[image source]
This post is in response to the question "Do political entrepreneurs bring about more good than harm? Are they actually able to act for the "common good"?" posed by @apfeff.
Political entrepreneurs tend to bring about more harm than good. Their reliance on government subsidies, government contracts, and governmental protection allows them a greater ability to create monopolies in certain industries. The investment the government makes in these businesses also often leads to these businesses being labeled “too big to fail” due to their high rates of employment. The government does not want something that they have invested time, energy, and money into to do poorly as it could have a very negative impact on the U.S. economy which then creates a cyclical effect as the government offers bailouts to these businesses in order to keep them standing rather than let them fail in the marketplace. Their failure in the marketplace would be a natural result of a free market where if they are unable to fix their business practices in order to stay running, they would fail and a new business would take its place. Instead, governmental subsidies and bailouts prevent this from occurring, so there is less incentive for these businesses to fix their poor business practices. We saw proof of this occurring during the COVID-19 pandemic. Large corporations like airlines were protected by the U.S. government, so they would not fail, but smaller businesses around the U.S. were not given this same luxury. This creates further success for large companies while undercutting smaller businesses which increases the likelihood that these smaller businesses may fail. This extends the power of existing monopolies.