3 ms·
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 intro
by 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 agoYes, 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 agoThis 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.