Valleys from economic deserts.
Washington's repeated attempts to bring peace to Somalia with state-building initiatives have failed, even backfired. It should renounce political intervention and encourage local development without trying to improve governance
Comments
carl schramm's schrammenomics creates record unemploymnet
Carl Schramm’s “Schrammenomics” Creates Record Unemployment
By entrepreneurshipeconomist
Over the past seven years, Carl Schramm has presided over the least entrepreneurial and most corrupt era of American business. During these seven years he has done far more harm than good by redefining entrepreneurship in a Harvard MBA “growthology” buzzword manner that pleases his Statist friends. During the era of Schrammenomic “entrepreneurship/growthology” the government burgeoned (growthology) as tens of millions lost their pensions, savings, jobs, and homes while entrepreneurs lost their credit lines and the rising generation lost its future earnings, as the Kauffman Foundation’s endowment/hedge fund needed the TARP bailout funds to line Schramm et al.’s innovation-free pockets with millions upon millions, as the $2.5 billion endowment benefited from taxpayer bailouts for the Wall Street rich both directly and indirectly. MBA wealth-transfer, PR, hype, and the commandeering of a foundation to fund statist bloggers to further one’s personal career are the very opposite of both entrepreneurship and classical economics.
Instead of investing the Kauffman funds in entrepreneurs and innovators (as Mr. Kauffman intended), Schramm has pocketed millions for his corporate vanity press while leading and furthering double-speaking Statist philosophies, dumbing down and feminizing the university campus and replacing wealth-creating Ph.D.’s with wealth-transferring, buzzword-blogging MBAs/JDs, all the while saying one thing while doing another; as one cannot serve two masters. As Schramm’s campaign for the Nobel prize and fostering innovation and entrepreneuership are opposing endeavors, he had not the time to do both; and as he does not personally innovate nor invent nor create companies with actual names, he figured the former path would be the safer investment for the $2.5 billion endowment he inherited/commandeered.
Never has Schramm used his throne to speak out against massive student debt, but instead he has rewarded the administrations who augmented the student debt in an unprecedented manner and bought up more land and property with hundreds of millions of dollars–stolen capital that Kauffman had meant for entrepreneurs, rather than a private citizen’s campaign for the Nobel in economics.
When entrepreneurs innovate and create, according to Schramm, they do it for selfish motivations, and that is why Kauffman cannot fund them, but only take credit for their success, while leaving them with their failures as their lines of credit are cut off by Schramm’s satatist/banking friends. But when Schramm takes credit for the wealth created by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship via his elite Kauffmun-funded PR team and Kauffman-funded vanity-press buzzword bloggers, he does it for the greater good of humanity, and thus he is the one, true pre-ordained beneficiary of Kauffman, as he is more virtuous than you, because he neither innovates nor invents, which is considered to be a crime against the Statists and the State. And over the past seven years, he and his team of elite Statists have crusaded against the true entreprneurial spirit, while seeking to take credit for entrepreneurship’s wondrous wealth creation while funneling millions to the bureuacracies/university administrations that oppose it. Name one–just one–Kauffman venture that has sprung fourth form the millions they have invested in Statist technology transfer and university dog and pony shows.
Schramm sees entreprnuers as oddball risk-takers, and that is why he will only fund his risk-free bloggers who all wear suits and ties whenever they blog. As if a man does not wear a suit and tie like Schramm, can he be trusted? Small business owners and entrepreneurs sometimes must roll up their sleeves to get the job done, and thus it would be unseemly to have them seen around/blogging for the Kauffman Foundation, which must be kept clean and pure. In addition, what if the entrepreneur fails? Surely this would be a blemish on Schramm’s sterling, pristine reputation. That is why Schramm only hangs out with Nobel Laureates and wealth socialists, winking at them each time he says “entreprnuership.” For they, and not the entrepreneur, can give him the Nobel in economics, and it is thus they who he must serve first and foremost.
“I sit on a man’s back, choking him, and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by any means possible, except getting off his back.” –Tolstoy Writings on Civil Disobedience and Nonviolence (1886)
Scrhamm and his socialist friends would have dominated in the Soviet Union, as the Statists redefine entrepreneurship as a puerile Web 2.0 riskless/centralized blogfest/PR machine/vanity press.
http://blogs.forbes.com/innovation/2009/03/america-still-loves-its-entre...
Yes–America still loves its entrepreneurs, but Schramm is the opposite of the entrepreneur, funding university administrations and creating vast technology transfer/entrepreneurship education bureaucracies in Schramm’s image–filled with lifelong, professional Statists who are jealous of wealth creators and entrepreneurs and pull out all the stops in opposing them.
The Kauffman funds were meant to fund entrepreneurs all across the land–not to be concentrated in one central-planner’s hands so as to build his vanity press/buzzword blogfest and further his campaign for the Nobel in ecomics, as millions of entrepreneurs lost their homes, savings, pensions, and businesses over the seven years of the central-planners’ anti-entreprneuerial leadership. Under Schrammenomics government spending has burgeoned in an unprecedented manner while corporate corruption has soared. And all the while, Schramm has remained too big to fail as the eocnomy crumbled under his anti-leadership.
How many more years is the Kauffman Board going to sit idly by as Schrammenomics funds innovationless university administrators and Statists? How many more homes, jobs, pensions, businesses, and savings must be lost, before the Kauffman Board reallocates the hundreds of millions directed towards Schramm’s vanity press/soulless, dishonorable boomer blogfest filled to the brim with conflicts of interest?
http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php#comments
“It is interesting that Dealbreaker references Carl Shram of the Kauffman Foundation as an authority on ethics. Those of us who live in the Kansas City region know that Carl Schram and been a controversial figure since he was appointed to his post a number of years ago. Board members have resigned in protest of his leadership style and strategic choices. His controversial leadership led to the Missouri Attorney General reviewing the Kauffman Foundation for not staying true to the intent of Ewing Kauffman. The purpose of this review was stated as:
“In light of the public allegations of a departure from Mr. Kauffman’s intent, lack of appropriate oversight by the Board of Directors, and certain instances of conflicts of interest. ” (http://www.ago.mo.gov/newsreleases/2004/kauffmanreport030404.htm#conclusion)
See also this editorial from the Kansas City Business Journal (http://www.bizjournals.com/kansascity/stories/2003/09/15/editorial1.html)
Ewing Kauffman was famous as an ethical leader. Carl Schramm is not.
–http://dealbreaker.com/2007/05/the-unsurprising-failure-of-et.php#comments
http://uk.reuters.com/article/gc06/idUKTRE53H1B920090418
http://blogs.harvardbusiness.org/how-to-fix-business-schools/2009/04/can...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/business/economy/18grads.html?ref=busi...
Talk talk talk talk talk talk, PR release, soundbite, soundbite, blog, blog, talk, talk, talk, PR release, talk, fund blog to review schrammenomic books with kauffman funds, talk talk talk, blog, blog blog. And the DOW goes down, down, down, along with the economy, pensions, savings, and the American Dream. Hord. Hord. Hord Kauffman funds for personal profits/book promotions/book tours. Deny entrepreneurs funding while pocketing millions meant for entrepreneurs and funding friends and schrammenomic “team players.” Write another vanity-press book. Send to sycophantic buzzword Harvard MBA/JD bloggers.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601103&sid=aL0jFzKptwwg&refer=us
Nowhere in the Kauffman mission statement did Mr. Kauffman say that one risk-free, Machiavellian man/Statist should so dominate and transmorgify the fruits of Mr. Kauffman’s vison, service, leadership, and entrepreneurship.
Over the past seven years as the DOW plummeted, housing prices plummted, and tens of millions of American’s lost their jobs/homes/savings/penisons to Schrammenomics, Schramm has pocketed millions and doled out hundreds of millions more to university administrators and elite blogger/lawyers supporting his campaign for the Nobel in ecomomincs.
Schramm had a vast opportunity to directly fund entrepreneurs and innovation–to lead an army of entrepreneurs; but as his major goal was the Nobel in economics and not fostering wealth creation and growth, nor saving the US Constitution nor economy; he focused on PR and “being liked” and surrounding himslef with syocphantic socialists who could put on the best entrepreneuership dog and pony shows. And after seven long years of anti-entrepreneur Schrammenomics, the unemployment rate has hit an all-time high:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&q=unemployment&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=wn
Under Schramm’s anti-leadership (As the WSJ article states that he is proud that nobody knows what it is that Kauffman does), Kauffman will not fund entrepreneurs nor innovators nor risk-takers, but Schramm’s purloined empire will instead merely seek to take credit for the entrepreneurs’ innovation, work, and wealth creation via PR releases.
Notice what has happened over the past seven years since Schramm took the helm of the Kauffman Foundation and redefined entrepreneurship in his own elite, “never worked a day in my life,” “never filed a patent nor launched a company with an actual name,” “too big to fail” image.
This is because Schramm sees entrepreneurs as greedy, selfish people. And that is why he receives the lion’s share of the Kauffman funds to promote his vanity press and hire an entire cabal of “growthology” bloggers and Harvard MBAs to coin new buzzwords so as to transfer more wealth into Schramm’s pocket as the economy declines. For when entrepreneurs seek money, they do it for selfish reasons. But when Schramm’s “schrammenomic” Harvard MBA/blogger/lawyer friends seek money, they do it for the greater good of society.
When entrepreneurs innovate and create, according to Schramm, they do it for selfish motivations, and thus the Statist will not fund them. But when Schramm takes credit for the wealth created by entrepreneurs and entrepreneurship via his elite Kauffmun-funded Harvard MBA/PR team and Kauffman-funded vanity-press buzzword bloggers, he does it for the greater good of humanity.
Schrammenomics is the problem–not the solution.
rich and famous
People who are rich and famous have the tendency to be sycophants. Occasionally we see the word sycophants in print- and the word has more than two syllables, which means that most people and definitely country music fans have no idea what it means. Sycophants, or a sycophant, are people that suck up – in lay terms – because they're getting something out of the deal. A synonym is obsequiousness. Celebrities who have an entourage – the entourage are sycophants. Congress and the White House, those are sycophants. Check that – those are parasites. The word has gotten in the news because of Wayne Gretzky's support staff – supposedly he just got a bunch of his buddies to run a professional hockey team. Sycophants aren't worth blowing any money, payday loans or otherwise on.