I really don't understand the author's position. And it's also a very loaded link, should have the libertarians out of the woodwork. I'm not sure if it belong

I really don't understand the author's position. And it's also a very loaded link, should have the libertarians out of the woodwork. I'm not sure if it belongs in Hacker News though (I'd love to discuss it, but it doesn't seem the right forum for it). Edit: I'd like to know why you disagree with me. My take on the article: It differenciates between "Grinds" (I take them as the "enterpreneurs", the Randian Hank Reardens if you will) and "Princes" (which I take as the "cronies", "old-boys networks", etc) He states that "princes" are more interesting to be around and other subjective stuff, but then goes on to the meat of the article IMO: he realizes it's the enterpreneurs and small businesses that drive the economy - "For jobs to recover, the grinds have to recover" and that it's largely the government's fault (and banks, etc): "it’s hard to see how that will happen so long as households are still so leveraged, government debt is still so unnerving and the business climate is still so terrible for entrepreneurs." so he wants the "grinds" to redouble their efforts: "how we are going to light a fire under the country’s loners, its contrarians and its narrow, ambitious outsiders" yet he doesn't seem to realize it's the gov't and the "princes" which hinder the "grinds"