True entrepreneurs don't need encouragement

Government policies encouraging training of entrepreneurs won't kickstart the economy.

Cheryl Ravelo/Reuters/File
A worker counts dollar bills being exchanged inside a money changer in Manila August 1, 2011. French argues that no amount of schooling can effectively create entrepreneurs, who must think outside the box.

Small business is the subject for debate in today’s Wall Street Journal.  Small business is said to be the main job creator in the U.S. economy and with unemployment still high, and a punk business climate, a goosing from government policy is thought to be the tonic to put us right back comfortably in bubble land.

All we need is a massive wave of entrepreneurship and we’re off to the races.  And if you believe Noam Wasserman, who teaches entrepreneurship at Harvard Business School, we can all be entrepreneurs.  Dr. Wasserman says doctors, lawyers and engineers are trained, why not entrepreneurs?

Forget about the school of hard knocks, students can study other people’s mistakes, learning what pitfalls to avoid and presto:  any business school grad has what it takes to launch the next Facebook or maybe just  an internet cafe downtown.

But Ludwig von Mises contends,

What distinguishes the successful entrepreneur and promoter from other people is precisely the fact that he does not let himself be guided by what  was and is, but arranges his affairs on the ground of his opinion about the future.  He sees the past and the  present as other people do, but he judges the future in a different way.

Peter Klein explains that for Mises, entrepreneurial judgment is not a mechanical process of formulating values using known probabilities.  Instead it’s “a kind of Verstehan that cannot be formally modeled using decision theory.”   This echos the view of Frank Knight, who believed entrepreneurial decision making is not modelable.

Klein explains,

Mises emphasizes, some individuals are more adept than others, over time, at anticipating future market conditions, and these individuals tend to acquire more resources while those whose forecasting skills are poor tend to exit the market. Indeed, for Mises, the entrepreneurial selection mechanism in which unsuccessful entrepreneurs–those who systematically  overbid for factors, relative to eventual consumer demands–are eliminated from the market is the critical “market process” of capitalism.

Instead of the unfettered market directing capital to successful entrepreneurs, the Small Business Administration (SBA) seeks to direct capital to anyone who thinks they might be an entrepreneur, especially  if they fall into certain favored categories of race and gender.  Veronique de Rugy argues that the SBA is a waste of money, citing Frederic Bastiat’s insight that those helped by government policy are very visible, while those harmed  by the same policy go unnoticed.    Ms. de Rugy writes, “we don’t know how many more jobs might have been created if market forces determined the allocation of capital.”

Arguing the other side is Barbara Kasoff who claims the SBA “helps keep capital, contracts and know-how flowing to small businesses,” citing plenty of big numbers making the case for government’s capital steering involvement.   But the SBA assumes capital is homogeneous and that everyone (who can qualify for an SBA loan) is equally gifted as an entrepreneur.   However, if these borrowers had proven track records of entrepreneurial acumen, presumably no government guarantee would be needed for banks to be induced to make the loans in the first place.

The mere fact that government has interceded means capital is being misdirected away from those with proven entrepreneurial ability  and toward those who are lacking the same.  Over time, while its proponents claim the SBA program is creating jobs, it is in fact destroying capital, and jobs along with it.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.