4 ms·

and it's great to encourage government initiatives to tackle those problems, but I'm not implying private startups should replace those initiatives, but rather

and it's great to encourage government initiatives to tackle those problems, but I'm not implying private startups should replace those initiatives, but rather complement them. The mighty NASA and Russia's space program hadn't (and still haven't) figured out how to build reusable self-landing rockets (for a # of reasons), and yet a company with startup-level resources like SpaceX did. Part of it is because startups have to succeed at their goal, or they die. Government entities don't die if they don't pull off medicare for all. In addition, startups don't have the slow and bulky bureaucracy of government in their way. Think of what those advantages can bring about in healthcare, energy, and other moonshot fields, if they just had the funding. Hence why it's so important for big funds like SoftBank to invest in those, not nonsense startups with nothing more than a cult leader.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
You're not arguing for arrangement of government vs startups though, you're arguing for passion, determination, fortitude, and grit (and domain expertise, of course). The organizational structure (private vs public) is less important. Government can operate as efficiently as some of the leanest, most nimble startups, and private companies can operate as poorly as the worst run parts of government. I too can provide examples of private companies that are enormous, dysfunctional, and yet still lumber on (Boeing) similarly to how some parts of government have operated. The private sector is not a silver bullet for innovation and efficiency. Regarding SpaceX, Elon Musk is a cult leader, and rightly so; he gets shit done (I have previously said he is our least terrible billionaire). Hire more people into government who get shit done, and get out of their way (see: US Digital Service/18F, for example). Regarding bureaucracy, some amount of regulation is beneficial. "Most fast, break things" gets old when you're committing fraud like Theranos. If one desires a little less bureaucracy, that is what incubators like DARPA are for. Think of what horrors startups would foist upon us chasing valuations and profits without any regulation whatsoever. Disclaimer: I am biased. I don't believe in American Exceptionalism, nor rugged individualism.

toomuchtodo 7y ago

You're not arguing for arrangement of government vs startups though, you're arguing for passion, determination, fortitude, and grit (and domain expertise, of course). The organizational structure (private vs public) is less important. Government can operate as efficiently as some of the leanest, most nimble startups, and private companies can operate as poorly as the worst run parts of government. I too can provide examples of private companies that are enormous, dysfunctional, and yet still lumber on (Boeing) similarly to how some parts of government have operated. The private sector is not a silver bullet for innovation and efficiency. Regarding SpaceX, Elon Musk is a cult leader, and rightly so; he gets shit done (I have previously said he is our least terrible billionaire). Hire more people into government who get shit done, and get out of their way (see: US Digital Service/18F, for example). Regarding bureaucracy, some amount of regulation is beneficial. "Most fast, break things" gets old when you're committing fraud like Theranos. If one desires a little less bureaucracy, that is what incubators like DARPA are for. Think of what horrors startups would foist upon us chasing valuations and profits without any regulation whatsoever. Disclaimer: I am biased. I don't believe in American Exceptionalism, nor rugged individualism.