"Additionally, I would take a machete to the bureaucracy that the legislature overseas and the President appoints people to." Gotta do this first or else the administrative state will just take over. One other thing about Elon Musk. He did an interview with the Babylon Bee and they asked about his money. He explained that at every turn, he put every thing he had into the next thing. No private islands, no hedge funds, no real estate investments. If SpaceX or Tesla goes bankrupt, he will be bankrupt. I was astounded and amazed. He is really remarkable and a great example of what can be achieved.
Of course term limits would be great. It's been talked about forever. I'll disagree with you about 3 terms for senators. That's 18 years. I think they should get a real job after 12.
A bit off topic, but your point about family political dynasties is pertinent. In some of your previous writing you've highlighted the closed nature of Chicago's startup/capital networks vs. the open networks of San Francisco. I'd be interested to see you expand that idea past the business world to more general society.
One doesn't have to believe anything about race in the system to see there is a closed network issue in the NFL. The hiring of Lovie Smith is just another example. While he is African American he's also a known quantity of the system. It's not hard to see that qualified people are neither very well identified nor hired. It's also not hard to see that African Americans probably have a harder time getting into these networks than others.
I think a lot of our current cultural discussions around opportunity and discrimination would be more insightful if we looked at the closed vs. open nature of networks. Even those discussions will frequently be hard. Similar to the NIMBYs identified in French's article, imagine the fight in the Ivy League if there were a serious effort to reduce legacy admissions.
I think you are correct and I have said the lack of funding for non-white non-male founders isn't discrimination. It's lack of network. It's also a lack of the ability of non-white non-male founders to sell the company to investors so they understand how big the return could be.
I think that the closed network thing hurts new entrants in coaching for sure, unless they have a link. So, a Belichek hire will "represent" Bill Belichek at their next stop. Similar for colleges. Conversely, look at basketball AAU programs. Lots and lots of black coaches and heads of programs in those.
"Additionally, I would take a machete to the bureaucracy that the legislature overseas and the President appoints people to." Gotta do this first or else the administrative state will just take over. One other thing about Elon Musk. He did an interview with the Babylon Bee and they asked about his money. He explained that at every turn, he put every thing he had into the next thing. No private islands, no hedge funds, no real estate investments. If SpaceX or Tesla goes bankrupt, he will be bankrupt. I was astounded and amazed. He is really remarkable and a great example of what can be achieved.
Of course term limits would be great. It's been talked about forever. I'll disagree with you about 3 terms for senators. That's 18 years. I think they should get a real job after 12.
A bit off topic, but your point about family political dynasties is pertinent. In some of your previous writing you've highlighted the closed nature of Chicago's startup/capital networks vs. the open networks of San Francisco. I'd be interested to see you expand that idea past the business world to more general society.
David French outlines the issue pretty well for the NFL at https://newsletters.theatlantic.com/the-third-rail/61fc2e3b6c908600204d373a/nfl-brian-flores-discrimination/ Quoting from another source in his article, "Eleven of 32 head coaches are related to a current or former NFL coach."
One doesn't have to believe anything about race in the system to see there is a closed network issue in the NFL. The hiring of Lovie Smith is just another example. While he is African American he's also a known quantity of the system. It's not hard to see that qualified people are neither very well identified nor hired. It's also not hard to see that African Americans probably have a harder time getting into these networks than others.
I think a lot of our current cultural discussions around opportunity and discrimination would be more insightful if we looked at the closed vs. open nature of networks. Even those discussions will frequently be hard. Similar to the NIMBYs identified in French's article, imagine the fight in the Ivy League if there were a serious effort to reduce legacy admissions.
I think you are correct and I have said the lack of funding for non-white non-male founders isn't discrimination. It's lack of network. It's also a lack of the ability of non-white non-male founders to sell the company to investors so they understand how big the return could be.
I think that the closed network thing hurts new entrants in coaching for sure, unless they have a link. So, a Belichek hire will "represent" Bill Belichek at their next stop. Similar for colleges. Conversely, look at basketball AAU programs. Lots and lots of black coaches and heads of programs in those.