6 ms·

Do we really think that the Commerce Department can run a venture slush fund without political influence and outright corruption? This is not the responsibilit

by ckinnan 17y ago

Do we really think that the Commerce Department can run a venture slush fund without political influence and outright corruption? This is not the responsibility of the U.S. government, it is another avenue for the political class to expand their control of the economy.

heuristix 17y ago
I don't think the announcement of a new govt. office is something to be proud of in and of itself. But as a counterpoint to your argument, the SBIR program, also run by the govt. seems to be working really well for startups I personally know without political influence or corruption. I wouldn't say it's the most efficient funding source but it is definitely a net positive.
- ckinnan 17y ago
  It is not a net positive because they tax successful parts of the economy and, through a political process, redistribute that money to favored businesses and connected insiders. Anyway, the U.S. government already operates SBA ($28 billion) and SBIR ($2 billion) among other programs... And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups...these programs should properly be viewed as hostile to the HN community, because they disadvantage the majority of startups with higher taxes and an unlevel playing field.
  - ryanwaggoner 17y ago
    And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups Not that I disagree with your overall premise, but this is true of any kind of investment, and getting an advantage over your competitors is kind of the whole point of business. Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile; what's to stop them from applying? Couldn't one argue that all external investment disadvantages the majority of startups since they don't get any of that investment, which results in an unlevel playing field?
    - jibiki 17y ago
      The standard counterargument runs like this: "Great, now founders have to waste time pitching to VCs and applying for government aid. Even less time available for working on the product." Of course, this doesn't quite address your point :)
    - jazzdev 17y ago
      >Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile Building a company based on merit is admirable. Building a company by getting the government to use its (not insignificant) power is not admirable (by the HN community).
      - gnaritas 17y ago
        Says who, do you speak for the whole community?
    - anamax 17y ago
      > Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile We view it as hostile because they're taking our money to do it. You want my money for your biz? Ask me. Don't take it from thugs who took it from me at the point of a gun. Yes, I've heard all of the "but taxes go for good things". Maybe some do, but ... Here's my test. If I'm not willing to fund something by pointing a gun at my mother and saying "give me money", it shouldn't be paid for with tax money. Why? Because taxes come from pointing a gun at folks, including my mother. Is your biz so worthy that I should point a gun at my mother?
      - kingkawn 17y ago
        How many of the money-losing ventures here pay taxes, seriously?
        anamax 17y ago
        Why does that matter? Do you really want to argue that it's okay to take other people's money?
  - anigbrowl 17y ago
    Well, going by your comment above, do you consider the small business Administration a slush fund beset by corruption? I await further details on this new initiative, but noticed they spoke of reducing red tape; it's not easy for a brand new business straight out of the gate to get SBA funding ('small' businesses can have up to several hundred employees in the US), so personally I like the idea of a 'micro business administration' that could offer bootstrapping assistance and possibly small amounts of seed capital to garage/loft sized outfits. The SBA has a reasonable good reputation for both utility and probity, so why not use that as a comparison rather than some speculative stereotype of waste and corruption?
jhancock 17y ago
Every adult U.S. citizen is a part of the "political class". The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. There is no other way for a Democracy to work properly. This is not limited to the paltry amounts being thrown at entrepreneur programs, but to the larger amounts in things like Social Security, Defense spending, etc... Although I'm not a fan of excess Defense spending, you would be well advised to remember that the Internet would not exist without it.
- tlb 17y ago
  So, you're saying it's good for the gov't to give a lot of handouts, but to ensure fairness all citizens will have to get involved, follow politics, lobby their congressperson, to ensure the pork is divided fairly. How about just making the government hand out less pork. Wouldn't that be more efficient? As pork approaches zero, it's not only fair, but founders won't waste all their time writing grant proposals and we all won't have to waste our time getting involved in politics.
  - jhancock 17y ago
    I agree with the first part of your response although its not really a goal of this form of stimulus to hand out "fairly". The goal is to provide for macro-economic stimulus. The second part of your reply depends on many factors. Not every form of stimulus ends up being a "handout" or "pork". Most stimulus can be debated ad nauseam as to if it had the intended effects and most likely if you can measure the effects, you have to do so in longer stretches than 2/4/6 year election cycles. I completely disagree that people should not "waste" their time in politics. Government is an investment. Its foolish to not oversea and provide/demand input to what you have invested in. This is a core problem with the U.S.: people think they can just pay taxes (preferably low) maybe even be so bothered as to vote once every few years, and government and the economy will run smoothly. To put it as bluntly as possible: "Democracy belongs to those that show up". If you do not get involved you will most likely find yourself eternally dissatisfied with the results.
- defen 17y ago
  > The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. I think you have a naive view of how the United States is run. The majority of the people in this country simply do not have the time/money/inclination to participate meaningfully in the political process beyond (possibly) going to the ballot box. Furthermore, most policy decisions are actually made by unelected career bureaucrats. What ends up happening is that vocal minorities who DO feel strongly about a particular topic end up having disproportionate influence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture for an example, although the phenomenon is more general than that. From the article: "...regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. When this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at 'capturing' influence with the staff or commission members of a regulatory agency so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented, then regulatory capture has occurred." That's democracy in a nutshell - except it applies to governments, not just regulatory agencies.
known 17y ago
On the positive note, I believe this is the way to enforce http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ for the denied and deprived sections of society in America.
cma 17y ago
ARPA?

by ckinnan 17y ago

heuristix 17y ago

I don't think the announcement of a new govt. office is something to be proud of in and of itself. But as a counterpoint to your argument, the SBIR program, also run by the govt. seems to be working really well for startups I personally know without political influence or corruption. I wouldn't say it's the most efficient funding source but it is definitely a net positive.

ckinnan 17y ago
It is not a net positive because they tax successful parts of the economy and, through a political process, redistribute that money to favored businesses and connected insiders. Anyway, the U.S. government already operates SBA ($28 billion) and SBIR ($2 billion) among other programs... And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups...these programs should properly be viewed as hostile to the HN community, because they disadvantage the majority of startups with higher taxes and an unlevel playing field.
- ryanwaggoner 17y ago
  And those startups blessed by govt subsidy get an advantage over all other startups Not that I disagree with your overall premise, but this is true of any kind of investment, and getting an advantage over your competitors is kind of the whole point of business. Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile; what's to stop them from applying? Couldn't one argue that all external investment disadvantages the majority of startups since they don't get any of that investment, which results in an unlevel playing field?
  - jibiki 17y ago
    The standard counterargument runs like this: "Great, now founders have to waste time pitching to VCs and applying for government aid. Even less time available for working on the product." Of course, this doesn't quite address your point :)
  - jazzdev 17y ago
    >Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile Building a company based on merit is admirable. Building a company by getting the government to use its (not insignificant) power is not admirable (by the HN community).
    - gnaritas 17y ago
      Says who, do you speak for the whole community?
  - anamax 17y ago
    > Also, I don't understand why the HN community should view this as hostile We view it as hostile because they're taking our money to do it. You want my money for your biz? Ask me. Don't take it from thugs who took it from me at the point of a gun. Yes, I've heard all of the "but taxes go for good things". Maybe some do, but ... Here's my test. If I'm not willing to fund something by pointing a gun at my mother and saying "give me money", it shouldn't be paid for with tax money. Why? Because taxes come from pointing a gun at folks, including my mother. Is your biz so worthy that I should point a gun at my mother?
    - kingkawn 17y ago
      How many of the money-losing ventures here pay taxes, seriously?
      - anamax 17y ago
        Why does that matter? Do you really want to argue that it's okay to take other people's money?
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  Well, going by your comment above, do you consider the small business Administration a slush fund beset by corruption? I await further details on this new initiative, but noticed they spoke of reducing red tape; it's not easy for a brand new business straight out of the gate to get SBA funding ('small' businesses can have up to several hundred employees in the US), so personally I like the idea of a 'micro business administration' that could offer bootstrapping assistance and possibly small amounts of seed capital to garage/loft sized outfits. The SBA has a reasonable good reputation for both utility and probity, so why not use that as a comparison rather than some speculative stereotype of waste and corruption?

jhancock 17y ago

Every adult U.S. citizen is a part of the "political class". The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. There is no other way for a Democracy to work properly. This is not limited to the paltry amounts being thrown at entrepreneur programs, but to the larger amounts in things like Social Security, Defense spending, etc... Although I'm not a fan of excess Defense spending, you would be well advised to remember that the Internet would not exist without it.

tlb 17y ago
So, you're saying it's good for the gov't to give a lot of handouts, but to ensure fairness all citizens will have to get involved, follow politics, lobby their congressperson, to ensure the pork is divided fairly. How about just making the government hand out less pork. Wouldn't that be more efficient? As pork approaches zero, it's not only fair, but founders won't waste all their time writing grant proposals and we all won't have to waste our time getting involved in politics.
- jhancock 17y ago
  I agree with the first part of your response although its not really a goal of this form of stimulus to hand out "fairly". The goal is to provide for macro-economic stimulus. The second part of your reply depends on many factors. Not every form of stimulus ends up being a "handout" or "pork". Most stimulus can be debated ad nauseam as to if it had the intended effects and most likely if you can measure the effects, you have to do so in longer stretches than 2/4/6 year election cycles. I completely disagree that people should not "waste" their time in politics. Government is an investment. Its foolish to not oversea and provide/demand input to what you have invested in. This is a core problem with the U.S.: people think they can just pay taxes (preferably low) maybe even be so bothered as to vote once every few years, and government and the economy will run smoothly. To put it as bluntly as possible: "Democracy belongs to those that show up". If you do not get involved you will most likely find yourself eternally dissatisfied with the results.
defen 17y ago
> The greater the involvement, the more you reduce corruption and even out influence. I think you have a naive view of how the United States is run. The majority of the people in this country simply do not have the time/money/inclination to participate meaningfully in the political process beyond (possibly) going to the ballot box. Furthermore, most policy decisions are actually made by unelected career bureaucrats. What ends up happening is that vocal minorities who DO feel strongly about a particular topic end up having disproportionate influence. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regulatory_capture for an example, although the phenomenon is more general than that. From the article: "...regulatory capture occurs because groups or individuals with a high-stakes interest in the outcome of policy or regulatory decisions can be expected to focus their resources and energies in attempting to gain the policy outcomes they prefer, while members of the public, each with only a tiny individual stake in the outcome, will ignore it altogether. When this imbalance of focused resources devoted to a particular policy outcome is successful at 'capturing' influence with the staff or commission members of a regulatory agency so that the preferred policy outcomes of the special interest are implemented, then regulatory capture has occurred." That's democracy in a nutshell - except it applies to governments, not just regulatory agencies.

known 17y ago

On the positive note, I believe this is the way to enforce http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/affirmative-action/ for the denied and deprived sections of society in America.

cma 17y ago

ARPA?