PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake(blogmaverick.com)
blogmaverick.com
PE Obama’s 1st Big Mistake
http://blogmaverick.com/2008/11/08/pe-obamas-1st-big-mistake/
14 comments
Why did you imply that Mark Zuckerberg would be the candidate? A commentor in the blog post did the same, but I did not expect this from Hacker News, when Cuban did not imply at all it should be Zuckerberg or anyone else inexperienced.
The people you talk to about matters of economy and finance are people with a background in finance and economics.
Cuban did not say there was anything wrong with such experts, but that the team should have someone who runs a small business for a living, that's all.
For example, I just thought of an almost identical situation.
Ron Paul's campaign advisor on the economy, and one of the two people who predicted the economic collapse in detail two years ago, is also an active entrepreneur. Now, Cuban did not say it has to be someone who is much of an expert, but it doesn't mean it should be some entrepreneur with zero economy experience.
I honestly don't see Mark Zuckerberg lecturing Robert Rubin and Warren Buffet on how to save the economy...
Cuban clearly implies he wants a good candidate, and not for example, a 23 year old web 2.0 hero.
Also, Cuban went out of his way to include franchise owners, mom and pop store owners, and independent contractor's all over the country in his definition of entrepreneur.
Besides distorting Cuban's points, I think it is very limiting to think that entrepreneurs are 20 year old founders of web startups, when they could be 45 or 65-year-old economists who have also started multiple startups in their life, whenever you hear the e-word.
The people you talk to about matters of economy and finance are people with a background in finance and economics.
Cuban did not say there was anything wrong with such experts, but that the team should have someone who runs a small business for a living, that's all.
For example, I just thought of an almost identical situation.
Ron Paul's campaign advisor on the economy, and one of the two people who predicted the economic collapse in detail two years ago, is also an active entrepreneur. Now, Cuban did not say it has to be someone who is much of an expert, but it doesn't mean it should be some entrepreneur with zero economy experience.
I honestly don't see Mark Zuckerberg lecturing Robert Rubin and Warren Buffet on how to save the economy...
Cuban clearly implies he wants a good candidate, and not for example, a 23 year old web 2.0 hero.
Also, Cuban went out of his way to include franchise owners, mom and pop store owners, and independent contractor's all over the country in his definition of entrepreneur.
Besides distorting Cuban's points, I think it is very limiting to think that entrepreneurs are 20 year old founders of web startups, when they could be 45 or 65-year-old economists who have also started multiple startups in their life, whenever you hear the e-word.
Mark Zuckerberg was just the one that sprung to mind, but I think the argument would be pretty much the same if I had used Jeff Bezos - who was a stockbroker before he founded Amazon, and thus should be somewhat experienced in macroeconomy.
My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business.
This is nothing bad about Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or any other entrepreneur - I just think that you should get the best man for the job. I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. It's simply not his expertise.
My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business.
This is nothing bad about Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos or any other entrepreneur - I just think that you should get the best man for the job. I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone. It's simply not his expertise.
I wouldn't want Robert Rubin to be the CIO of my startup either, even though I know he's as smart and dedicated as anyone.
While I have to agree that it would be hard to find such versatile people, the argument is not logical. If a implies b, it doesn't mean that b implies a. If it did work that way, then it would mean any CIO could never make a great expert on finance and economy, and vice versa, and that's not qualifiable (or realistic.)
I just think that you should get the best man for the job.
It is not qualifiable that Obama has found the best man (or woman) for the job. Therefore, it is not qualifiable that entrepreneurs should not feel they should be represented by some economist or expert in finance who has entrepreneurial experience.
Somebody who has their money tied to their business, as Cuban said, and depends on their business for all of their income, is the kind of entrepreneur who should be represented. I believe Mark's point is that the economists advising Obama make money as government employees, company executives, book publishers, researches, faculty, or similar--I made this up, but if they're not entrepreneurs, they must be getting paid some other way.
(In fact, to add my own thoughts, many high-ranking economists and high-ranking finance experts could have been a part of the problem in the first place, while at the same time, entrepreneurs spent the same years trying to create value for their customers. They: create value in order to make money, actually have contact with real, "regular" people, try to solve people's existing and future problems after listening to these "regular" people, and do so because they've chosen to bet almost all of their income and quality of life on solving problems. This is completely different from being a professor or book author, tv personality, and, in some way, having a hand in creating the problem in the first place.)
My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business.
I think my points about how an entrepreneurial perspective could be beneficial as well as that entrepreneurs could definitely be experts on the economy argue your point, but I also want to note that Cuban mentions having one experienced entrepreneur representing one person on the committee, not necessarily a committee full of entrepreneurs (never mind all without experience in finance, and all relatively young, and all from Silicon Valley, to boot.) So, of course you need many experts as well as those with political connections on the committee. But at least one expert should have entrepreneurial experience. He even goes out of his way to point out several times that Buffett isn't an entrepreneur in the same sense that most entrepreneurs are small mom-and-pop shops and independent contractors.
Of course, I could be mistaken--maybe Mark Cuban did imply that he wants a great entrepreneur advising on the economy, whether or not they have economic experience--but I just did not read it that way, and it would be hard to argue that a sane person would want any random entrepreneur. I've heard Cuban has an ego, but I don't think it's that big. :)
(And again, such people exist, like the economic advisor to Ron Paul, as well as likely hundreds of other great choices. I think that Obama and the existing committee would not mind having an entrepreneur on board, and Cuban's post is a great way to point out this missing piece.)
I think we (the News.YC users) saw items in the blog post that made us want to discuss it, but of course, we saw different things. In my view, I didn't see anything wrong in his post, therefore causing me to think that it's a good idea for him to try to get a search for an entrepreneur started, and I wanted to provide what I thought. Thanks!
While I have to agree that it would be hard to find such versatile people, the argument is not logical. If a implies b, it doesn't mean that b implies a. If it did work that way, then it would mean any CIO could never make a great expert on finance and economy, and vice versa, and that's not qualifiable (or realistic.)
I just think that you should get the best man for the job.
It is not qualifiable that Obama has found the best man (or woman) for the job. Therefore, it is not qualifiable that entrepreneurs should not feel they should be represented by some economist or expert in finance who has entrepreneurial experience.
Somebody who has their money tied to their business, as Cuban said, and depends on their business for all of their income, is the kind of entrepreneur who should be represented. I believe Mark's point is that the economists advising Obama make money as government employees, company executives, book publishers, researches, faculty, or similar--I made this up, but if they're not entrepreneurs, they must be getting paid some other way.
(In fact, to add my own thoughts, many high-ranking economists and high-ranking finance experts could have been a part of the problem in the first place, while at the same time, entrepreneurs spent the same years trying to create value for their customers. They: create value in order to make money, actually have contact with real, "regular" people, try to solve people's existing and future problems after listening to these "regular" people, and do so because they've chosen to bet almost all of their income and quality of life on solving problems. This is completely different from being a professor or book author, tv personality, and, in some way, having a hand in creating the problem in the first place.)
My point is that making economic policy, especially in the current environment, is a difficult and specialised task. The people that have the best shot at getting it right are the ones that have the experience, connections and know-how of how to do it. And entrepreneurs don't - they are in a completely different business.
I think my points about how an entrepreneurial perspective could be beneficial as well as that entrepreneurs could definitely be experts on the economy argue your point, but I also want to note that Cuban mentions having one experienced entrepreneur representing one person on the committee, not necessarily a committee full of entrepreneurs (never mind all without experience in finance, and all relatively young, and all from Silicon Valley, to boot.) So, of course you need many experts as well as those with political connections on the committee. But at least one expert should have entrepreneurial experience. He even goes out of his way to point out several times that Buffett isn't an entrepreneur in the same sense that most entrepreneurs are small mom-and-pop shops and independent contractors.
Of course, I could be mistaken--maybe Mark Cuban did imply that he wants a great entrepreneur advising on the economy, whether or not they have economic experience--but I just did not read it that way, and it would be hard to argue that a sane person would want any random entrepreneur. I've heard Cuban has an ego, but I don't think it's that big. :)
(And again, such people exist, like the economic advisor to Ron Paul, as well as likely hundreds of other great choices. I think that Obama and the existing committee would not mind having an entrepreneur on board, and Cuban's post is a great way to point out this missing piece.)
I think we (the News.YC users) saw items in the blog post that made us want to discuss it, but of course, we saw different things. In my view, I didn't see anything wrong in his post, therefore causing me to think that it's a good idea for him to try to get a search for an entrepreneur started, and I wanted to provide what I thought. Thanks!
I see your points, and what your goals are with this, but I think that you and Cuban are getting in on the wrong level.
He wants to make sure that tech entrepreneurs are heard in the new government - which I certainly agree is a good idea. Both for the entrepreneurs and the economy. My grudge with the post is that he finds it perfectly reasonable that tech entrepreneurs should be represented at the very top level of the economic advisers to the president. My argument is that the tech entrepreneur expertise should be represented one level further down. Both because, as I've argued before, that the expertise that's needed is very different from doing startups, but also because tech startups don't account for that large a portion of the overall economy. Cuban's arguments could just as well be applied to mom and pop stores, which are probably more underpinning of the economy than startups, the biotech sector, the defense industry, the automobile industry, agriculture, advertising, aerospace, big oil, clean energy, food products etc. etc. These are all important, but none of them, including startups, are big enough in an economical sense that they should be represented at the top level.
Yes, an argument could be made that startups are the future of America. But the same argument could be made of mom and pop stores, clean energy and many others.
He wants to make sure that tech entrepreneurs are heard in the new government - which I certainly agree is a good idea. Both for the entrepreneurs and the economy. My grudge with the post is that he finds it perfectly reasonable that tech entrepreneurs should be represented at the very top level of the economic advisers to the president. My argument is that the tech entrepreneur expertise should be represented one level further down. Both because, as I've argued before, that the expertise that's needed is very different from doing startups, but also because tech startups don't account for that large a portion of the overall economy. Cuban's arguments could just as well be applied to mom and pop stores, which are probably more underpinning of the economy than startups, the biotech sector, the defense industry, the automobile industry, agriculture, advertising, aerospace, big oil, clean energy, food products etc. etc. These are all important, but none of them, including startups, are big enough in an economical sense that they should be represented at the top level.
Yes, an argument could be made that startups are the future of America. But the same argument could be made of mom and pop stores, clean energy and many others.
What drives America's economy? Investment or innovation? Where has the most influential innovation come from?
Macroeconomics is a step removed from the people who really make it work. So, to get the best macroeconomics we need to make sure we get things right at the micro level. I don't see this happening with people who've spent their lives at the macro level.
EDIT
After reading the article, I also see you've set up a strawman. Cuban is not arguing you stick a lone group of tech entrepreneurs in Obama's advisory board. He says Obama needs to directly talk with them to see what they need, explicitly including non tech people in this by his mention of Joe the Plumber. Instead, Obama has insulated himself from these people with his advisory board. I agree with Cuban that this is a bad sign.
Macroeconomics is a step removed from the people who really make it work. So, to get the best macroeconomics we need to make sure we get things right at the micro level. I don't see this happening with people who've spent their lives at the macro level.
EDIT
After reading the article, I also see you've set up a strawman. Cuban is not arguing you stick a lone group of tech entrepreneurs in Obama's advisory board. He says Obama needs to directly talk with them to see what they need, explicitly including non tech people in this by his mention of Joe the Plumber. Instead, Obama has insulated himself from these people with his advisory board. I agree with Cuban that this is a bad sign.
I just reread the article, and you're right about the strawman. Got a bit carried away in the discussion apparently :-)
That was the whole point of my response. :) It would have been a lot simpler had I not edited out the first line of my post, which called your original post a strawman and linked to the definition. Since I had read the entire article carefully, and within the context of Mark's posts that I had read in the past, I thought Hacker News would appreciate knowning the actual views expressed in Mark's article.
No prob, happens to me plenty:) Now, if Cuban was only arguing for a tech entrepreneur, I'd completely agree with you.
You're correct, the OP made a strawman argument. However, Cuban is not exactly saying that he wants non-technical people on the team. He's saying an entrepreneur should be represented, as there are lots of them and they drive the economy (he then proceeds to list examples of many professions that are entrepreneurs.)
"Therefore, it is not qualifiable that entrepreneurs should not feel they should be represented by some economist or expert in finance who has entrepreneurial experience."
They're not really supposed to receive representation in a cabinet position. That is what the legislature is for.
They're not really supposed to receive representation in a cabinet position. That is what the legislature is for.
You seem to be arguing from the premise that the team would only consist of entrepreneurs or something; I really can't make your argument out. You argue that the the entrepreneurs wouldn't know about X (big economics) but seem to implicitly concede the original point that the current team won't know about Y (startup economics), so, if having only X and a big hole in Y is bad, why isn't it a good idea to add someone who knows Y to the team full of X people?
I'm having trouble finding a coherent point there. Why is it so bad to close a hole in a team?
I'm having trouble finding a coherent point there. Why is it so bad to close a hole in a team?
Sorry if I didn't make myself clear. My point is that if the team should include tech entrepreneurs it should also include dairy farmers, mom and pop stores and advertising executves - these sectors are all as large as the tech entrepreneur sector. If you plug the tech entrepreneur hole you should also plug the dairy farmer hole - given that this sector is as large as the tech upstart sector of course.
A team of thousands of different people from thousands of different sectors obviously isn't a viable solution. This is why at the top level you have people that understand macro economy, finance and politics. Below this you have the whole armada of different sectors that should be heard in respect to regulation, economy, etc. that relates to their industry.
Basically if you want tech entrepreneurs to be on the economic team advising the president you should also have dairy farmers and advertising executives. And that would be a mess.
A team of thousands of different people from thousands of different sectors obviously isn't a viable solution. This is why at the top level you have people that understand macro economy, finance and politics. Below this you have the whole armada of different sectors that should be heard in respect to regulation, economy, etc. that relates to their industry.
Basically if you want tech entrepreneurs to be on the economic team advising the president you should also have dairy farmers and advertising executives. And that would be a mess.
From the original article: "our President needs to get first hand information on the impact his proposed policies will have on real Joe the Plumbers. People who are 1 person companies living job to job, hoping they get paid on time. We need to know what the impact of his policies will be on the individually owned Chrysler Dealership in Iowa. The bodego in Manhattan. The mobile phone software startup out of Carnegie Mellon. The event planner in Dallas. The barbershop in LA. The restaurant in Boston."
No fair adding the word "tech" to the original article, then criticizing it for the word "tech". :)
A "small business representative" is exactly what the article calls for. And the article isn't calling for this person to know about their industry, but to know about small business; the pressures of mandated paperwork on a one-person operation, tax pressures, basically all those things that come up when you're too small to have or afford an HR department and dedicated finance staff. The US Federal government, being the single largest entity on the planet AFAIK, has a bad habit of forgetting that paperwork isn't free; the cognitive costs alone when it isn't your job to fill out the paperwork correctly (with steep fines for errors in some cases) can be significant, even before we discount time. (For example, consider your taxes; even moderately complicated individual taxes won't take that much of your calendar year, but the cognitive costs can be daunting. And that's what an individual is expected to pay...)
No fair adding the word "tech" to the original article, then criticizing it for the word "tech". :)
A "small business representative" is exactly what the article calls for. And the article isn't calling for this person to know about their industry, but to know about small business; the pressures of mandated paperwork on a one-person operation, tax pressures, basically all those things that come up when you're too small to have or afford an HR department and dedicated finance staff. The US Federal government, being the single largest entity on the planet AFAIK, has a bad habit of forgetting that paperwork isn't free; the cognitive costs alone when it isn't your job to fill out the paperwork correctly (with steep fines for errors in some cases) can be significant, even before we discount time. (For example, consider your taxes; even moderately complicated individual taxes won't take that much of your calendar year, but the cognitive costs can be daunting. And that's what an individual is expected to pay...)
There are two ways to use advisors. On one hand, you can use them to help you make decisions. On the other hand, you can use them to lend credibility to decisions you've already made.
Interestingly, the bigger and more prominent your board of advisors, the harder it becomes to use them for the former purpose and the easier it becomes to use them for the latter.
Interestingly, the bigger and more prominent your board of advisors, the harder it becomes to use them for the former purpose and the easier it becomes to use them for the latter.
Precisely. The membership list of this advisory board is a marketing document, not an exclusive list of the people who get to make the policy. This isn't the NBA, where the people on the roster are also the ones who have to play.
>Interestingly, the bigger and more prominent your board of advisors, the harder it becomes to use them for the former purpose and the easier it becomes to use them for the latter.
I'm guessing this is because prominent people are super-busy. Sounds reasonable.
I'm guessing this is because prominent people are super-busy. Sounds reasonable.
I had the same thought as Mark Cuban. A PhD in Economics, even winning the Nobel Prize (see my critique of Krugman) doesn't give you the real world feel that starting and running a business does. Economics is full of unintended consequences. Couple of examples, which every start-up person here can appreciate: if you make it very hard to do a lay-off, that leads to businesses becoming extremely cautious in hiring. The minimum wage directly leads to entrepreneurs not taking a chance to hire a less skilled person and train them on the job. These are easy enough to see when you run a business.
It would amaze you how many things that are "common sense" for an entrepreneur are hard for someone sitting in their ivory tower.
This is not just a problem in economics. After I got out of Princeton with a PhD in Electrical Engineering, it amazed me just how orthogonal to the real world much of my adviser's academic work proved to be - I happened to land a job that directly dealt with one of his core areas of research, though I wasn't involved in that area during my PhD myself. My realization led me to write a paper that pointed out that his work was dealing in mathematical models that were not very relevant to the real world, which predictably led to our intellectual parting of ways.
I felt experience working as an engineer should be mandatory for anyone aspiring to be an engineering professor, yet you will find that most engineering faculty have never worked outside of academia.
It would amaze you how many things that are "common sense" for an entrepreneur are hard for someone sitting in their ivory tower.
This is not just a problem in economics. After I got out of Princeton with a PhD in Electrical Engineering, it amazed me just how orthogonal to the real world much of my adviser's academic work proved to be - I happened to land a job that directly dealt with one of his core areas of research, though I wasn't involved in that area during my PhD myself. My realization led me to write a paper that pointed out that his work was dealing in mathematical models that were not very relevant to the real world, which predictably led to our intellectual parting of ways.
I felt experience working as an engineer should be mandatory for anyone aspiring to be an engineering professor, yet you will find that most engineering faculty have never worked outside of academia.
Not arguing your underlying point, but the examples you chose are poor--all economists are well aware of the effects of a minimum wage, and of barriers to hiring/firing. It's people with no background in economics who don't understand those things.
I would agree if you said "most economists" instead of "all". On the minimum wage, a couple of Princeton economists wrote a scholarly paper pointing out how that didn't suppress hiring (sorry, don't have a handy reference) or increase unemployment. On barriers to hiring/firing, I grant that most economists would agree they are bad.
On the other hand, Krugman himself has been a strong advocate of nationalized health care. Milton Friedman argued how the health care problem is really one of licensing regulations designed to maximize pay for doctors. Imagine an American Software Association that decides how many licenses to grant every year, and you need those credentials to be a hacker. Yes, Friedman addressed the "quack" argument too.
On the other hand, Krugman himself has been a strong advocate of nationalized health care. Milton Friedman argued how the health care problem is really one of licensing regulations designed to maximize pay for doctors. Imagine an American Software Association that decides how many licenses to grant every year, and you need those credentials to be a hacker. Yes, Friedman addressed the "quack" argument too.
I don't think he, or any politician at that level, for that matter, can help it. The only people they rub elbows with are the established, credentialed, and connected. If he knew the right startup/entrepreneur people he would be a VC or angel, not a politician.
Uh, can anyone tell me how "your current group has no one with 100pct of their networth on the line" is a reasonable complaint?
We're talking economics here. Smart people familiar with basic economics don't risk 100% of their net worth.
We're talking economics here. Smart people familiar with basic economics don't risk 100% of their net worth.
Maverick schmaverick. However, to give you the benefit of the doubt, name 3 startuppers that you would propose. BTW, do you seriously think Warren Buffets advice on macroeconomics would be worth less than someone who has started the corner deli?
Does anyone else see this as a thinly veiled partisan rant along the lines of, "Democrats are Ivory Tower elitists who hate Joe the Plumber and will destroy free enterprise in the USA"?
In what sense does this article have any practical value for entrepreneurs, or even the Obama administration? Seems like Schmidt, Page and Brin have been offering plenty of informal advice along with lots of other successful entrepreneurs.
In what sense does this article have any practical value for entrepreneurs, or even the Obama administration? Seems like Schmidt, Page and Brin have been offering plenty of informal advice along with lots of other successful entrepreneurs.
I think from the primary polls a good 10% of the country would like to see Ron Paul as an adviser. He has consistently showed that he has a firm grasp of conservative economics and an intellectually honest president would want both sides represented.
[deleted]
Is there a pool on when Cuban will start expressing buyer's remorse on his Chris Matthews-style leg tingling for Obama?
I'll take "last week of February 2009" if it's available.
I'll take "last week of February 2009" if it's available.
I am quite happy that Obama won, but I have started flagging pretty much all of the articles with 'Obama' in the title. I don't want to talk about politics here.
Finance != Economics.
Wow. So this post is seriously suggesting we make Joe the Plumber Treasury Secretary? Man I'm in the wrong business. Maybe if I had gone into plunging toilets instead of testing software I could be an economic guru too.
Amazing post - perfectly posited imo. The most powerful lines for me:
"Entrepreneurs that start and run small businesses will be the propellant in this economy. PE Obama needs to have the counsel of those who will take the real risk inherent in creating companies and jobs. Those who put their money and lives on the line with their business...Your current group has no one with 100pct of their networth on the line. I promise you that the possibility of losing it all will provide a completely different perspective than any of the “knowledge” the esteemed, learned members of his current advisory team offer."
"Entrepreneurs that start and run small businesses will be the propellant in this economy. PE Obama needs to have the counsel of those who will take the real risk inherent in creating companies and jobs. Those who put their money and lives on the line with their business...Your current group has no one with 100pct of their networth on the line. I promise you that the possibility of losing it all will provide a completely different perspective than any of the “knowledge” the esteemed, learned members of his current advisory team offer."
The danger of advice from somebody with everything on the line is a lack of objectivity.
Personally, I don't think we need to make any sweeping changes to encourage entrepreneurship directly. The United States is already a great place to start a business. The key making sure that is true 20 years from now by continuing to invest wisely in education, research, energy...etc.
Personally, I don't think we need to make any sweeping changes to encourage entrepreneurship directly. The United States is already a great place to start a business. The key making sure that is true 20 years from now by continuing to invest wisely in education, research, energy...etc.
>The key making sure that is true 20 years from now by continuing to invest wisely in education, research, energy...etc.
And by keeping taxes and regulations light and minimal.
I would like to point out that our government's investments in education and energy haven't gone very well, though its investment in general research probably does more good than harm.
And by keeping taxes and regulations light and minimal.
I would like to point out that our government's investments in education and energy haven't gone very well, though its investment in general research probably does more good than harm.
And by keeping taxes and regulations light and minimal.
But no more than that.
I would like to point out that our government's investments in education and energy haven't gone very well, though its investment in general research probably does more good than harm.
It's also worth while to point out that many other industrialized nations have also made investments in energy and education and had better results. So, we shouldn't abandon the idea (as you seem to be implying) but rather take a good look at how we do things.
But no more than that.
I would like to point out that our government's investments in education and energy haven't gone very well, though its investment in general research probably does more good than harm.
It's also worth while to point out that many other industrialized nations have also made investments in energy and education and had better results. So, we shouldn't abandon the idea (as you seem to be implying) but rather take a good look at how we do things.
"Your current group has no one with 100pct of their networth on the line." false, warren buffett's wealth is on the line. from this forbes magazine in front of me, he also has the MOST wealth to lose too. and i'm not sure having desperate types on board give the right balance. me personally i suck at making good, sound long term decisions when a colt .45 is pressed to my head.
I'm sure that one layer below this there will be, or at least should be, entrepreneurs that are consulted in order to get the most bang for the buck.
But I honestly don't see Mark Zuckerberg lecturing Robert Rubin and Warren Buffet on how to save the economy...