

Entrepreneurs Can Lead Us Out of the Crisis - Mrinal
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123544318435655825.html

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

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

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

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

~~~
time_management
"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.

------
time_management
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
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.

~~~
tjmc
> Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created
> by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity?

Military spending has spawned huge amounts of both direct and indirect
innovation. Aviation and the space program, the internet, scores of "trickle
down" consumer electronics such as GPS, Popeye (created to sell a surplus of
canned spinach after WWII!), the list goes on and on. Plus there's the
education of large numbers of the population that would otherwise lack
opportunity.

The doctrine of "small government and a strong military" is an oxymoron.
Military spending is an extremely effective form of high tech government
subsidy. Of course the downside of having a huge military is the temptation to
use it inappropriately...

~~~
time_management
Military spending is fine if it's making the country and the world safer. I'll
pay for that. But the recent multi-billion-dollar handout to Bush's and
Cheney's contractor friends has made the world a lot less safe.

