A Quote by Sam Brownback

I am one who believes that the market, properly incentivized, can consistently outperform government regulation on achieving objectives. — © Sam Brownback
I am one who believes that the market, properly incentivized, can consistently outperform government regulation on achieving objectives.
Perhaps there really are managers who can outperform the market consistently - logic would suggest that they exist. But they are remarkably well-hidden.
Strategy is the articulation of the overall objectives along with general guidelines on achieving those objectives.
You don't actually find a strong correlation between- top-line GDP growth and making money in the market. It- it seems like you should. The fastest-growing countries should give you the highest return. They simply don't. But, there's only four of us- that- that believe that story. Everyone else in the world believes that if you grow fast like China, you'll outperform in the stock market.
All winning teams are goal-oriented. Teams like these win consistently because everyone connected with them concentrates on specific objectives. They go about their business with blinders on; nothing will distract them from achieving their aims.
The trouble with government regulation of the market is that it prohibits capitalistic acts between consenting adults.
Favored stocks underperform the market, while out-of-favor companies outperform the market, but the reappraisal often happens slowly, even glacially.
A lot of guys have better genes but if you work hard and consistently, you can outperform them.
I was struck by the fact that none of the senators, basically, asked General [James] Mattis, "Well, General, how is it that we haven't won?" We haven't won anywhere, 'winning' in the sense of conclusively achieving our political objectives, however you might want to define those objectives.
[Government] regulation is an imperfect substitute for the accountability, and trust, built into a market in which food producers meet the gaze of eaters and vice versa.
The rationale for the vast network of government welfare programs as well as regulation and control over private enterprise is based on the socialist analysis of the market economy.
What happens to our economy and all our wonderful innovation if people are not properly incentivized and rewarded?
Even if someone wanted a purely free-market, competitive media system, it would require extensive government regulation to set up those markets. All our largest media companies are based on the grant of explicit government monopoly privileges and licenses, or franchises, or subsidies. The government didn't come in after the system was in place, it built the system in the first place.
In the Telecommunications Act of 1996, the government called for an Internet 'unfettered by Federal or State regulation.' The result of that fateful decision was the greatest free-market success story in history.
In the long run, a portfolio of well chosen stocks and/or equity mutual funds will always outperform a portfolio of bonds or a money-market account. In the long run, a portfolio of poorly chosen stocks won't outperform the money left under the mattress.
Recruit entrepreneurial leaders and give them freedom to determine the best path to achieving their objectives. On the other hand, individuals must commit fully to the system you use and be held rigorously accountable for their objectives. You give them freedom, but freedom within a framework.
I am a believer in smaller government, limited government, less regulation, less taxes, because I think to have more of those things, we suffocate the entrepreneurial spirit of this nation.
This site uses cookies to ensure you get the best experience. More info...
Got it!