3 ms·

I think they need to define what they mean by a 'public entrepreneur'. A private entrepreneur in a capitalist system is a fairly clear concept: someone who sta

I think they need to define what they mean by a 'public entrepreneur'. A private entrepreneur in a capitalist system is a fairly clear concept: someone who starts a business using funds that they are responsible for in some way, i.e. they bear the risk of failure. A successful entrepreneur is one whose business generates some degree of profit, i.e. it has a positive balance sheet. Note that a manager of someone else's money is not, by this definition, an entrepreneur, as they are not really bearing most of the risk of failure. In addition, most entrepreneurs turn to external sources of capital (VC funds, banks, etc.) to grow their businesses once they've demonstrated some degree of independent success. So, what's a public entrepreneur? Someone who starts a program / business using public funds, but then puts the profits in their own pocket? Are we talking about private contractors who seek government contracts (I assume not)? Is a Congressperson who uses insider information about pending bills to make lucrative investments a 'public entrepreneur'? How about a government-funded academic trying to lever their state-financed IP into a lucrative side business? Rather than public entrepreneurs, we'd be better off with reliable civil servants who are not corrupt, i.e. not taking kickbacks from private contractors, not altering regulations solely for the benefit of private parties who will later give them 'jobs', not using their academic positions as launching pads for government-funded 'public-private startups', etc.

AlbertCory 4y ago
Very well said. In capitalism, if you have money, you can get power. In socialism, if you have power, you can get money.
- varispeed 4y ago
  There is a problem: In socialism, if you have power, you can print money In capitalism, if you have money, you can get power and then you can print money Given enough time, both systems evolve into something that cannot be easily distinguished. There are always going to be groups of people destined to be exploited through the similar mechanisms. People who are attracted to capitalism believe that it is a system of equal chances, that they can participate in the economy and achieve success with their own hard work. People who are attracted to socialism believe that the system is preventing them from having a chance due to their background that is outside of their control and they believe the state should intervene and help them participate and achieve success. These two ways of thinking are ripe to be exploited by politicians, divide et impera. Politicians from both sides rather than trying to meet somewhere in the middle, they rather enforce the differences. Like "capitalist" will say "lazy" people shouldn't eat, and "socialist" will say the "Bourgeoisie" is not paying their fair share. It is also interesting that the politicians who are for capitalism tend to be against social freedoms like gay marriage, abortions and politicians who are for socialism, tend to favour strict regulation of economy, but afford wide social freedoms. As if they have created this these sort of red lines to further the divide of the society. For instance, if you want to run your own business your option is to vote for a party that won't get in your way, but you'll have to consider you'll have to mess up with your friends who are same sex and want to get married. There seems to be no party that would be good for small and medium business and at the same time acknowledge the needs of modern society. Or am I missing something? I understand that my comparison is a bit crude, but it's something that fascinates me. This is happening in many countries, this style of politics.
  - AlbertCory 4y ago
    Good analysis. The one thing you left out is the variety of ways a powerful person can make money under a left-leaning system: lobbying, "public relations" (representing other countries here in the US, for instance), writing books, going on TV, or getting well-paid gigs with foundations or other charitable organizations.

AlbertCory 4y ago

Very well said. In capitalism, if you have money, you can get power. In socialism, if you have power, you can get money.

varispeed 4y ago
There is a problem: In socialism, if you have power, you can print money In capitalism, if you have money, you can get power and then you can print money Given enough time, both systems evolve into something that cannot be easily distinguished. There are always going to be groups of people destined to be exploited through the similar mechanisms. People who are attracted to capitalism believe that it is a system of equal chances, that they can participate in the economy and achieve success with their own hard work. People who are attracted to socialism believe that the system is preventing them from having a chance due to their background that is outside of their control and they believe the state should intervene and help them participate and achieve success. These two ways of thinking are ripe to be exploited by politicians, divide et impera. Politicians from both sides rather than trying to meet somewhere in the middle, they rather enforce the differences. Like "capitalist" will say "lazy" people shouldn't eat, and "socialist" will say the "Bourgeoisie" is not paying their fair share. It is also interesting that the politicians who are for capitalism tend to be against social freedoms like gay marriage, abortions and politicians who are for socialism, tend to favour strict regulation of economy, but afford wide social freedoms. As if they have created this these sort of red lines to further the divide of the society. For instance, if you want to run your own business your option is to vote for a party that won't get in your way, but you'll have to consider you'll have to mess up with your friends who are same sex and want to get married. There seems to be no party that would be good for small and medium business and at the same time acknowledge the needs of modern society. Or am I missing something? I understand that my comparison is a bit crude, but it's something that fascinates me. This is happening in many countries, this style of politics.
- AlbertCory 4y ago
  Good analysis. The one thing you left out is the variety of ways a powerful person can make money under a left-leaning system: lobbying, "public relations" (representing other countries here in the US, for instance), writing books, going on TV, or getting well-paid gigs with foundations or other charitable organizations.