Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

m.inc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 167 posts

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#141

Post by Norse »

jacoblyles wrote: post #124
blahedo wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> thus you don't take risk. And yet, "Rates of start-up creation [in Norway] are among the highest in the developed world, and Norway has more entrepreneurs per capita than the United States." Did you read the article? > it's much more expensive to fail in Scandinavia for those who venture into actually risking. How so?

Norway's population is the size of a modest US city. It is not informative to compare a country of 5 million to a country of 307 million. This is always a flaw in the old argument that the United States should be more like Scandinavian country X, but I am yelling into the wind on this topic. How does the rate of startups in Norway compare to Silicon Valley? I suspect it is much lower. If Silicon Valley's rate of star…

I read the size argument a lot. But I never hear it. It crops up on the internet a lot, but never in the serious debate. You always compare countries. Iceland to Austria to Italy to Britain to Germany to Japan. That is a lot of what people do in these areas.

No-ones ever pointed out a mechanism which would make it impossible to compare countries of varying sizes to each other. And normally, the advantage accrues to the larger one, with the bigger internal market.

In short, everything else being equal, you would expect the US to hasve more startups per cpaita, just based on the size advantage alone.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#142

Post by Norse »

laut wrote: post #103
beoba wrote: post #3

I thought this line was particularly telling: "Although America remains near the top of the world in terms of entrepreneurial aspirations - that is, the percentage of people who want to start new things-in terms of actual start-up activity, our country has fallen behind not just Norway but also Canada, Denmark and Switzerland." Yet any mention of figuring out what they're doing right (and what we're doing wrong) is S…

Please stop pointing to successful market economies and calling them socialist. In some ways Switzerland is a libertarian tax haven and really makes the US look socialist. Switzerland, Canada and Denmark are more economically free than the US according to this: http://www.heritage.org/index/ Just because there are some very rich people in the US, it doesn't mean the average person would be better off in a socialist c…

It is possible for countries to be both more socialist and capitalist than the USA.

If there is a lesson to be had from Scandianvia it is that cpaitalist is a way of earning money, and socialist is a way of spending it.

Both dials can be turned up at the same time.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#143

Post by Norse »

brc wrote: post #76

One swallow does not make a summer, and one happy entrepreneur does not equal a system which produces a lot of new companies. Norway is a nice place and the culture and beliefs of the people mean that they have decided as a country to opt for a high social safety net and associated high taxes. But trying to extract a hypothesis that somehow high taxes and social safety nets are somehow good for starting up a business…

The fact that Norway, followed by Denmark, has the highest rate of strtups in the world, according to the article, would seem to argue against the "one swallow" theory, and indicate full summer.

And it is not reasonable to assume that his countrymen can't be bothered when they are the most prolific in the world.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#144

Post by ThomPete »

Norse wrote: post #141
jacoblyles wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway's population is the size of a modest US city. It is not informative to compare a country of 5 million to a country of 307 million. This is always a flaw in the old argument that the United States should be more like Scandinavian country X, but I am yelling into the wind on this topic. How does the rate of startups in Norway compare to Silicon Valley? I suspect it is much lower. If Silicon Valley's rate of star…

I read the size argument a lot. But I never hear it. It crops up on the internet a lot, but never in the serious debate. You always compare countries. Iceland to Austria to Italy to Britain to Germany to Japan. That is a lot of what people do in these areas. No-ones ever pointed out a mechanism which would make it impossible to compare countries of varying sizes to each other. And normally, the advantage accrues to t…

Sorry but serious debate?

The article talks about Norway as being socialist. How serious is that?

With regards to the number of startups I would like to see the actual data they use to derive at this number.

For instance government funded initiatives are often part of the scandinavian models to push startups. Which means a lot of cleaning companies and window polishers become part of the statistics.

Also a lot of people in the US would have a company if they could.

Of course size matters or are you saying that there is no difference between people living in a small village and people living in the big city? Are you saying that the social dynamics are completely the same if you have 200 million people vs. 5 million?

I think you are wrong.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#146

Post by JoachimSchipper »

rick888 wrote: post #56
_delirium wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But entrepreneurs are mostly healthy young men Could this be at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy? Due to the way healthcare is set up in the U.S., the only people who really can consider quitting their jobs, and losing their group-health plan as a result, are: 1) people who are already rich (or have rich family); and 2) healthy young men. edit: Actually, I suppose people over 65 also can, due to the U.S.'s…

"Could this be at least in part a self-fulfilling prophecy? Due to the way healthcare is set up in the U.S., the only people who really can consider quitting their jobs, and losing their group-health plan as a result, are: 1) people who are already rich (or have rich family); and 2) healthy young men" Health care is a small part of it. The other part is that once you have a stable income and a family (wife+kids), mos…

The "need to support a family" argument may explain why founders are young men, but not why they are young men.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#147

Post by yummyfajitas »

jberryman wrote: post #117
uuilly wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So you're comfortable pushing those costs onto healthy young men?

Straw man. By buying health insurance as a healthy young man you are essentially voluntarily taking on those costs. It is not a question of whether she wants others to fit the bill for her medical expenses, but whether society as a whole decides to accept an amount of responsibility for the health of its people.

You are only voluntarily taking on those costs because of threats of violence against anyone who would give you the opportunity to purchase insurance without those costs.

Insurers have been completely willing to sell maternity-free insurance, at least until men with guns threatened violence against them for doing so. It's not exactly voluntary when threats of violence eliminate all competing alternatives.

(As of 2014, it's not voluntary at all.)

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#148

Post by natnat »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #116
andrewljohnson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Brilliant! You're saying we should set up healthcare laws so poor people don't have children. While you're at it, let's completely fall down this slippery slope, and not insure people who smoke, people who play dangerous sports, or people who travel to countries with high rates of infectious disease. Let's craft a healthcare system with all sorts of incentives not do things that might make perfect sense, and one that…

I'd love to fall down your slippery slope, and either not insure or charge very high rates to people who deliberately put their health at risk. In general, a good regulatory scheme internalizes externalities (i.e., make polluters pay for the pollution they cause). If we force people who take care of their health to subsidize people who don't, we are externalizing an internality. That's the opposite of what good regul…

If we're going to internalize externalities, men who get women pregnant should pay for half of all of her maternity-related healthcare expenses, and for half of the income she would have made if she hadn't had a kid. Do you agree?

I totally agree that smokers and daredevils and adventurers should have to pay higher insurance rates. But making women pay more simply because they get pregnant when they have sex without birth control (or their birth control fails) seems to be punishing them for being born with the wrong set of organs. Pregnancy is a much bigger deal for women than it is for men, yet men have at least as much agency in the process of causing a pregnancy.

I think the big issue is you're conflating healthy people with people who take care of themselves, and sick people with those who don't. There's certainly a correlation there, but there are a lot of sick people who are sick simply because of bad luck. I, for one, wouldn't like society to turn its back on me if I got too sick to work. And I would happily subsidize unlucky sick people in exchange for the promise that I'll get covered if I get sick.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#149

Post by marvin »

michael_dorfman wrote: post #61
marvin wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for setting the record straight on this. I'm Norwegian, and this is exactly what I would say about this. There are many things we do in Scandinavia that should be copied in the US, but start-up culture and small business is not helped along by the tax system and social services/benefits. In fact, the progressive taxation alone incentivizes everyone to _not_ earn more than about 100000 USD a year (if you work h…

Private financing for computer startups is nonexistent. Really? I've never had problem with this. Nor have I felt the tax system has disincentivized my income (which is well into the top bracket.)

What sort of startups/work have you been doing? When I'm talking about disincentivizing, I just mean that making the conscious decision of working more seems like a no-brainer. Your personal reasoning behind this may be different, but overall, fewer people will do this if they only get paid for 70-80% of the extra hours than if they get paid for all of them.

Re: In Norway, Start-ups Say Ja to Socialism

#150

Post by yummyfajitas »

natnat wrote: post #148
yummyfajitas wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd love to fall down your slippery slope, and either not insure or charge very high rates to people who deliberately put their health at risk. In general, a good regulatory scheme internalizes externalities (i.e., make polluters pay for the pollution they cause). If we force people who take care of their health to subsidize people who don't, we are externalizing an internality. That's the opposite of what good regul…

If we're going to internalize externalities, men who get women pregnant should pay for half of all of her maternity-related healthcare expenses, and for half of the income she would have made if she hadn't had a kid. Do you agree? I totally agree that smokers and daredevils and adventurers should have to pay higher insurance rates. But making women pay more simply because they get pregnant when they have sex without…

If we're going to internalize externalities, men who get women pregnant should pay for half of all of her maternity-related healthcare expenses, and for half of the income she would have made if she hadn't had a kid. Do you agree?

If we accept the legality of abortion [1], then no - men should be able to terminate their rights/obligations within 3-9 months of discovering the pregnancy for a lump sum payment equal to half the price of an abortion. Equal rights and all that, right?

I think the big issue is you're conflating healthy people with people who take care of themselves, and sick people with those who don't. There's certainly a correlation there, but there are a lot of sick people who are sick simply because of bad luck.

I'm not conflating anything. I'm distinguishing insurance from redistribution. Insurance protects you from bad luck - it just doesn't force other people to pay for your choices.

Raising the price of insurance based on people's choices protects them from bad luck while forcing them to pay the average cost of their choices.

[1] Which I do, but only until the baby grows a brain. Not going to debate that here.

[2] Again, insurance which covers the normal cost of maternity. Insurance which covers maternity costs in excess of 3x (or some such multiplier) the cost of a normal birth makes perfect sense.

Post reply on HN