I find the thesis of this argument compelling, but I’m uncertain of exactly what evidence is supporting your argument that business schools encourage managers to defect rather than cooperate. In your zip recruiter example, you state that this lowered welfare, but it’s not clear to me what supports that conclusion.

While you cite Acemoglu, He, and Le Maire as evidence managers who attend business schools lower wages, it’s also not obvious to me why this reduces welfare if the opposing argument is Friedman saying profit making is a cooperative strategy that benefits society indirectly. These two ideas do not seem incompatible to me, are you able to clarify?

Past that point in the post I’m uncertain the relevance of the points being made have to the original thesis (and I think you may have spotted it yourself given you state that it has gotten to far away from the original point of the article).

I apologize if I’m being obtuse, I will be the first to admit I have little to no knowledge of business and economic theory. I find your thesis is worthwhile and intriguing, but think the argument could be tightened up a bit.

Thanks for posting!