
The Rise of the Entrepreneur
Increasingly, it appears that the far left has found a straw dog to replace its long-cherished, but now embarrassingly discredited, global-warming hoax: “unequal distribution of wealth.”
Of course, class warfare has been around for thousands of years, so it was just a matter of reviving a tired old idea. And, unfortunately, it’s an idea that works nearly 100 percent of the time — at least with those who are ignorant of history and unwilling to study or think.
But as the ne’er-do-well in the White House and congressional Democrats continue to cast the entrepreneur as a greedy, avaricious villain whose success comes at the expense of the working man, a healthy backlash is occurring. With the word entrepreneur becoming increasingly popular with media pundits on both the right and the left, more and more people are coming to realize that entrepreneurship was the driving force behind America’s widespread prosperity — prosperity that few Americans could have imagined as recent as the mid-20th century.
After all, many of the Founding Fathers were entrepreneurs, and perhaps the two most famous in that regard are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson. They also are good examples of just how far apart the results of individual entrepreneurs can be. Though they were both farmers, Washington was one of the richest men in America, while Jefferson struggled financially throughout his life and died broke.
Jefferson’s financial difficulties are a reminder that there are no guarantees for the entrepreneur, who labors away without the luxury of a safety net. In fact, perhaps the single greatest attribute of an entrepreneur is his willingness to take risks — including the risk of losing everything if he fails.
By everything, I’m not just referring to savings, stocks, bonds, and collectibles. I’m talking about his house, his furniture, his cars — everything he owns — not to mention his credit and his self-esteem.
In this vein, ultra-liberal Barbara Walters, of all people, did an excellent special last week on self-made billionaires. The slant of the show belied the rhetoric of left-wing politicians who frantically try to convince the public that being rich, of and by itself, is evil. Their words clearly imply that rich people somehow prevent others from getting ahead financially. The truth, of course, is that most wealthy people achieved their success by creating products and services that others want.
Barbara Walters’ first guest was Guy Laliberte, founder of Cirque du Soleil. Laliberte, who has a net worth of $2.5 billion, struggled early in his career as a street performer in Montreal before venturing out as an entrepreneur. Today, his multibillion-dollar business showcases in 271 cities worldwide, employing tens of thousands of people in the process. His costume shop alone, the biggest in the world, employs more than 400 people who design and produce the wardrobes for his troupes.
Do down-with-the-rich proponents really believe that the thousands of people Guy Laliberte employs would be better off today if he had not used his entrepreneurial talents to create and operate Cirque du Soleil? I wonder.
Most important, when Walters asked him if he still takes risks, Laliberte quickly responded, “Every day.” Wall Street Journal Wealth Reporter Robert Frank, who added his insights throughout the show, then explained, “Part of the risk-taking personality is the ability to overcome failure. … One of the things that makes billionaires successful is their reaction to failure.”
Unfortunately, the true-believing progressive who spews out class-warfare rhetoric is clueless about the risks the entrepreneur takes in his quest for success. Or about the self-evident principle: The greater the risk, the greater the potential reward.
As a result, lefty politicians have a stubborn habit of stepping in and trying to curb the natural rewards of the marketplace, insisting that “it’s unfair” for the super rich to make so much more than the average working person. That’s right, no other explanation other than “it’s unfair.”
It goes without saying that from a moral point of view, their position is indefensible. If people are truly free, they should be free to become as wealthy as their talent, creativity, and hard work can take them, so long as they do not use force or fraud against anyone else. And, fortunately, we already have more than enough laws on the books to bring to justice those who commit fraud or use uninitiated force against others.
And from an economic viewpoint, it’s a no-brainer. Contrary to what progressives would like us to believe, it’s impossible for anyone to become rich without creating jobs. Wealthy folks start and expand businesses and, in the process, employ others — not just by hiring people, but through the jobs that are created indirectly by those who furnish the raw materials, parts, transportation, etc. that their businesses require.
But what about someone who spends hundreds of millions of dollars indulging himself in such luxuries as mansions, private jets, and yachts? It doesn’t take a Ludwig von Mises to explain that workers are needed to build those mansions, private jets, and yachts, not to mention to produce the materials and thousands of parts and accessories that go into them. Then, once built, it takes people to operate and service those mansions, private jets, and yachts — which means long-term employment.
Thus, economic reality makes it clear that the entrepreneur is not the villain progressives tout him to be. On the contrary, he is a bona fide hero who creates jobs and wealth for everyone who is willing to work. As such, entrepreneurs who accumulate great fortunes should be admired rather than scorned. To vilify someone for having “too much” is the height of asininity and self-destructiveness.
The single most important fact about entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates and the recently deceased Steve Jobs is that their great wealth not only does not prevent others from becoming successful, it actually gives their customers the tools to become wealthy themselves. Think computers, hand-held electronic devices, and cell phones, to name but a few of the more obvious of such tools, all of which are easily available to even the most financially challenged among us.
The optimistic side of me wants to believe that truth may be on a roll here. If so, it needs all the help it can get. As the angry socialist from the mean streets of Chicago continues to preach about lame abstracts such as social justice and fairness, those of us who know the truth need to spread the word.
We need to explain to all who will listen that the entrepreneur who aspires to great wealth by creating products and services people want is not the cause of America’s problems, but, rather, the solution to its problems.
And what about hope and change? I’m all for it. When people focus on hard work, resourcefulness, and wealth creation — and are willing to take risks — it gives them a lot more hope than being on the dole. Specifically, it gives them hope that positive change in their lives is inevitable.
You have permission to reprint this article so long as you place the following wording at the end of the article:
Copyright © 2012 Robert Ringer
ROBERT RINGER is a New York Times #1 bestselling author and host of the highly acclaimed Liberty Education Interview Series, which features interviews with top political, economic, and social leaders. He has appeared on Fox News, Fox Business, The Tonight Show, Today, The Dennis Miller Show, Good Morning America, The Lars Larson Show, ABC Nightline, and The Charlie Rose Show, and has been the subject of feature articles in such major publications as Time, People, The Wall Street Journal, Fortune, Barron's, and The New York Times.
To sign up for his one-of-a-kind, pro-liberty e-letter, A Voice of Sanity, Click Here.





RR I agree that the guys who do stuff should be rewarded, However, those that use the system should not be allowed to commit crimes and walk with the money. Obama received 1/3 of his 2008 war chest from Wall Street. Robert Rubin, Larry Summers, Alan Greenspan, Bill Clinton, and Phil Gramm pushed the Congress to leave the weapons of mass financial destruction (as Warren Buffett call them) as a free market. Which is fine as long as the government does not socialize the losses. They did, the Real Estate / Wall Street Cabal committed crimes and walked with their money leaving the tax payer to pay the bills. Type #3 white hat and all.
“We need to explain to all who will listen that the entrepreneur who aspires to great wealth by creating products and services people want is not the cause of America’s problems, but, rather, the solution to its problems.”
I strongly agree with the above statement; moreover, it is an absolute myth that the economic pie is finite. Within the framework of true capitalism the wealth pie is unlimited; The demagogues love to have the ignorant electorate believe otherwise, i.e. the pie is limited and should be “shared fairly.”
The distinction between capitalism and “(crap)italism,” which is what currently drives Wall Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, needs to be explained to individuals including the “Occupy” movement.
Tip of the hat to Peter Schiff for carrying a sign—I’m The 1%— down to “Occupy Wall Street” and reaching out to the protesters. Great job! Peter! Your explanations and the distinctions made by you between politically connected firms and hard working men like yourself was sorely needed. Your outreach affected many young people for the better. We libertarians need all of the help we can get in this street-fight. Men like yourself carry the balls that we need to win this fight.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c
< it is an absolute myth that the economic pie is finite. Within the framework of true capitalism the wealth pie is unlimited; The demagogues love to have the ignorant electorate believe otherwise, i.e. the pie is limited and should be “shared fairly.”
Ruby: They call this war a cloud over the land. But they made the weather and then they stand in the rain and say 'S**t, it's raining!' ~ from the movie "Cold Mountain"
i.e., because ruthless financial interests wield the gov stick to assure no 'true capitalism', favoring cartels over competition, which is to say closed systems – guaranteed, consistent "pies" – (reservations, preserves, territories, company towns…), the economic pie is made finite, or much closer to finite, and the game is made zero sum, or much closer to zero sum.
these relative few make the weather, leaving the rest to stand in the rain. they are happy to call this exposure "capitalism". and happy to listen to calls for more umbrellas, slickers. because, net-net, it is vastly more profitable, and consistent, for them to "pay claims" than it is to be honorable, which is to say, capitalists. and because they know umbrellas & slickers (& bread & circuses) are all it takes to direct the mass / herd).
where would cattle and cowboys be…without each other?
reunion,
“Competition is a sin………I have ways of making money that you know nothing of.” John Davison Rockefeller
It’s raining crapitalism, yes, has been for a long time, and the crapitalists are still “singing in the rain.” Oh my god, amerika is flooded with crapitalism and drowning in it! So much so that an unconnected outsider-entrepreneur is in a very difficult climate, indeed. The rainmakers at the Fed are seeding the clouds again, so get ready for another downpour.
Until the ignorant masses get it through their heads’ that the Fed creates money out of thin air which is, in reality, credit out of thin air–credit that the ignorant masses must repay to the banking cartels—then nothing will change for the better.
yes. rockefeller, et al are some famous, more recent vintage federalists, mercantilists, whigs, empire-cobblers. but, the type has been on the ground here, as well as everywhere else, from the beginning. saw brookhiser “interviewed” by jon stewart, recently, his new bio on madison…his explanation (apology) for madison’s change of mind re hamilton’s (and cronies) national bank, was laughable. but, he’s a court historian, fulfilling his obligatory function.
more so than ignorance of the masses is motive of the masses the crux: they want exactly what the “1%-ers” want – to use the gov weapon to extract unearned wealth from “the other”. it is merely a case of an also ran cartel/ union, in a gang war with a first run cartel/union. the “progressives” and their more successful competitors are the same characters, in other words. both groups of gangs are metastasizing-ly wrong.
as for “unconnected outsider”, am reading “The Outsider”, by colin wilson, now. oh, my….five stars.
Robert Greene, a consultant to Democrat leaders and author of 33 Strategies of War and 48 Laws of Power, in his Descent Of Power says we would not need promoters (“Middle Men”, of whom the producers he says are a kind of disposable vassals.) He commends Google, Amazon, eBay, for outmaneuvering the old school promoters (the Dinasours), by creating platforms for Producers to directly reach Consumers, instead of investing resources into to market. He also says that rather than come up with original ideas and marketing them, which is risky (!), platforms let consumers directly communicate their needs. This change in the way successful enterprises structure themselves he calls Historical Fatality. Will the PROMOTER be needed in distant future: art critics, art dealers, film director, motion picture producer, deal makers, direct salesmen, relationship coaches, pimp to name a few, in this brave new world? What Greene is saying in 2011 has been said by the Jesuit philosopher Teilhard de Chardin almsot a century ago, much more succinctly as the transition from Biosphere (the Sphere of Life) to the Sphere of Human Thought (the Noosphere) being a Paradigm Leap. In the biosphere the promoter is indespensable. organisms able to synthesize their own food from inorganic substances, using light or chemical energy who however need the simbiote to spread their seed, pollen, or spores far enough from themselves to prevent overcrowding. Are promoters just vestegial wild boars, flies, and bees?
Thank you Robert. This is a viewpoint that seems to get lost in all of the Occupy Wall Street coverage.
Going back to your comments about Steve Jobs, consider how many jobs exist indirectly because of his entreprenuership. There are millions of people who do not work for Apple making and selling apps, docking stations, armbands, cases, headsets, speakers, etc. who would not be working if Steve Jobs had not developed the technology. As far as I’m concerned, even without paying one cent in taxes, he has done far more than his fair share to provide opportunity and income for the so called 99%.
Thank you Robert for the entrepreneural blog. I had not thought of our founding fathers as such. You are correct that this country could not have been founded without them and their goals and guidance. It was quite a trip for them.
Some had already ammassed their considerable fortunes. Fortunes were and are not counted as money but holdings. Buffet doesn’t have 46 Billion in cash. But his holdings, which are shared by many others are wide spread across this land of ours. And he took and is taking many with him. Think of all the people who work at the many companies he (owns). Fortunetly our wealth today is not counted in how many slaves we (own). Rather they are paid for the work they do. Many move up through the ranks and become (rich) or wealthy. I’m still not sure which is bigger. Being a mere millionaire isn’t considered rich any more. There are too many of them. I’ll bet that some of your commenters “are one too” as they say. Peace. Jack.
The point is when poor squatters disregarded the Swiss immigrant enterpreneur’s John Sutter’s property rights during the gold rush of the 1850, is no different from when rich squatters found a way around the Royal proclomation of 1763, which was aimed to treat Native Americans civilly that regulated settlement, trade and land purchases on the Western frontier. Incivility as well as civility cuts across economic boundaries, it has to do with culture. Incivility is also a great equalizer between rich and soon to be rich poor. Out of four monuments cut out of Mount Rushmore, only James Madison belongs to the culture of civility. The crime of the English and the Swiss is that incivility is repugnant to their national ethos.
I want to say, that even though I’m no entrepreneur, I have more money than I ever thought I’d have when I was 22. Far more. And it’s because my employer was wealthy. I am a worker, “it” was a promoter.
But that was in the past. Gary Casporov beat Deep Blue (IBM supercomputer) in 1996, and lost to it in 1997. Hyperion was the an ancient Greek king who first promoted astronomy, possibly became rich as a result. For this he was included in the pantheon of the Titans as the Sun God, brother to Saturn. But obviously he fell from grace. See the movie Immortals from the director of 300, where he is the villain. Promoters may increasingly find themselves fighting an uphill battle.
Yes to the above! Ironically it is because the Chinese have been freed from the shackles of socialism, that they have become intensely entreprenurial. They have shifted from socialism into world preeminence in manufacturing, commerce and in trade. They have taken the mantle from Britain and the USA. The secret is to build the size of the cake as the Chinese have done at America’s expense, not get cute and greedy over ways to increase the cake by subtle ways of dividing it. They vainly imagine they will have the same success as the Biblical parable of Christ multiplying His tiny cake of loaves and fishes.
[But Christ was illustrating a different, less obvious multiplication].
RS makes a great point on this column: His “crapitalism” fits the facts succinctly.
Yes, the sheeple and the drones need to know the pie is not finite: But when they live in the 21st century and they cannot see it?… One can try teaching a brick to do new tricks, but I’ll stick to old dogs.
General Electric is up to its eyeballs in debts: Like many businesses today, they need to fail. Instead GE is busy buying up politicians and trying to manipulate markets.
A Leftist would argue that we need to control GE: Never mind the cure will destroy inventors, the industrious, and the creative, etc.
We need Government Control: We need to control government into impotence so it cannot be used by businesses like GE to rob the community to pay for its own mistakes. (More accurately, management’s mistakes. GE’s employees, scientists and engineers have been doing a great job, but their golden eggs have been squandered.)
Obviously, I am just picking on GE. There are worse offenders, and lesser offenders. No business today would dare not try to lobby government unless they want govt to bankrupt them.
None of this can be explained to OWS, or the drones. Not in 1500 characters; not in hours; nor days. They would need to be deprogrammed, and many would still not get it because they’re crazy.
Just sayin…
Regulate, not Control!
I recently watched the movie, For A Few Dollars More, I highly recommend it. It demonstrates what happens at the other extreme. Be careful what you wish for.
James Madison wisely pointed out that if the Government was composed of angels we would not need a system of checks and balances, and other ways of regulating it, and if the people were angels, we would not need a Government.
We do not need to “control” anybody. We need a power balance, the same way happy couples have a power balance, with neither party dominating, except by controlling the other party’s heart (the only legitimate way to tip the scales of power!)
[...] The Rise of the Entrepreneur [...]
the one percent people have failed to do one work. They should have educated the people about
money, economics,capitalism and prosperity to the public.
The level of ignorance around wealth creation and the entrepreneurs who drive the process is astounding. It goes with out saying that primary and higher institutions have failed miserable at educating those in their charge about said processes. No surprise..these institutions are populated primarily by leftist statists. What are we to do ?
As for me, I’ll continue to trade value with my customers until I make obscene levels of profits and rise above the fray…
Striving for success without hard work is like trying to harvest where you haven’t planted