« Save Democracy-Abolish Voting: A review | Main | In defence of the labour theory of value »

December 09, 2017



This is interesting, but broken - Banks, Dyson & Martin are all quintessential bureaucratic company men. They all now make their money in bureaucratic ways. They all now deal in minor innovation, not disruption. All their actual theories about why Brexit is a good thing follow bureaucratic logic. They were all entrepreneurs once, but pretending they still are is part of the delusional looking to the 90s that characterises the whole Brexit saga in the UK.


There must be some entrepreneurs out there still, but the cake that they can get their teeth into is small.
The big money, reaped monthly from the income of citizens, now disappears in tax. Not to the State.... but to the rentier offspring of the state.

Retail is about all that is left, and where most innovation is to be found.
The cash cows have no incentive to improve efficiency when they can continuously up their margin despite regulation.


I think this confuses entrepreneur with fanatics and con men. The politics of the UK and USA have become infected with con men trying to exploit the tax payer to enrich private interests. Monopoly and the bizarre idea of reversing a century of improving the qualifications of the teaching profession by importing unqualified people to teach in profit making frauds. No wonder the economy is stagnating when the snake oil salesmen are allowed to replace educated people and public servants.

Richard Gadsden

The big difference in outlook is that entrepreneurs can afford to fail. Indeed, getting out from under entrepreneurial failure is what limited liability and bankruptcy were invented for.

Bureaucrats can't afford to fail, and that is the same whether in government or in business, so they operate with much more caution.

The problem with entrepreneurs in government is that it's much harder for a government to get out from under a failure.


A thought on bureaucrats, caution and secular stagnation.

The amount of data in the world is growing rapidly. We can quantify risks better than ever before. Knowing what we do about returns to R&D, the success of copiers rather than genuine innovators, and given the short-termism of investors - are we surprised that businesses today simply aren't interested in taking the kind of risks they used to?

I was always taught there's no reward without risk. Well, if everyone's using huge piles of data to cut their risks, maybe that tells us why reward is so much harder to come by in the aggregate?


“Bureaucrats can’t afford to fail.”


The comments to this entry are closed.

blogs I like

Blog powered by Typepad