I believe he touched on this, explaining that most students who excelled in Calculus ended up in the stock market to become rich, rather than contibute their analytic powers to solving the worlds economic problems. His critique was that the prominent universities neglected to teach emphasis on public leadership qualities, instead of using their expertise for personal gain. The stock market seems to reflect the brilliance of Economists, whereas the government is full of incompetent administrators at every level. Government is full of politicians, not administrators.
I don't need a study for that. The number of people "in the stock market" who became rich as a percentage of those who took Calculus could not POSSIBLY come out to anything reaching "most". That's exactly the kind of hyperbole I'm accusing this guy of.
I believe we can agree that the general level of competence in government leadership is less than adequate.
Cutting education budgets or raising tuitions is not the way out of incompetency. I believe it is a problem that can be solved only by calculus. Where are the economic models from concerned "learned leadership"?
Now you're just challenging me to present some solutions. I don't have to do that to prove this guy doesn't have anything of value.
I don't know your qualifications, but unless you have attended an Ivy League school and its exclusive social environment, how can you comment on the conclusions by someone who has?
OTOH, if you are kowledgeable in calculus and practice this knowledge in the field of economics, you just proved his point.
Allow me a question: How is it possible that politicians saw fit to bail out the financial market to the tune of nearly a trillion dollars without any strings attached and no one was held to "account"?
I predicted long ago that once the accountants got their hands on this bail-out, the money would disappear without being used for its intended purpose, except to prevent a total collapse of the world's economy. Too big to fail is a poor excuse for collecting tax payer funded bonuses to management responsible for causing this financial collapse in the first place. Amazing how financial institutions managed to turn bankruptcy into a profit at tax payer expense and stashed it in non-taxable off-shore accounts. Champagne all around!
Where was the sense of social responsibility? Corporations (enjoying the same rights as "persons") don't give a damn about the social responsibilities that come with those rights. A corporation has only a responsibility to maximize profit for its stockholders, most who are already rich.
I will grant that there are a few exceptions to these "impersonal" and callous practices, but remember the 23.9 % interest (profit) on loans made with "tax free" bail out money acquired through taxation of the very people who were forced to borrow due to the financial collapse?
My model would have been to bail out the people who suffered most from the financial mismanagement of financial institutions. IMO, that would have also stabilized the economy, as poor people immediately would have returned this money back into the general economy, paying off debts, purchasing goods, such as that new washing machine or refrigerator and services such as medical expenses.
p.s. I am a retired accountant for a large non-profit social services company, which provided assistance to the poorest. We were required to account for every dollar we distributed. When we went under due to State and Federal budget cuts and well meant but poor fiscal management who over-extended our expense account, no one bailed us out regardless of the hardships and suffering caused to people who needed the most assistance and which this non-profit company served. Apparently we were small enough to fail, and thereby disenfranchise hundreds of poorest "persons".
IMO, it is entirely reasonable to make "social economic science" a required second major to any curriculum that teaches financial calculus.
I recently saw an interiew of a manager of a large company, which received a large tax cut for purposes of spurring the hiring of additional labor.
When asked what he was doing with his tax cut, this person answered that he put that money in the bank. When asked why he did not hire additional people, his response was, "why would I hire people I don't need?", an entirely honest and appropriate response and just another example of wasted tax dollars.
A free, unrestricted or incompetently regulated market will inevitably be abused by "creative financing" of large financial corporations. Witness the "Halliburton Lloophole" which exempted "fracking companies" from EPA standards, such as "clean drinking water", because the additional paperwork would have been too expensive and would have cut into the profit margins of those companies. I believe the results are now becoming worrysome to some states where the landscapes are being fracked.
OTOH in some states, if landowners complain about the harmful effects of fracking to their lifestock or drinking water their land is "taken" via "eminent domain" and made available to the very companies who caused the problems. Sound political economic leadership?
Another flawed model is COLA which is designed to offset an fixed dollar amount increase in cost of living, which is "calculated" as a percent increase of income. This model inherently favors the people with high incomes (management) and is in effect an increase in "Cost of Lifestyle".
Example: The actual cost of living increase by a "fixed dollar amount" which calculates out to say, an "average" 2% increase in the "cost of living", a person making $10.000.00 p/yr would receive an COLA increase of $200.00, which may be less than the actual increase in the cost of living in dollars, whereas a person making $100,000.00 p/yr would receive $2000.00 increase, which may well far exceed the actual increase in dollars. This is tantamount to an adjustment in cost of lifestyle, not cost of living. Do the math.