> This isn't some benefit dolled out by a controlling group...
The difference is that the government actively prevents large classes of investments from being made, and the weight of this restriction falls most heavily on startups, which lack the institutional knowledge to navigate such obstacles.
> Startups don't have to exit...
True enough. However, look at it from the standpoint of a bargaining position. Acquiring companies have enormous leverage back they're able to offer people their first few million. If an IPO is easier, then it becomes a more attractive option. This might not affect you as an entrepreneur, personally, but it does affect the market for startups.
> That would be correct if you assumed that the talent pool...
True, but even the most acute startups are vulnerable to mistakes in hiring. And the average quality of hacker at Google or Amazon or Microsoft may even be higher than most startups. The difference in productivity might be accounted for by institutional baggage alone.
> Isn't what this article proposing another form of kickback?
I don't believe it is. A social safety net for everyone is quite different from, say, a multibillion dollar infusion into one industry in wall street, or massive pork-barrel public works projects later abandoned for political motives, or monopolistic support of contractors such as Halliburton, or corn subsidies, or our new reinvestment into Nuclear without a discussion involving wind power. It seems almost completely different.
Eliminating all kickbacks, if I understand the strong libertarian position correctly, includes eliminating things like fire departments. When some theory of values, however intuitively appealing, starts contradicting so powerfully what we have reason to think good, I call question to the theory.
> I, for one, don't envy the position of large corporations at all.
I either. But if startups are naturally more productive, then one should at least acknowledge the strong advantages given artificially to their bulkier cousins.
The difference is that the government actively prevents large classes of investments from being made, and the weight of this restriction falls most heavily on startups, which lack the institutional knowledge to navigate such obstacles.
> Startups don't have to exit...
True enough. However, look at it from the standpoint of a bargaining position. Acquiring companies have enormous leverage back they're able to offer people their first few million. If an IPO is easier, then it becomes a more attractive option. This might not affect you as an entrepreneur, personally, but it does affect the market for startups.
> That would be correct if you assumed that the talent pool...
True, but even the most acute startups are vulnerable to mistakes in hiring. And the average quality of hacker at Google or Amazon or Microsoft may even be higher than most startups. The difference in productivity might be accounted for by institutional baggage alone.
> Isn't what this article proposing another form of kickback?
I don't believe it is. A social safety net for everyone is quite different from, say, a multibillion dollar infusion into one industry in wall street, or massive pork-barrel public works projects later abandoned for political motives, or monopolistic support of contractors such as Halliburton, or corn subsidies, or our new reinvestment into Nuclear without a discussion involving wind power. It seems almost completely different.
Eliminating all kickbacks, if I understand the strong libertarian position correctly, includes eliminating things like fire departments. When some theory of values, however intuitively appealing, starts contradicting so powerfully what we have reason to think good, I call question to the theory.
> I, for one, don't envy the position of large corporations at all.
I either. But if startups are naturally more productive, then one should at least acknowledge the strong advantages given artificially to their bulkier cousins.