
How Washington Can Support Entrepreneurs - aaronsw
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2009/0905.spc-sec.html
======
lallysingh
Especially for techies, there are some good programs available for people who
want to try a startup. Specifically SBIR (small business innovative research)
and STTR (Small business Technology TRansfer) are really well suited to get
money to get your feet off the ground. And they don't want any equity in
return, they just want to be a customer!

~~~
sachinag
You're kidding, right? No, seriously, you're kidding, right? They're
predicated on "protectable IP" and only go to established companies - i.e.
your side project doesn't qualify unless you've already incorporated. I could
go on, but I already did:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/economic-advice-from-an-
entre...](http://www.businessinsider.com/economic-advice-from-an-entrepreneur-
thats-actually-doable-2009-3)

~~~
lallysingh
Odd, I worked for a small (3 people) company that lived off of these things.
We didn't have any problems.

I'll note that these were all DoD.

------
mackeeeavelli
Washington has one purpose today - feed the beast. Entrepreneurship and small
business isn't on anyone's radar that matters. I can assure you that Pelosi,
Frank, Obama and Maxine Waters - none of whom have ever been in business -
couldn't care less about an Entrepreneurs dreams or ambitions. They're blinded
by their own.

------
rdl
There is a lot government can do to help, mainly by doing less:

1) Reverting bankruptcy laws to pre-2005

2) Health care availability for individuals (if I knew the perfect solution to
US health care I'd be doing that as a startup, but some decoupling of
employment and health care is key

------
kingkongrevenge
I think the "support" of DC is the kiss of death for any industry or field.

~~~
caffeine
I don't think you deserve such down-voting ... Paul Graham's page has a link
to T.J. Rodgers' congressional testimony to this very point.

However, there is "support" and there is throwing money. You're right about
throwing money, but I think you're wrong about intelligent support.

DC can always, _always_ do a better job by:

1) Not subsidizing anyone, ever.

2) Increasing transparency of its laws

3) Taxing negative externalities rather than positive ones (so tax carbon
instead of capital gains)

4) Removing market distortions like the immigration issue discussed in the
article.

Notice that these measures are largely undoing rather than doing, and
therefore don't sell well. DC is also, as you rightly point out, in a unique
position to completely screw up any field it turns it eye to, by:

1) Subsidizing some part of the industry which therefore damages the
innovation that would out-compete it.

2) Preventing failures and disallowing the knowledge acquired there to be
applied to subsequent successful ventures

3) Making complicated, vaguely worded and frequently changing specific to an
industry's particulars (like only allowing Cable providers to supply
Television over their wires)

Sadly, the second set of policies sells a lot better politically than the
first set. Which raises the question - why not? What's wrong with it?

Why does the US always feels the need to be "world-leading" at everything?

Is it really necessary to be world-leading? Is it so fundamental to the
national ego that it is unthinkable to assume that like every other major
power, our influence will wane and our leadership will become first co-
operation and then acquiescence?

It seems silly, sometimes, to strive so vehemently for predominance, yet to
have no use for it when obtained.

~~~
philwelch
"Taxing negative externalities rather than positive ones (so tax carbon
instead of capital gains)"

Problem: Negative externalities are supposed to go away. At which point you
have no money. So you have to tax things (like income) that people just aren't
going to do away with!

~~~
gojomo
Taxing the negative externality behavior doesn't have the aim of eliminating
it -- just causing it to be weighed properly in the firm's decisions.

But, you do have a point because 'proper' tax rates for negative externalities
only pay for abatement/offset of the externalities' harm. You can't count
exclusively on such taxes to pay for other unrelated public goods. (If you
did, you'd be overtaxing the externality, causing underproduction of the
related goods, which can be just as damaging to overall welfare as the
original unabated negative externalities...)

~~~
philwelch
"Taxing the negative externality behavior doesn't have the aim of eliminating
it -- just causing it to be weighed properly in the firm's decisions."

But it does tend to reduce the externality, thus reducing tax base. Which
interferes with revenue collection.

