Are successful businesspeople more like heroes or villains? In fictional accounts, one can find plenty of examples of each, from Charles Dickens’ miserly Ebenezer Scrooge to Ayn Rand’s rugged individualist entrepreneur John Galt. In F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby Tom Buchanan represents privileged old money, with its ruthlessness and incapacity for empathy, whereas Jay Gatsby is a self-made millionaire with no shortage of sentimentality and idealism.
One finds the same distinctions in social science depictions of entrepreneurs. Political economist Joseph Schumpeter and his followers viewed entrepreneurs as the engines of growth, the heroic figures who delivered “gales of creative destruction.”
By contrast, Frederick Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England heaped scorn on British industrialists who pushed their workers not just into poverty, but into inhumane working and living conditions.
However, he and Karl Marx later made the two roles an essential part of their theory of capitalism: Ruthless businesspeople exploit workers, but also unleash innovation and growth, ultimately transforming society.
These conflicting depictions reflect society’s complex views of business. Obviously, it would be naive to expect all businesspeople to be either heroes or villains. Like most people, they are often both.
Many names that are now associated with philanthropy or higher education originally belonged to the robber barons of the late 19th and early 20th century. Industrial magnates such as John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie and Cornelius Vanderbilt showed no compunction about intimidating and acquiring rivals to monopolize their respective markets and increase prices. They were also downright brutal — and sometimes murderous — toward any workers who had the temerity to ask for higher pay or better conditions.
Stanford University founder Leland Stanford was probably even worse. Not only did he and his associates corner the railway construction industry on the US’ Pacific coast; they also concocted a scheme to get taxpayers to pay for it. Stanford also savagely exploited migrant workers, especially Chinese, who labored under conditions so harsh and for pay so low that very few Americans would work for him.
Stanford then jumped into politics to solidify his gains and benefit further at taxpayers’ expense. He strong-armed California’s state legislature and municipal governments into issuing bonds that provided more public money for his railroads. As governor of the state, he organized murderous raids against Native Americans and whipped up hatred against the very Chinese who had been so crucial to his success.
Nowadays, the myth of heroic business no longer has much purchase. Johnson & Johnson, once praised for its proactive product recalls to protect customers, is using a dubious legal maneuver — the “Texas two-step” or “divisional merger” — to avoid paying damages for its marketing and sales of contaminated talcum powder.
The big oil companies, after decades of denying and sowing disinformation about climate change, are now pretending to be committed to environmental activism.
No one is buying the ruse.
Then of course, there is the tech industry, where many entrepreneurs started as idealistic outsiders promising to make the world a better place. Google’s motto was: “Don’t be evil,” but now “big tech” is synonymous with market domination, consumer manipulation, tax avoidance and other abuses. (In 2018, Google removed its motto from the preface of its code of conduct.)
For years, the sector’s biggest players have been acquiring or simply copying new entrants’ products to reinforce their own dominance. A telltale example is Facebook’s purchase of Instagram in 2012 and WhatsApp in 2014. Internal documents have since shown that these acquisitions were motivated by top executives’ desire to neutralize potential competitors.
Even more questionable are “killer acquisitions”: A company purchases a new technology under the pretense of integrating it into its own ecosystem, only to decommission it entirely. These monopolistic methods come on top of other tried-and-true tactics, such as bundling products to stop users from switching to rival services, as Microsoft did to kill off Netscape, and as Apple has done with its iOS ecosystem.
Last but not least, big tech has benefited massively from unbridled data collection, which allows a dominant player to know much more about consumers than potential rivals do, and to mount formidable barriers to market entry. The result is not just market concentration, but also the mass manipulation of users, sometimes through misleading product offerings and even more often through digital ads.
Fortunately, businesses do not have some incorrigible tendency to misbehave. From the fin de siecle industrialists to corporate bad actors today, the common denominator has been a system that lacks proper checks against abuse. To ensure better behavior and better innovation from companies, the right institutional environment and the right type of regulation need to be provided.
James Robinson and I tried to emphasize this point in Why Nations Fail, when we compared Microsoft founder Bill Gates and Mexican telecommunications tycoon Carlos Slim.
We said that both men had an interest in making as much money with whatever means they could, but Slim could get away with much worse behavior than Gates, owing to the differences between the Mexican and US legal and regulatory regimes.
Looking back, I now think we were too generous to the US. Although US businesses had a stronger incentive than their Mexican counterparts to innovate, there were plenty of ways that they, too, could get away with misbehavior. Opportunities for exploiting the system were already multiplying by the time Microsoft had become a leading company, and they have since become much more endemic, with colossal costs for the US economy.
The tragedy of villainous business behavior is that it is largely preventable. To create the proper balance of guardrails and incentives, people must disabuse themselves of the myth of the heroic entrepreneur and recognize that the gales of creative destruction do not blow automatically.
Only with better regulations and more robust institutions can prosperity be achieved and the most powerful people in society be held accountable for their behavior.
Daron Acemoglu, professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, is coauthor with James Robinson of Why Nations Fail: The Origins of Power, Prosperity and Poverty and The Narrow Corridor: States, Societies and the Fate of Liberty.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
For Xi Jinping (習近平) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), the military conquest of Taiwan is an absolute requirement for the CCP’s much more fantastic ambition: control over our solar system. Controlling Taiwan will allow the CCP to dominate the First Island Chain and to better neutralize the Philippines, decreasing the threat to the most important People’s Liberation Army (PLA) Strategic Support Force (SSF) space base, the Wenchang Satellite Launch Center on Hainan Island. Satellite and manned space launches from the Jiuquan and Xichang Satellite Launch Centers regularly pass close to Taiwan, which is also a very serious threat to the PLA,
Taiwan is beautiful — no doubt about it. In Taipei, the streets are clean, the skyline is gorgeous and the subway is world-class. The coastline is easily accessible and mountains can be seen in the distance. The people are hardworking, successful and busy. Every luxury known to humankind is available and people live on their smartphones. As an American visiting for the first time, here are some things I learned about the country. First, people from Taiwan and America love freedom and democracy and have for many years. When we defeated Japan in 1945, Taiwan was freed from Japanese rule. In
More than 100 Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) vessels and aircraft were detected making incursions into Taiwan’s air defense identification zone (ADIZ) on Sunday and Monday, the Ministry of National Defense reported on Monday. The ministry responded to the incursions by calling on China to “immediately stop such destructive unilateral actions,” saying that Beijing’s actions could “easily lead to a sharp escalation in tensions and worsen regional security.” Su Tzu-yun (蘇紫雲), a research fellow at the Institute for National Defense and Security Research, said that the unusually high number of incursions over such a short time was likely Beijing’s response to efforts
Taiwan’s first indigenous defense submarine prototype, the Hai Kun (SS-711), is to be launched tomorrow and undergo underwater testing next month. It is a major breakthrough in upgrading the nation’s self-defense capabilities, and would make it more difficult for China to blockade Taiwan. Facing Beijing’s escalating military threats and ambitions of expanding across the Taiwan Strait, a domestically developed submarine was first proposed in the 1990s under then-president Lee Teng-hui (李登輝). The Indigenous Defense Submarine (IDS) program was formally initiated in 2016, as President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) took office, with the aim of creating a fleet of eight domestically developed submarines. The