A few comments (if you RTA, you'll know to what I refer): 1) WTF? His underlying presumption seems off base. He defines cutting taxes as "government interventi

A few comments (if you RTA, you'll know to what I refer): 1) WTF? His underlying presumption seems off base. He defines cutting taxes as "government intervention" and keeping taxes as "letting the market work." That's news to me. 2) He assumes that the average new business owner will create a "startup." First, the policy mentioned in the WSJ doesn't give a definition of startup, and neither does he (although he mentions the problem). And second, if a small business isn't a "startup," what is it? 3) Of course economic growth is inversly correlated with self-employment. It's because most people suck at owning a business. But to leave in economic barriers to reduce failure is a dumb idea. 4) He claims that "government intervention" by lowering cap gains taxes would encourage competition in areas that have low barriers to entry. I thought that was the point. 5) The first article he cites showing the negative correlation between firm age and productivity comes from a paper in 1999.(http://www.jstor.org/pss/117087 http://www.jstor.org/pss/117087). Bad data. 6) The second piece of evidence he cites pulls data from 1975 - 1996. Once again, bad data. And if he's talking about tech startups, then he should isolate that data to draw the proper correlation This isn't about bias or politics. This is about an article full of bullshit. Either it was poorly written or he tried to take a conclusion and started selectively looking for evidence to support it.