Category Archive: Entrepreneurship

  1. What’s wrong with making money?

    Comments Off on What’s wrong with making money?

    Social justice advocates argue that it is “society’s” duty to eliminate pain and inequality wherever and whenever it exists. What is interesting is that I have never met Mr. Society.  Society is composed of individuals.

    What the social justice advocates really mean is that the government should redistribute wealth from rich individuals to lower-income and middle-income individuals.

    In my classes, I use the example of my orthopedic surgeon friend and my neurosurgeon friend who earn very high incomes from their private practices — and from other business opportunities presented to them because of their expertise. I would love to earn what they do, but, as I say to my students, if I ruin an economics lecture, big deal! The worst that happens is that students get bored. When my surgeon friends make a mistake, their patients are permanently affected or they die!

    So it shouldn’t be surprising that people are willing to pay a lot more to make sure those surgeons do their jobs well. And because surgery requires rare and difficult-to-learn skills, it shouldn’t be surprising that few people can become surgeons to compete in that market and bring the prices down. (In a world without government price-fixing and other interventions in health care, surgeons might earn less or more money than they do now, but I bet they’d still earn more than I do!)

    So I have no problem with surgeons being paid more than me. It’s not immoral for them to earn a high income — they should be proud of it!

    Political Redistribution

    What is immoral is for the government to punish individuals like my friends, who have worked hard to become surgeons — or to punish individuals who became successful entrepreneurs and started businesses that made them wealthy. When someone works hard and their input even makes our lives better, why is it fair for politicians to begin taking money from them to redistribute it?

    I worked hard to get a PhD in economics and I make a good salary as an economics professor. I also earn additional income from teaching more classes than required and from various speaking engagements. Why should my work efforts and the opportunities presented to me be penalized by the government?

    When entrepreneurs become millionaires or billionaires it’s usually because they created a product or service that is useful or desired by others. Unless the entrepreneurs start getting crony privileges from the government, they can’t forcibly take money from their customers.

    When a businessman or businesswoman makes a dollar, the world is better off because someone voluntarily traded their money for the good or service the business provides — it’s a win-win situation.

    Unfortunately, most of my students have been influenced by “progressive” high school teachers and professors. They come to my classroom with the belief that the businessperson “took” money from their customers and that they should feel ashamed for having so much money and such a big house or numerous fancy cars.

    I try to balance my students’ education by arguing that perhaps businesspeople and entrepreneurs should be praised, and that “profit” is not a bad word.

    Of course, I also make it clear that a supporter of true free enterprise believes it is immoral for the government to give subsidies to government organizations or to give specific corporations special protection. If a business cannot survive without government help, it deserves to die.

    Financially successful individuals do not have an economic moral duty toward others. In fact, using higher taxes to punish surgeons or those in other fields who make very high salaries or business profits could discourage young people from pursuing these essential, challenging careers. That would lead to society having fewer excellent and talented surgeons and businesspeople.

    I am not arguing that individuals should not help others, but that they should not be forced to do so through coercion by the government. Being charitable and giving away even a portion of one’s earnings should be an individual choice.

  2. Economic Freedom by the Numbers

    Leave a Comment

    What’s the evidence that economic freedom is beneficial for society? Prof. Antony Davies shows charts of the free market’s effects on unemployment, inequality, poverty, and even child labor.

  3. Millennials are in a love triangle with capitalism and socialism

    Comments Off on Millennials are in a love triangle with capitalism and socialism

    There’s been a lot of talk recently about how Millennials — the generation born between roughly 1980 and 2000 — think about economics. Much of it was sparked by the fanatical support for self-described “democratic socialist” Bernie Sanders from young people in the Democratic primary for president last year. Gallup found in April 2016 that whereas Hillary Clinton had a net favorability rating of -23 among 18–24-year-olds, Sanders’s score was +39.

    A Harvard University poll administered at about the same time revealed how this has been translated into policy views. The survey reported that only 42% of Millennials supported capitalism. According to a contemporaneous Gallup poll, that was about 10 percentage points lower than the general population. The Harvard survey showed 33% of Millennials wanted socialism.

    So Millennials have economic attitudes that are different from older Americans. But is their economic behavior different? Do they walk the socialist walk?

    Here, the evidence is decidedly mixed.

    Health Care

    Socialists tend to embrace public goods because all citizens can consume them. Millennials certainly like them. A Pew Research Center poll from June revealed 45% of 18–29 year olds favored a single-payer health care system. This was 14 percentage points higher than any other single age group.

    Census data show millennials adopted health insurance more rapidly than any other age cohort when Obamacare began in 2014–15. I’m not entirely sure what kind of political philosophy this behavior illustrates, but it does seem to suggest Millennials embraced the Affordable Care Act, legislation most people believe moved health care in this country solidly to the left.

    Recycling and Personal Consumption

    Socialism, unlike capitalism, makes a virtue of constrained personal consumption. A major reason for this, of course, is that it is less suited to production. But the connection has helped fuse ecology to socialism in the platforms of left-wing parties across the globe.

    You may have heard the argument that Millennials are more environmentally conscious than the rest of us—they don’t use plastic shopping bags or flush the toilet, etc. A survey commissioned by Rubbermaid reported earlier this year that two-thirds of Millennials would give up social media for a week if everyone at their company recycled.

    Interestingly, however, the data on behavior do not bear this out. A 2014 Harris poll conducted for the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries (ISRI) revealed that whereas roughly a half of respondents over thirty said they “always” recycled, only a third of the younger group did.

    Millennials talk about saving the planet for humanity, behavior a socialist mindset deems heroic, but they do not seem to be doing more than anyone else to secure our world’s survival.


    Millennials also use public transportation much more than other groups. Over one-fifth ride a bus or train on a daily or almost-daily basis according to a Pew survey from late 2015. This was nearly double the proportion of any other age group.

    Indeed, younger people seem to have much less love than their elders for that ultimate of American private goods, one’s own car. The number of licensed drivers in both the 24-29 year-old and 30-34 year-old cohorts decreased by about 10% between 1983 and 2014 according to the University of Michigan’s Transportation Research Institute. The drop for 18 year olds was a fifth. At the same time, everyone over 45 continues their love affair with the automobile.

    This seems consistent with the socialist rejection of material goods, but whether this is correlation or causation is unclear.

    Sharing Economy

    Moreover, Millennials have almost single-handedly nurtured the “sharing” economy — a marketplace in which peer-to-peer transactions are facilitated by a software platform that permits participants to divide consumption, as exemplified by Uber and Airbnb. According to Vugo, 57% of all ridesharing customers are aged 25 to 34.

    The sharing economy may sound quite socialist because it seems to eschew private ownership. But as Duke professor Mike Munger has pointed out, people in general wish to consume the services that tangible goods provide, not the goods themselves. The sharing economy in fact provides access to the services of more material goods than the user would otherwise have — whether that’s a five-minute ride in a car or a two-day stay in a house. Its fundamental principles, therefore, are capitalist.


    A 2014 Bentley University survey of Millennials reported that two-thirds of respondents expressed a desire to start their own business. But Millennial behavior is different. An analysis by the Wall Street Journal last year found that the proportion of Americans under 30 who own a business has dropped by 65% since the 1980s. Millennials might say they want to be Mark Zuckerberg, but they’re not particularly entrepreneurial.

    There does exist therefore a disconnect between Millennial economic attitudes and behavior. What explains it? The generation is intrigued by the idea of socialism. It embraces many of its values and the public policies that would bring it about. But Millennials’ behavior is ambiguous. Entrepreneurship in private enterprise is not a particularly appealing career path to them in practice.

    Additionally, Millennials’ reduced consumption is probably as much a function of economic necessity as it is a sacrifice of their personal wants to some grand social plan. The Great Recession has left them playing financial catch-up. A Pew analysis of census data reveals 15% of 25-to-35 year olds still live with their parents. Traditionally that fraction has been around one tenth. A 2016 study by the left-leaning Center for American Progress found that Millennials make less than Gen Xers did in their early 30s. They only earn about the same as Boomers, who are 30 years older and 50% less likely to have graduated from college.

    So perhaps there’s another explanation: When they appear to be rejecting capitalism, it’s often because Millennials are simply adjusting America’s core economic principles to new technologies and economic realities.

  4. Entrepreneurs are evading regulations to bring you beer and marijuana cleanses.

    Comments Off on Entrepreneurs are evading regulations to bring you beer and marijuana cleanses.

    This summer I’ve been enjoying a lot of microbrewery tours — even though the main attraction isn’t the “tour” I pay for, but the free beer that comes with it. In fact, the breweries must know that’s why people come. So why don’t they just drop this tour façade and sell us the beer?

    Regardless of which brewery you visit, you pay a mere $10 for a pint glass with the brewery’s logo on it. As a thank you for purchasing the pint glass, they then grant three tickets you can redeem for free “samples” — which are actually full-sized beers.

    There are also usually food vendors and live music. This atmosphere combined with the inexpensive libations draw sizeable crowds to these “tours” — where only a handful of patrons actually tour the facility.

    But why do the breweries insist upon selling us the pint glasses, when most of us only really want what goes inside?

    In conversation with the brewery owners, I learned that the breweries in my town aren’t legally allowed to sell beer directly to consumers in the way a bar can. But there’s nothing in the law preventing them from giving their product away.

    In response to those incentives, they sell customers a pint glass (or charge them for the “tour”) and rent some of their property out to food vendors to subsidize the cost of getting their product into the hands of eager consumers without technically charging them for it.

    It’s far from an ideal situation for these businesses, but it allows them to introduce new people to their product and to earn some revenue in the process — even if it’s less revenue than they could earn if they were allowed to just sell people the beer. It’s a clever arrangement, and a perfect example of evasive entrepreneurship.

    Evasive Entrepreneurship

    Evasive entrepreneurship is when individuals develop innovative ways to circumvent laws and regulations to pursue profit. When the formal rules of a society make it costly for individuals to voluntarily exchange with one another, it is not surprising that individuals begin to invest time and resources in figuring out how to sidestep these laws.

    As in the brewery tour example, evasive entrepreneurship sometimes provides us with delightful products or services that may never have existed or found their market in the absence of certain rules. The citizen’s band (CB) radio, for example, became widely employed as a means to avoid cops during the mid-1970s after a national speed limit of 55 mph was implemented in an attempt to manage the oil crisis.

    The low speed limit reduced the incomes of individuals working in the trucking industry, as slower travel speeds meant truckers could accept fewer jobs. Truckers soon began to utilize CB radios to communicate with one another and inform each other of police locations along the highway. Even non-commercial drivers joined in on the CB radio trend.

    Now, the CB radio had existed for decades prior to the implementation of the national maximum speed limit, but consumers didn’t have much of a use for them before the appearance of that law. And the radios’ popularity rapidly faded after that law was repealed.

    The Pot-Concealment Industry

    Similarly, the federal prohibition of marijuana use has resulted in a wide variety of products that exist solely to help consumers hide evidence of their illegal activities. Hollow books, fake soda cans, and other creative containers allow consumers and distributors to conceal the product.

    Consumers can also purchase cleansing drinks and other products that promise to help them pass a drug test. Without the laws that render recreational pot consumption illegal, consumers would not be willing to pay much for any of these things.

    In the midst of an economy with institutions that are otherwise sound, evasive entrepreneurial activities can help facilitate mutually beneficial transactions between consumers and producers that are made too costly by certain aspects of the legal and regulatory code.

    But if a society has weak property rights or dysfunctional political institutions, evasive entrepreneurial activities may manifest in less pleasant ways. For example, in a country with a burdensome maze of red tape standing in the way of entrepreneurs who want to open a business, bribery might become prevalent to the point that bureaucrats expect bribes and are unwilling to do their jobs without them.

    Criminal Justice

    Organized crime syndicates are another example of evasive entrepreneurship that became possible because of alcohol and drug prohibition. Because producers of illegal products cannot rely on ordinary police officers, lawyers, and judges to protect their property rights, they must come up with alternative ways of ensuring that people who steal from them are punished in such a way that deters others from attempting to do the same.

    So, instead of pressing charges against thieves and using the court system, mafias and drug cartels invest in violence. The more violent and frightening their reputation, the more hesitant people will be to steal from them in the future. Without the laws prohibiting drug transactions, there would be little need to resort to violence.

    Even when evasive entrepreneurship is targeted toward productive activities, it’s still important that it directs scarce resources toward rule evasion instead of other, more highly valued activities.

    All of the workers, machines, and raw materials that go into the production of unwanted pint glasses and items that help people pass drug tests could have been channeled toward other uses (like making more beer). While it’s easy to identify the things that exist because of evasive entrepreneurship, it’s impossible to know which things that would have been made instead in a freer world. We will never be able to know what those resources would have been used to create if they hadn’t been used to evade.


  5. Highlights from our Reddit AMA with Professor Michael Munger

    Comments Off on Highlights from our Reddit AMA with Professor Michael Munger

    Last week, Professor Michael Munger joined us on Reddit for an “Ask Me Anything” conversation as part of the Learn Liberty Reddit AMA Series.

    Dr. Munger is an esteemed Professor of Political Science, Economics, and Public Policy at Duke University. He has authored/co-authored 7 books and over 200 scholarly articles. A long-time friend of the Learn Liberty project, he frequently contributes to our blog, and has starred in nine Learn Liberty videos.

    Check out some highlights from the AMA below.



    How much do you hate Kentucky basketball?


    More than I should say in a public setting. They are the “bad blue.” I’m really a Carolina fan (don’t tell anyone), but I’m happy to root for Duke when they play Kentucky.


    I had a political science professor tell me once that politics can be compared to a pendulum. With every movement there is a counter movement equal in momentum but in the opposite direction. Do you think that there is a possibility that a movement can be so momentous that it can actually break the pendulum mechanism?


    Absolutely! The problem is that we have to preserve a basic consensus that decisions I disagree with are somehow still legitimate. For all the problems, in 2000 Al Gore eventually accepted the Supreme Court decision and said George Bush was really the President of all Americans. If we get to the point where either side is saying, “Reject the law!” then we’re lost.


    With the ongoing shift towards polarized political parties and factions in America, I’m increasingly curious about any studies, journal articles, or historical anecdotes on how people can be compelled to change parties. In my experience, it doesn’t really happen. Do you have a take on how factionalism / tribalism plays a role in political leaning and how – if at all – a community can be compelled to change their affiliation? We surely can’t only hope for “getting out the vote”.


    I think we have become more not less tribal. The Downsian conception of parties is as an information shortcut: people “choose” the party that on average is closer to most of their policy positions. But we seem now to have gone the other way: party allegiance is stronger, and prior. And THEN I infer my policy positions from my tribal allegiance. It really does suggest some problems for traditional rational choice theory. But that’s why Public Choice, and the work Bryan Caplan (for example) is so useful: we should expect that people are stupid about politics. But they aren’t stupid because they are stupid; they are stupid because they are smart!


    Hello Dr. Munger! I’ve currently been contemplating getting my Masters (and possibly Ph.D.) in Political Science. Anyway, what are your thoughts on gerrymandering and do you think it has contributed to the polarization of politics today? Do you think changing our first-past-the-post system could also solve that problem by allowing more major parties?


    That’s a long answer! I did this 1A broadcast a while back, and it explored the issues of gerrymandering quite a bit. But we can’t focus on that too much: the Senate is not gerrymandered, and it is still a toxic cesspool. Not all of our problems are caused by gerrymandering…


    How do you feel about alternative voting systems? Specifically, how do you feel about proportional representation (multi-winner districts)? PR would make gerrymandering very difficult, increase minority representation, and encourage growth of third parties. I bring this up because there is a bill that was recently introduced in congress that would implement single transferable vote in the House. Would you welcome such electoral reform?


    I used to be opposed to reforms of this kind, because we are bad at predicting their consequences. But now I wonder if we shouldn’t at least consider them.

    PR is pretty radical. STV or Instant run-off voting systems would be easier to put in place. Maine is experimenting with something similar.


    do you foresee the creation of a new political party in the US that will challenge the current ruling parties? (ala the death of the Whig Party)


    The two state-sponsored parties have such tight control over ballot access, and access to the debates, that it’s hard to imagine a “third” party challenging in the normal way. But a third party certainly might threaten candidates enough to get them to pay attention to the long-building grievances of voters. That’s the best hope: to force change from competition. Research shows that in states with looser ballot access rules there is less corruption and more responsiveness to voter preferences.


    Do you see any hope of bridging the political strife between left and right? Right seems to want to win at all cost, while left doesn’t seem to know how to win. Then you talk to people from the right’s base and it’s sheer lunacy. You talk to the left base, and it’s nothing but GOP are evil, democrats are saviors.

    There doesn’t seem to be a middle, and there doesn’t seem to be much chance of reuniting the country.


    Strangely, in some ways libertarians are in the middle. The far left and right both have extreme visions of the use of state power. Libertarians tend to want to dial back both military power and corporate handouts. that’s looking more like centrism these days!


    Why do you think there are so few female libertarians? My wife asked me this question and there doesn’t seem to be an obvious answer to me. The best estimates for a ratio of men to women was about 60/40 although the (unfair) perception by a lot of people is that it is much worse.

    Questions: Why do you think this is and what if anything can be done to make women feel more welcome among libertarians?


    We talk about this all the time. I think the problem is that when a woman shows up, she is the only one or one of just a few. And that’s uncomfortable.

    But it’s also the fact that many libertarians are such aggressive “mansplainers.” Everything is obvious, and if you disagree you are just wrong. We are not always very good at conversation. The result is that we lose a lot of people, male and female, who are interested but have serious principled questions.


    Have you ever been so excited to be living in this political storm as an academic?


    Unfortunately it is a GREAT time to be a political scientist! It’s like being a carrion fowl after an earthquake, lots of things to pick at. But I do have a kind of sick feeling. So many of my friends on the left come into my office these days and say, “Okay, NOW I see what you mean.” Throughout the last 16 years I have been complaining about the expansion of the powers of the President. “What if we ever get an actual tyrant, someone who cares nothing for the rules?” I said. “That could never happen!” they said. Now…..not so much.


    Can you even right now?


    i can’t. Even.


    What do you think about the recent poll saying most Republicans believe college has a negative impact on our country?


    I saw that but I haven’t read it closely. My interpretation would be that they are worried that the indoctrination many students receive, in a setting where only leftist political positions are represented, is harmful, not that college itself is harmful. But I admit that there is also an anti-elitist, bordering on anti-intellectualism, in some of that Republican sentiment, which is worrisome!


    Do you think that so many college students are liberal because of a long, indirect indoctrination process, or could it be that liberals are just more likely to see the value in education and so more enroll in classes?

    Also, I love when you’re on econtalks. Great podcasts.


    My worry is that many people of the left don’t realize that there are opposing positions, and often some of those are pretty good arguments. My test is this: I ask, “what are the best arguments against your own position?” If they just stare at me, as if there ARE no arguments against their position, I know they are not very smart. Real intellectuals can argue either side, and understand that usually there is no decisive argument for, or against, the central philosophical positions. That’s why they all exist: a reasonable person could disagree with you, and still be reasonable. THAT is what is missing in many students on the left. Interestingly, a fair number of faculty on the left agree with that claim. They worry that students have just arrived at a set of conclusions that make them feel good, or that please their (almost all leftist) professors rather than having reached their views through a process of reason and argument.


    We’ve heard a lot about anti-intellectualism on the rise, but I grew up in the South and I know that it starts very young. Have you had any notable run-ins with students challenging fact or established knowledge (and hopefully getting a professorial smackdown)?


    Well, it’s a hard problem, isn’t it? You want students to question everything, including their own beliefs. And they have to challenge my beliefs. That’s why I think that universities should protect “safe spaces,” of a certain kind, as I talk about here.


    Hello Dr. Munger. What is your stance on thorough infiltration of US education structure by neo-marxists posing as liberals?


    I tend to like “real” Marxists. They are interested in economics, and in some ways they are very open to the insights of Public Choice.

    The people who call themselves marxists who are actually Marcuseans, people who want to stamp out dissent through force and public humiliation, those people are a problem. They are anti-intellectual and anti-education.


    Hasn’t the Buchanan school gone the way of the Austrians?


    Not sure what that means. The Austrians are now a much larger and more interesting group than they have ever been. And the “Buchanan School” is called “Public Choice.” It dominates Political Science in many ways. If you study Political Science at Stanford, Harvard, Princeton, Duke, UCLA, or many other places you will be studying Public Choice.


    The Austrians are now a much larger and more interesting group than they have ever been.

    What? There are no major economic departments that have a significant number of Austrians. Even George Mason shed them.

    And the “Buchanan School” is called “Public Choice.”

    I know, that’s why I brought it up. I don’t know about poli sci, but public choice is not the big idea school it was back in the 70s and 80s.


    Well, there have NEVER been departments with lots of Austrians. There are now many people who consider themselves Austrians at college econ departments. Maybe we disagree about the baseline: in the 1970s it looked like Austrian economics would disappear. Now there are some.

    And you may be right that Public Choice is no longer controversial in Poli Sci. But that’s because it won. We are ALL Buchananites now! And you may mean that Public Choice is not having much influence in Econ, and that may be true in direct terms. But lots of the work by Acemoglu and Robinson and by models that build on Barro’s work and Ferejohn’s work on interest groups is mainstream.


    Professor Munger –

    Graduate of UNC with the PPE Minor. I loved the program and appreciate your hard work in making it a reality.

    I remember reading Nozick’s Anarchy State & Utopia in 2007, and finding the work compelling as an explanation for current social movements focusing on the minimal state (i.e. Tea party activists post 2008).

    To me, the hardest part of reconciling Nozick’s Utopia with modern liberalism rests on Nozick’s inability to provide an explanation for how modern US distributions of wealth come from a starting point of justice and have come about from Just exchanges. While first reading Nozick, it was personally hard to imagine the current distribution of wealth in the USA as emanating from a just starting point, when my dorm at UNC was literally built by slaves.

    Are there any works within Libertarian movements to reconcile Nozick’s project of the minimal state with rectifying past injustice to get to a baseline of fair exchanges?

    Best of luck in your project —


    You are right, it really is a problem. I myself have come to think that we should follow Hayek’s (and Friedman’s, and Murray’s) suggestion and have something like a universal basic income. Here is some of my thought on that.


    What do you think of the current political situation in North Carolina? Are you more sympathetic to Governor Cooper or the North Carolina legislature?


    I have a lot of friends in the NCGA, on both sides. But some of the bills they are considering are hard to explain rationally. I guess I’m glad overall that there is divided government, with a Democrat Governor, if only because it is a check on the whims of the Republicans. And I have to admit a secret admiration for Roy Cooper because of his brave handling of the Duke Lacrosse case.


    How compatible is the slowness of the democratic process especially in the US with the agility of technological advances? What country is doing well in terms of matching the speed of scientific discovery and industry innovation and evidence based policy making?


    I think that’s the wrong way to think about it. Government by its nature can never be nimble, because it has to follow laws that apply to everyone. But it could do a better job of getting out of the way. I did this video for Learn Liberty on pretty much this subject.

  6. Kirzner on Entrepreneurship

    Leave a Comment

    Israel Kirzner showed us how entrepreneurs make the world better: they specialize in discovering missed opportunities. To learn more about entrepreneurs, click to watch.

  7. Reddit AMA with Professor Michael Munger of Duke University

    Comments Off on Reddit AMA with Professor Michael Munger of Duke University

    This Tuesday, the Learn Liberty Reddit AMA Series continues with Michael C. Munger, Professor of Political Science at Duke University.

    UPDATE: The AMA is now live!

    Prior to his tenure at Duke, where he chaired the Department of Political Science for 10 years before coming to serve as Director of Undergraduate Studies, Professor Munger has also taught at Dartmouth College, University of Texas—Austin, and University of North Carolina—Chapel Hill, and served as a staff economist at the US Federal Trade Commission.

    He is a long-time friend of the Learn Liberty project, a regular contributor to our blog, and star of a whopping nine Learn Liberty videos! Mark your calendar and join us for the conversation at this Tuesday, July 11th at 3:00pm ET where you’ll have the chance to ask him anything!

    How to Sabotage Progress

    We Have A Serious Unicorn Problem

    Is Grad School Best For Me?

    Why Do We Exchange Things?

    Giving Away Money Costs More Than You Think

    Why Is the NRA So Powerful?

    What Do Prices “Know” That You Don’t?

    Externalities: When Is a Potato Chip Not Just a Potato Chip?

    Should Majorities Decide Everything?