Market Entrepreneurs Versus Political Entrepreneurs

HillJamesRailroad2010-03-16.jpg“James J. Hill (center) built a great railroad on his own dime.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ commentary quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) Let’s bring back the robber barons.

“Robber baron” became a term of derision to generations of American students after many earnest teachers made them read Matthew Josephson’s long tome of the same name about the men whose enterprise drove the American industrial age from 1861 to 1901.
Josephson’s cast of pillaging villains was comprehensive: Rockefeller, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Astor, Jay Gould, James J. Hill. His table of contents alone shaped impressions of those times: “Carnegie as ‘business pirate’.” “Henry Frick, baron of coke.” “Terrorism in Oil.” “The sack of California.”
I say, bring ’em back, and the sooner the better. What we need, a lot more than a $1,000 tax credit, are industries no one has thought of before. We need vision, vitality and commercial moxie. This government is draining it away.
The antidote to Josephson’s book is a small classic by Hillsdale College historian Burton W. Folsom called “The Myth of the Robber Barons: A New Look at the Rise of Big Business in America” (Young America’s Foundation). Prof. Folsom’s core insight is to divide the men of that age into market entrepreneurs and political entrepreneurs.
Market entrepreneurs like Rockefeller, Vanderbilt and Hill built businesses on product and price. Hill was the railroad magnate who finished his transcontinental line without a public land grant. Rockefeller took on and beat the world’s dominant oil power at the time, Russia. Rockefeller innovated his way to energy primacy for the U.S.
Political entrepreneurs, by contrast, made money back then by gaming the political system. Steamship builder Robert Fulton acquired a 30-year monopoly on Hudson River steamship traffic from, no surprise, the New York legislature. Cornelius Vanderbilt, with the slogan “New Jersey must be free,” broke Fulton’s government-granted monopoly.

For the full commentary, see:
DANIEL HENNINGER. “Bring Back the Robber Barons.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 4, 2010): A17.
(Note: the online version of the article is dated MARCH 3, 2010.)

The full reference for Folsom’s book is:
Folsom, Burton W. The Myth of the Robber Barons. 4th ed: Young America’s Foundation, 2003.

An “Entrepreneur’s Visa” to Let the Future Sergey Brin In

(p. A19) . . . , there is one way to create a lot more jobs without spending federal money. Let’s import them. More precisely, let’s import the people who create them: entrepreneurs.

A bipartisan bill that would begin to do just that was introduced on Feb. 24 by Sens. John Kerry (D., Mass.) and Richard Lugar (R., Ind.). Their “Startup Visa Act” would create a new, two-year visa for immigrant entrepreneurs whose firms attract at least $250,000 in financing from American angel investors or venture capital firms.
. . .
Here’s a way to improve on the Kerry-Lugar plan. Create a true “job creator’s visa,” one tied directly and only to job creation by new immigrant entrepreneurs. The visa could be a temporary one for immigrants already here on another visa who establish a business. It could then be extended if the firm hires at least one American non-family resident. The visa should become permanent once the enterprise crosses a certain job threshold (such as five or 10 workers). But it would not be tied to financing.
. . .
Google was founded by Sergey Brin, a Russian immigrant, and American Larry Page by borrowing funds from their own credit cards. Why on earth would we want to create an entrepreneurs’ visa that couldn’t let in the future Sergey Brin?

For the full commentary, see:
ROBERT E. LITAN. “Visas for the Next Sergey Brin; To create more jobs, let’s import more employers.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., MARCH 8, 2010): A19.
(Note: ellipses added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated MARCH 7, 2010.)

United States Exports “High-Value-Added Services that Support Well-Paying Jobs”

ServiceImportsExportsGraph2010-03-16.jpgSource of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A23) Exports of American services have jumped by 84 percent since 2000, while the growth rate among goods was 66 percent. America trails both China and Germany in sales of goods abroad, but ranks No. 1 in global services by a wide margin. And while trade deficits in goods have been enormous — $840 billion in 2008 — the country runs a large and growing surplus in services: we exported $144 billion more in services than we imported, dwarfing the surpluses of $75 billion in 2000 and $58 billion in 1992.

Equally important, Commerce Department data show that the United States is a top-notch competitor in many of the high-value-added services that support well-paying jobs.
. . .
. . . , will Washington offer tax breaks or other export incentives? While businesses may clamor for them, these would be a setback for freer trade — after all, for years it has been America that has been hectoring other countries to end their subsidies to exporters. Will Washington try to pick winners in the global marketplace, like green energy? More often than not, this kind of industrial policy wastes money, fosters inefficiency and creates few permanent jobs.

For the full story, see:
W. MICHAEL COX. “An Order of Prosperity, to Go.” The New York Times (Weds., February 17, 2010): A23.
(Note: ellipses added.)

Small Nuclear Reactor Will Run on Spent Fuel From Big Reactors

GeneralAtomicsEM2reactor2010-03--01.jpg “An artist’s modeling of the proposed EM2 reactor, which would be small enough to be transported by truck.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. B1) Nuclear and defense supplier General Atomics announced Sunday it will launch a 12-year program to develop a new kind of small, commercial nuclear reactor in the U.S. that could run on spent fuel from big reactors.

In starting its campaign to build the helium-cooled reactor, General Atomics is joining a growing list of companies willing to place a long-shot bet on reactors so small they could be built in factories and hauled on trucks or trains.
The General Atomics program, if successful, could provide a partial solution to one of the biggest problems associated with nuclear energy: figuring out what to do with highly radioactive waste. With no agreement on where to locate a federal storage site, that waste is now stored in pools or casks on utilities’ property.
The General Atomics reactor, which is dubbed EM2 for Energy Multiplier Module, would be about one-quarter the size of a conventional reactor and have unusual features, including the ability to burn used fuel, which still contains more than 90% of its original energy. Such reuse would reduce the volume and toxicity of the waste that remained. General Atomics calculates there is so much U.S. nuclear waste that it could fuel 3,000 of the proposed reactors, far more than it anticipates building.
The decision to proceed with its 12-year program indicates that General Atomics believes the time is right to both make a nuclear push and to try to gain approval for an unconventional design proposal despite the likely difficulty of getting it certified by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The EM2 would operate at temperatures as high as 850 degrees Centigrade, which is about twice as hot as a conventional (p. B2) water-cooled reactor. The very high temperatures would make the reactor especially well suited to industrial uses that go beyond electricity production, such as extracting oil from tar sands, desalinating water and refining petroleum to make fuel and chemicals.

For the full story, see:
REBECCA SMITH. “General Atomics Proposes a Plant That Runs on Nuclear Waste.” The Wall Street Journal (Mon., February 22, 2010): B1 & B2.

Brin Plays Google’s “Ethical Trump Card”

BrinSergey2010-03-16.jpg “Co-founder Sergey Brin has been active in Google’s dealings with China.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A8) As a boy growing up in the Soviet Union, Sergey Brin witnessed the consequences of censorship. Now the Google Inc. co-founder is drawing on that experience in shaping the company’s showdown with the Chinese government.

Mr. Brin has long been Google’s moral compass on China-related issues, say people familiar with the matter. He expressed the greatest concern among decision makers, they say, about the compromises Google made when it launched its Chinese-language search engine, Google.cn, in 2006. He is now the guiding force behind Google’s decision to stop filtering search results in China, say people familiar with the decision.
. . .
The move is the clearest manifestation yet of a tension that has always existed at Google.
The Internet company, on one hand, is analytical: It built its core search business on algorithms that determine the relevance of Web sites and has tried to apply quantitative analysis to traditionally subjective parts of a business, such as hiring decisions. On the other hand, Mr. Brin and co-founder Larry Page have passionately touted Google’s ability to spread democracy through access to information, and adopted the unofficial and now-famous motto, “Don’t Be Evil.”
“At its best, Google is data-driven with an ethical trump card,” said Larry Brilliant, who headed up the company’s philanthropic efforts until 2009. Always it was the founders, Messrs. Brin and Page, who could play that card, he added.

For the full story, see:

BEN WORTHEN. “Soviet-Born Brin Has Shaped Google’s Stand.” The Wall Street Journal (Sat., MARCH 13, 2010): A8.

(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article had the date MARCH 12, 2010 and has the slightly longer title “Soviet-Born Brin Has Shaped Google’s Stand on China.”)

Minnesota Windmills Do Not Turn in Cold Weather

WindmillStandStill2010-03-01.jpg “Inspecting a windmill in Chaska, Minn. The blades on some in the area have been stationary.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A12) For those who suspect residents in places like Minnesota of embellishment when it comes to their tales of bitterly cold winter weather, consider this: even some wind turbines, it seems, cannot bear it.

Turbines, more than 100 feet tall, were installed last year in 11 Minnesota cities to provide power, and also to serve as educational symbols in a state that has mandated that a quarter of its electricity come from renewable resources by 2025.
One problem, though: The windmills, supposed to go online this winter, mostly just sat still, people in cities like North St. Paul and Chaska said, rarely if ever budging. Residents took note. Schoolchildren asked questions. Complaints accumulated.
“If people see a water tower, they expect it to stand still,” said Wally Wysopal, the city manager of North St. Paul. “If there’s a turbine, they want it to turn.”
No one knows for sure why these turbines do not. Officials believe there may be several reasons, but weather is the focus of much speculation.

For the full story, see:

MONICA DAVEY. “When Windmills Don’t Spin, People Expect Some Answers.” The New York Times (Fri., February 5, 2010): A12.

(Note: the online version of the article was dated February 4, 2010)

Unlikely Tea Party Leader Protests the “Porkulus”

CarenderKeliTeaPartyLeader2010-03-01.jpg “Keli Carender resists the idea of a Tea Party leader — “there are a thousand leaders,” she says. But she has become a leader, and a celebrity. Ms. Carender at a recent rally in Olympia, Wash.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. 1) SEATTLE — Keli Carender has a pierced nose, performs improv on weekends and lives here in a neighborhood with more Mexican grocers than coffeehouses. You might mistake her for the kind of young person whose vote powered President Obama to the White House. You probably would not think of her as a Tea Party type.

But leaders of the Tea Party movement credit her with being the first.
A year ago, frustrated that every time she called her senators to urge them to vote against the $787 billion stimulus bill their mailboxes were full, and tired of wearing out the ear of her Obama-voting fiancé, Ms. Carender decided to hold a protest against what she called the “porkulus.”
. . .

(p. 19) The daughter of Democrats who became disaffected in the Clinton years, Ms. Carender, 30, began paying attention to politics during the 2008 campaign, but none of the candidates appealed to her. She had studied math at Western Washington University before earning a teaching certificate at Oxford — she teaches basic math to adult learners — and began reading more on economics, particularly the writings of Thomas Sowell, the libertarian economist, and National Review.
Reading about the stimulus, she said, “it didn’t make any sense to me to be spending all this money when we don’t have it.”
“It seems more logical to me that we create an atmosphere where private industry can start to grow again and create jobs,” she said.

For the full story, see:
KATE ZERNIKE. “Early Arrival at the Tea Party: A Young and Unlikely Activist.” The New York Times, First Section (Sun., February 26, 2010): 1 & 19.
(Note: ellipsis added.)
(Note: the online version of the article is dated February 27, 2010 and has the title “Unlikely Activist Who Got to the Tea Party Early.”)

Federal Government Spending Soars

SpendingFederalGraph2010-02-28.gif

Source of graph: online version of the WSJ article quoted and cited below.

(p. A17) This has been an unforgettable year in the history of American spending.

It began with an eye-popping $800 billion stimulus bill that came from nowhere and went to nowhere. Done with that, the Washington Democrats turned to President Obama’s health-care reform, which looked big at first, but turned out to be bigger. A well-publicized June estimate of the Senate bill’s cost by the Congressional Budget Office put the 10-year price tag at $1.6 trillion. So $800 billion, then a trillion.
Dollar signs rocketed into the sky all year: hundreds of billions on various TARP salvage projects, much drawn from some magic stash held by the Federal Reserve. The Obama cap-and-trade bill was going to use an auction to siphon $3.3 trillion from various states to Washington over 40 years. Oh, almost forgot–an FY 2011 $3.8 trillion budget.

For the full commentary, see:

DANIEL HENNINGER. “It’s the Spending, America .” The Wall Street Journal (Thurs., February 18, 2010): A17.

Arnold on Ben Nelson’s Cornhusker Kickback: “He Got the Corn; We Got the Husk”

(p. A16) Senator Ben Nelson, Democrat of Nebraska, has been under fire in recent days for winning some plum provisions for his home state in exchange for voting for his party’s big health care legislation.
. . .
In perhaps the most pointed criticism yet, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger of California, in his State of the State address on Wednesday, said: “California’s Congressional delegation should either vote against this bill that is a disaster for California or get in there and fight for the same sweetheart deal Senator Nelson of Nebraska got for the Cornhusker State. He got the corn; we got the husk.”

For the full story, see:
DAVID M. HERSZENHORN. “Prescriptions; Making Sense of the Health Care Debate; Spreading the Golden Corn.” The New York Times (Fri., January 8, 2010): A16.
(Note: the online version of the story had the very different title: “Prescriptions; Making Sense of the Health Care Debate; Nelson to Fight for All States” and had the date January 7, 2010.”)
(Note: ellipsis added.)

Thousands Waited Hours in Subzero Cold Trying to Enter Global Warming Conference (“This Is What UN Efficiency Looks Like”)

(p. A10) As dozens of developing countries threatened to walk out of the Copenhagen climate-change summit, thousands of NGOs, journalists, lawyers, activists were still trying to get in.

The thousands queued from the early morning into the afternoon on Monday to register for the summit but found themselves in a line that barely budged for most of the day. Only those who already had accreditation — obtained during the first week of the summit or over the weekend — were let in; the rest braved subzero temperatures for some glimpse of a breakthrough.
Would-be attendees chanted “Let us in!” to Danish policemen ringing the Bella Center.
United Nations officials announced at one point that the process of accreditation would stop at 6 p.m. today, prompting boos and catcalls and cries of “shame” from those in line. One sign declared: “This is what UN efficiency looks like.”

For the full story, see:
Guy Chazan. “Copenhagen Dispatches; Some Walk Out of Gathering, But Many More Want In.” The Wall Street Jounal (Tues., December 15, 2009): A10.
(Note: the online version of the commentary had the title “Thousands Line Up for Climate Conference” and the date December 14, 2009.)

The “Bongo System” of Corruption in Gabon: More on Why Africa is Poor

BongoGabon2010-01-27.jpg “The image of Ali Bongo, the son of longtime ruler Omar Bongo, blanketed Libreville.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited below.

(p. A5) The “Bongo system,” as people here refer to it — forsaking roads, schools and hospitals for the sake of Mr. Bongo’s 66 bank accounts, 183 cars, 39 luxury properties in France and grandiose government constructions in Libreville — is etched in the streets of this languid seaside capital, where he ruled for 41 years, and also in the minds of its inhabitants.
. . .
A Western family here spoke of embarrassment at visiting a government minister whose house is packed with the latest flat-screen televisions and other expensive electronic gadgets, and whose garage was full of luxury cars. The top aide to a leading opposition figure, discussing the “Bongo system,” said: “You had to bring a suitcase to the palace. Bongo didn’t write checks.” The president, he said, “calls everybody to the palace, and the money is handed out. That’s how the country was run.”
He spoke of a “sandwich system” of vote-buying employed by the ruling party in rural districts: notables are called together for a meeting, and at the end, when all are tired, a tray of “sandwiches” is passed around. Inside each “sandwich” is up to $600.
Looking around at an outdoor restaurant, he asked not to be named because he said: “It’s a police state. They mess up your life.”
. . .
On paper, the government’s budget allocations for health, education and transportation were impressive, “huge,” said the Western development official. “But in reality, it was actually about 20 percent of what was on paper,” the official said. “The rest was embezzled,” he added, asking to remain anonymous because identifying him would complicate his work in the country.
. . .
“It’s a tiny number that benefits from the country’s riches,” said a cigarette vendor, Price Nyamam, squatting on the pavement in the poor Rio district. He said he had degrees in economics and sociology. “You are obliged to do work that doesn’t correspond to your aspirations.”

For the full story, see:
ADAM NOSSITER. “Libreville Journal; Underneath Palatial Skin, Corruption Rules Gabon.” The New York Times (Tues., September 15, 2009): A5.
(Note: the online version of the article has the date September 14, 2009.)
(Note: ellipses added.)

GabonDumpForaging2010-01-27.jpg “Foraging for food at the main dump.” Source of caption and photo: online version of the NYT article quoted and cited above.