Architecture Made Easy, Part 8

The Mind-Set of MenUnderstanding the mind-sets of others is the first important step toward relating to them. There are mind-sets rooted in gender, generation, ethnicity, language, local culture, nationality, politics, religiosity, sexual orientation, sociability, athleticism, education, professional vocation, and income levels.

These mind-sets form the value systems, motivations and the fabric of social interactions.

The mind-set crucial for a successful business enterprise, which Ayn Rand describes as producers, entrepreneurs, innovators, and inventors, is the mind-set of men and women that generate business activity and wealth. These producers provide their efforts in exchange for fair compensation in capitalistic trade.

One step away from these top producers there are employees who willingly trade their efforts and intellect with producers in exchange for wealth in capitalistic trade.

Two steps further away are those that receive their wealth from employees of capitalistic trade. This group consists of the families and dependents of employees who the employee willingly supports; and, as such, dependents are also participants in capitalistic trade.

Three steps away are those that receive wealth indirectly from producers and employees of capitalistic trade, which comprise two groups.

The first are the individuals that offer their efforts and intellect to protect and facilitate capitalistic trade and safety for all citizens. This includes law enforcement, fire and rescue, the military, national security, members of the legal system, and members of local, state and federal legislature. Although three steps away from the production of wealth, these individuals are all an integral part of the capitalistic system.

Then there are those that do not offer their efforts or intellect to assist in the production of wealth, the facilitation of capitalistic trade, or promote the safety of the citizenry. These individuals either receive wealth from the willing charity of others within the capitalistic system, such as the town bum or the downtrodden family that the community willingly cares for, or they receive their wealth from the seizure of wealth from others.

Interestingly, those that receive wealth from the willing charity of others are still part of capitalism system, while those that receive wealth from it being seized from others are not. The other distinction is that charities funded willingly are generally operated by volunteers and religious organizations, while organizations funded by seized wealth require wasteful government bureaucratic systems.

The primary difference among all of the above-mentioned groups is that they have distinct mind-sets, particularly involving “economic self-reliance.”

While there are exceptions, those furthest from top producers are more likely to have a mind-set where they are reliant upon others.

It can be argued that welfare families breed future generations of welfare families not because they are trapped in an economic and educational circumstance, but instead because they are unwittingly trapped in an economic mind-set of dependence.

Likewise, it can be argued that families of self-reliance breed future generations of self-reliance not because they are in a particular economic and educational circumstance, but instead because they are also unwittingly trapped in an economic mind-set of self-reliance.

Unfortunately, the greater the number of individuals trapped in an economic mind-set of dependence, the greater the economic burden becomes on those trapped in an economic mind-set of self-reliance.

When the burden of dependents begins to slow the engine of capitalist trading, employees and their dependents start to slide from the productive side to the non-productive side, placing further strain on the engine of production, causing more individuals to slide to the non-productive side.

Now that we have been introduced to the mind-sets of self-reliance and dependency, we are ready to introduce the next concept that we will need for our discussion.

The Effect of PrinciplesWe have all learned the value of adhering to guiding principles with lessons like always being polite to others by saying “please” and “thank you.” Many of us also understand the fact that the particular principles adopted, either personally or for our organizations, can profoundly influence our ability to achieve our objectives.

But take a moment to look at the bigger picture and consider which principles champion the best efforts of men, encourage the most productive operational workflows, and cultivate the most profitable business expansion.

At both Ford Motor Company and Firestone Tire, the principle of “Quality is Job #1” provided all staff members the justification to overcome objections of those who would otherwise crank out defects in order to keep the assembly line moving. One aspect that contributes to the efficacy of principles is that they are the most effective means to penetrate the entire breadth and depth of an organization. Principles also operate across larger areas as well, such as across military theaters, national politics, or global economics.

The chief advantage of principles over rules and policies as a tool for influencing decision making is that one does not need to anticipate each specific circumstance in which a principle may be applicable. Principles automatically apply to any situation where they simply appear applicable. As such, principles are particularly effective in complex areas of economic production, and can have the effect of rapidly compelling economic production in either a positive or negative direction.

For example, Russia at the end of the 1800s went from being the world’s largest exporter of wheat, and having just quadrupled its iron ore production to 2.7 billion kilograms in just over a decade, to plummeting into being a major importer of wheat and having its mining industry collapse in under a decade when its capital markets reacted to shifts in economic principles.

Likewise, principles are particularly capable of influencing the outcome of military conflicts. History repeatedly demonstrates how massive military forces and economies are no match against surprisingly smaller militaries and economies that operate under more effective principles.1 Not only are the effects of principles distinct from those of rules, but systems of principles will either direct masses of individuals with the acumen of genius or the ungainliness of ineptitude.2

Where Principles and Mind-Sets MeetMind-sets are adopted by individuals who see themselves as sharing the values of a particular group, and once adopted they have the effect of influencing the behavior of an individual at an emotional level. As such, mind-sets are paradigms chosen by the individual, consciously or unconsciously, that are incorporated into the emotional responses of the individual.

Principles, on the other hand, are paradigms that are often introduced from an external source that usually are adopted by individuals as a process of reasoning. Another characteristic of principles is that they operate across mind-sets, albeit to varying degrees.

Regardless of whether the principle will have a positive or negative effect toward achieving its intended goals, what many fail to realize is that the efficacy of any principle will be determined by the degree to which the principle is in harmony with the mind-sets of individuals.

Therefore, the first principle regarding principles is that principles must not conflict with human nature.

As such, principles that reward producers for their ability to achieve better results will always outperform principles that do not. Would the NY Yankees fare well as a ball club if they did not reward players for outperforming other players? Would a company fare well if they did not reward their top producers more than other employees?

It is consistent with both human nature and sound economic principles to expect wealth in exchange for one’s efforts. The act of seizing the value of one individual’s efforts to redistribute it to another is the act of enslaving one individual for the benefit of another.

Since the enslavement of one individual for the benefit of another is inconsistent with human nature, the principle that “one man is his brother’s keeper,” taken to an extreme, will not motivate men to adopt it into their behavior in the same manner as they would if the principle were consistent with human nature.

The Anatomy of a BusinessAs companies grow into having many departments, they begin to operate under different mind-sets. The mind-set of some departments will be so different that they will actually be found to oppose the mind-sets of other departments.

If we focus on the parts of the company that generate business activity versus the parts that do not, the mind-sets that are most at odds are the mind-sets of the profit centers versus cost centers; one example of this is also known as “the business” versus “IT,” where “the business” is generating all of the profits and “IT” is generating the preponderance of expenses.

Profit centers are the engine of every company, driven by producers who trade their efforts for their own benefit. These are the sales men and women, the deal makers, and the creators of wealth that keep the world economy continually growing.

Producers excel when they are provided the opportunity to operate in an environment that motivates them as individuals. The key principle that motivates individuals to create wealth is “freedom,” and it is no accident that freedom is the core principle at the foundation of the economic system of capitalism.

Invented by the ancient Greeks with the advent of private property, the simple reason that capitalism is the most productive form of wealth creation ever attempted in history is that it is the system whose principles are consistent with human nature.

As practical evidence, when given the opportunity, capitalistic principles rapidly create the most vibrant and powerful economies and raise the standard of living of its citizens by motivating individuals to freely participate in the creation of their own wealth.

Although the principles of capitalism are to be found operating with the realm of profit centers, the principles that operate within cost centers are quite distinct.

In theory, cost centers exist at the pleasure of profit centers. Cost centers assist the profit centers to increase productivity, enhance efficiency, support record keeping, perform regulatory reporting, service customers, and render information back to management to facilitate informed decision making.

When it comes to the mind-set of wealth creation, cost centers are far from the front lines of deal making and business generation. As such, the success of cost centers cannot be measured in the same way as profit centers, such as by how much revenue they generate.  Instead, cost centers must be inexactly measured by their ability to deliver services at a competitive cost compared to external alternatives.

As a result, instead of being hired strictly for their ability to produce, individuals in cost centers are hired for what and how much they know. Instead of being hired for their ability to apply capitalistic principles, individuals in cost centers are hired for their ability to adhere to policies, follow standards, and to perform activities that are not directly associated with the creation of wealth.

Unlike the thriftiness of producers to spend just what they need to solve a problem, the individuals in cost centers often strive to purchase solutions that are the biggest and most expensive across the entire industry as a means to pad their resume with impressive skills and experience. If individuals in cost centers were to adhere to capitalistic principles, they should have to understand the business problem and strive to identify the best range of options that should be presented in business terms to the profit centers for the profit center to decide.

Furthermore, instead of continually striving to minimize expenses like profit centers would, cost center management is often incentivized to amass as large a staff as possible and to secure the largest budget possible. In the collective mind-set of the cost center manager, the larger and more expensive the cost center, the greater the compensation package for managing it.

Similar to bigger government, the bigger cost centers become, the greater the tax that must be levied upon producers to finance it; unfortunately, the parallelism continues.

As with the citizenry, the less producers understand, the less equipped they are to reason and oppose expenditures. If producers demand that cost centers must clearly identify a return on investment (ROI) for major expenditures, they are informed that there is no way to calculate a business ROI involving complex technology.

Not unlike the illustrations of author Ayn Rand, the mind-set of the collective operates in the absence of reason and transparency. The mind-set of the collective tends to make decisions in committees in order to avoid individual accountability for decisions. The rationalization of the collective is often justified as being for the “general good.” Although Rand was referring to governmental agencies, the analogy applies equally to the mind-set of cost centers.

When profit centers attempt to rein in expenses by reducing their discretionary requests on cost centers, cost centers often respond by increasing the non-discretionary spending to support automation, thereby permitting cost centers the luxury of maintaining their high headcount and growing infrastructure.

The terminology used by cost centers to explain their higher costs are commonly shrouded with vague forms of mysticism, such as, “the increased costs are necessary need to keep the lights on,” or “you have to pay for running water.” A cost center manager in a large financial conglomerate reasoned away large expenses as, “the business has to pay for air.” This resembles the government wanting to charge a carbon tax on energy consumption for the air we breathe.

Then, when profit centers desperately put a halt to all maintenance and new development of automation systems, cost centers typically respond with unilaterally determining what profit centers need. It is the mind-set of the collective that asserts that they know what producers need better than the producers themselves.

This is analogous to government officials dragging their unwilling citizenry along with them into new major spending programs for the “public good,” which further hinders their ability to compete.

How Did it Happen?In the beginning, producers are the men of action; and although they are focused upon their goal, they have their hand in or visibility into the efforts of others that support their activities, like our government at the onset, supporting and protecting the interests of producers by facilitating an environment of free commerce. At the beginning, producers within businesses and the economy as a whole enjoy rapid growth from the partnership of wealth creation.

This lasts until the business grows beyond a certain size, and then producers and cost centers begin to lose touch with one another.

Before long some of those in cost centers realize that they are able to offer less than their best efforts without being detected; they trade hours for dollars, and get rewarded because they show up on time. They are well liked for their pleasantness, and they give the appearance that they do what their managers ask of them.

Cost centers initially keep pace with the increased business volume of the producers, and sometimes develop excess capacity that allows them to stay ahead of the demand for their services. As cost centers expand, policies, rules, and standards are instituted, and then soon after, a bureaucracy is born.

The bureaucracy goes through its childhood and adolescent years rapidly taking on a life of its own. Suddenly it starts making its own demands upon the producers.

Parents who are successful at parenting are able to rein in their children. Producers who are successful at managing their business are able to rein in their cost centers.  However, as the size and sophistication of cost centers increase, producers often lose control, only to become hostages of their own cost centers, just as industry and the citizenry can become hostages to an ever-expanding government bureaucracy.

SafeguardsThe safety mechanism intended to prevent government bureaucracy from overwhelming the rights of individuals in the “American experiment” was our United States Constitution and Bill of Rights. Unfortunately, according to many, subtle contradictions and loopholes in the Constitution allowed the collectivist mind-set to undermine what was originally intended by our founders as limited government, thereby allowing government to gradually overreach and establish an endless number of ways to redistribute wealth from producers and increase the size of government.

Although the founders had been astute in ensuring the separation of church and state, the lack of separation between “capitalist enterprise” and “government regulation” had been greviously overlooked.

If the nation’s capitalist enterprise had been off limits to government regulation, the government would have been restricted to providing safety and security to the citizenry. Economic growth would proceed unimpeded by the destructive forces of government when it becomes involved in influencing production and the use of capital. With the proper restraints on government, the collectivist mind-set could not interfere with free trade, and our nation would have avoided massive business failures involving many railroads, banks, and the financial system that was caused by government interference leading up to WWI.

For example, leading up to WWI, three transcontinental railroads built with government help ended in bankruptcy court3, whereas railroads built without any land grants or a penny of government assistance were highly successful, such as James Jerome Hill’s Great Northern.

Insufficient to protect the economic system, the loopholes in the constitution facilitated the creation of some of the most damaging legislation to the economy, such as the anti-trust laws that began with the Sherman Act of 1890.

Under the vague and conflicting anti-trust laws, if a businessman charged prices that some politicians consider too high, too low, or the same as others, he faced criminal prosecution for creating a monopoly, an environment of unfair competition, or a conspiracy. This body of legislation prohibited companies from using the same sound business practices as the first company to do so, and penalized companies if they under-produced or overproduced. The legal treatment afforded to actual criminals was far superior to that afforded businessmen. In contrast, actual criminals are protected with objective laws, objective procedures, objective rules of evidence, and a presumption of innocence until proven guilty.

Worse still, these constitutional loopholes permitted the government to create the Federal Reserve System that artificially regulated interest rates uneconomically low, flooding the economy with money through the 1920s fueling a credit bubble, inevitably precipitating the crash of 1929 and bringing industry to a near halt by 1932.

Still worse, the removal of the gold standard, which began in 1913 in the United States and in Great Britain in 1931, made it possible for governments to conduct deficit spending by printing more money, and in 1927 the Federal Reserve Banks were given the green light to print paper reserves beyond the gold that backed the US currency.

In other words, as more money was printed the value of accumulated wealth decreases. Through legislation, the government provided itself the license to seize the value of accumulated wealth from its citizenry whenever it wished so that it could redistribute the appropriated wealth to wield influence across the nation and around the world. The gold standard was the only safeguard that blocked the path of the welfare statist from seizing wealth through deficit spending.

Conflict with Human NatureThe mind-set of the collective treats men and the property of men as an economic resource that is available for the taking.

The problem with the mind-set of treating producers and the property of men as an economic resource available to seize is that this mind-set is not consistent with human nature and the precepts of private property.

Individuals must decide what is best for them. The “free” market is the most objective arbiter of who gets what and how much, as it rewards those that participate on the side of wealth production and protection.

The government cannot create wealth any more than cost centers can. As the budgets for cost centers increase, the less capital there will be available for producers to address unforeseen circumstances or to take advantage of opportunities in the marketplace. Likewise, the government only serves to reduce the wealth that the economy can create by removing capital or reducing the value of wealth that would otherwise be available for use in production.

The conflict with human nature includes the vagaries offered as justification, such as it is “for the common good,” “in the public interest,” or “for the general good.” Men of intellect know that these are undefined and indefinable concepts. The public is only some number of individual men. Nothing is good or can be good for the tribe or the public, as good can only be pertinent at the level of the individual.

For something to be given to the so-called tribe, it must be taken from some group of individuals. It is not possible for everyone to benefit when there is a victim either being enslaved of having their property seized. The concept of the group being better off is only ever at the expense of the higher principle of individual rights. This too conflicts with human nature.

Imagine a hospital that treats the group instead of the individual.

However, if one considers that the common good is taken to mean the good of the majority over the minority, then the result is mob rule. This is where the majority has the right to enslave the minority. Mob rule always conflicts with the proper nature of man.

This is why our founders established the United States Senate with two senators no matter how small or sparsely populated the state. This feature was specifically intended to protect the small states from mob rule. It ensured that legislation would have to benefit both the large and small state alike.

Even when the collective is the minority, the majority can be enslaved.  As soon as the rights of men are ignored, collectivists will often achieve their objectives by moving quickly with surprise on their side, using force if necessary, dragging the majority along with them.

Cost centers have been known to employ a similar approach by threatening an increased risk of service disruption if increased expenditures are not approved.

How to Fix It?Just as the capitalist north challenged the pro-slavery collectivists of the south, the way to fix the problem is to begin by returning to basic principles.

To refute the mind-set of the collective, one has to go way back to the beginning and start with the most basic of principles about men.

The principle of man, which separates him from the other species, is that man is a rational being, and only survives because of his mind. In contrast, other species survive because of physical traits, such as being stronger, faster, or more prolific. Man, on the other hand, only survives and thrives with the use of his mind to achieve even the most basic of survival.

Man needs a process of thought to plant his food, to make weapons for hunting, or to build the simplest of shelters. Instincts will not tell man how to light a fire, weave cloth, forge tools, make a wheel, detect and combat infections, or manufacture a nuclear power plant. Hence, the survival of man depends upon this knowledge, which can only be achieved by rational thought.

Rational thought is solely the domain of the individual. There is no such thing as a collective brain.

Men can learn from one another, but learning requires a process of thought on their own. Men can cooperate on an intellectual endeavor with one another, but cooperation requires that each individual employ his/her own individual faculty for them to participate. Hence, reason is man’s sole means of survival.

The success of an individual, or the rise and fall of civilization, is commensurate with the degree of rational thought that prevails. The success of a nation or of a company is no different.

The choice to exercise one’s rationality depends upon the individual and the principles that motivate the individual that are not in conflict with human nature. Hence, everything begins with the inalienable rights that belong to each and every individual; rights that no other individual should trample.

When it comes to protecting the rights of the citizenry, upholding the Constitution and the Bill of Rights is what protects them. If the Constitution is not being upheld, the way to fix it is for the citizens to demand that their representatives ensure that it is upheld, else they should be voted out of office in exchange for representatives that will.

When it comes to protecting the rights of profit centers, there are a number of things to consider, beginning first with the image with which companies portray capitalism.

It has become widespread for companies to apologize for being profitable, as if profitability should be associated with taking unfair advantage of customers, or benefiting excessively in an environment where others are experiencing general financial difficulty. These same companies then wonder why collectivists become increasingly emboldened to seize and control the productive output of their producers.

When political correctness is permitted a hand in creating the image of our major corporations, these companies eventually only reap what they have sown, namely collectivism.

In sharp contrast, capitalists, like Donald Trump, do not apologize for making a profit. Instead, Trump is openly proud of the jobs he creates and the families that are supported by those jobs. He is also proud of the fact that his employees give him their best efforts; and, in turn, they are proud to work for one of his companies. The mind-set of Trump’s employees is clearly that of free capitalistic trade.

“I work for nothing but my own profit – which I make by selling a product they need to men who are willing and able to buy it. I do not produce it for their benefit at the expense of mine, and they do not buy it for my benefit at the expense of theirs; I do not sacrifice my interests to them nor do they sacrifice theirs to me; we deal as equals by mutual consent to mutual advantage – and I am proud of every penny that I have earned in this manner.” – Atlas Shrugged

In fact, only a highly profitable company can be beneficial to its producers, employees and investors. After all, a highly profitable company is also good for its customers who gladly patronize its products and services, the vendors that it patronizes, and local, state and federal government that benefit from the various income, sales and property taxes, as well as fees, dues, and tolls.

Therefore, the first step is to render the collectivist mind-set a major setback by proudly communicating clear and consistent principles of free capitalistic trade both within and outside the company.

In fact, “for profit” corporations should proudly associate their company image with free capitalistic trade in clear opposition to all collectivist mind-sets.

Second, when it comes to protecting the rights of profit centers, the producers of profit centers must use rational thought to determine how their cost centers should operate.

As in any system that is based on free capitalistic trade, cost centers should only ever offer their services and proposals for the profit centers to decide upon. Freedom only comes when both parties must agree to the trade, where neither can impose its will upon the other.

The use of reason, persuasion, and the right to dissent are all valid tools with which decision making should be conducted by profit centers and cost centers alike. However, a framework that lays the foundation for the protection of producers is also needed.

Capitalism is fully dependent upon the use of reason, with principles that conform to human nature. However, the protection that is afforded the citizenry stems from a constitution and a bill of rights.

Likewise, to ensure the appropriate relationship is maintained between producers and their cost centers, we need the appropriate “for profit” company constitution and bill of rights.

“For Profit” Company SafeguardsThroughout history the men of commerce, the prime movers, creators, innovators, inventors, entrepreneurs and producers have been the minority from which everyone else has derived huge benefit.

This unique minority has created more wealth and has contributed more to raising the standard of living than other group. Not surprisingly, this unique minority has also been blamed time and time again for the failed policies and interference of academic intellectuals, politicians, and labor leaders.

In contrast, if we were to transport the academic intellectuals, politicians, and labor leaders back in time to medieval times, it would be interesting to see how well they would fare in improving the standard of living of the masses.

Likewise, if we were to remove the producers of our profit centers and replaced them with the collectives from our cost centers, it would be interesting to see how long the company would remain profitable.4

Many seemingly normal Americans fall into the trap of collectivist thought. They find a certain appeal to things like FDR’s second bill of rights5, which stated things like, “That everyone has the right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation.” But no one considers where this job that someone has a right to is coming from and who would be paying for it.

Another of FDR’s ideas in his second bill of rights was, “The right of every family to a decent home.” Again, no one is concerned with whose property must be seized in order to fund this collectivist right.

“Free healthcare for all,” only sounds like a good idea until one realizes that it requires the enslavement of doctors or, in some cases, the forced drafting of them into the Army in countries like Belgium to prevent them from fleeing the country.

Unless they own their own business, many average Americans simply do not understand the concepts of wealth creation and property rights.

They actually confuse the right of all individuals to earn a job, or to earn a home from hard work, with the act of being given a job or the act of being given a home without doing anything to earn it. In the collectivist mind, you deserve stuff just for existing. A clear failure of our educational system, there is no limit to what Americans think they should get for free.

Likewise for a company, a failure of employee orientation leads to astonishing list of things that employees of “for profit” companies think they have the right to get for free from the employer.

Therefore, starting at the interview process and continuing through the initial employee orientation and possibly subsequent ones, all employees should become familiar with the fact that cost centers exist at the pleasure of profit centers.

Large conglomerates may wish to go one step further and incorporate a Producer Declaration of Independence within their corporate bylaws. As an example:

Producer Declaration of Independence

1. Two producer bodies must approve all economic decisions of cost centers.
2. The number of representatives of each profit center in the first body is proportional to the profits generated by each profit center.
3. Each profit center will have two representatives in the second body, regardless of size. This will ensure that the most profitable profit centers do not enslave the least profitable.
4. All cost center management may be required by profit centers to learn the business of the profit centers they support.
5. Profit centers may reorganize cost centers at their discretion.
6. Every staff member has the ability to report waste and opportunities for improvement in an open and transparent manner.
7. Every cost center must be operated as a transparent business in open competition with external vendors that commit to an equivalent level of transparency.
8. At the discretion of profit centers, cost centers may be made to incorporate as separate wholly owned subsidiaries that openly compete to provide services to profit centers.

Summary

For a profit center to operate successfully within the marketplace, it cannot permit its cost centers to drift toward a collectivist mind-set. To remain successful the principles of free capitalist trade must thrive across the full breadth and depth of even the largest corporate conglomerates.

At the same time, it may not always be best for each profit center to operate with complete independence from the whole. It is, however, the profit centers that need to come together and act in their combined self-interest where there are clear advantages that allow them to respond effectively to changes and opportunities in the marketplace.

The challenge is that many cost centers know when they have profit centers fully dependent upon them for their survival when they support massive infrastructures that the profit centers cannot operate without. As soon as the cost centers realize that they are in a commanding role, they unfortunately behave accordingly and start to dictate their financial decisions to the profit centers.

Given this situation, the intent is to hand control of each and every company back into the hands of the producers that create its wealth, and to prevent the collectivist mind-set from regaining control of the “for profit” company.

With this new perspective, we may now better understand the mind-sets and principles that operate within profit centers and cost centers. This is what we call “architecting the mind-set of the enterprise.”

Please feel free to express yourself if you enjoyed this article, and don’t hesitate to indicate which articles in the “Architecture Made Easy” series are useful to your organization. In addition, corrections, enhancements, and suggestions are always welcome and are requested. Please note that regarding this topic, there is much more to come.

End Notes:

While specific quotes are cited below, many concepts were leveraged from several works of Ayn Rand, including,Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Atlas Shrugged, and Philosophy: Who Needs It.

1. The Battle of Salamis saw the Greeks operating in the first environment of land ownership, open debate among commanders, politician, and land owners, and a navy manned by free men, which prevailed over a dictatorial style of Persian leadership in a naval battle even though the Persians enjoyed a three to one advantage with slave rowers chained to their posts. One of the most informative books to illustrate this concept is Carnage and Culture by Victor Davis Hanson, 2001, ISBN 978-0-385-72038-0.
2. Metrics Driven Principles: The Philosophy of Information Architecture, (Architecture Made Easy Series #06, www.TDAN.com).
3. The major railroad failures that suffered from government intervention included the Union Pacific and Central Pacific railroads, and the modern day example of Amtrak, whose entire body of preferred stock is owned by the US government and continually requires additional government aid.
4. As just one example, when the Princeton-based Educational Testing Service was headed by an academic, the company was in the red, but when it was headed by an experienced management team that was transplanted from Dupont Chemical, ETS moved from being a 300MM company in the red to a billion dollar company in the black, even with the loss of the SAT business.
5. FDR’s Second Bill of Rights (Excerpt from 11 January 1944 message to Congress on the State of the Union): In our day, these economic truths have become accepted as self-evident. We have accepted, so to speak, a second Bill of Rights under which a new basis of security and prosperity can be established for all – regardless of station, race, or creed.

Among these are: