3 ms·

I don't think this sounds that bad, to be honest. Traditionally, and for various reasons, some to do with bargaining-power in the market, some with (good, but

by wybo 16y ago

I don't think this sounds that bad, to be honest. Traditionally, and for various reasons, some to do with bargaining-power in the market, some with (good, but patronizing) care for citizens, others with bureaucracy, gave benefits to large, international corporations (tax breaks, complicated regulations that keep small competitors out, and the occasional bailout...). And now startups get some support too. I see where most criticism here is coming from, but honestly, in the pragmatic scheme of things, this could actually help startups, and thus the economy, by leveling the playing-field (a bit) again...

smokeyj 16y ago
What the government is doing here is 'tinkering' with a process that doesn't involve them. When such tinkering occurs, societal and market distortions are introduced in unanticipated manners. How could the government, sponsoring a few thousand startups, be harmful to anyone? If they start competing with existing VCs, angels and incubators, they may become the ONLY source of funding. Look at the Dodd-Frank Act, they're already squeezing accredited investors out of the game. The State has an unfair advantage, they can assume any amount of risk and stay in business as long as they want. That's some steep competition.
- wybo 16y ago
  Yes, but wheter you like it or not, the government is tinkering with the rest of the economy anyway. So it becomes a choice between anti-startup tinkering, or both pro- and anti-startup tinkering. I prefer the latter, but then I am no VC. (an additional thing to note is that the government is generally slow to respond to the economy, so if and when the tech economy goes into another winter, the government will at least be there like an old lady, putting out seeds in the snow, for startups to feed on :)
  - smokeyj 16y ago
    This is a debate about centralized vs decentralized resource planning. Being an entrepreneur, and not a Statist, I prefer the individual be empowered to direct his own resources as he sees fit.

by wybo 16y ago

smokeyj 16y ago

What the government is doing here is 'tinkering' with a process that doesn't involve them. When such tinkering occurs, societal and market distortions are introduced in unanticipated manners. How could the government, sponsoring a few thousand startups, be harmful to anyone? If they start competing with existing VCs, angels and incubators, they may become the ONLY source of funding. Look at the Dodd-Frank Act, they're already squeezing accredited investors out of the game. The State has an unfair advantage, they can assume any amount of risk and stay in business as long as they want. That's some steep competition.

wybo 16y ago
Yes, but wheter you like it or not, the government is tinkering with the rest of the economy anyway. So it becomes a choice between anti-startup tinkering, or both pro- and anti-startup tinkering. I prefer the latter, but then I am no VC. (an additional thing to note is that the government is generally slow to respond to the economy, so if and when the tech economy goes into another winter, the government will at least be there like an old lady, putting out seeds in the snow, for startups to feed on :)
- smokeyj 16y ago
  This is a debate about centralized vs decentralized resource planning. Being an entrepreneur, and not a Statist, I prefer the individual be empowered to direct his own resources as he sees fit.