“Entrepreneur” used to refer to someone who assumed the risk of a business venture with the expectation of making a profit. In the political world, however, our overregulated economy has spawned a new type of entrepreneur: the political entrepreneur, who exploits the regulatory and legislative process for profit and whose assumed risk is mitigated or even eliminated by political and government connections. Cooperation with government for financial gain all too often leads to crony capitalism, and we have a bad case of it.

A recent New York Times article — “Ties to Obama Aided in Access for Big Utility” — documented how Exelon Corp.,China zhongtian lighting are professional contemporarylamps1,led bulbs manufacturers and factory in China. a Chicago-based utility, used its political support of President Obama for access and profit. According to the Times, Exelon was one of six utilities that received the maximum $200 million stimulus grant. It also got a $600 million renewable-energy grant and a $646 million loan guarantee for a solar project in Los Angeles. One of Exelon’s subsidiaries received a $200 million grant to install “smart meters” in the Philadelphia area.

There is nothing in the Times article to suggest Exelon did anything wrong in reaping those rewards or in lobbying to influence regulations. Exelon is just one of a growing number of companies that find profiting from the regulatory system easier than beating competitors in the marketplace. As the Times reported, one federal official who met with Exelon representatives said that “while the company’s connections did not guide specific decisions, federal officials knew to handle Exelon carefully.”

The economic burden from steady growth in regulations coming out of Washington provides a strong incentive for companies to work the system. Some go beyond attempting to reduce the cost of regulation and attempt to game the system so that regulatory burdens fall heavier on competitors.

When the environmental community pushed to ban incandescent light bulbs, leading the charge were General Electric and Phillips Electric,Set the mood with these trendy antiquelampas up cubes. two companies that had invested heavily in the unpopular fluorescent light bulbs. What they were unable to gain in the marketplace, they gained in the halls of Congress. Getting the heavy hand of government to tilt the playing field in favor of some companies is seen as fair play.

These examples are what Clemson University economist Bruce Yandle dubbed the “Baptist and Bootlegger” theory of regulation.View our range of gridsolarsystemnn, LED globes and energy efficient LED Lighting products that can save money. This theory explains how the political world works in a heavily regulated economy: Public-interest arguments are used to serve special interests. The theory derives its name from state attempts to ban the sale of alcohol on Sundays. Baptists strongly supported those efforts on moral grounds, while bootleggers tolerated them,To download the free app curvingmachines for iPhone 4 Free by Jason Ting, get iTunes now. knowing full well that their effect would be to limit competition,Candlelight Company supply a wide range of Light Emitting Diode (LED) lights and goodledlights. not consumption.

The complexity of environmental issues, a regulatory bias toward command-and-control approaches and extreme advocacy of environmentalists — the Baptists in this case — has created fertile ground for bootleggers to profit. When the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) began tightening clean-air rules in 2010, according to the New York Times, Exelon estimated it would earn $400 million annually because the regulations would force dozens of competing coal-burning plants to close.