3 ms·

I am a great admirer of TechStars and I think their book _Do More Faster_ was great, but frankly this scares me a little. When government contributes money (ou

by edw519 16y ago

I am a great admirer of TechStars and I think their book _Do More Faster_ was great, but frankly this scares me a little. When government contributes money (our money!) or fosters an environment in which we can blossom, great. When they try to do much else, not so great. I have trouble understanding how government resources can replicate the contributions of people who have actually done it, ie Techstars or yc. Entrepreneurship is something that is done and shared, not talked about or theorized upon. I sure hope Techstars influence can find a way to harness these resources without having the pontificators fuck it up. Good luck with that.

cjoh 16y ago
Government isn't contributing any money here. Government is serving as a catalyst, organizer, and a validator. See: http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/faqs http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/faqs In fact, the TechStars network is a membership based network of independently owned incubators. So you can look at Government as having this dialogue with TechStars: Gov: Hey, Techstars, we want to create more jobs. We think what you've done is interesting. We'd love for you do do something with our new project StartUpAmerica. We got a bunch of people involved. You in? TechStars: Sure, sounds interesting, what can we do? Gov: What do you think you should do-- how could you be the most impactful here? TechStars: Well, we could create a network to help create more techstars like organizations, and have them working together. Gov: Sounds good. We'll put you on the website. TechStars: k cool.
- gyardley 16y ago
  Right, that's what the parent is worried about - not the money part, the catalyst, organizer, and validator part. As he said, When government contributes money [...] great. The TechStars Network sounds fine and all, but I really don't understand why it'd hitch itself to the broader governmental initiative, which on first glance looks both bureaucratic and problematic. For example, I read over on TechCrunch that Cass Sunstein is leading the associated regulatory review. That's like asking Bernie Madoff to supervise financial reform - the only thing I want from people like Sunstein is for them to be distracted elsewhere.

by edw519 16y ago

cjoh 16y ago

Government isn't contributing any money here. Government is serving as a catalyst, organizer, and a validator. See: http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/faqs http://www.startupamericapartnership.org/faqs In fact, the TechStars network is a membership based network of independently owned incubators. So you can look at Government as having this dialogue with TechStars: Gov: Hey, Techstars, we want to create more jobs. We think what you've done is interesting. We'd love for you do do something with our new project StartUpAmerica. We got a bunch of people involved. You in? TechStars: Sure, sounds interesting, what can we do? Gov: What do you think you should do-- how could you be the most impactful here? TechStars: Well, we could create a network to help create more techstars like organizations, and have them working together. Gov: Sounds good. We'll put you on the website. TechStars: k cool.

gyardley 16y ago
Right, that's what the parent is worried about - not the money part, the catalyst, organizer, and validator part. As he said, When government contributes money [...] great. The TechStars Network sounds fine and all, but I really don't understand why it'd hitch itself to the broader governmental initiative, which on first glance looks both bureaucratic and problematic. For example, I read over on TechCrunch that Cass Sunstein is leading the associated regulatory review. That's like asking Bernie Madoff to supervise financial reform - the only thing I want from people like Sunstein is for them to be distracted elsewhere.