There is a steam roller building momentum called socialized entrepreneurship, which is the term I use for government trying to manage the entrepreneurial economy.
This week’s National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship has several examples:
– A report on how state and local governments in the South can pick winning industries and businesses to spur entrepreneurship. (It never works over the long-run, and often fails even in the short-run).
– A report of similar efforts down under in Australia. (OK, so they won the US Open. I’ll give them that much…..).
– An article on how state governments are helping low income people gain access to entrepreneurship by creating “asset building accounts” for them through a variety of programs. (Redistributing wealth is still redistributing wealth no matter what you call it).
– And a brand new academic journal on how governments can more effectively meddle in the entrepreneurial process. (I kind of figured that some of my colleagues in the academy where behind all of this…..).
To all of you who think that socialized entrepreneurship can actually work, please remember that the first word in free enterprise is free.
Dr Jeff Cornwall
Co-founder of The Entrepreneurial Mind, serial entrepreneur and professor of entrepreneurship.
One complaint I hear from people of your economic beliefs is that charity is a bad thing. Belmont is a Christian organization, and Christ did give commandments to be charitable.
Another thing that Christ taught us was that everything we have, we have because God allowed us to have it – and that everything belongs to God – so that we are only stewards of God’s things, God’s money. So what would God have us do with the money he allowed us to have? Is it only to be used for personal/selfish intent? Would not God want us to use our wealth for everyone’s benefit, not just our own? I do believe that Christ was very much in favor of redistributing wealth – that’s why he told the wealthy man to sell all he had, give the money to the poor, and to follow Him.
The arguement given about charity to the poor goes like this – if you give a man a fish, you feed him for a day, if you teach him how to fish, you feed him for the rest of his life. Now, in the case of helping the poor people raise money to start their own businesses, and to provide them with the training to be successful, you have a problem with that? It sound more like you just want to keep the poor man in his state of poverty. Perhaps it’s the competition the poor man will give you for your wealth, that you’re really against.
Would God be pleased, and Bless you all the more, for helping others make a better life for themselves? Wouldn’t doing so be the reality of Compassionate Conservative?
I am not sure what economic beliefs you are attributing to me.
If you are a regular reader of my blog, you should know that while the evidence is clear from around the world that smaller government is the key to sustaining our entrepreneurial economy, I also believe that without a strong culture big government is inevitable. It is by rebuilding a strong culture based on our faith that we can best address concerns you raise over the long term as free people and without government getting in the way of building genuine communities. Time has clearly shown that government is neither effective nor efficient at reaching the goals you state. And in fact in spite of lip service to the contrary, it is not very compassionate, either.
You seem to hold to logic that there are only two economic models: one based on a strong government hand and one based on letting the free markets run wild. While I believe strongly in the power of free markets, I also believe that the only way they can remain free is if they are rooted strongly in a moral framework sustained by a strong culture. By abdicating right and wrong to the government over the past several decades, we have allowed our culture to erode.
If you are a regular reader, you also should know that I am writing a book about the need for entrepreneurs to integrate their faith into how they run their businesses. It is called “The Good Entrepreneur.” The last chapter I just sent to my co-author was our chapter on entrepreneurs as stewards, in which we make many of the same arguments that you do. But we challenge the entrepreneur to a calling of stewardship, not the federal nor state governments.
It saddens me that you attribute certain beliefs to me without knowing who I am nor what I really believe. In fact, I agree with most of the arguments you make. I just know from the evidence that government is not the vehicle to realize your goals. It is your conclusions and how to best reach the goals you outline with which I differ.
Governments can stimulate entrepreneurship in multiple manners. We have seen that in India Chandra Babu Naidu governement promoted entrepreneurship in IT and related industries in Andhra Pradesh. Similar initiatives are being taken by other governments also. Gujarat Govt. is also trying in this regard. What is needed is to develop a model which can guide and train policy makers to formulate policies that can stimulate entrepreneurship and social development processes.
Thanks
trilok
Governments should practice laissez-faire as that is the best manner for independent businesses to grow within. On the other hand, I do believe that governments can help out small businesses through unique tax breaks, that would allow them an additional tax break for further R&D that leads to technological breakthroughs, which truly benefit society. This in effect creates a cyclical effect that allows new businesses to form and creates greater competition within the market, thereby benefitting consumers and entrepreneurs. I do agree thought that stewardship is very important on the part of entrepreneurs. They should truly maximize their talents that they have been given and be responsible with the funds that they receive. Being a good steward also means benefitting society through the responsible application of one’s funds. It is a powerful story to hear of someone who went from nothing to a lot, all through hard work and dedication, but not all people can get that start completely on their own. Sometimes, a creative person needs encouragement, whether it be with words, capital, or even tax breaks, as is exhibited in this case, in order to get their feet on the ground. They can then begin to take over the responsibility of using their opportunity to grow and benefit society.