Retitled: Barack Obama Loves Federal Offices
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.
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?
"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 :)
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).
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?
Do you really want to argue that it's okay to take other people's money?
And, even for the money that is spent that way, how do you get from "everyone needs" to "should be funded by govt". For example, everyone needs shoes. Should govt provide shoes?
It must suck to get a gun pulled on your mom for not paying taxes.
Seriously - do you really want to argue that taxes aren't taken using a threat of violence?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
I fail to see how my view is naive. You only have two choices: "get involved" or "do nothing". I am fully aware most people do nothing (except complain). However, the stats from 2008 elections show significant increase in involvement.
Your view of "democracy in a nutshell" is "democracy performing poorly". It is your choice to take the pessimistic view that it will remain this way. My view is that democracy is a process, not a product.
darn those short-sighted founding fathers!
Its my understanding they are buying out "assets" from private institutions in the trillions $$ these days.
I don't think he cares about your social-video-sharing-for-cat-owners startup.