Socialism Isn’t All Bad, But It Doesn’t Scale

Image of The Harder you Work, The Luckier You Get

While making media appearances to promote my book, The Harder You Work, The Luckier You Get, I had the chance to talk about our free enterprise system – a phrase I prefer to capitalism – and socialism.  In fact, I kicked things off on my book tour with an essay on CBS Sunday Morning about why I think the free enterprise system is the engine of opportunity.   

During my book tour, several interviewers asked me what socialist policies would have meant for Ameritrade back in the day, and what those policies would mean for our shared futures today.  In those short-format interviews, it’s often difficult to discuss these complex issues thoughtfully without the message getting distilled down to soundbites – e.g., “free enterprise is great and socialism will be our ruin.”  (Elizabeth Warren seized on one of these moments, including me in an ad she ran attacking successful businesspeople.)  But like so many things in life, soundbites don’t really do this important topic justice. 

So I was interested to read Professor Walter Block’s recent opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal, Bad Capitalism and Good Socialism.  In many ways, I couldn’t have said it better than Professor Block – there are different flavors of capitalism and different flavors of socialism.  Neither system is without its flaws.  In fact, during one of my recent interviews, I acknowledged that at its core, socialism sounds great – society asking each of us to contribute according to his ability and providing to each of us according to his need.  And at small scales, as Professor Block points out, socialism can work – think the convent, monastery, kibbutz, commune, syndicalist association, and cooperative.  At large scale, however, where government must own and control the means of production, nationalizing industries in the pursuit of social justice, it ends very badly – think Venezuela, East Germany, Maoist China and the U.S.S.R. 

On the flipside, the free enterprise system, if left wholly unregulated, can run amok.  There are plenty examples of this – e.g., unsafe working conditions at the dawn of the industrial era – but one that I think makes the point about the potential pitfalls of free enterprise is the fur trappers of the mid-1800s.  Those entrepreneurial adventurers would sometimes kill one another if doing so was a profit-maximizing strategy; not a particularly attractive advertisement for free enterprise. 

But this bare-knuckle, broken version of free enterprise isn’t the only variety.  In fact, it’s not even the most prevalent one.  For just as socialism has versions that work and others that don’t, there’s a moderated version of free enterprise that has created more wealth and raised more people out of poverty than any system in human history.  In this high-functioning version of free enterprise, entrepreneurs are given a relatively unfettered field on which to reimagine the world, and from this springs social prosperity at a scale socialism of all stripes can never achieve.  And scale matters.  A system that works for a few dozen people on a kibbutz is great, but doesn’t answer the more complex challenges hundreds of millions of people face when trying to live and work together. 

So is free enterprise great and socialism evil?  That’s the wrong question.  The right question is how we improve the guardrails around free enterprise to assure social justice doesn’t become roadkill while preserving enough freedom that new businesses can start and prosper.  For it’s those new businesses, and the entrepreneurs that create them, that will provide the jobs and economic opportunity that propels us – all of us – forward. 

And when I talk about “jobs” it’s important to make clear I’m referring to net new jobs.  Those are the new jobs that are above and beyond the ones that simply replace the jobs lost each year through normal churn.  And those net new jobs really matter, as most economists agree it takes a 3% annual GDP increase to accommodate all the new jobseekers coming into the workforce.  Put differently, we need those net new jobs to expand the pool of opportunity so more people can prosper from the free enterprise system.   

It might not sound like a particularly interesting issue but it’s incredibly important.  It’s so important that I’ve established a nonprofit foundation – Entrepreneurs Create Jobs – to help provide information about the topic.  In time, I plan to talk more about Entrepreneurs Create Jobs, but for now I invite you to check out the videos on the foundation’s website. 

Celebrating America’s Spirit of Generosity

Image of open hand with generosity phrases

Generosity has always been an essential part of what it means to be an American.

From banking billionaires to barkeeps, we have viewed material success as a means to do good for our families and communities, rather than an end.

Thanks to democratic capitalism — where businesses go belly-up if they don’t create goods and services that people want at a price they can afford, and jobs that fulfill and enrich — the process of creating that wealth does tremendous good by itself.

Too often we ignore the wonder of this free enterprise system.

It is this system that enabled Americans to give an estimated $390bn to U.S. charities in 2016. To put that number in perspective, last year our country gave more money to philanthropic causes than the entire gross domestic product of Austria. It goes without saying that we are the most charitable people in the world.

A large portion of this giving was and is funded directly by wealthy individuals and indirectly by institutions they have founded and supported. According to the Almanac of American Philanthropy, the so-called “one percent” make more than one-third of all donations. The majority of the largest donors in the world are based in the Americas. Of these donors, almost three-quarters are, largely self-made, Americans; they each donate around $30 million over their lives.

Our entrepreneurial spirit goes hand-in-hand with our desire to help others. Rich and poor alike believe this, as American households give several thousand dollars to charity each year on average.

We are following in the footsteps of a long line of Americans.

When he wasn’t leading our nation as a Founding Father and statesman, inventing items like lightning rods and bifocals, or publishing newspapers, Benjamin Franklin used his success to build Philadelphia’s civil society through developing a number of critical institutions. These include among others: The nation’s first public library; Pennsylvania’s first volunteer fire brigade; the Academy of Philadelphia, now known as the University of Pennsylvania; and the nation’s first hospital, which focused on serving the poor and sick.

The great 19th century industrialist Andrew Carnegie was equally ambitious. Among other things, he: Created 2,811 lending libraries worldwide; founded one of the world’s leading research universities in the Carnegie Technical Schools, now known as Carnegie Mellon University; underwrote one of the nation’s first and still largest grantmaking foundations in the Carnegie Corporation; and established numerous other charitable organizations. Peers like John D. Rockefeller and J.P. Morgan picked up his mantle.

Today, several American billionaires like Bill Gates have pledged to give away half of their wealth to philanthropic causes. They are joined by many business successes, from Silicon Valley tech titans to energy tycoons, who help fund projects in areas like education, health and culture.

Recently we were reminded of the generosity of America’s business community, which mobilized to donate millions of dollars to the recovery efforts in the wake of Hurricanes Harvey and Irma.

In spite of this record, in conversations with folks about causes near and dear to my heart like The Cloisters on the Platte and Opportunity Education, I have heard our philanthropic work described as “unusual.”

Why is there this perception that it is rare for those who have done well to support charitable causes?

Could it be because “the rich” are often depicted in popular culture as greedy, old, and sometimes overweight fat cats chomping on cigars? Is the corrupt and miserly “Old Man Potter” from It’s a Wonderful Life how Americans see our captains of industry?

If so, it is a real shame. We have always been a country that celebrates strivers and doers. We have never sought to pull people down for success, but to lift others up and open opportunities so that they too can achieve it. Envy is not in our DNA. Ambition is.

Speaking for myself, one way of expressing my appreciation for the opportunities this nation has provided has been by using the wealth our enterprises have created to advance worthy causes.

The purpose is not to put names on buildings, but to support initiatives in areas like civil society and education that will allow us to continue to thrive as a vibrant and dynamic country for decades to come.

While there are certainly greedy wealthy people just as there are greedy non-wealthy people, in my life, I have found that almost all Americans feel the same way I do about being generous with their time and money.

We are generous because we are thankful, and because we wish to see American remain the freest, most prosperous land on Earth for our children and grandchildren.

This spirit of generosity should unite us all. It is one of the many things that makes us an exceptional nation.