Episode Transcript
Speaker 0 00:00:00 Buddy welcome to morals and markets. If you are joining us via the podcast, be sure to like, and subscribe. And as always for Thursday of every month, you can join us live, go to the society.org/events, and you will be able to find the links to join next month's session. We are on zoom. Now we've switched back to zoom. So it will be a recurring zoom link. This, if you've registered once, this is the link that you can use every fourth, Thursday to join us. So with that being said, we are doing why MBAs are not pro capitalist, and I'm going to hand it off to you, Richard.
Speaker 1 00:00:35 Thank you very much, Abby, and as usual, uh, welcome to morals and markets. This is done every month for about 90 minutes. I speak for about 20 or 30 minutes and on some issue relating to the connection between morals, which, or ethics and, uh, markets or economics. So you can think of it as a, a synthesis of, uh, philosophy and, uh, economics. Now, um, I, the topic tonight I've discussed before, there's a clubhouse session. If you wanna look at it, I wanna expand on this a little bit, uh, tonight though, let me just read my descriptive that I sent out it's widely, but falsely assumed that financial economic capitalists are necessarily pro capitalists. Ideologically. Why is that? So by now, woke CEOs are widely recognized and indeed widely hailed for being anti-capitalist, including by, uh, violating their fiduciary duties to shareholders. So we can talk more about this, uh, what that means the graduate degree of masters in business administration.
Speaker 1 00:01:38 That's what MBA stands for is on the resume of one third of all, fortune 500 CEOs. I actually thought it might be higher than that, but it's one third. I think it's a main cause of the woke CEO of phenomenon and trend. And I've had a session before on stakeholder capitalism and woke CEOs and things. So you can think of this session as fleshing out, uh, those themes in prior to sessions. As I said, I've talked about stakeholder and I'll mention this again tonight and weave it in, but I'll also talk about ESG. What does that mean? Why is that, uh, causing major disruptions? Uh, for the worse I think, um, anyway, so the, the focus, uh, however, is on MBAs, um, and, uh, how programs in MBA schools, especially the more elite schools are preaching this kind of stuff. And, uh, it's a fairly new phenomenon in that regard.
Speaker 1 00:02:33 So, um, this is all of a piece of me wanting to defend capitalism. I'm doing this in the book I just published where have all the capitalists gone. There is some, uh, there are some chapters in there on this topic, but as to MBAs, now, it, if you go way back to Carl Marks in, uh, his writings in the communist manifesto in 1848 and elsewhere, and this is still true today, among marks, there is a very common view that your economic status determines your ideas, not the other way around. So now what do I mean by that Marx, the Marxist have this view that everything history, politics, uh, your thinking your biases are determined by where you stand in relationship to the means of production. Say everything for them was the means of production, meaning factories, tools, equipment, and things like that. And their view is if you owned those things, you were a capitalist, uh, that's actually definitionally true, but the further implication you were an exploiter, you were someone who had power over those who did not have capital.
Speaker 1 00:03:39 And therefore this, uh, exploitation theory, the idea that the worker is stuck, the worker has nowhere to go, but the factory, the worker is in effect conscripted by having no choice. And, uh, it's an exploitative relationship profits. Aren't earned profits are stolen. Profits are either result of underpaying people. What they're truly worth that would save on costs or overcharging customers. That's the more recent view. But the combination of the two of course would be you got higher prices and lower expenses than you otherwise would. Now the thinking here was, if you own the means of production, you were pro anything that was for the means of production. So you, and on the other hand, if you were a laborer, you were necessarily anti-business, you were necessarily anti corporate, anti profit, all that kind of thing. And so, um, it's a very material. If you know the philosophy, it's a very materialist view and philosophy by material.
Speaker 1 00:04:34 I don't mean consumer goods and things like that. Materialist and philosophy means that things are moved, not by consciousness, not by ideas, but rather by physical, literally physical materialist things. Now, this theory is not true. Uh, you only need to look today at people like, uh, George Soros or bill gates, or the whole range of anti George, uh, Soros one, what, what's the other one, Bloomberg who ran for, uh, president recently, there's a whole range of very wealthy people who are anti capitalist. And this is a head scratcher to some people as to why that would be, it's only a head scratcher because they have this Marxist theory and equally, by the way, it's a head scratcher. Why, you know, the, the typical truck driver say, or the, I remember the Teamsters union backed Reagan in 1980, and it was a head scratcher of people.
Speaker 1 00:05:22 How can union, uh, more physicalist workers, uh, waitress and things that why would they be more Republican, middle of the country type of thing? Again, it flies in the face of the Marxist view. And the answer is the I, our ideas come from ultimately from philosophy in the, in the universities, uh, trickling on through to the intellectuals, journalism, uh, stand all the way to the standup comics and that it's not your material position. So there's no mystery here. I remember also in my early career, uh, which started on wall street in 1981. So I was on wall street, working in finance for about 20 years. And I noticed right away, uh, even in the 1980s, which if, you know, and remember was a revival of neoliberalism, meaning the new Liberty, the case for capitalism coming out of Reaganomics coming out of Thatcher, those whole, the whole two decade period before 2000, it was a movement toward a, a friendlier feeling, uh, and practice toward capitalism and wall street was vibrant.
Speaker 1 00:06:26 Again, America was vibrant again. And so you would think that people on wall street would be pro capitalists. Most of the ones I met were not now, most of them were Democrats, which didn't mean they were socialists, but, uh, it was almost like the wealthier. They were the more suspicious they were of capitalism. And, and I would ask them cuz I was a pro capitalist all the way from the beginning. And I would ask them, why are you not aware of the beauty of this system? And some of them would say with amount of guilt, uh, especially in finance, they didn't quite know why they were making so much money. Uh, they couldn't really explain the productive nature of finance. And so they felt guilty, but I could sense that part of the guilt was instilled in them by intellectuals. It was instilled in them by professors and, and preachers and all the others.
Speaker 1 00:07:14 Uh, now I myself went to business school in the late eighties. Uh, I got my degree at the, what's now known as the stern school of business at the time it was New York university business school. I went at night while I was working at a bank. And, uh, I think I got the degree in 1988. So I got an MBA. I do remember the program now, 1988. When you think about it, this is after, uh, eight years of Reagan and we're about three years away from the dissolving of the Soviet union. So the whole trend was toward free markets are great. Entrepreneurialism is back, there are business heroes, they're not villains anymore. And, and that was the broader trend. Um, and it seemed pro capitalists, but it obviously didn't have any lasting influence because for the last 20 years we've been moving in a different direction.
Speaker 1 00:08:02 But, uh, but I bring up my MBA experience and, uh, the reading around at the time, and I noticed only a small sliver of the curriculum, uh, dealing with what we would today call woke or social justice stuff. Uh, you, you majored in, this is still true today. You majored in either finance or marketing or accounting or strategy and things like that. And so you had specialties, but they would just give you maybe one or two courses required on. I, I think the call then was, it was described as the, the legal and social context of business, the legal and social context of business. So they were training future managers of the idea that, well, you need this specialty, you need these skills, but you also have to be aware. And I agreed with this as well. I mean, we didn't live in a less, a fair economy.
Speaker 1 00:08:53 You needed to be aware of the legal surroundings. You know, if you were in finance, you needed to know how the federal reserve worked or the SCC, uh, or the regulatory agencies. You didn't want to go awry, you know, from the regulatory standpoint. And then the social now, the social aspect, that's interesting. And they taught it as things like, be aware of the reputation of business, be aware of the broader social, uh, attitudes toward money making and business and big business at wall street and things like that. And I thought that was a perfectly valid part of the curriculum. And, uh, on the other hand, the dominant model was what's called the shareholder model of capitalism in business. Now that meant the shareholders of course, are the owners of the corporation. They're that by shareholders is meant, those who invest in the corporation. And now I have to shut up my dog. One second.
Speaker 1 00:09:53 My point was that the model was shareholder model, meaning the owners of the company would be the ones who would decide management strategy, all sorts of things like that. And what was developing in the law schools in the business schools. However, at the same time in the late seventies was a still model. So notice they use the phrase stakeholder it's very interesting. Sounds like shareholder, but the idea is they wanted a broader conception of who should control the corporation. Now the Marxist theory was when the laborers got upset and were no longer willing to be exploited, they would basically take over milit. There would be a revolution, there'd be a violent revolution. There'd be a seizure of means of production. And that's how we would go to socials. Now that didn't actually happen. If you look at the Russian revolution, if you put the China revolution, Cuba, none of them occurred in industrial setting.
Speaker 1 00:10:58 And none of them incurred by means of seizing business assets. They were taxed on say the czar in Russia, 1917, China and Cuba, certain agricultural agricultural countries. So I interpret what's going on now as somewhat democratic socialism, but it really is a form of fascist. It's the idea of, well, we're not going to be able to nationalize business. We're not gonna be able to get government to actually take over the means of production, but we're gonna have them control the means of production, right? So capital other sessions, it's not just private ownership of property with that. Private ownership comes, control what you do with the property. I mean, think of your own body. If I said, you have a right to control your own body, but I treated you like a slave. And I told you what to do with your body. You would say, well, I'm not fully free.
Speaker 1 00:11:53 If I said, well, you own your body. I'm just telling you what to do with it, or your personal property or your car or your house or your possessions. So the control part's really important. Now the socialists want public control and public ownership. Capitalism is private, both, but the hybrid systems like fascism are basically, you can keep title to your property, but we'll tell you what to do with it. I believe that's exactly what's going on. Not just in America, by the way, but in Europe and elsewhere, this stakeholder model is deliberately designed. And if you look at the founders of it, they actually say this not quite as starkly as I do. The point is to dilute. I'll use a phrase from wall street to dilute the power and ownership of existing owners of existing shareholders by bringing in other stakeholders now, who are these other?
Speaker 1 00:12:45 So, so this is one of the tributaries. If you will, to the whole wo corporate mentality, I'm talking about the stakeholder model. I'll soon I'll turn to business ethics and ESG, but this is one tributary, the theory deck of, of corporate governance, if you will, the theory of corporate control. And this is increasingly, as I said before, started in business schools, but it's creeped into it started in law schools, but it's creeped into business schools in the last couple of decades. So if you end to business school today and the, and the top ones of course are Harvard, Stanford. Uh, what else? I would say, well, Warton in Pennsylvania, Chicago, the booth school of Chicago. It's really, I mean, there are many business Kellogg at Northwestern. There are, uh, many business schools, but it's the cream of the crop. So to speak the ones that have the most prestige that are most teaching this stuff.
Speaker 1 00:13:38 And if you look at the profiles of those one third of fortune 500 companies I talked about, I would say a third of them went to Harvard business school. And this is totally being taught at Harvard business school. I've researched this in the last, the trend there in the last two decades has increasingly been toward that in the last decade, especially. So Rebecca Henderson, if you wanna look it up, Rebecca Henderson at the Harvard business school is the, the professors got some colleagues who's most pushing this and her most recent book is called. Now, get this, what do you think this is about reimagining capitalism? So reimagining in this literature always means overthrowing capitalism, but reimagining sounds so much better. It sounds like a reform movement, but it's really much more radical than that.
Speaker 1 00:14:26 Now I wanna say something about stake. Who are these stakeholders? Let me, let me just quote from the business round table and, and why this is important in 2019, the business round table. And what is that? It is a, uh, lobbying group for the biggest corporations in America. It's called the business round table. It was founded in 1978. Its goal was to get some common agreement among large corporation CEOs on public policy, specifically related to governance. And already in the seventies, there had been a controversy about this. That was the beginnings of people saying you should manage your corporations with corporate social responsibility, not just for shareholders. And really the only two people in academia that were arguing against this was Milton Friedman, who in 1970 had written for the New York times, the social responsibility of businesses to increase profits, that he was defending the profit oriented shareholder model and an objectives business historian named Robert Hesson, who was at the Hoover institution.
Speaker 1 00:15:36 And in 1979, at the end of that decade wrote a great book called in defense of the corporation. And interestingly Hessen was defending the corporation, not only against the left critiques from Ralph Nader and others, but from libertarians Roth part and others who were claiming that corporations were favors. Corporations were not natural. According to these anarchist libertarians, corporations were something that the state created and therefore the state could control. So by the end of the seventies, there was a narrowing group of people willing to defend the corporate model, which had been in place in America for more than a hundred years and had contributed really to America's enormous prosperity. Well, back to the business round table from 1978, until about 1997, every time it issued an annual report or pretty much any white paper had issued in various forms, it endorsed the shareholder view of the corporation that the manager of the Corp managers of the corporation.
Speaker 1 00:16:39 Now remember the bigger the corporation gets the CEO's office. The managers are not going to be able to own large shares in the companies cuz the companies are now huge. So this is not a case of, you know, like Henry Ford in 1905 who owns Ford motor company when it was smaller, right by by today, right? No one could have a huge share in Ford motor company cuz it's so huge. So over time, what happens is to row your company, you bring in other investors, you bring in other shareholders and now there's hundreds, possibly even thousands of them, but they're still the owners. And the managers are basically hired by the owners to conduct the business and to earn profits and to not waste money and not then to not go off on boondoggles and to pay dividends and other things to the owners that so the owners are actually the shareholders.
Speaker 1 00:17:31 Well, it was in 2019 that the business round table came out and said, we are changing our view of what the purpose of the corporation should be. It should now be stakeholder. Now they were just basically, as I said, they were basically finally putting a rubber stamp, but these were CEOs doing it now, a rubber stamp on the basic social movement that I've been going on for a decade or two JP Morgans chairman, Jamie diamond, also on the board, he said major employers are investing in their workers now and their communities. That should be our focus. We now have modernized principles, reflecting the business communities, unwavering commitment to push for an economy that serves all Americans. You get the idea serving all Americans versus serving shareholders to the idea of serving JP Morgan shareholders. That's considered selfish. That's considered narrow. That's considered short-termism quote from uh, Johnson and Johnson CEO.
Speaker 1 00:18:31 This statement affirms the essential role corporations play in improving our society when CEOs are truly committed to meeting the needs of all stakeholders. So you get this concept that it's being blown out into a societal. This is a very, very utilitarian argument. We're serving society, not ourselves, not our owners. We're serving broader stakeholders and the list can get very long. The statement itself says, this is now in order of the stakeholders delivering value to our customers, blah, blah, blah, investing in our employees. And there's a whole section. We foster diversity and inclusion, dignity and respect, third dealing fairly and ethically with suppliers fourth, supporting communities in which we work and fifth on the list. Shareholders. So you see the inverted priorities. It's now we got four different types of stakeholders that must be served prior to shareholders. Now let me just say right off the top, I have never found a business in the old model that ignored its customers, its employees, its suppliers.
Speaker 1 00:19:44 And I would say even its local community, to the extent they want to draw employees from. So the idea that these groups are somehow inimical to maximizing profit or inimical to the shareholder model is ridiculous. But it's one way of pitching this because on the surface it seems like, well, who could be against a corporation compare, uh, caring about its customers. Uh, the point is there are many, many more stakeholders than this and many that are anti corporate Exxon. For example, literally, uh, in the last year, put on two board members who are against fossil fuels. Now you go try to make sense of that. This is appeasing one's enemies. This is not trying to, uh, diversify or get into other businesses. They're these corporations are facing enormous pressure and criticism from anti corporate, anti capitalist influence and interest. A business school professor couple years ago, did a survey of the stakeholder literature.
Speaker 1 00:20:43 And she was trying to get a definition cuz it can be very vague. And so she was went searching, searching for any article, any journal article she could find in business, uh, journals on stakeholders. And she just started drawing up a list of who this it's not just a list of five. At one point she counted 435 different people groups causes including the earth and the intergalactic spec, but we're stakeholders. So you see that this becomes a very arbitrary system, but the idea that the underlying goal is to, I would say bleed dry, uh, the corporate business community. So that's a, I'll leave that aside for now. We can talk more about what the stakeholder model is, but the other tributary to this whole process in business goals is the business ethics module. Now, when I say ethics, um, there are many ethical codes. I alluded to one of them utilitarianism, which says you don't really have any rights that the goal of an ethics should be to maximize the greatest happiness for the greatest number.
Speaker 1 00:21:52 That's the alleged standard from Bentham mill and onward. It's a very common standard today. It's the one we get when we say whatever's good for society, whatever's good for the common good. Whatever's good for the general welfare of the public interest. These kind of broad based collectivist criteria under which you're able in this model to sacrifice certain individuals or groups or companies, if it helps the greater good. So it's not an individualist right based ethic. Now another ethic would be the Conan school, a manual cont who has a deontological ethic, which says your primary goal in life should be to serve others. Not yourself. Anything that's in your self-interest is dubious morally there's the altruist school from a go comp, not C a N, not K a N T but C O Mt. A goose comp in 1850s came up with altruism. He made up the word altruism means other ism.
Speaker 1 00:22:51 And it was a similar view, uh, to cons, but even worse. The idea was any egoistic self-interested behavior was immediately off limits in terms of morality, altruism, or other oriented. It had to be service to others, especially if they weren't of any value to you. So perfect strangers would be more important that you served rather than say family or friends. So altruism is the competing, uh, ethic that goes against what's called rational egoism. And that's the philosophy, the ethical system advocated and explained by iron Rand. The rational egoism is the idea that you should be the primary beneficiary of your own choices and values. The primary beneficiary, not the only one that you should serve yourself. First. That should be self interested, selfish, if you will. That's the derogatory term for greedy, if you will, but greedy for what? Greedy for health and wealth and life and happiness in, in the American system, the pursuit of happiness, what Iran called the central moral purpose of one's life to be happy.
Speaker 1 00:23:57 It's a very egoistic motive. When you think about it, you're not looking to abdicate, you're not looking to suffer. You're not looking to be a victim. You're looking to enjoy life and create values without harming others. So the rational part is, well, it's not automatic. What our self-interest will be. We have to figure out what it is. We have to do the hard work of figuring out what our values are and how to attain them. Now it should be obvious in the context of business wall street that the commercial manifestation of this ethic is the profit motive. One of the reasons profit is hate it or distrusted is not simply this residue leftover of the Marxist view that it's staffed. That's part of it. That's an error, but, but it's also this kind of biblical injunction against anything selfish or anything, money making the love of money is the root of all evil, uh, shall be easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.
Speaker 1 00:24:59 There's many, many biblical and other passages deriding, anything commercial. There's a long history of this intellectuals versus co they're commercial world seen as low vulgar crude base. Whereas the intellectual and moral things are higher and heavenly and mental. So that's feeding this as well, an underlying distrust of profit. And if the shareholder model, which it is, is saying, listen, uh, it should be, the goal should be to PR to maximize profit to this ethic. That sounds like maximizing, uh, vice. We don't wanna be maximizing vice. We wanna be minimizing vice and we might make profit. But then the way to exonerate ourselves is to give it away in some kind of philanthropy or just think of what the image is of the nonprofit organization it's considered. It's considered noble, it's considered moral as opposed to the for-profit, uh, entity. So that is another tributary business schools are not immune to the ethical codes coming out of arts and sciences.
Speaker 1 00:26:12 Uh, same thing with the law schools, same thing with the medical schools, by the way, the same thing. Believe it or not with the engineering schools, they're all on the same campus. The key influencer is the philosophy departments. I know people think philosophy has no influence, but pH ethics is part of philosophy. And to the extent philosophy is teaching this altruistic service to society code. It's permeating other specialty, uh, schools like business, medical, law, and engineering. And so that is one of the reasons you're getting MBAs, uh, to paradoxically, um, becoming either anti capitalists or at least not pro capitalists. Now I just wanna, um, before I turn to ESG, uh, just give you the headlines of certain things that have shown up in the last few years to give you just a sense. I'm not gonna summarize all these arguments, but here's one from a business ethics journal quote.
Speaker 1 00:27:09 This is from 2012 business schools. Capitalism's last stand. Now the theme of that one is, well, capitalism is hated in other departments, but you think it would still be liked in the, the business schools that's its last stand. And according to the author, it was losing ground. Even there, uh, here's an essay from Harvard business school magazine, December, 2016, MBAs are more self-serving than other CEOs. So this one goes on it's does study of, uh, whether getting an MBA makes you more self interested. The bottom line of it was, this is problematic. If you're more self interested, you're more likely to Rob cheat steal, pull an Enron, pull a Bernie Madoff to get the idea February, 2018. This is from a podcast called capital isn't. It's not capitalism, but capitalism and by a bunch of egalitarian professors, the moral case against the NBA, the moral case, well, what would it be?
Speaker 1 00:28:15 The NBA is too selfish. The NBA is too bottom line oriented here from the Harvard Crimson. I'm getting up in the dates here 2019, Harvard CRI Crimson interviewing the Dean of the Harvard business school. Lack of trust in the capitalist system is Harvard business school's biggest challenge. Dean NOH sets Glen Hubbard, who was, uh, council of economic advisors. I think in the Bush administration now teaching at Columbia, I think he's actually head of the Columbia business school. This is from the Atlantic in, uh, January of this year, quote, even my business school students have doubts about capitalism and for, and he, he doesn't really have an answer. Hubbard is not a very philosophical guy, uh, but he's writing in kind of a shock that over the years he has seen students showing up. And they're not just simply not interested in capitalism, but becoming anti-capitalist.
Speaker 1 00:29:13 And then finally, the Washington post quote, Amer this is from, uh, June last month. America's MBAs are the latest skeptics of capitalism, the latest, right? So maybe the last in line, but that came from somewhere, right? And, and I'm saying it came from the philosophy departments came from the ethics department, by the way, before I leave business ethics, it there's a running joke among business ethics professors that when they get the students in the students always say, Hey, isn't there a contradiction in the term business ethics, uh, ha ha everybody laughs. And the idea is they assume that business is not moral. They assume that it can't be ethical. And so why are we even teaching business ethics is this course just here to restrain ourselves, to find all the ways to counter self-interest, to counter the profit motive to counter.
Speaker 1 00:30:11 Lastly, I'll leave this tributary ESG. This is a more recent phenomenon. So we've had business ethics. We've had the stakeholder model chipping away at corporations and the latest it's not all that new it's about 20 years old. It began by a group at the UN, believe it or not, or maybe you can believe it ESGs standing for environmental, social and governance standards. What is the goal? If you look at the founders of this, what is the goal to set up criteria initially was to go to money managers. Initially it was to go to shareholder, uh, groups like, uh, that that own shares like Vanguard or fidelity or state street global or today BlackRock headed by Larry fi. So, so these are money managers, investment managers, holding shares and taking proxy votes. And the idea was, well, shareholders are not really paying attention to corporate governance.
Speaker 1 00:31:07 Let's go to these huge money managers and convince them that they should impose on managers, social justice type woke stuff that was in many ways, anti corporate and anti profit. So if you see the acronym ESG, that's what it is. It's, it's enormously, it's like a cancer, I believe, uh, into not just corporate life. There are now ESG scores, not only for companies and of course they would be downgraded on things like, are you using fossil fuels? Uh, do you have, uh, you know, employment in, uh, foreign countries? We don't like, so there's a whole range of CR or do you have, you know, do you, we need a certain gender or social or racial makeup in the boardroom. So deliberately NONOBJECT in many cases, racist environmentalists, uh, standards being imposed on businesses. And they're just cowering before this cuz they feel guilty, uh, to begin with.
Speaker 1 00:32:10 Um, but there are also ESG scores for nations. So the UN is running around and everyone's running around measuring nations in some of the turmoil recently in the Netherlands and RI Lanka where they've overturned the government, those governments trying to follow ESG standards have thrown away things like fertilizer use in agriculture to the point where a third of the farmers are unemployed to the point where there are food shortages and riots going on. I mean, this is a, if you look it up, just put ESG in ESG and Sri Lanka, there is a direct connection between these very inhumane anti capitalist standards and the collapse of economies. So I believe it's not only bleeding, dry, otherwise, uh, prosperous corporations that gave us the standard of living. We have. It's gonna corporate, it's gonna, uh, try, uh, some of these entire economies. So I I'll leave it there.
Speaker 1 00:33:11 My main theme is that the MBA programs you would think would produce business people and CEOs who, uh, who are serving their actual owners, which is the thing they should be doing. They should not be running off like a trust fund, running off with the assets and using it for their own purpose or the broader social purpose. The business schools like the law schools and medical schools are not immune from what's being taught in the core of the university, especially in the ethics departments and the philosophy departments. And the ideas are very bad. The only way to fight this long term is to advocate an ethic of rational egoism. And with that, the idea of property rights and individualism, and when it comes to the corporate world, an unabashed kind of guiltless love of profit and profit motive and profit maximization, and rejecting the idea that these are in any way, a version of theft or an injustice. And that is the only way we're going to recapture, um, the kind of rights a corporation should have and the kind of prosperity we can get under capitalism. So I'll, uh, I'll leave it there and now take comments and questions.
Speaker 0 00:34:26 All right. If you are listening on the podcast, this is the end of your time with us, but you should definitely join us live next, uh, month on the fourth, Thursday of every month, 5:00 PM, Pacific time, 8:00 PM Eastern time so that you can take part in what is usually another hour of question and answer and.
