Entrepreneurship – Page 176 – artdiamondblog.com

Schramm Sees the Donor as the Only Real Stakeholder of a Foundation

Carl Schramm. Source of image: online version of the WSJ interview article quoted and cited below.

(p. A9) . . . who are the real stakeholders in foundations? Mr. Schramm can think of only one: the donor. “At Kauffman I think the trustees and I are very, very clear: We work for Mr. Kauffman,” says Mr. Schramm, acknowledging that his boss passed away in 1993. Kauffman not only left extensive writings but also videotape of himself describing how he wanted the foundation to operate. Mr. Schramm says that one board member told him he was hired because he was the only candidate who had read Kauffman’s book.
. . .
. . . within a year of taking over, Mr. Schramm began a serious overhaul of the foundation. He laid off about half of its 150-person staff and cut off funding to some of its biggest grantees, many in Kansas City. There was a public outcry from local nonprofits and from some former members of the board. One told the New York Times that “Carl doesn’t seem to understand that there isn’t an ‘I’ in team.” It reached the point where Missouri’s then attorney general, Jeremiah Nixon, launched an extensive investigation. He determined that Mr. Schramm had not led the foundation astray. What ultimately saved his job, says Mr. Schramm, were the detailed writings that Kauffman left before his death.
“What happened was not atypical in foundations. Often around 10 years after the death of the donor there’s a moment of truth.” People who were close to the donor will say, “Yes, he said that but he didn’t mean that.” Mr. Schramm concludes: “If there was one piece of advice I’d give to someone who was starting a foundation it is this: Think very, very hard of the long term and write down what you want your foundation to look like in 30 years or 40 years.”
Despite the fact that the foundation’s endowment has fallen by $722 million since the end of 2007, Mr. Schramm sees this as Kauffman’s “moment.” While “no one hopes for a recession,” it’s during economic crises that entrepreneurs “challenge companies that have gotten big and lazy.” The downturn, he says, will even challenge Kauffman to “think about how we can do our work better, like every business.” In fact, Mr. Schramm adds, “The only people immune from thinking hard in moments like this are in government.”

For the full interview, see:

NAOMI SCHAEFER RILEY. “Opinion; THE WEEKEND INTERVIEW with Carl Schramm; Giving Capitalism Its Due.” Wall Street Journal (Sat., APRIL 4, 2009): A9.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Instead of Government Money, Benson “Just Wanted the Opportunity to Compete”

“Jim Benson” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ obituary quoted and cited below.

(p. A10) “A number of people had told me they wanted to start space businesses,” Mr. Huntress says, “but they always wanted government money. Jim said he didn’t want any government money. He just wanted the opportunity to compete. That got my attention.”

Mr. Benson, who died Oct. 10 at age 63 of a brain tumor, put it directly: “If we’re going to space to stay, space has to pay.”

He thought he’d found a business model. “We offer FedEx-like package delivery rides,” he proclaimed in 1999. He imagined getting customers like NASA itself and the armed forces, as well as scientists and industry. Always looking for an angle, he also envisioned a more terrestrial use for his rockets: sending a package from San Jose, Calif., to Taipei in 20 minutes.

With organizational ability he developed at software start-ups in the 1980s, Mr. Benson assembled a team of mostly young engineers plus some NASA veterans and set to work. To avoid high development costs, he used off-the-shelf technologies and designs. He quickly landed several contracts, including one from the University of California at Berkeley for ChipSat, a small satellite built for carrying scientific instruments to study interstellar gas. It cost $7 million to build — peanuts in space bucks — and has continued to function since its 2003 launch.

For the full obituary, see:
STEPHEN MILLER. “REMEMBRANCES; Jim Benson (1945 – 2008); Rocket Man Ran a Proper Business, But Loftiest Plans Were Ill-Starred.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., OCTOBER 18, 2008): A10.

Entrepreneurs Are the Main Source of Economic Growth

(p. 144) The reason the system of capitalism without capitalists is failing throughout most of Europe is that it misconceives the essential nature of growth. Poring over huge aggregations of economic data, economists see the rise to wealth as a slow upward climb achieved through the marginal productivity gains of millions of workers, through the slow accumulation of plant and machinery, and through the continued improvement of “human capital” by advances in education, training, and health. But, in fact, all these sources of growth are dwarfed by the role of entrepreneurs launching new companies based on new concepts or technologies. These gains generate the wealth that finances the welfare state, that makes possible the long-term investments in human capital that are often seen as the primary source of growth.

Source:
Gilder, George. The Spirit of Enterprise. 1 ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

“Capitalism without Capitalists”

(p. 131) . . . suffusing all the most visionary and idealistic prose of leftist economics is the same essential dream of the same static and technocratic destiny: capitalism without capitalists. Wealth without the rich, choice without too many things to choose, political and intellectual freedom without a vulgarian welter of individual money and goods, a social revolution every week or so without all this disruptive enterprise.

Source:
Gilder, George. The Spirit of Enterprise. 1 ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

High Progressive Income Taxes Result in “Demoralization of Entrepreneurs”

(p. 127) High progressive and unnegotiable gouges like those in Sweden and England drive people altogether out of the country into offshore tax havens, out of income-generating activities into perks and leisure pursuits, out of money and savings into collectibles and gold, and, most important, out of small business ventures into the cosseting arms of large established corporations and government bureaucracies. The result is the demoralization of entrepreneurs and the stultification of capital. The experimental knowledge that informs and refines the process of economic growth is stifled, and the metaphysical capital in the system collapses, even while all the indices of capital formation rise.

Source:
Gilder, George. The Spirit of Enterprise. 1 ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.

Gilder Explored “The Spirit of Enterprise”

Source of book image:
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/64/17/bc94225b9da0b4326fb8b010.L.jpg

Gilder presents many case studies of entrepreneurs, with plenty of thought-provoking commentary and generalization.
I read the 1984 version because it is the version that is available in audio that can be listened to while walking the dachshund. I also own the 1992 updated version, and can say from a flip-through that this it is a major revision (not just a “revision” that consists of a new introduction, as is often done).
Gilder justly, and eloquently, takes economists to task for generally ignoring the role of the entrepreneur in improving our lives.

For the early edition, see:
Gilder, George. The Spirit of Enterprise. 1 ed. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1984.
For the revised version, see:
Gilder, George. Recapturing the Spirit of Enterprise: Updated for the 1990s. updated ed. New York: ICS Press, 1992.

Source of the book image: http://www.icspress.com/images/recapturing.jpg

“Venturesome” Consumers May Help Save the Day

Bhidé makes thought-provoking comments about the role of the entrepreneurial or “venturesome” consumer in the process of innovation. The point is the mirror image on one made by Schumpeter in Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy when he emphasized that consumer resistance to innovation is one of the obstacles that entrepreneurs in earlier periods had to overcome. (The decline of such consumer resistance was one of the reasons that Schumpeter speculated that the entrepreneur might become obsolete.)
I would like to see Bhidé’s evidence on his claim that technology rapidly advanced during the Great Depression. The claim seems at odds with Amity Shlaes’ claim that New Deal policies often discouraged entrepreneurship.

(p. A15) Consumers get no respect — we value thrift and deplore the spending that supposedly undermines the investment necessary for our long-run prosperity. In fact, the venturesomeness of consumers has nourished unimaginable advances in our standard of living and created invaluable human capital that is often ignored.
Economists regard the innovations that sustain long-run prosperity as a gift to consumers. Stanford University and Hoover Institution economist Paul Romer wrote in the “Concise Encyclopedia of Economics” in 2007: “In 1985, I paid a thousand dollars per million transistors for memory in my computer. In 2005, I paid less than ten dollars per million, and yet I did nothing to deserve or help pay for this windfall.”
In fact, Mr. Romer and innumerable consumers of transistor-based products such as personal computers have played a critical, “venturesome” role in generating their windfalls.
. . .
History suggests that Americans don’t shirk from venturesome consumption in hard times. The personal computer took off in the dark days of the early 1980s. I paid more than a fourth of my annual income to buy an IBM XT then — as did millions of others. Similarly, in spite of the Great Depression, the rapid increase in the use of new technologies made the 1930s a period of exceptional productivity growth. Today, sales of Apple’s iPhone continue to expand at double-digit rates. Low-income groups (in the $25,000 to $49,999 income segment) are showing the most rapid growth, with resourceful buyers using the latest models as their primary device for accessing the Internet.
Recessions will come and go, but unless we completely mess things up, we can count on our venturesome consumers to keep prosperity on its long, upward arc.

For the full commentary, see:
Amar Bhidé. “Consumers Can Still Spot Value in a Crisis.” Wall Street Journal (Thurs., MARCH 11, 2009): A15.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Entrepreneurs Are Key to Ending Economic Crisis

(p. A15) The passage of the $787 billion stimulus bill has so far failed to stimulate anything but greater market pessimism. This suggests to us that the strategy behind the American Reinvestment and Recovery Act is wrong — and worse, that the weapons it is using to fight the recession are obsolete.

Just as generals are notorious for fighting the last war, Congress and the White House seem intent on fixing an economy of hidebound and obsolete companies and industries, while ignoring the innovative ones rising before us and those waiting to be born.

Missing from this legislation is anything more than token support for the long-proven source of most new jobs and new growth in America: entrepreneurs. These are the people who gave us everything — from Wal-Mart to iPhones, from microprocessors to Twitter — that is still strong in our economy. Without entrepreneurs, we will never get out of our current predicament.

For the full commentary, see:
TOM HAYES and MICHAEL S. MALONE. “Entrepreneurs Can Lead Us Out of the Crisis What Are the Odds of a Depression?” Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 24, 2009): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Bailouts Reduce Resources Left for Entrepreneurs

Columbia University Professor Amar Bhidé has authored two important books on entrepreneurship. Some of his thoughts on the current economic crisis follow:

(p. A15) Our ignorance of what causes economic ailments — and how to treat them — is profound. Downturns and financial crises are not regular occurrences, and because economies are always evolving, they tend to be idiosyncratic, singular events.

After decades of diligent research, scholars still argue about what caused the Great Depression — excessive consumption, investment, stock-market speculation and borrowing in the Roaring ’20s, Smoot-Hawley protectionism, or excessively tight monetary policy? Nor do we know how we got out of it: Some credit the New Deal while others say that that FDR’s policies prolonged the Depression.
. . .
Large increases in public spending usurp precious resources from supporting the innovations necessary for our long-term prosperity. Everyone isn’t a pessimist in hard times: The optimism of many entrepreneurs and consumers fueled the takeoff of personal computers during the deep recession of the early 1980s. Amazon has just launched the Kindle 2; its (equally pricey) predecessor sold out last November amid the Wall Street meltdown. But competing with expanded public spending makes it harder for innovations like the personal computer and the Kindle to secure the resources they need.

Hastily enacted programs jeopardize crucial beliefs in the value of productive enterprise. Americans are unusually idealistic and optimistic. We believe that we can all get ahead through innovations because the game isn’t stacked in favor of the powerful. This belief encourages the pursuit of initiatives that contribute to the common good rather than the pursuit of favors and rents. It also discourages the politics of envy. We are less prone to begrudge our neighbors’ fortune if we think it was fairly earned and that it has not come at our expense — indeed, that we too have derived some benefit.

To sustain these beliefs, Americans must see their government play the role of an even-handed referee rather than be a dispenser of rewards or even a judge of economic merit or contribution. The panicky response to the financial crisis, where openness and due process have been sacrificed to speed, has unfortunately undermined our faith. Bailing out AIG while letting Lehman fail — behind closed doors — has raised suspicions of cronyism. The Fed has refused to reveal to whom it has lent trillions. Outrage at the perceived use of TARP funds to pay bonuses is widespread.

For the full commentary, see:

Amar Bhidé. “Don’t Believe the Stimulus Scaremongers.” Wall Street Journal (Tues., FEBRUARY 17, 2009): A15.
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Bhidé’s two books on entrepreneurship are:
Bhidé, Amar. The Origin and Evolution of New Business. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2000.
Bhidé, Amar. The Venturesome Economy: How Innovation Sustains Prosperity in a More Connected World. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2008.

UNO Economics Students Embrace Entrepreneurship

“The company was founded with the thought that a recession would happen,” said Grant Stanley, founder of marketing analytics firm Contemporary Analysis.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited below.

Grant was a student in my Economics of Technology and Economics of Entrepreneurship classes; Tadd was a student in my Honors Colloquium on Creative Destruction; Luis was a student in my Principle of Economics–Micro class. They have chosen an exciting path, and I wish them well!

(p. 1D) Grant Stanley was studying economics at the University of Nebraska at Omaha last year when he identified a business opportunity in the deteriorating economy.

A company making use of econometrics – a field that combines math, statistics and economics – could help small and midsize businesses make decisions in areas such as hiring, and sales and marketing techniques. Econometrics is widely used in education, government and large companies, Stanley said, but usually isn’t applied to smaller businesses.

Stanley thought the need for business forecasting and marketing analytics firms would grow as companies looked for help developing long-term strategies in order to survive an economic downturn.

So Stanley, who was only 20 years old at the time, started Contemporary Analysis, a marketing analytics firm, in March 2008.

“The company was founded with the thought that a recession would happen.”

Stanley courted classmate Tadd Wood, who also was 20 and studying economics, to help start the business, but it wasn’t an easy task. Wood already had a part-time job and was helping out in his family’s business.

“Tadd took months of, ‘Hey, want to hang out?'” before he agreed, Stanley said.

The young men met their third partner – Luis Lopez, 20 – through a friend over the summer, and the trio hit the ground running.

For the full story, see:
STEFANIE MONGE. “Pitching a startup in a downturn.” Omaha World-Herald (Monday, February 2, 2009): 1D & 3D.

“Members of the Contemporary Analysis team at a conference table in the home of Paddy Tarlton. From left are Luis Lopez, Nancy Jimenez, Grant Stanley, Tarlton and Tadd Wood.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the Omaha World-Herald article quoted and cited above.

Ending Capital-Gains Tax Would Encourage Funding for Entrepreneurial Ventures

(p. A15) In virtually all economics classes, including those taught by the many excellent economists on the Obama team, the idea of government spending as an engine for growth is not a popular topic. Yet despite their skepticism of Keynesianism in the classroom, when it comes to public policy, these economists happily endorse a large stimulus package that could bring our deficit to 10% of GDP. Why?
One explanation is that these economists think this recession is an extraordinary one.
. . .
But this particular recession is unique not in its dimensions, but in its sources. First, it is the result of a financial crisis that severely affected stock-market valuations. The bad equilibrium did not originate in the labor market, but in the credit market, where investors are reluctant to lend to risky firms. This reluctance is making it difficult for these firms to refinance their debt, forcing them to default on their credit, further validating investors’ fear. Thus, the problem is how to increase investors’ willingness to take risk. It’s unclear how the proposed stimulus package would help inspire investors to do so.
. . .
So how do we stimulate the economy without increasing the already large current-account deficit? It’s not easy, but here is an idea: Create the incentive for people to take more risk and move their savings from government bonds to risky assets. There is no better way to encourage this than a temporary elimination of the capital-gains tax for all the investments begun during 2009 and held for at least two years

For the full commentary, see:
ALBERTO ALESINA and LUIGI ZINGALES. “Let’s Stimulate Private Risk Taking.” Wall Street Journal (Weds., JANUARY 21, 2009): A15.
(Note: ellipses added.)