The Ability to Achieve Seemingly Impossible Visions Is the Source of a Society’s and Economy’s Vitality

No matter how slim the chances of success may be for the America Party founded by Elon Musk, American society still allows him to attempt such an experiment. If this were attempted elsewhere in the world, would such an idea even have the possibility of being put into practice?

Author: GUDORDI | 2025-08-19

Musk enjoys a high status in the United States, breaking the negative stereotype that all businessmen are unscrupulous. (Shutterstock)

The land we have today is not inherited from our ancestors , but borrowed from our children…
We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors, we borrow it from our children…
—Chief Seattle/Oscar Wilde/Anonymous

In the previous article, the author mentioned that the modern economy is driven by expectations about the future, and raised a series of related questions. For example: what are the main factors that shape expectations of the future? Are government visions and policy guidance necessary? And how much impact can the vision of a single individual actually have? These are all difficult questions to answer.

The Definition of Entrepreneurs in the Property Rights School of Economics

When reflecting on these questions, the case of Elon Musk is particularly thought-provoking. In China and in many cultures around the world, merchants have traditionally held a relatively low social status. The saying “all merchants are deceitful” has long been a label attached to businesspeople across different civilizations, and this perception may have existed for thousands of years. Yet Musk’s emergence seems to have challenged many people’s deeply rooted assumptions.

Upon deeper reflection, what we call a “businessperson” is, in essence, simply someone who chooses not to be an employee and is instead willing to personally bear uncertainty and risk. From this perspective, taxi drivers and street vendors are also merchants — or at least possess entrepreneurial characteristics. In their fundamental nature, they are not essentially different from corporate owners with large numbers of employees.

The Property Rights School of Economics offers a similar understanding. According to this perspective, entrepreneurs are those who choose to confront and bear the uncertainties of the market directly, rather than become followers within the institutional arrangement of the firm — an organization symbolizing the “visible hand.”

Many People Do Not Need to Face the Vast Ocean of the Market Directly

More importantly, if we continue to examine this issue through the lens of The Property Rights School of Economics, then only two fundamental forms of economic organization truly exist: the firm, which symbolizes the “visible hand,” and the market, which symbolizes the “invisible hand.” Between these two lie countless contractual arrangements that combine varying degrees of both corporate and market characteristics.

If we take this perspective one step further, perhaps we can compare the entire market — and indeed the whole economy and society — to a vast ocean. Within this enormous marketplace are many different zones, and not every part must directly confront violent storms and turbulent waves.

Large segments of society, such as public and semi-public sectors, do not need to face market realities directly. Their position resembles the support or middle-management departments within a company. Even within private enterprises, it is often only the frontline departments that directly confront the market, while other departments mainly follow the directives of the “visible hand.”

This does not mean that market pressure does not affect them at all; rather, there are layers of institutions and forces acting as buffers between them and the full force of the market.

Merchants are simply those who choose to directly confront the market. Through a series of coincidences, they may influence the market’s trajectory, which has no necessary connection to whether they are cunning or not. (Shutterstock)

Merchants Are Not Necessarily Deceitful

However, there are always some people in the world who, for various reasons, refuse to remain obedient sailors following orders. Instead, they choose to face the open sea and captain their own ships.

The size of those ships may vary enormously — some as small as a sampan, others as large as an aircraft carrier — but conceptually, the task is the same: to dance with the ocean that symbolizes the “invisible hand.” Most of the time, they can only follow the rhythm of the market as best they can. Yet under the right circumstances and when opportunities align, it is not entirely impossible for them to influence the market’s direction to some extent.

Viewed from this perspective, merchants are simply people who choose to face the market directly. This does not necessarily have any inherent connection with being deceitful.

It is also worth noting that opportunities to deceive others may exist only once or twice. Therefore, if a company intends to survive and continue operating across generations, it has strong incentives to build trust with employees, customers, suppliers, and society as a whole. And to build trust, honesty and keeping one’s promises are far more effective strategies.

In a healthy market system, the rights and interests of all participants are, in theory, protected. Any attempt to change another person’s commercial behavior must generally be built on voluntary agreement. As a result, the free market system creates strong incentives for different parties to seek common ground despite differences, and to practice mutual tolerance and compromise.

The idea that “all merchants are deceitful” oversimplifies reality far too much.

Elon Musk and the American System

In the case of Elon Musk, the perspective of Warren Buffett is particularly insightful. Buffett believes that Musk highlights what is unique about the American system. He once expressed a similar sentiment: “This is America… You just need to dream it…”

More importantly, regardless of how unlikely Musk’s America Party may be to succeed, American society still permits him to attempt such an experiment. If this were in many other parts of the world, would such an idea even have the possibility of being put into practice?

Even more significant is the point raised in the quotation at the beginning of this article: the present state of society is inseparably connected to the future. If so, could allowing every individual in society the freedom to attempt bold ideas be the true source of a society’s and economy’s long-term vitality? And what insights might this offer regarding the future of Hong Kong?