6 ms·

In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance. But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying

In my early 20's, I would have agreed 100% with your stance. But, you know what really gives people freedom and liberty? The freedom to fail without worrying about how they're going to keep a roof over their head and a meal on the table. Without worrying that they're one medical emergency away from losing everything they've worked for. You want people creating small, lifestyle businesses? Give them a safety net and let them take that step without risking everything.

umvi 5y ago
I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  Most "businesses" created in America are shell corps designed to push money around and limit liabilities. They don't produce anything.
- jdmichal 5y ago
  If this is any indication, the US is certainly not winning that race: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micro/Small-and-medium-enterprises/Number/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr... I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here. EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing. https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2... So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
  - knubie 5y ago
    I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?) [0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/05122043/Small-Business-FAQ-2020.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
  - jotm 5y ago
    Do companies count as self-employed, though?
- jotm 5y ago
  That's because good safety nets means people don't have to take risks on business. So that leaves only the people who want to start a business. Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point. As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Why are the FAANG companies all based in the US?
    - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
      Same reason they make most of their physical stuff in China. The government allows the most abuses.
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
      Large amounts of venture capital from US investors, a really large monolingual market and path dependence. More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.
      - WalterBright 5y ago
        Outlier? FAANG is just the top of the market. Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater. Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors. Monolingual? The global business world runs on English. Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
        disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        > Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater. I'm not convinced that this is the case. Like, the US market is cheaper to operate in relative to other markets the same size (e.g. the EU) because you have an over-arching system of laws, contracts and (most importantly) language. If your theory is correct, then one would expect the US to remain the largest source of profitable companies globally. If my theory is correct, one might expect China/India to take it's place. Come back in 20 years, I guess? > Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors. Can you point to some sources on this. A quick Google didn't reveal much information, and I really would like to know. Modulo Softbank, I suspect that it's mostly US based institutions giving VC's their money. > Monolingual? The global business world runs on English. All of the big companies you mentioned sell to consumers, not businesses, so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant. My point was that the US is a relatively integrated, large market with one language. Most startups begin in their home company. While a startup from Greece would likely have to hire more people to scale across the EU (20+ languages), the equivalent US based startup can scale happily without worrying about languages for a much longer period. > Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely. FAANG are 100% outliers, I don't see how you can believe otherwise. However, Europe has produced SAP (uggghhhh), Spotify, and a bunch of second-tier fintechs (but given the regulatory advantages of the EU in this space, I suspect one of them will conquer the world).
- padraic7a 5y ago
  What freedoms are other countries lacking? Just guns?
  - umvi 5y ago
    The freedom to say mildly offensive things on Twitter without getting punished by the state?
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    In Germany it is illegal to school your children if you don’t like what the public institutions are doing.
LoveGracePeace 5y ago
No. Any government big enough to bail everyone out, is big enough to take away everything we have. One of the parent posters said they didn't get the Trump thing. It's easy. Trump whether worth $1 or Ten Billion dollars got what converservatives and the majority want; government out of the way. And preferably the end of career politicians.
- ahevia 5y ago
  So most federal conservatives. Who are career politicians. Want to get rid of career politicians? After doing nothing to get rid of career politicians their whole career? This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.
WalterBright 5y ago
You're conflating security with freedom. You can have security or freedom, but not both.
- BoiledCabbage 5y ago
  You absolutely can have both, because the world does not boil down to simplistic either or choices. You can argue that freedom and security are oppostite poles of a sliding scale, and most people would agree with you. But nobody wants absolute freedom (anarchy and literal lawlessness) nor does anyone want absolute security. People want degrees of both. It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    > You absolutely can have both It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom. Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
- djrobstep 5y ago
  How am I less free because my country has free healthcare and decent unemployment benefits?
  - WalterBright 5y ago
    Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off. With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
    - djrobstep 5y ago
      Walter, it’s amazing how often I see you weigh in on economic and political issues on this forum when you have a poor grasp of even the basics. Claiming that privatised healthcare is somehow more efficient in spite of overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary, or that people are capable of meaningfully informed choices in picking a healthcare plan and somehow find it life-enhancing to have to do this, or ignoring the fact that funding it through taxation rather than insurance results in more universal and equitable access, and entirely glossing over adverse selection problems, is just amateur house stuff. You’d get laughed at in a high school classroom with this stuff but here you are trying to talk about it with authority.
mantas 5y ago
As a European… The problem with safety net is it brings taxes to cover that safety net. And regulations for companies to make them part of that safety net. In the end it makes it harder to start a small business and more comfy to be employed. Essentially helping big businesses to stamp out competition. Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?
- jdmichal 5y ago
  And if one were to consider healthcare premiums in the US as a "tax", the US looks very much like a European country. We in the US are already paying for the safety net, but without actually getting one. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-a...

umvi 5y ago

I'm not convinced. There are plenty of countries with social safety nets galore, and all of them seem to have fewer freedoms and fewer small businesses created per capita than the USA.

MisterBastahrd 5y ago
Most "businesses" created in America are shell corps designed to push money around and limit liabilities. They don't produce anything.
jdmichal 5y ago
If this is any indication, the US is certainly not winning that race: https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micro/Small-and-medium-enterprises/Number/Per-capita https://www.nationmaster.com/country-info/stats/Economy/Micr... I'm looking for a better source still, so if you find one please post it here. EDIT: I found this. Numbers are a bit old (2007), but it shows self-employment rate per capita on page 4, which is exactly the metric we're interested in discussing. https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2009-08.pdf https://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/small-business-2... So, based on those two sources, your assertion seems straight up incorrect.
- knubie 5y ago
  I'm not sure where that first link is getting its numbers, or why they're so outdated, but the US Small Business Association puts the number of small businesses in the US at around 31.7 million [0], or just over 100 per 1,000 people, which would top that list (excluding Indonesia, which, BTW why is it so high?) [0] https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/05122043/Small-Business-FAQ-2020.pdf https://cdn.advocacy.sba.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/0512...
- jotm 5y ago
  Do companies count as self-employed, though?
jotm 5y ago
That's because good safety nets means people don't have to take risks on business. So that leaves only the people who want to start a business. Who tend to leave for countries where it's easier to run a business and where they don't have to pay for the safety nets, but that's besides the point. As for freedoms, I don't know. Not that much of a difference between US, UK and Germany from what I can tell.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Why are the FAANG companies all based in the US?
  - ZeroGravitas 5y ago
    Same reason they make most of their physical stuff in China. The government allows the most abuses.
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
    Large amounts of venture capital from US investors, a really large monolingual market and path dependence. More generally though, relying on outliers for your argument is perhaps not the best approach.
    - WalterBright 5y ago
      Outlier? FAANG is just the top of the market. Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater. Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors. Monolingual? The global business world runs on English. Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely.
      - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
        > Companies are started in the US and grown because the opportunity to make money is much greater. I'm not convinced that this is the case. Like, the US market is cheaper to operate in relative to other markets the same size (e.g. the EU) because you have an over-arching system of laws, contracts and (most importantly) language. If your theory is correct, then one would expect the US to remain the largest source of profitable companies globally. If my theory is correct, one might expect China/India to take it's place. Come back in 20 years, I guess? > Venture capital? An awful lot of the venture capital comes from foreign investors. Can you point to some sources on this. A quick Google didn't reveal much information, and I really would like to know. Modulo Softbank, I suspect that it's mostly US based institutions giving VC's their money. > Monolingual? The global business world runs on English. All of the big companies you mentioned sell to consumers, not businesses, so the global language of business is kinda irrelevant. My point was that the US is a relatively integrated, large market with one language. Most startups begin in their home company. While a startup from Greece would likely have to hire more people to scale across the EU (20+ languages), the equivalent US based startup can scale happily without worrying about languages for a much longer period. > Outliers? When it's all of them, the idea it is a coincidence starts getting pretty unlikely. FAANG are 100% outliers, I don't see how you can believe otherwise. However, Europe has produced SAP (uggghhhh), Spotify, and a bunch of second-tier fintechs (but given the regulatory advantages of the EU in this space, I suspect one of them will conquer the world).
padraic7a 5y ago
What freedoms are other countries lacking? Just guns?
- umvi 5y ago
  The freedom to say mildly offensive things on Twitter without getting punished by the state?
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  In Germany it is illegal to school your children if you don’t like what the public institutions are doing.

LoveGracePeace 5y ago

No. Any government big enough to bail everyone out, is big enough to take away everything we have. One of the parent posters said they didn't get the Trump thing. It's easy. Trump whether worth $1 or Ten Billion dollars got what converservatives and the majority want; government out of the way. And preferably the end of career politicians.

ahevia 5y ago
So most federal conservatives. Who are career politicians. Want to get rid of career politicians? After doing nothing to get rid of career politicians their whole career? This doesn’t track. No politician from either side wants to limit themselves out of a job.

WalterBright 5y ago

You're conflating security with freedom. You can have security or freedom, but not both.

BoiledCabbage 5y ago
You absolutely can have both, because the world does not boil down to simplistic either or choices. You can argue that freedom and security are oppostite poles of a sliding scale, and most people would agree with you. But nobody wants absolute freedom (anarchy and literal lawlessness) nor does anyone want absolute security. People want degrees of both. It's a naieve mindset to think it's all or nothing.
- WalterBright 5y ago
  > You absolutely can have both It's a sliding scale between security and freedom. Every bit of security you want means giving up a corresponding freedom. Also, most people do not include "freedom to harm others" when they're talking about freedom. I've never heard of anyone carrying a sign saying "FREEDOM" and meaning they want to be free to hurt others.
djrobstep 5y ago
How am I less free because my country has free healthcare and decent unemployment benefits?
- WalterBright 5y ago
  Neither of those is free. You still pay for it, plus you pay for the government's cost of administering it. You're worse off. With "free" government health care, you're not only paying more for it, but you no longer get to choose what health care you get. You get what a government bureaucrat says you get.
  - djrobstep 5y ago
    Walter, it’s amazing how often I see you weigh in on economic and political issues on this forum when you have a poor grasp of even the basics. Claiming that privatised healthcare is somehow more efficient in spite of overwhelming real world evidence to the contrary, or that people are capable of meaningfully informed choices in picking a healthcare plan and somehow find it life-enhancing to have to do this, or ignoring the fact that funding it through taxation rather than insurance results in more universal and equitable access, and entirely glossing over adverse selection problems, is just amateur house stuff. You’d get laughed at in a high school classroom with this stuff but here you are trying to talk about it with authority.

mantas 5y ago

As a European… The problem with safety net is it brings taxes to cover that safety net. And regulations for companies to make them part of that safety net. In the end it makes it harder to start a small business and more comfy to be employed. Essentially helping big businesses to stamp out competition. Some safety net without the negatives would be nice. But where will the money come from?

jdmichal 5y ago
And if one were to consider healthcare premiums in the US as a "tax", the US looks very much like a European country. We in the US are already paying for the safety net, but without actually getting one. https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-are-highly-taxed-when-you-count-health-premiums/ https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2019/04/08/us-workers-a...