Newt explains entrepreneurship using story – John Jonelis
VERBATIM – Chicago Venture Magazine doesn’t cover political events but when a serious presidential candidate talks about entrepreneurship, that’s an opportunity. This article will focus on that part of the talk–not the political side. After that, I have appended a riveting TED video by Simon Sinek, who makes the same point from another perspective.
Newt treats us to an illuminating and inspiring story. That’s right, a story. It’s clearly given off-the-cuff by a man who knows his subject—something I don’t expect from a politician.
We meet at a little airport around the corner from my office. We crowd together in a beautiful hangar with modern and vintage airplanes. I stand, surrounded by press photographers.
The secret service accosts me twice (I must look suspicious) but I seem to get along with these guys and they don’t throw me out on my ear.
I’ve transcribed Newt’s story as I heard it, in his quiet, plain-spoken language.
Speaker Gingrich:
He addresses a crowd packed into an enormous airplane hangar. “You know, this is a great example of American ingenuity and inventiveness, you can imagine on a campaign like this we land a lot, which also means we take off a lot—I always say the Wright Brothers succeeded again. If you look back here at these wonderful planes,” he turns to indicate a vintage Stearman and Piper Cub, “they represent the evolution of American invention.
Vintage Stearman and Piper Cub – John Jonelis
I can see he’s got the crowd’s attention. He goes on: “The Wright Brothers were two bicycle mechanics in Dayton Ohio who set out to discover how to fly. Now, being bicycle mechanics back then was a relatively high-end job. But they spent time. They studied birds. They built their own wind tunnel. And they spent years. And they knew something really important that bureaucrats don’t seem to get. THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO FLY—SO EVERYTHING THEY WERE DOING WAS AN EXPERIMENT.
“One thing the US Government did to help them: When they wrote the weather service they said, where is the best place in the United States to get an updraft—so you have a continuous wind coming up? Because that makes it easier for the airplane to get lift. Turns out to be Kitty Hawk, North Carolina, which around 1900 is a really empty, barren place.
“And so to get there from Dayton they have to take a train. So every summer they load the train with extra wood. Now, the reason they’re taking extra wood is THEY KNOW THEY DON’T KNOW HOW TO FLY.
“They go down. They get up in the morning. They live very inexpensively. They have no government grants. They haven’t applied for anything. This is all on their own money. And so they live very frugally in a little shack. They get up in the morning, fix coffee. They go out and they crash. And they stop and try to figure out what went wrong. They fix the plane and they try again. And they crash.
Newt tells the story of the Wright Brothers while in an aircraft hangar – John Jonelis
“Callista and I were very fortunate. We were at Orville Wright’s home a couple weeks ago. The curator said to us: The best estimate is that they had 500 experiments that failed. And you can imagine the congressional hearings…”
The crowd breaks into laughter.
“…because frankly, the modern political governmental system—and I’m going to use a very strong word—is just plain stupid.”
A man in the crowd blurts out: ‘That’s right.’ And face it—everybody knows it’s true. But Newt takes a lot of heat for comments like that. It’s not PC. It’s the reason so many hate him. And it’s the reason many find him so appealing at a personal level. I recall Tom Clancy’s portrayal of his hero Jack Ryan when he ascends to the White House. In that novel, his advisors cringe when he speaks because he doesn’t follow the teleprompter and the things he says seem politically wrong. Then Clancy reveals the reaction of political leaders around the world. For example, the Indian Prime Minister thinks he shows weakness but the Japanese say, ‘He is Samurai.’
The Press – John Jonelis
Newt goes on: “And I’ve been trying to figure out for the last several months how to get this across clearly to the American people. You need visionaries. Without vision, the people perish. You need somebody who understands that you get to these aircraft by starting. And you start somewhere with something that doesn’t look very big and isn’t very effective.
“The Wright Brothers keep trying and on December 17th, 1903 they crash four times. The fifth time, they fly for 53 seconds. The first powered flight in human history. Two Americans from Ohio in North Carolina.
“By the way, the first flight was shorter than the wingspan of a Boing 747 and slow enough that the one brother ran along next to the wing of the plane to make sure it didn’t flip over and kill his brother.”
That draws a lot of mirth from the audience.
Newt raises his voice. “Now here’s what makes this a miracle. Because they’ve now discovered the principle, by 1907 they fly around the island of Manhattan and one and one-half million people see an airplane for the first time. Three and a half years—that’s how fast they changed—BECAUSE THEY’D BROKEN THROUGH.”
He taps the podium with a finger. “Here’s what makes it a fascinating story: The Wright Brothers knew that they had to build a very light engine because they had to build a very light plane. And so they actually invented an engine. They had a number of patents. And these were very smart people working very hard. This is their hobby—this is not how they’re earning a living.
“By the way, the estimate by the curator at Orville Wright’s house is that their total spending was $500. Now, that’s back when money was a lot more valuable than it is today, so let’s say they spent a half a million—but in them-year-dollars they spent $500.
Crowded Hangar – John Jonelis
“The Smithsonian—the greatest scientific center in the United States at that time—gave a $50,000 grant. The Smithsonian had really smart scientists who didn’t know the number-one thing that the Wright Brothers knew. THE WRIGHT BROTHERS KNEW THEY DIDN’T KNOW HOW TO FLY. THE SMITHSONIAN THOUGHT THEY DID.
“And so the Smithsonian went out to Germans for metallurgy and built a really powerful engine. Now the problem with a very powerful engine is that it’s heavy. And that means that you have to have a real heavy airplane. And they didn’t want to go all the way to Kitty Hawk. They were in Washington DC. It was very inconvenient to go to Kitty Hawk. So they tried to find a new innovative way to get wind speed. And they invented something we still use—the catapult. Exactly like the nuclear powered aircraft carrier.
“Now there’s a problem because if you’re gonna have a catapult on a boat, you’re gonna launch over water. So they decided they’d launch over the Potomac.
“Now there’s a double problem: If you land in water, the impact of the water will break the plane up. Furthermore, the current of the river will break the plane up. And when it gets to the bottom and you try to lift it, the process of lifting it will break the plane up. So you won’t be able to figure out what didn’t work because by the time you get the plane back, nothing will work.
“But they’re very confident because they’re very smart and they have a $50,000 grant and they’ve got lots of degrees. So they go out and actually invite the press to their very first effort. Now remember, the Wright Brothers have failed 499 times, but the Smithsonian is so cocky, they’re convinced they’re gonna fly the first time. And exactly what most of you—I can tell by the look on your faces, you know what’s coming, right? They get up in the morning; the sun burns the mist off the river. They get the engine started. They launch the catapult. The plane goes straight down the length of the boat and straight into the river.”
The crowd erupts.
“Now they’ve invited the press so you can imagine the press coverage:
“SMITHSONIAN FAILS AT EFFORT TO FLY.
“PEOPLE CAN’T FLY.
“WHY ARE THEY WASTING THE TAXPAYER’S MONEY?”
Newt gets quiet again. “A little bit later, the Wright Brothers fly for the first time. It’s covered by one Associated Press reporter in a real small story. The Smithsonian is so angry that these guys who don’t have any degrees—they don’t have any government grants—they don’t get any money from the Congress—and they’ve invented flying? Their relationship is so chilly that the Wright Brothers will not give them the original plane for 37 years.”
The audience busts out in laughter and Newt is grinning. “It’s now at the Air and Space Museum in Washington.”
He pauses.
Newt tells a story - John Jonelis
“Here’s why I’m telling you this story,” he gestures around the hangar, “because these planes just inspired it. I want to get back to this innovation point ’cause this is what nobody in Washington and nobody in the elite media seems to get. The great need in America is for a visionary political leader who understands science and technology applied with conservative principles of constitutional government. Liberating the American people to discover and invent the future allows us to become more prosperous, more productive, more successful, and safer than any possible bureaucratic system! And that’s just a fact!”
The crowd bursts into deafening applause.
“…the Wright Brothers, Thomas Edison, Henry Ford—these people invented the modern world without bureaucracy!”
Newt waits for the crowd to calm down.
“In that setting, let me tell you about innovation in energy. Over the last decade, new systems have been developed that enable us to get oil and gas out of rock we couldn’t get oil and gas out of. Now, with natural gas, if you asked in 2000, they’d have said we have a 7-year supply and we’re gonna have to import liquefied natural gas from the Middle East. With the new breakthroughs and new innovation, we now have a 125 year supply, and we’re about to start exporting liquefied natural gas to China. …natural gas will add 600,000 jobs in the next decade.
“Now it turns out that the same capabilities apply to oil in North Dakota, where it’s on private land…has led to the following development: Fifteen years ago, we thought we had 150 million barrels of recoverable oil in North Dakota. Up until the middle of last week, I said we now had discovered something like 4 billion barrels of recoverable oil. Now we believe we have something on the order of 24 billion barrels of recoverable oil.
“Here’s the real kicker. They believe that with two more generations of technology, there are 500 billion barrels of oil. They’re very deep, so we don’t currently have the technology to get ‘em.
“I’m describing North Dakota.”
He pauses again and I think about the magnitude of those numbers—in a single state.
Newt raises his voice. “They talk about releasing the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and this is nonsense. We have two strategic petroleum reserves in the Unites States. One is the ingenuity of the American people and the other is called Alaska!” The crowd breaks into applause.
After the pandemonium subsides, he shifts gears.
“By the way, in North Dakota—for those of you who care about the economy—their current unemployment rate is 3.5%.”
His speech continues to build on that story and highlight specific political objectives. That’s a subject for a different journal than this one. You can find that in any newspaper–they stress politics and only politics. My goal here is to bring out the broader insights about entrepreneurship.
After he concludes his remarks, Newt and his wife, Callista greet the visitors. They each pose with me for a personal photo. Nice. I hang around and talk politics with friends.
Associated Press photographer - John Jonelis
A reporter from the Northwest Herald interviews me at length and I give him everything I can. A sweet schoolteacher proudly tells the reporter that she taught my son and I feel mellow and happy. That March 16th newspaper article sticks to the political side of the speech and uses only a few of my comments. You can find it at http://www.nwherald.com/2012/03/15/gingrich-talks-gas-prices-jobs-at-lith-rally/ar6mc4u/?page=1
And I’m struck by the bold frankness of this candidate. Not your typical politician. I can see why he makes so many people angry. He’s highly intelligent. He says what he believes—bold and clear. And whatever your political leanings, whether you like him or not—admit it—you admire that in a man.
In his simple story he’s made everybody in this airplane hangar understand what really makes entrepreneurship and this country work. I know a lot of venture capitalists and I respect what they do, but who is that other candidate that trumpets speculation as if it were macroeconomic wisdom? Today’s story brings out deeper, more fundamental truths than that. I’m left with a very specific and uplifting view of what is possible—within our reach if we can muster the will to grab it. And I heard all that in an aircraft hangar, in the suburbs of Chicago, the new, growing center for thought leadership.
And I find this job has it’s perks.
Newt and Callista Gingrich with John Jonelis
HERE’S A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE:
TED – SIMON SINEC ON THE WRIGHT BROTHERS, DR MARTIN LUTHER KING, AND APPLE
Comments on the Gingrich article started to get shrill until one turned me onto this: I’ve appended a TED video of thought leader Simon Sinek that makes exactly the same point about the Wright Brother’s but comes at it from an entirely different persepective. In this video, he makes the same concepts stick with Dr. Martin Luther King and Apple Computer. The video is absolutely riveting. Kick back and enjoy!
Simon Sinek is the author of “Start With Why: How Great Leaders Inspire Everyone to Take Action,” He writes for The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, Business Week and others. He joined the Rand Corporation in 2010.
View TED video–Simon Sinek – How Great Leaders Inspire Action
Comments please
Find Chicago Venture Magazine at
www.ChicagoVentureMagazine.com Comments and re-posts are welcomed and encouraged. This is not investment advice – do your own due diligence. I cannot guarantee accuracy but I give you my best.
© 2012 John Jonelis – All Rights Reserved.
John, I think you’ve put your toe over the line on the subject of politics. Just a toe, mind you. This is a business journal. Perhaps I’m biased. Those who support Gingrich may not see it that way. I don’t support him. I do appreciate you avoided covereag of the political side of the speech and it was a wonderful story about entrepreneurship.
I don’t agree with Janet. I don’t think you can change the article and I don’t see what you’d change. I like Santorum. I pretty sure that Janet is for Obama from other comments she’s made. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion. I’m not sure you gave an opinion in your article.
No. On reading it again you didn’t really express an opinion..
How did you pick up on my Obama connection? I try not to let politics enter these kind of discussions.
I just received an email from a well respected friend. I appreciate all comments, both positive and negative, but he seemed deeply offended by the article and thought it inappropriate for the journal. I hope he posts his comment here so people can talk them out.
In my defense–
1.) I will attempt to keep this journal on its stated goal–to promote entrepreneurship in Chicago.
2.) The subject of Newt’s story was entrepreneurship–the theme of this journal.
3.) I reported his insights on that subject verbatim. Naturally that included his opinions.
4.) Likewise for the reaction of the crowd.
5.) I reported the entrepreneureal and macroeconomic parts of the speech, not the political portion. Macroeconomics include opinion and theory.
6.) I provided a link to a newspaper article–an article critical of the political part of the event. Newspapers want to report politics. I want to report ideas.
7.) Any time a respected figure poses for a photograph with me, I’ll do it.
6.) For the record, I wish Gingrich and Santorum would get together.
8.) I won’t apologize for my views.
10.) The article went out in error at 4 am.before completion. That may explain the controversy.
Comments welcome.
Another idea occured to me regarding my verbatim report of Newt’s story. The part about the drilling was directly related to macroeconomic theory and consisted of hard facts. To be meaningful, those facts must be interpreted by theory and opinion. I might expect the same kind of thing in a college classroom, and yes, I have seen that happen every time such subjects are taught. The difference is that professors, by-and-large, seem to lean more to the left than the right. I found Newt’s interpretation of the facts meaningful to the entrepreneurial community.
Again, I’ve received a comment outside of this forum. It turns out that my memory of that Tom Clancy book was faulty and as a result, I’ve made a small correction. Thanks for the very timely heads-up.
I encourage people to step forward and enter their views right here so others can respond. I appreciate the personal comments but if you also post them here, a dialogue might get going. It’s perfectly okay to use an internet handle if you want to remain anonymous. I don’t share your email address.
John, I love the entrepreneurial side and appreciate your writing. I signed up to receive your articles because of this. In this case, I think your political views are crossing over into your entrepreneurial leadership and writing.
Newt captured a powerful story. However, I think you are risking your reputation by mixing politics into your entrepreneurship blog.
Our government DID work on behalf of the Wright brothers. It enabled them to patent. With the new patent law changes supported on both sides of the aisle, the Wright brothers might have been sued into oblivion by auto companies and others until they couldn’t commercialize their invention. The big companies would be funding ads saying that the Wright brothers were holding them hostage and preventing innovation.
Newt Gingrich delivers a wonderful speech about how drilling will help reduce the cost of gas at the pump. Newt has turned an economic issue that the president can’t hope to control into a political issue. Most people don’t realize that the price of a barrel of oil is 35% less than it was in 2008. The problem is not drilling. The problem is refinery capacity around the world. The U.S. is a net exporter of refined oil products. http://www.econbrowser.com/archives/2011/12/us_net_exports.html Even if we build more refineries here, our prices don’t go down because the refineries will sell it worldwide, and India and China are demanding more.
In the meantime, I am worried about Frack mining pollution making our water undrinkable and causing earthquakes. Water will be the new oil and we should be careful with it. Government has a role in protecting our environment because as we have seen, businesses will focus on a short term buck versus a long term problem (in case you missed the CMO’s and the real estate mess caused by failure to adhere to existing regulations, and the rollback of Glass Steagal).
Perhaps you are not concerned about a 12-15 year trend of warming at record paces. Maybe this is all natural. Or just maybe we are contributing to the problem. Why then is Newt’s big government subsidizing the oil companies? Why not raise taxes on oil, STOP subsidizing alternative energy (solar, wind, and ethanol), and let capitalism take over in finding clean energy?
Newt’s message is inspiring and perfect for the man on the street who doesn’t understand these issues (most voters), but it is highly misleading.
That’s a highly thoughful comment and I appreciate it greatly. I will try to respond in a thoughtful fashion. Perhaps someone will write in with another opinion. Maybe I’m a bit thick but there are a few things I want to understand. I’ll list a few:
1.) I don’t understand why we can’t all listen to a guy telling a rousing story. What difference does it make who it is? Why is it necessary to agree with everything he says? Nobody took issue when I agreed with Ron May in a previous article.
2.) I don’t know a more objective way to repeat a story and a crowd’s reaction than verbatim. If the attitudes of the speaker and audience come through, then I’m guilty of writing well. Help me out here. Can you suggest a better approach?
3.) In what way is my article a political editorial? It’s about entrepreurship. I reported his story about the Wright Brothers and statistics on new drilling technology. I didn’t pass opinion on the safety of flight or the hazards of drilling. Even though I agreed with most of what he said, I didn’t write about the rest of his speech, which was political and therefore not germain to the mission of this journal.
Like anybody, I have plenty of personal opinions. But if I wanted a political blog–which I don’t–I could have started one and had it online in no time flat. I am conservative but not a political animal by nature. I don’t apologize for my beliefs but want to voice them in the proper forum. I will be intentional about staying within the mission of Chicago Venture Magazine–which is all about entrepreneurship–but unless somebody can help me understand the issues in my three questions, I’ll probably blunder on and squash the same toes again. That’s something I don’t want to do. Comments please.
The guy telling the story seems to be saying that entrepreneurship is all about independent, self-made businessmen who look for nothing from the government, or anyone but themselves. It’s a very compelling story, yet is it a realistic depiction? For example, he says the only thing the Wright Brothers asked of the government was the location of the most dependable updraughts in the US. The investment required to provide that information alone was considerable – requiring weather stations throughout the massive landscape of our country. Gingrich also notes that the Wright Brothers had patents, which are supported by a massive bureaucracy. He does not mention that they also defended these patents in the court system, again a significant government organization established for their protection.
The other entrepreneurs he mentions – Edison and Ford, were not bootstrappers. Both depended on outside capital to build their businesses. And both men took full advantage of the patent system.
He does not mention that much of the energy technology he praises was developed with government support. Nor does he acknowledge the existence of any successful government-supported research programs, such as the space program and its many technology advances that have made their way into the private sector and everyday life. While he much much fuss of the Smithsonian’s failures, he does not admit to their successes, such as their successful unmanned flight.
The Wright Brothers, Edison and Ford are all much to be admired. Yet we must not kid ourselves about the context in which they lived and worked. All benefited considerably from government protections made at significant public expense.
Isn’t that a bit like saying that riding a bus is the same as driving a car because the road was build by the local government?
Driving a car is driving a car, and nothing more. Is a car driver more talented than a bus rider? We don’t know that, we only know that one chose to drive, the other to ride. Is the car driver more independent than the bus rider, because the driver asks only a road of the government and not a bus and driver as well? Not necessarily, since the private car may use more of that public resource. On a per rider basis, the driver takes up more space on the road than the rider. And single passenger cars put more weight and hence more wear on the road. Many other factors come into play, such as emissions and law enforcement, even parking space. And where did the driver learn to drive – in a public school, perhaps?
Nobody’s utterly independent, no captain of industry is completely self-made. It is one thing to admire successful businessmen, another to build mythology around them.
This is getting to be fun. I stand amazed at the detailed thought and intricate connections made by those of you kind enough to write in.
My point about “car vs. bus” was indeed meant as a simple idea. The car enables much more freedom of movement, especially outside the city. I think all the points posted by Meta and “No Politics Here” are wonderful. Those posts point out many interesting connected facts. Which facts are pertinent to the story is a question of your point of view.
I still sorely need an answer to my three questions. I did get one. It was face-to-face. He said, “Simply mentioning the name Newt Gingrich changes the article from one about entrepreneurship to a political piece.” But even so, I’d like to think that a public figure who comes to my back yard and talks about entrepreneurship in a positive light gets quoted here.
OK, let me address your three items directly.
1) Storytellers usually have a point to make. This storyteller certainly did. We listen, we try to discern the storyteller’s moral, and we evaluate it. That’s what thinking readers do. It would be a pretty sad state of affairs if we accepted every story without this process.
2) You repeated the story verbatim. That’s good. If I understand correctly, you see what you repeated as apolitical. Others don’t see it the same way, and said so. Isn’t that the point of inviting discussion?
3) I would not have described your post as an editorial. Yet you are reporting the statements of a politician speaking in a political context – there are many political implications in those statements. It would be an insult to a politician to suggest that his remarks have no political implications, even if the politician denies that. That’s the nature of the game.
No matter who had made the statements you posted, they would not be apolitical. Business is inherently political. Even science has many political implications.
Thank you, Meta. You have answered much of what I needed to understand. I value your thoughts and have to say, I agree with that post.
Your last comment offers an incredibly insight: “No matter who had made the statements you posted, they would not be apolitical. Business is inherently political. Even science has many political implications.” FYI, I actually wanted say something like that after your first post. I restrained myself. If I personally expound on such things I will indeed be making political hay. Better for me to let others weigh in. I want to promote thought and dialogue–not argue against it. Thank you so much for bringing that up.
The verbatim approach has worked for me in the past. But what has worked better is the use of fictional characters who can argue both sides of an issue. For example, the previous article on IMSA: Alexander Harbinger Ph.D. is a fictional character. Bill Blaire is someone who frequently writes on my book blog at johnjonelis.com. He allowed me to use his name to create another fictional character based on an exaggeration of his voice. Probably because of their entertainment value, those articles get a lot of positive response and don’t raise so much anger.
On the other hand, this is a political season and I truly value the comments so far and look forward to the ideas that people might yet raise.
Thanks again for addressing my three questions.
What’s all this? Meta Brown, who wrote the most intellectual-sounding comments is critical but ends with the assertion that all business is political? If that is so, anything written in pursuit of the stated purpose of this journal is political. And again, if that is so, why should the writer hold back personal opinion?
Thoughful personal opinion is a right those of us in the USA share. The expression of that opinion is a right we share. There is no way that talking politics diminishes the status of this as a business journal.
I say open the floodgates!
A very basic ideological issue is brewing here. At the risk of sounding pedantic, let me highlight the two forms of political thought most prevalent in the USA:
Some believe in a top-down form of governance. Under this model, the government enables all progress. Anybody who holds a different opinion is either ignorant, misinformed or just plain stupid. This is called liberal thought and at its extreme, socialism. Many highly-intelligent people tend toward this kind of thinking because they are keenly aware of faults in the ideas of others.
Others believe in a bottom-up model. This view holds that EVERYBODY deserves an opinion. The government is FOR and BY the people. It’s role is to prevent anarchy, provide infrastructure–military and police protection, public facilities, and enabling laws that prevent misuse of freedom. The courts, roads, and patent office fit that model. This is called conservatism. I see these two views as points on a circle because at it’s extreme, conservatism becomes libertarianism, which ironically shares many views with liberal thought.
My view is conservative. As I see it, government facilitates progress with very high-level research that is not economically viable or relevant for private business,such as the Moon Mission and the Manhattan Project. Government does not create entrepreneurship. It can’t. Individuals are entrepreneurs. It’s a state of mind–a type of personality. Bureaucrats do not create the next big idea. What government can do is foster an environment in which entrepreneurship will either thrive or wither.
The story uses the Smithsonian (as it once was structured) as a foil to the individual dreamer. That’s what makes it so inspiring. Pollution, global warming, social, and ethical issues loom in the background but they are not the point of the story. The inventiveness and determination of the individual is the point of the story.
I believe the article is a fine example of a story about entrepreneurship. Bravo to John for bringing it to us. If this turns out to be Newt Gingrich’s last word, I believe he stated it well.
Thanks for the good words. I actually like the controversy and debate. What concerned me was the strong personal reaction from a friend.
I came across this TED video with a similar story about the Wright Bros.
http://www.ted.com/talks/simon_sinek_how_great_leaders_inspire_action.html
Great ideas, but I think sooner or later somebody has to say it “Americans have become fat and lazy. We should lead the World by solving problems. Regarding job-creation, it will never come from government programs and it never has.
As a nation we have lazily become very incremental about everything, including innovation. Small steps are all we’re willing to even consider.
I’m following a guy in Austin, TX – Andrew West. He has the right idea: SOLVE problems with economically-viable solutions and the resulting demand will create jobs. He has tackled the
construction industry by enabling high-rise apts/condos for 50% less and in half the time. And clean energy, education, agriculture and more effective charitable giving.
It’s going to be disruptive.
There is an Intro here: http://www.Solutioneur.com
He’s also working on healthcare.
I saw that. It’s just great. Nothing short of fabulous.
They used to call it “Voodoo Economics.” Then when it showed promise, “Reaganomics.” After it kicked into gear in the mid 80s the scoffers didn’t back down. They called it “Trickle-down Economics.” When the Reagan’s economic revolution kept bearing fruit for more than 20 years, other presidents took credit for the prosperity.
John Jonelis sent me an article on entreprepreneurism he wrote which told a story about the Wright brothers. John happenened to hear the story at a political event. The article’s message (at least to me) was an excellent reminder that entrepreneurism is not easy, and often you have to hang in there to hopefully succeed. As an entrepreneur myself, that’s a good reminder. Great job, John.
I was surprised to then read all the reader comments focusing on everything but John’s major message… global refinery capacity, Frack mining, government-supported research programs including the space program, and then a summary of top-down versus bottom-up government models. You can sure tell this is an election year.
Pingback: 5 KEYS TO BIG FISH AND INVENTION – John Jonelis – SoshiTech
This site truly has all of the information I wanted about this subject and
didn’t know who to ask.
That article is what he said and only that. I like what he said. It rings true. That’s why it’s not smart politics.