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?" by @apfeff
I do not believe that Political entrepreneurs are inherently bad, but I do think that they are less favorable than market entrepreneurs. Political entrepreneurs are only interested in taking advantage of government funding. They are asking themselves how to best position their innovations to receive the most money. Market entrepreneurs, on the other hand, are focused on creating value for the market. While both types of entrepreneurs have the end goal of making money, the way they go about it is drastically different.
A political entrepreneur rarely has their customers in mind because that is not where their money comes from. It is much more difficult to adequately gauge success when there will always be a safety net of funding. This leads to a distortion in the value that they are creating. Why would they need to innovate, provide better products/services, and boost sales when they are getting paid no matter what? I do not see political entrepreneurs benefiting the common good when they have no incentive to do so.
A market engineer is focused on their customers because that is where their paychecks are coming from. This is exactly the type of entrepreneur that the government should be promoting because it leads to a better outcome for the entire world. The best thing that the government can do for us is to leave the market alone. The government should not have the power to distort our markets because it rarely ends well. We can look at historical examples, such as the Collins Mail Steamship Company, as a testimony to the negative effects of government subsidies.