From my Cato @ Liberty feed, a book that makes my to read list: The Myth of the Robber Barons; an observation from the book:

A key point about the steamship industry is that the government played an active role right from the start in both America and England. Right away this separates two groups of entrepreneurs — those who sought subsidies and those who didn’t. Those who tried to succeed in steamboating primarily through federal aid, pools, vote buying, or stock speculation we will classify as political entrepreneurs. Those who tried to succeed in steamboating primarily by creating and marketing a superior product at a low cost we will classify as market entrepreneurs. No entrepreneur fits perfectly into one category or the other, but most fall generally into one category or the other. The political entrepreneur often fits the classic Robber Baron mold; they stifled productivity (through monopolies and pools), corrupted business and politics, and dulled America’s competitive edge. Market entrepreneurs, by contrast, often made decisive and unpredictable contributions to American economic development.

The linked Cato article applies the book to the current Stimulus Spending Bill, and opines convincingly about why companies such as IBM are on board with the Stimulus Spending Bill, or at least those sections which benefit them.

From my humble perspective, there are companies who make it on their own, and others who make it because they are on a teat of some description. Not through hard work. Not by having better products. Not through markets. But via some type of favorable regulation.

There are those who bemoan Insufficient Regulation, and who are sure that if we just had More Regulation, that things would turn around. To them, I’d say, Give real unfettered competition a chance. I don’t know that unfettered competition has been tried in this country. I think it’s time to try it.

Don’t cost nothin’.

-k-