There is growing pressure in the US to pursue a policy of socialized entrepreneurship. Government wants to "get control of" and "support" our growing entrepreneurial economy. But, rather than offer what has been shown to be the most effective approach to supporting entrepreneurs -- hands off by government and a simple and fair tax structure -- politicians and bureaucrats are increasingly trying to manage what should be free enterprise.
This week's National Dialogue on Entrepreneurship offers a couple of examples.
First, they laud an article in Science and Technology, "Deep Competitiveness," by Robert D. Atkinson.
Atkinson's national competitiveness policy would include robust efforts to open global markets, an overhaul of the tax code to spur innovation, a major expansion of funding ($2 billion per year) to support research partnerships and technology led economic development efforts ($1 billion per year), and a strong national commitment to digital transformation.
Second is a plug for the National Bureau of Economic Research's 2007 Innovation Policy and the Economy conference.
The Innovation Policy and Economy Group focuses on the implications of rapid technological change for economic policy, and the appropriate policies and programs regarding research, innovation, and the commercialization of new technology.
Both of these are examples of policy makers attempting to move forward an agenda of socialized entrepreneurship. Centralized economic planning does not work over the long run. Just look at the historic failures in Japan, Russia, Germany, and a whole host of other countries that have taken this approach. What does work is free markets with only marginal governmental involvement.
As further evidence of this one needs to look no further than another article in this week's NDE on a report by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA).
From NDE:
A November 2006 report by the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA) argues that a lower tax burden over the last 50 years would have increased government revenues to the point that they would have covered actual spending and eliminated public debt. It contends that government policies should be focused on maximizing economic growth and that there is an ideal allocation of economic resources between public and private uses that can grow the economy at the fastest sustainable rate. That optimal level, for federal, state and local taxes combined, is 23% of GDP -- far below the actual rates that have averaged between 30 - 34%. Had that rate been held for the past 50 years: government at all levels would have collected $61.9 trillion more in taxes; real GDP would be three times greater than it is; and, the average American family would have more than three times as much real income today than it actually has.
Lower taxes and less government is what spurs long-term, sustainable economic growth.
