Regardless of what one thinks of his music or his life choices, it is easy to recognize how enormously productive Jackson was. He broke all the records for album sales, put MTV on the map and propelled music videos into the mainstream.

He created something out of nothing. He used his talent, hard work, and creativity to please the ears and eyes of consumers around the globe. If Jackson--or any entrepreneur for that matter--had asked a certain kind of economist whether he should pursue this line of work, this innovation, he would have been told it was foolhardy. "If there really was a market for that kind of stuff, someone would have done it already," they would say. But this is a static view of the world.

In reality, the economy is dynamic. And what allows that dynamism, what creates the environment for entrepreneurship, is the institutional framework--property rights, the rule of law and even the level of common trust among citizens. These factors cannot be quantified or easily measured, so they are often overlooked.

And yet without these social attributes great talent goes wasted around the world. The U.S. is blessed in countless ways, but do we really think we are just "lucky" to have so many talented people who live here? Would Michael Jackson have been just as successful if he had been born in France or Ghana? Of course not.

The good news is that singers like Shakira, who is from Columbia, and movies like Slumdog Millionaire, based on a book by an Indian novelist, suggest the environment necessary for success is spreading--even in the developing world.

Brian Wesbury and Robert Stein yesterday. My mind turns to these things while traveling. Canada is a great country, but how much of its greatness comes from its proximity to the US? How much of Mexico's growth? How do these institutional frameworks spread?

Please note that this week and next, postings will be at odd times due to time shifts. I will update via Twitter whenever possible, so be sure to follow me there.

Labels: economics