Comment by onwardly | Hacker News Reader

Comment by onwardly | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

The U.S. budget for 2011 is $3,690,000,000,000. Can we spare just a sliver of that for innovation and job creation?

Imagine a national contest, YC-ish if you will. 500 businesses walk away with $100K each. That costs just $50M.

What would you get in return? You'd get tens of thousands of people racking their brains and being brave and innovating. Even if they weren't chosen, many of them would have a solid plan and go for it.

If we really believe that creating new jobs is our top national priority, then we need to find new ways to create new jobs. After all, that's where 80% of jobs come from: new companies.

I can already imagine some of my friends screaming: "You Socialist bastard!". No.

It could be done to reward merit, and it would provide critical support to promising startups right when they need it most. This is not about handouts- its about rewarding and encouraging innovation and supporting job growth.

Angel investors might be pissed though.

This actually is a socialist suggestion. I do not like government handouts.

What I would support is tax credit: if you feel like doing a startup, under some rules, the government could give you a $100k tax credit.

Giving away $100k for people to put businesses into the ground doesn't seem smart to me. Otoh, each business is supposed to make money and if you don't become profitable, might as well shut down.

The U.S. gives out billions of dollars every year to all kinds of businesses. If having an open competition to win grants is socialist, then we're already a socialist country.

In any case, attacking this as a "socialist" idea is an ad hominem attack. Not that its the best idea ever, but calling it "socialist" doesn't detract from the merits of it one way or the other.

The OP said he likes something and perhaps it looks like something socialist, I've answered saying that that is socialist and that I do not like it and that I would support something else.

I don't see it as an ad hominem, nor was it intended. Just two disagreeing opinions.

Actually, this is just a recent annoyance of mine. In my country (Romania) the government just released something like this: they are giving away 10.000 eur to new companies started by young people, based on some form of contest (they read a business plan, etc).

This annoys me for multiple reasons, but one if very personal: I am disqualified from that contest because I already have a company. So I am literally paying taxes that are wasted so another guy gets free money from the government based on how good he is at writing business plans (or bribing).

What they could have done instead is say: all companies with young owners get a 10.000 eur tax deduction (maybe, for example, if they create one extra workplace). This way, you have to actually prove that your company is profitable, not that you are good at writing business plans.

Didn't mean to misinterpret your comment.

I see how you're upset that "your" tax money is being given to someone else to start a business, but its probably worth noting that only some excrutiatingly small % of your taxes are going to this.

I think that other governments can and should learn from experiments like the one in Romania. But from a policy perspective, it seems like a somewhat reasonable way to spur new company creation.

$100K is not enough money to do anything in any field that matters. I rather not have my tax dollars given to more inane web startups.

Apple was founded with the proceeds from selling a VW bus and an HP calculator. Maybe with inflation that's $20k in today's dollars. And they were building hardware.

If anything the cost of doing significant startups in the intervening years has declined, certainly for software, but also for hardware too. Apple had to build their own factories, even after they got venture funding. Now nobodies can hire factories on demand for your hardware.

$100k in the right hands would do a hell of a lot. However, the government isn't usually the best at determining the right hands.

I don't think US would need any such contest to attract talent - all the gov needs to do is allowing people to open businesses there and be granted a visa. I'm pretty sure a lot more than 500 companies would apply in a matter of seconds (mine included)

The market is already innovating.

The government doesn't create jobs, it just directs resources from one place to another.

Yes, it's socialist. The government doesn't have that money anyway, it's running at a deficit.

I think this is an area where the government should mostly help by 1) getting out of the way 2) funding basic research and education, and 3) fixing the health care fuckup so that it's not absolutely insane for many people to leave the protective cover of the health insurance they get at a big company. Trying to spend 100K at a time is probably not going to do much in the long term.

I prefer US breaking big companies into smaller entities to foster employment & competition.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com