4 ms·

I think that this would result in hundreds of thousands of bad ideas hitting the marketplace and then the government having to bail out all of the crap that did

I think that this would result in hundreds of thousands of bad ideas hitting the marketplace and then the government having to bail out all of the crap that didn't succeed. Risk is there for a reason, it's to stop you from doing something stupid, to make you think twice about the decision you're about to make. I don't believe that we need government to bail out risk takers... not with the amount of national debt that we already have. You know what happend the last time there was no risk? Banks lended out sub-prime mortgages to just about anyone with a job that walked in the door. You know why they were able to do this? Because those sub-prime loans where bundled up and then sold off to investment banks which then packaged them as mortgage-backed securities. We all know how that one turned out... Risk is a necessary part of life, we need to accept it.

Hermitian 14y ago
I do agree that risk is essential and ought to be accepted. After all, I think I am more defined by my failures than anything else. But that deviates from the main discussion. I think the main discussion revolves around healthcare, or the lack of healthcare for start-ups. It is one thing to take risk yourself, but it is another to jeopardize your family's health services. I think that's the main arguments.
PatentTroll 14y ago
As someone who started a company and failed, I can attest to the power of a safety net. I relied heavily on family when I was picking up the pieces, and I was acutely aware of my good fortune of having that backstop. Without it I would have literally been destitute. So many people don't have a family safety net to fall back on, and those people are basically foreclosed from taking a big risk like starting a company without risking being homeless and bankrupt. Consider wealthy ivy-leaguers: Bill Gates and Mark Z's backstop was to go back to Harvard and probably get some support from their upper middle class families. Their plan B was way better than most people's plan A. I'd argue that they had comparatively little risk when starting out. I don't see it as a government bail-out, but as a way to enable a whole swath of the population to take risks that they cannot otherwise. Something as simple as healthcare would make a huge difference for many people.

Hermitian 14y ago

I do agree that risk is essential and ought to be accepted. After all, I think I am more defined by my failures than anything else. But that deviates from the main discussion. I think the main discussion revolves around healthcare, or the lack of healthcare for start-ups. It is one thing to take risk yourself, but it is another to jeopardize your family's health services. I think that's the main arguments.

PatentTroll 14y ago

As someone who started a company and failed, I can attest to the power of a safety net. I relied heavily on family when I was picking up the pieces, and I was acutely aware of my good fortune of having that backstop. Without it I would have literally been destitute. So many people don't have a family safety net to fall back on, and those people are basically foreclosed from taking a big risk like starting a company without risking being homeless and bankrupt. Consider wealthy ivy-leaguers: Bill Gates and Mark Z's backstop was to go back to Harvard and probably get some support from their upper middle class families. Their plan B was way better than most people's plan A. I'd argue that they had comparatively little risk when starting out. I don't see it as a government bail-out, but as a way to enable a whole swath of the population to take risks that they cannot otherwise. Something as simple as healthcare would make a huge difference for many people.