Ideas Are Not Scarce. Excellent Implementation And Great Execution Are Scarce.

/0 Comments/in /by

We gathered together another insightful tweet stream from the entrepreneur’s highest rated economist, Dr. Per Bylund.

The problem of #entrepreneurship is not to come up with a unique idea or product, but to do it well–which means to supply a good or service that is well in line with what consumers value. It is as much about figuring out something new as it is to implement the idea well.

It’s a problem that people believe that the idea is what makes the entrepreneur, whereas the truth is that it is a lot of hard work. Very often the first mover has no advantage, while the second mover learns from the failures of the first mover. Which disproves the idea that profit is about the idea. It is not. Profit is about satisfying consumers’ wants, whether with a new type of good or just a better iteration of an already existing one.

Which means the uncertainty that entrepreneurs face is not about simply being able to “milk” the idea, but about running the business. Consequently, it’s not about only supply or demand, but about positioning what one offers with respect to both. This is why patents, copyrights, and other monopoly privileges are so dangerous: they provide the first mover with all benefits, whether or not they were deserved (meaning whether or not consumers value the offering).

Consider, for instance, if there were no iPads because the Apple Newton received monopoly rights on the modern tablet device market; if there were no iPhones because Windows Mobile received monopoly rights; if there was no VHS, DVD or Blu-ray because betacord received monopoly rights; etc.

First mover, or even the more efficient technology, may not be highest value. Consumers decide, and that’s the point. Entrepreneurs create value for consumers, and if consumers don’t like it entrepreneurs make no money but lose their investment. Then what do patents, copyrights, and other privileges do but cement and prolong the errors of the first mover–which means consumers *could have* received more value, but will not because legal privilege props up the *idea* at the expense of the *value* that’s not created. The loss is not only this difference, but under-utilized resources that could have created more value elsewhere as well as the innovations and elaborations of the new idea that could have satisfied consumers better.

And we’re missing out on the innovations following the first, but inefficient, attempt at a new good. This real loss is enormous. And, to put it bluntly, there really is no reason to reward the first-entrepreneur if s/he does not provide real value to consumers. Doing so is at the expense of society overall.

Definition of Entrepreneurship From Library Of Economics And Liberty

/0 Comments/in /by

An entrepreneur is someone who organizes, manages, and assumes the risks of a business or enterprise. An entrepreneur is an agent of change. Entrepreneurship is the process of discovering new ways of combining resources. When the market value generated by this new combination of resources is greater than the market value these resources can generate elsewhere individually or in some other combination, the entrepreneur makes a profit. An entrepreneur who takes the resources necessary to produce a pair of jeans that can be sold for thirty dollars and instead turns them into a denim backpack that sells for fifty dollars will earn a profit by increasing the value those resources create. This comparison is possible because in competitive resource markets, an entrepreneur’s costs of production are determined by the prices required to bid the necessary resources away from alternative uses. Those prices will be equal to the value that the resources could create in their next-best alternate uses. Because the price of purchasing resources measures this opportunity cost— the value of the forgone alternatives—the profit entrepreneurs make reflects the amount by which they have increased the value generated by the resources under their control.

Entrepreneurs who make a loss, however, have reduced the value created by the resources under their control; that is, those resources could have produced more value elsewhere. Losses mean that an entrepreneur has essentially turned a fifty-dollar denim backpack into a thirty-dollar pair of jeans. This error in judgment is part of the entrepreneurial learning, or discovery, process vital to the efficient operation of markets. The profit-and-loss system of capitalism helps to quickly sort through the many new resource combinations entrepreneurs discover. A vibrant, growing economy depends on the efficiency of the process by which new ideas are quickly discovered, acted on, and labeled as successes or failures. Just as important as identifying successes is making sure that failures are quickly extinguished, freeing poorly used resources to go elsewhere. This is the positive side of business failure.

Successful entrepreneurs expand the size of the economic pie for everyone. Bill Gates, who as an undergraduate at Harvard developed BASIC for the first microcomputer, went on to help found Microsoft in 1975. During the 1980s, IBM contracted with Gates to provide the operating system for its computers, a system now known as MS-DOS. Gates procured the software from another firm, essentially turning the thirty-dollar pair of jeans into a multibillion-dollar product. Microsoft’s Office and Windows operating software now run on about 90 percent of the world’s computers. By making software that increases human productivity, Gates expanded our ability to generate output (and income), resulting in a higher standard of living for all.

Sam Walton, the founder of Wal-Mart, was another entrepreneur who touched millions of lives in a positive way. His innovations in distribution warehouse centers and inventory control allowed Wal-Mart to grow, in less than thirty years, from a single store in Arkansas to the nation’s largest retail chain. Shoppers benefit from the low prices and convenient locations that Walton’s Wal-Marts provide. Along with other entrepreneurs such as Ted Turner (CNN), Henry Ford (Ford automobiles), Ray Kroc (McDonald’s franchising), and Fred Smith (FedEx), Walton significantly improved the everyday life of billions of people all over the world.

The word “entrepreneur” originates from a thirteenth-century French verb, entreprendre, meaning “to do something” or “to undertake.” By the sixteenth century, the noun form, entrepreneur, was being used to refer to someone who undertakes a business venture. The first academic use of the word by an economist was likely in 1730 by Richard Cantillon, who identified the willingness to bear the personal financial risk of a business venture as the defining characteristic of an entrepreneur. In the early 1800s, economists Jean-Baptiste Say and John Stuart Mill further popularized the academic usage of the word “entrepreneur.” Say stressed the role of the entrepreneur in creating value by moving resources out of less productive areas and into more productive ones. Mill used the term “entrepreneur” in his popular 1848 book, Principles of Political Economy, to refer to a person who assumes both the risk and the management of a business. In this manner, Mill provided a clearer distinction than Cantillon between an entrepreneur and other business owners (such as shareholders of a corporation) who assume financial risk but do not actively participate in the day-to-day operations or management of the firm.

Two notable twentieth-century economists, Joseph Schumpeter and Israel Kirzner, further refined the academic understanding of entrepreneurship. Schumpeter stressed the role of the entrepreneur as an innovator who implements change in an economy by introducing new goods or new methods of production. In the Schumpeterian view, the entrepreneur is a disruptive force in an economy. Schumpeter emphasized the beneficial process of creative destruction, in which the introduction of new products results in the obsolescence or failure of others. The introduction of the compact disc and the corresponding disappearance of the vinyl record is just one of many examples of creative destruction: cars, electricity, aircraft, and personal computers are others. In contrast to Schumpeter’s view, Kirzner focused on entrepreneurship as a process of discovery. Kirzner’s entrepreneur is a person who discovers previously unnoticed profit opportunities. The entrepreneur’s discovery initiates a process in which these newly discovered profit opportunities are then acted on in the marketplace until market competition eliminates the profit opportunity. Unlike Schumpeter’s disruptive force, Kirzner’s entrepreneur is an equilibrating force. An example of such an entrepreneur would be someone in a college town who discovers that a recent increase in college enrollment has created a profit opportunity in renovating houses and turning them into rental apartments. Economists in the modern austrian school of economics have further refined and developed the ideas of Schumpeter and Kirzner.

During the 1980s and 1990s, state and local governments across the United States abandoned their previous focus on attracting large manufacturing firms as the centerpiece of economic development policy and instead shifted their focus to promoting entrepreneurship. This same period witnessed a dramatic increase in empirical research on entrepreneurship. Some of these studies explore the effect of demographic and socioeconomic factors on the likelihood of a person choosing to become an entrepreneur. Others explore the impact of taxes on entrepreneurial activity. This literature is still hampered by the lack of a clear measure of entrepreneurial activity at the U.S. state level. Scholars generally measure entrepreneurship by using numbers of self-employed people; the deficiency in such a measure is that some people become self-employed partly to avoid, or even evade, income and payroll taxes. Some studies find, for example, that higher income tax rates are associated with higher rates of self-employment. This counterintuitive result is likely explained by the higher tax rates encouraging more tax evasion through individuals filing taxes as self-employed. Economists have also found that higher taxes on inheritance are associated with a lower likelihood of individuals becoming entrepreneurs.

Some empirical studies have attempted to determine the contribution of entrepreneurial activity to overall economic growth. The majority of the widely cited studies use international data, taking advantage of the index of entrepreneurial activity for each country published annually in the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor.These studies conclude that between one-third and one-half of the differences in economic growth rates across countries can be explained by differing rates of entrepreneurial activity. Similar strong results have been found at the state and local levels.

Infusions of venture capital funding, economists find, do not necessarily foster entrepreneurship. Capital is more mobile than labor, and funding naturally flows to those areas where creative and potentially profitable ideas are being generated. This means that promoting individual entrepreneurs is more important for economic development policy than is attracting venture capital at the initial stages. While funding can increase the odds of new business survival, it does not create new ideas. Funding follows ideas, not vice versa.

One of the largest remaining disagreements in the applied academic literature concerns what constitutes entrepreneurship. Should a small-town housewife who opens her own day-care business be counted the same as someone like Bill Gates or Sam Walton? If not, how are these different activities classified, and where do we draw the line? This uncertainty has led to the terms “lifestyle” entrepreneur and “gazelle” (or “high growth”) entrepreneur. Lifestyle entrepreneurs open their own businesses primarily for the nonmonetary benefits associated with being their own bosses and setting their own schedules. Gazelle entrepreneurs often move from one start-up business to another, with a well-defined growth plan and exit strategy. While this distinction seems conceptually obvious, empirically separating these two groups is difficult when we cannot observe individual motives. This becomes an even greater problem as researchers try to answer questions such as whether the policies that promote urban entrepreneurship can also work in rural areas. Researchers on rural entrepreneurship have recently shown that the Internet can make it easier for rural entrepreneurs to reach a larger market. Because, as Adam Smith pointed out, specialization is limited by the extent of the market, rural entrepreneurs can specialize more successfully when they can sell to a large number of online customers.

What is government’s role in promoting or stifling entrepreneurship? Because the early research on entrepreneurship was done mainly by noneconomists (mostly actual entrepreneurs and management faculty at business schools), the prevailing belief was that new government programs were the best way to promote entrepreneurship. Among the most popular proposals were government-managed loan funds, government subsidies, government-funded business development centers, and entrepreneurial curriculum in public schools. These programs, however, have generally failed. Government-funded and -managed loan funds, such as are found in Maine, Minnesota, and Iowa, have suffered from the same poor incentives and political pressures that plague so many other government agencies.

My own recent research, along with that of other economists, has found that the public policy that best fosters entrepreneurship is economic freedom. Our research focuses on the public choice reasons why these government programs are likely to fail, and on how improved “rules of the game” (lower and less complex taxes and regulations, more secure property rights, an unbiased judicial system, etc.) promote entrepreneurial activity. Steven Kreft and Russell Sobel (2003) showed entrepreneurial activity to be highly correlated with the “Economic Freedom Index,” a measure of the existence of such promarket institutions. This relationship between freedom and entrepreneurship also holds using more widely accepted indexes of entrepreneurial activity (from the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor) and economic freedom (from Gwartney and Lawson’s Economic Freedom of the World) that are available selectively at the international level. This relationship holds whether the countries studied are economies moving out of socialism or economies of OECD countries. Figure 1 shows the strength of this relationship among OECD countries.

The dashed line in the figure shows the positive relationship between economic freedom and entrepreneurial activity. When other demographic and socioeconomic factors are controlled for, the relationship is even stronger. This finding is consistent with the strong positive correlation between economic freedom and the growth of per capita income that other researchers have found. One reason economic freedom produces economic growth is that economic freedom fosters entrepreneurial activity.

Figure 1 Economic Freedom and Entrepreneurship in OECD Countries, 2002

ZOOM

 

Economists William Baumol and Peter Boettke popularized the idea that capitalism is significantly more productive than alternative forms of economic organization because, under capitalism, entrepreneurial effort is channeled into activities that produce wealth rather than into activities that forcibly take other people’s wealth. Entrepreneurs, note Baumol and Boettke, are present in all societies. In government-controlled societies, entrepreneurial people go into government or lobby government, and much of the government action that results—tariffs, subsidies, and regulations, for example—destroys wealth. In economies with limited governments and rule of law, entrepreneurs produce wealth. Baumol’s and Boettke’s idea is consistent with the data and research linking economic freedom, which is a measure of the presence of good institutions, to both entrepreneurship and economic growth. The recent academic research on entrepreneurship shows that, to promote entrepreneurship, government policy should focus on reforming basic institutions to create an environment in which creative individuals can flourish. That environment is one of well-defined and enforced property rights, low taxes and regulations, sound legal and monetary systems, proper contract enforcement, and limited government intervention.

https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Entrepreneurship.html

About the Author

Russell S. Sobel is a professor of economics and James Clark Coffman Distinguished Chair in Entrepreneurial Studies at West Virginia University, and he was founding director of the Entrepreneurship Center there.

Why Austrian Economics Is The Economics You Need For Entrepreneurial Success.

/0 Comments/in /by

Jeff Deist, President of the Mises Institute, recently penned a metaphorical comparison of Austrian economics to the punk rock bands of the 70’s and 80’s who composed, created, and played but were denied recognition because they were locked out by the music industry establishment. They developed a do-it-yourself ethic when it came to publishing and touring and promotion; they referred to their own music as unheard. Jeff’s metaphor is that Austrian economics is unheard today, locked out by the neo-classical mainstream and its academic and publishing establishment.

Jeff pointed to specific areas of economic theory where Austrians are unheard, but have the chance to be vindicated when outcomes confirm Austrian insights: money and monetary policy, malinvestment resulting from bad monetary policy, misallocation of resources as a result of socialist welfare policies, the bureaucratic mismanagement of the interventionist state, and economic distortions that favor a political elite.

This is all macroeconomics. There is a field where Austrians are being heard and where Austrian theory is tremendously influential, and that field is dynamic entrepreneurial capitalism.1 To be sure, this is not a locus of government policy. Neither government nor mainstream economics recognizes the role of the entrepreneur in the economy. The Austrian school, on the contrary, defines that role, and builds a cogent theory of innovation, economic growth and individual and social betterment on entrepreneurship. Austrian economists build a necessary bridge between economic theory and strategic and organizational management studies.

There are elements of Austrian economics that are uniquely suitable for building this bridge, including:

Individualism

The unit of analysis for the Austrian school is the individual, both as producer and as consumer. The consumer is sovereign, the captain of the economic ship. The entrepreneur is the helmsman,2 steering toward the goal that the sovereign consumer sets. Each role is aimed at improving the individual’s circumstances. The two roles interact with the result of betterment for all. Mainstream economics start from a different place, with the focus of analysis on false aggregates, like GDP, money supply, the price level and even “gross” supply and demand. Austrian economics can help individuals make better decisions, both as producers and consumers, and that recognition is beginning to dawn.

Subjective Value

Austrian value theory is unsurpassed in its ability to help producers with the critical economic task of value creation. Value is a consumer perception, and occurs exclusively in the consumer’s mind. Therefore, it is the consumer who creates value. The descriptive adjective “subjective” means that value is personal, emotional, idiosyncratic, and inconsistent. It most certainly can not be modeled or “formalized” in any way, which places it well outside the boundaries of modern economics. Yet value creation is central to civilizational progress, economic growth, and the success of firms. Austrian economics holds the exclusive key to the understanding that guides these processes, a key that is highly prized in the business community, if not by government and its economists.

Entrepreneurship

In Austrian economics, the role of the entrepreneur is to sense, through the application of empathy, the dissatisfactions of consumers — the signal that they are not experiencing the value they seek — and to rearrange resources into a solution that addresses that dissatisfaction. Because value is subjective in the consumer’s mind, and because the future is unpredictable, entrepreneurs exercise what Austrians call judgement: the commitment to action required to bring their new solution to market for the consumer despite the uncertainty of a profitable outcome. Mainstream economics is unable to comprehend entrepreneurial judgment. Why do 9 out of 10 entrepreneurial initiatives fail? Because, explain Austrians, such a high failure rate is to be expected as a consequence of high levels of uncertainty, consumer subjectivity, the limits on present knowledge. These cause entrepreneurial initiatives to be experiments in new knowledge creation, and the rivalrous actions of multiple entrepreneurs conducting contemporaneous experiments so that the sovereign consumer can choose the best one. Entrepreneurship is the dynamism of the unhampered economy, as more and more people are beginning to understand.

Austrian Capital Theory

In the real world, as opposed to the world of economic models, Austrian capital theory (ACT) provides a guiding light to entrepreneurs on how to assemble, organize, and manage their companies. In Austrian economics, capital is called heterogeneous. That means, every unit of capital is different, and entrepreneurs can combine these units in innumerable ways, reflecting their own knowledge, preferences and experience, and the results of their previous experiments. They can continue to reshuffle and recombine assets in dynamic adaptation to market signals, so that the resultant capital structure can be viewed as unique. The value of the capital structure is based on its ability to facilitate the experience of value by the consumer, so that the entrepreneur-assembled capital structure reflects consumer preferences. This is all anathema to neo-classical economics and its static concept of the production function. For entrepreneurs, ACT guides them toward dynamic and flexible capital structures and new forms of organization which facilitate that dynamism. Modern “virtual” organizations and new commercial processes such as Direct-To-Consumer are reflections of the insights of ACT.

Innovation

Modern mainstream economics lacks a theory of innovation, primarily because there is no role for the entrepreneur. The field has been left to business writers who attribute it to creativity in the “design process,” and promote innovation processes and innovation workshops. In Austrian economics, innovation emerges as the result of consumer sovereignty, subjective value, and entrepreneurship. Austrian economists can help businesses to innovate not through process and tactics, but through understanding the mind of the sovereign consumer (via insights tools such as the means-end chain), capacity development, and dynamic resource allocation accelerated by consumer-response capabilities.

In addition to these principles, entrepreneurship is also a decentralizing process. Knowledge is highly distributed, and because entrepreneurial initiatives stem from individual entrepreneurs’ empathic knowledge of a small number of consumers’ dissatisfactions, so is entrepreneurial action. Entrepreneurial specialization will tend toward increasing narrowness in the search for unique capabilities and unique capital combinations. This decentralization runs counter to the centralizing tendency of government regulation and intervention and of crony capitalist and globalist corporations. In this sense, the dynamic entrepreneurial capitalism of Austrian economics represents not only a route to personal and societal betterment, but also a better route to freedom than political action.

1.See, for example, The Theory Of Dynamic Efficiency, Jesus Huerta de Soto, https://www.jesushuertadesoto.com/the-theory-of-dynamic-efficiency/

2.Bureaucracy, Ludwig von Mises, p226 https://mises.org/library/bureaucracy

Mainstream Economists Favor Efficiency. That Should Not Be A Goal – It Should Be Avoided.

/0 Comments/in /by

What does an economy do? Modern economics suggests it is about [production] efficiency, and develops models for assessing the degree to which it is achieved and predicting outcomes assuming it. This is a fundamental misunderstanding that, when scratching on the surface, clearly is as impossible as it is undesirable. Economy is about value creation: about getting more out of less. Efficiency is backward-looking and lacking in progress, while value creation is future-oriented and aspirational.

What I mean by that is that efficiency is about tinkering with processes and mechanisms that already exist, with the goal of making them run faster, smoother, and with less waste. It is about management, about reducing costs and cutting overhead. But one cannot cut costs unless there is already an established process for which costs can be cut. In other words, efficiency is not a matter of figuring out other things to do, but only how to do things already underway in other ways. Consider any production process, either within a firm or the economy overall, which is either already efficient or nearing such a state. Every step on the way toward increasing output at lesser per-unit cost is an improvement in terms of efficiency. Why, in this situation, would you take resources and speculate on producing something else? You wouldn’t, because it is inefficient and makes the overall undertaking less efficient.

But this is exactly what an economy does through entrepreneurship: attempts numerous new types of production, new types of goods, and so on. And a first attempt is never efficient. Very often, it is rather outrageously inefficient and wasteful. But where it turns out to be successful, new value is created. And then, through competitive discovery and skillful management, the production process can be improved in the direction of (whether or not it ever reaches) efficiency. With a little luck, this process–even though it’s approaching efficiency–is disrupted by, relatively speaking, a more inefficient process. But one that creates more value. More wasteful in terms of resource usage given the valued outcome, but more valuable in the outcome! Schumpeter addressed this as ‘creative destruction’ (see ch. 7 of Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy), arguing that this process of discovery and creation will always beat a system that is ever maximized.

It is because there is slack/available resources that the open economy’s ‘essential element’ (entrepreneurship), through inefficient innovation and attempted value creation, creates immense value. All of those actions are future-oriented, as Menger stressed, whereas efficiency is about the management of that which was already established. One can only improve processes that already exist, and one cannot demand that something new is efficient from scratch. Consequently, efficiency necessarily leads us astray if our goal is increased standard of living and wellbeing, and saving humanity from poverty. Focusing on efficiency instead of value creation (and one cannot have both!), because it relies on historical rather than future value, also augments previous structures.

There is no saying that those owning capital in the past will be the ones creating value in the future. In fact, it is often the other way around: disruptions are brought about by small and seemingly insignificant players and innovators. But if our aim is efficiency, then whatever differences were will be augmented: those who already own existing production structures are those benefiting from making them more efficient/less costly. And the difference between capital owners and non-capital owners is thus strengthened. Not because of power or influence, though the State tends to provide them with that too, but because the past is not disrupted by new value creation. In this sense, efficiency should not be a goal, but should be avoided.

By Per Bylund, https://threadreaderapp.com/hashtag/valuecreation

Per Bylund’s Tweet Stream Explains The Concept Of Economic Cost And How It Directs Investment To The Highest Return Projects.

/0 Comments/in /by
The concept of economic cost seems to confuse people. It is not the price you pay for a good, but the reason you pay it. The cost of one action is the value you could otherwise have gained, from taking another action. In other words, if you have $100 and you have the choice to buy two goods, each at a price of $100, you’ll naturally choose whichever is more important (valuable) to you. The cost of it is not the $100, which you give up to purchase it, but the value of the other good, which you can no longer purchase.
That other good is the opportunity foregone by your action, the ‘true’ cost of your action–the economic cost. Why does this matter? Because our actions are intended to create value, and we always aim to maximize that (subjectively understood) value. The economic cost concept brings to our attention what we *actually* give up to get a value, and thus why we choose a certain course of action.
An economy, which is a system of economizing on scarce resources, is the systematic allocation of resources to maximize value. It is not about minimizing price paid, which is something different. It is about value. While this may seem like an academic point, the implications are enormous. Those who are ignorant of this concept focus on the outcome of action only–the “net gain”–rather than the cost. Doing so means we end up wasting enormous resources while not getting the value that was well within reach.
Examples of this include arguing that there were massive gains from, for example, World War II or the US space program in the 1960s. Both were enormously wasteful, but also generated tangible benefits. WW2 led to the discovery of artificial rubber, freeing us from costly and time-consuming rubber production. Yes, that’s a benefit. And there were plenty of technologies developed as part of the space program. Those were also benefits. But at what economic cost? That’s the real issue: what *other* benefits did we never see because we instead pumped in enormous resources into war and the space race? What other discoveries and innovations were within reach had those resources been used differently?
The WW2 example should be obvious, since the war itself was hardly productive. But the space program is exactly the same issue: what opportunities did we, as a society, forego because the government preferred to invest billions of dollars into the prestige program of beating the Russians to the moon? We don’t know what we didn’t get, of course. But this doesn’t mean we cannot say whether it was the right thing to do. The fact is that in a market system entrepreneurs compete with each other not to minimize cost, but to produce value. Naturally, this means *net* value: what actual benefit is provided in the eyes of the consumer. The entrepreneurs don’t know what consumers will value, but they bet their livelihoods on what they think will benefit consumers most. The result is a variety of goods and services from which consumers can choose, and they will choose what is the best option from their point of view.
What is not produced cannot be chosen. But what is not produced also does not seem to be worth it to the numerous entrepreneurs engaging in value facilitation for consumers. Note that this is not a matter of whether entrepreneurs can “afford” the capital investment needed. It is about the rate of return: whether the value is high enough above the outlays necessary to produce the good/service (the production cost). With a sufficiently high ROI, relative to other possible and attempted projects, entrepreneurs can always find the funds needed: investors are looking for a return on their funds, after all. So the argument that “only the government can” invest in something because it requires capital is bogus. It asserts problems that don’t exist, and often fails to properly apply the concept of economic cost (as in the examples above).
Economic cost tells us what is expectedly most important to people, regardless of the capital investment magnitude. Higher ROI means greater value, which means a higher price can be charged–and more profit earned. This is where economic cost is essential to understand the workings of the economy. Because if a project envisioned by an entrepreneur appears to be highly profitable, regardless of initial investment needed, s/he will pursue it. This means, at the same time, that other entrepreneurial projects, which are expected to provide a lesser return on investment, will *not* be pursued.
What matters for society and the economy is that the greater value is pursued, because it makes all of us better off. This is why, through competition, the swift weeding out of entrepreneurs with projects that do not actually produce much value is important: they literally waste our resources because the value foregone–the projects that were not undertaken because the resources were bound up in these lesser projects–is higher than the value produced. It is an economic loss regardless of what benefits came out of it.
Consequently, we can conclude that the space program, just like war, was a wasteful act. The government stepped in because no entrepreneur was willing to undertake it, which is because its expected ROI (if any) was much lower than other projects entrepreneurs could pursue. We don’t know what we lost, but it could have been cures for nasty diseases, doing away with poverty, or whatever. The fact that consumers were not expected to spend their own money on the space program, and the fact that no entrepreneurs expected that they would, at
least not to the extent necessary, means it was not considered valuable enough. Its economic cost was expected to be higher than the economic value!
Now, does this mean that nothing good came out of the space program? Of course not. There were innovations and technologies discovered that have served us well. But they were, at the time of investment, either not expected (at all) or not expected to sufficiently serve people. There are certainly examples of flukes that ended up creating beautiful things (like Arpanet becoming the Internet), but who in their right mind would argue that we should waste resources on grand government projects because there might be unintended consequences that we’d benefit from? Considering the economic cost, what we could have gained from that investment was expected (by everyone!) to be higher than the project pursued by the government.
That’s the reason the government did it: Government is in the business of wasting scarce resources at high economic cost, i.e. without sufficient expected value. No matter how one looks at it, this is wasteful.
Unless, of course, one ignores the concept of economic cost: the higher-value opportunities that are foregone–lost–because we’re instead pursuing the lower-valued ones.
To simplify, it is a matter of picking the low-hanging fruits first, because there is much higher return–greater “bang” for the buck–from doing so. It makes no sense climbing to the top branches “in case” there is some other and unexpected benefit from putting in the extra effort.

Is There A Philosophy Of Entrepreneurship? Yes, There Most Certainly Is. It Starts With Ethics.

/0 Comments/in /by

Mainstream economics today does not believe in ethics, or does not count ethics as a part of its program. Instead, it is based on the concept of “rationality”, asserting that both individual human action and economic policy at the government level are determined by mathematical calculations and valuations of costs and benefits. Specifically, the ends that are pursued can be “maximized” by optimally assigning the available means. The result of this approach is that ethical principles lose relevance as guides to human behavior. They are not optimal. They do not help to maximize the beneficial consequences of human action.

However, mainstream economics is a failure. The mathematical calculations are impossible. The economic process is driven by the innate creative capacity of human beings, constantly discovering new ends and means, giving rise to new flows of knowledge and information, making it impossible to calculate the future consequences of different human actions and/or political decisions. This is precisely why socialism and government intervention and central planning fail.

The entrepreneurial approach to economics does not try to calculate or predict outcomes. It recognizes that social affairs evolve spontaneously as a result of the participation of a very large number of human beings who act in very varied ways in different specific circumstances of time and place. They are guided by ethical principles that act as a sort of “automatic pilot” for behavior and therefore for human freedom.

Entrepreneurship consists of the innate capacity for all human beings to appreciate or discover the opportunities for gain that arise in their surroundings and to act to take advantage of them. Entrepreneurship is the human capacity to continually create and discover new ends and means that have a higher value. The ethical approach is not to redistribute what exists, but to stimulate creative entrepreneurship that is best adapted to the betterment of society. One axiom for such stimulus is that all human beings have a natural right to the fruits of their own entrepreneurial activity.

The market economy arises from this creative entrepreneurial capacity of human beings. In the dynamic creation of new knowledge and new opportunities arising from the interaction of thousands of human beings, it’s impossible to calculate costs and benefits. All human beings need a moral framework of principles to guide them towards the behaviors they should follow in order for there to be social coordination as well as individual betterment. This coordination process is both spontaneous and dynamically efficient. Therefore, justice and effective markets are not two values to be traded-off, but two sides of the same coin. Only justice can lead to efficiency, i.e. social coordination, and what is efficient can not be unjust. Moral principles of behavior and economic efficiency mutually strengthen and support each other.

Consequently, we can conclude that the most just society is the one that most forcefully promotes the entrepreneurial creativity of all the human beings who compose it. To do this, it is indispensable for each human being to be certain that he or she will retain ownership rights to the results of their entrepreneurial activity. Any system that expropriates these rights is immoral.

Mainstream economics disagrees. It focuses on the results of the social process, rather than the moral behaviors and rights of those who participate in it. It is a static analysis – it takes an historical moment in time when goods and services are given and fixed, and focuses solely on the distribution of them. But entrepreneurial impetus means that there is never a static moment in time. Production and distribution are taking place simultaneously, with continuous change.

The only way to impose the static concept of social justice on the dynamic entrepreneurial market is to stop it – to coercively prevent the free practice of entrepreneurship and the creativity and coordination that makes civilization possible. From an ethical point of view, the moral principle that all human beings have a natural right to the results of their own creative entrepreneurial activity is violated. Social justice is essentially immoral.

Free markets driven by entrepreneurship are the only just markets. And it is perfectly compatible for this entrepreneurial creativity and spirit also to be used voluntarily to seek, discover and alleviate any situations of urgent need into which other human beings may have fallen.

Adapted from The Ethics Of Capitalism, Jesus Huerta De Soto, Journal Of Markets And Morality, Fall 1999.