5 ms·

Entrepreneurs Can Lead Us Out of the Crisis

18 points by Mrinal 18y ago

vaksel 18y ago
Everything is good except for SOX, what he proposes would just lead to another internet bubble
- time_management 18y ago
  "Another internet bubble" would probably be less damaging than the flattening of the IPO market, which has decimated venture capital. When something that is essential for subsistence experiences a bubble (e.g. food, housing) it causes an incredible amount of pain, as we've seen in the past decade. Stock bubbles are, in comparison, harmless. Some people get hurt badly, and some make huge gains, but they aren't so ruinous that one should make huge sacrifices in order to avoid them.
mikeryan 18y ago
At this point I'm not sure deregulation is the answer to anything.
- jfornear 18y ago
  There is a difference between good regulation and bad regulation, and they both definitely exist. I'm all for deregulating bad regulation.
time_management 18y ago
Although government isn't great at directly producing entrepreneurs-- that's not its role-- the sort of infrastructural spending Obama is proposing can make the country more hospitable for entrepreneurs. For example, if this country had a cheap, fast passenger rail system, people would be more mobile. This would lead to further condensation into startup hubs and there might be more of them. Rents in existing startup hubs would go down, which would be an excellent thing. Also, universal healthcare. If the U.S. were to join the First World on this issue, it would be immensely valuable to small businesses, and remove a significant component of the risk inherent in starting a company. I'd also propose this, although it (by definition) has to come from a private source rather than government: an "educational program" targeted toward serial entrepreneurs. The program would be sponsored by a VC firm and provide support, networking, and possibly (but not necessarily) funding. The VC firm would mentor the entrepreneur while he launched startups for a minimum of 12 years. At the end of the program, he would have the option of a job at the VC firm. Thus, entrepreneurship would have "exit options" that are competitive with (or better than) those of investment banking, law, etc.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  This is an interesting viewpoint. Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity? I ask this because about every state nowadays has special departments and programs to promote hi-tech startups. But of course they are actually only flourishing in a small number of spots. I've worked with a few of these programs, and some are led by extremely talented and skilled administrators. And they're well funded. Is your premise that direct involvement like this will not work but that indirect involvement would? Kind of like putting out a fire by building a swimming pool? Not trying to mock you or start an argument, but I don't understand how much indirect contributions can actually help. Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, but societies with lots of government-provided goodies actually have less startups. It's the ones where there's this balance between chaos and order where you get the most growth. Not ones with lots of danger or ones with lots of cushions.
  - chiffonade 18y ago
    > Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity? USPS. Interstate Highways. Airports. Seaports. SEC, FDIC, FAA, NTSB, etc. The Internet. Quit thinking so small - swimming pools, hi-tech office parks, is this all you can muster?
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Then how come startups don't flourish everywhere those services are offered? How come, for instance, Israel is the scene of a lot of startups? Or parts of India?
      - time_management 18y ago
        Why does nothing grow if you pour water on a rock? How are large plants able to grow in the desert? You need a mix of many factors in order to encourage tech startups, and startups can't "flourish everywhere" because many of those necessary ingredients are only found in half a dozen "star cities".
bdotdub 18y ago
My problem with this article and this approach to "saving the economy" make little sense to me. While I believe startups and entrepreneurs who are starting now will lead the next wave of great companies, I don't think giving them money now will yield immediate results that we seem to need. Yes, startups are strapped for cash, but even if you give them money, it doesn't mean job creation like the tagline of the article says. Growth and job creation won't be significant until the company is more established. Secondly, most startups want to stay small, not because of lack of capital, but because they can be adaptive and nimble. Again, until the company matures, growing tthe company != growing the employee head count I feel like instead of smaller startups, there should be something similar for small business. They won't have to go through the hardships of establishing the company and hopefully they'll already be profitable, etc. that a startup won't have/
known 18y ago
Government's bailout package is inclined towards SUSTAINING the jobs instead of CREATING jobs.

18 points by Mrinal 18y ago

vaksel 18y ago

Everything is good except for SOX, what he proposes would just lead to another internet bubble

time_management 18y ago
"Another internet bubble" would probably be less damaging than the flattening of the IPO market, which has decimated venture capital. When something that is essential for subsistence experiences a bubble (e.g. food, housing) it causes an incredible amount of pain, as we've seen in the past decade. Stock bubbles are, in comparison, harmless. Some people get hurt badly, and some make huge gains, but they aren't so ruinous that one should make huge sacrifices in order to avoid them.

mikeryan 18y ago

At this point I'm not sure deregulation is the answer to anything.

jfornear 18y ago
There is a difference between good regulation and bad regulation, and they both definitely exist. I'm all for deregulating bad regulation.

time_management 18y ago

Although government isn't great at directly producing entrepreneurs-- that's not its role-- the sort of infrastructural spending Obama is proposing can make the country more hospitable for entrepreneurs. For example, if this country had a cheap, fast passenger rail system, people would be more mobile. This would lead to further condensation into startup hubs and there might be more of them. Rents in existing startup hubs would go down, which would be an excellent thing. Also, universal healthcare. If the U.S. were to join the First World on this issue, it would be immensely valuable to small businesses, and remove a significant component of the risk inherent in starting a company. I'd also propose this, although it (by definition) has to come from a private source rather than government: an "educational program" targeted toward serial entrepreneurs. The program would be sponsored by a VC firm and provide support, networking, and possibly (but not necessarily) funding. The VC firm would mentor the entrepreneur while he launched startups for a minimum of 12 years. At the end of the program, he would have the option of a job at the VC firm. Thus, entrepreneurship would have "exit options" that are competitive with (or better than) those of investment banking, law, etc.

DanielBMarkham 18y ago
This is an interesting viewpoint. Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity? I ask this because about every state nowadays has special departments and programs to promote hi-tech startups. But of course they are actually only flourishing in a small number of spots. I've worked with a few of these programs, and some are led by extremely talented and skilled administrators. And they're well funded. Is your premise that direct involvement like this will not work but that indirect involvement would? Kind of like putting out a fire by building a swimming pool? Not trying to mock you or start an argument, but I don't understand how much indirect contributions can actually help. Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, but societies with lots of government-provided goodies actually have less startups. It's the ones where there's this balance between chaos and order where you get the most growth. Not ones with lots of danger or ones with lots of cushions.
- chiffonade 18y ago
  > Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity? USPS. Interstate Highways. Airports. Seaports. SEC, FDIC, FAA, NTSB, etc. The Internet. Quit thinking so small - swimming pools, hi-tech office parks, is this all you can muster?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Then how come startups don't flourish everywhere those services are offered? How come, for instance, Israel is the scene of a lot of startups? Or parts of India?
    - time_management 18y ago
      Why does nothing grow if you pour water on a rock? How are large plants able to grow in the desert? You need a mix of many factors in order to encourage tech startups, and startups can't "flourish everywhere" because many of those necessary ingredients are only found in half a dozen "star cities".

bdotdub 18y ago

My problem with this article and this approach to "saving the economy" make little sense to me. While I believe startups and entrepreneurs who are starting now will lead the next wave of great companies, I don't think giving them money now will yield immediate results that we seem to need. Yes, startups are strapped for cash, but even if you give them money, it doesn't mean job creation like the tagline of the article says. Growth and job creation won't be significant until the company is more established. Secondly, most startups want to stay small, not because of lack of capital, but because they can be adaptive and nimble. Again, until the company matures, growing tthe company != growing the employee head count I feel like instead of smaller startups, there should be something similar for small business. They won't have to go through the hardships of establishing the company and hopefully they'll already be profitable, etc. that a startup won't have/

known 18y ago

Government's bailout package is inclined towards SUSTAINING the jobs instead of CREATING jobs.