51–60 of 66 posts
I sense a little cynicism here. I currently work for a startup and most of their capitol was NIH funded. We are currently releasing 3 or 4 commercial products this year. We are hiring like crazy. I understand a certain distrust of government but I think there is a disservice to assume everything government touches is corrupt (or at least 100% corrupt) You really don't have to look further than the scientific communit…
It doesn't have to be corrupt to be a bad idea. Why should taxpayers underwrite the risk of the founders of your startup?
I sense a little cynicism here. I currently work for a startup and most of their capitol was NIH funded. We are currently releasing 3 or 4 commercial products this year. We are hiring like crazy. I understand a certain distrust of government but I think there is a disservice to assume everything government touches is corrupt (or at least 100% corrupt) You really don't have to look further than the scientific communit…
This is an expression of the broken window fallacy illustrated by Fredric Bastiat (I believe). You see the advantages to your company in the economy as a result of the program, but you do not see the damage to the economy that the program cost. Plus its worth noting that only priviledged groups and politically correct businesses will be getting this money (according to the fact sheet)... so it isn't even going to be…
There's a big billboard here in KC for the Kauffman Foundation's Education Startup Funding program. I thought "heck, that would be awesome, to be backed by the Kauffman Foundation!". Then I looked into it, you pretty much have to live in the ghetto to be involved in the program. Well, my wife wasn't too keen on moving to the ghetto, so I guess I'll try somewhere else.
There are a lot of people who HAVE to live there. So just be glad you have a choice.
sigh
The incentives are not aligned right. I am sure the VCs are happy about this, because their 2 & 20 has not changed.
But this is BAD news for the health of the startup community.
Why on earth would TechStars even encourage/be involved with this ?
sigh
I am not even a US taxpayer and I feel the pain of wasted taxpayer dollars.
I am all for boosting innovation, but I don't think throwing money at it is the right way at all. They need to fix IP/patent laws, lower the tax rates and get out of the way.
The valley is going through a 'debateable' bubble all by itself, without Washington's help.
Oh..and don't get me wrong. I am an Obama fan. I just think that this policy is misguided on MANY levels. Especially when things are heating up in the valley. I see NO upside coming from this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the startups are not founded by "those people" in the ghetto, they will be unaffected by its presence.
That's just not true ... bringing new businesses to an economically depressed area helps all of the existing businesses.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't have to be corrupt to be a bad idea. Why should taxpayers underwrite the risk of the founders of your startup?
Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either. Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The government funds basic research all the time, with a pretty good track record. Maybe, but this isn't basic research. > Fascism is telling Volkswagen to make tanks. This is saying "we'll fund {you} to make {whatever}" when folks spending their own money don't believe in the combination of {you} and {whatever}. Synfuels anyone? Which reminds me, what fraction of the US govt-seeded/assisted solar biz haven't moved…
Good god, man, you can't be defending this tripe. Fascism has a definition, and it involves getting all of the biggest corporations on the same page with the government to create a totalitarian state. (Communism differs in that the government is the whole deal). We've been funding energy research for decades, and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy. This is an experiment wi…
Yes, but I didn't mention fascism. I merely described what the program in question is actually doing.
> We've been funding energy research for decades,
Yes we have. Is it unreasonable to ask whether said funding has been worth what it cost? Is it unreasonable to ask whether proposed funding will be worth what it costs?
Or, are you claiming that the decision to fund synfuels obligates us to fund every alt energy proposal?
> and there are a lot of reasons for the government to try and kickstart green energy.
Unless you think that said reasons justify any and all things that one can call "kickstart green energy", that statement isn't all that useful.
You don't get to assume "we're going to have good results" in the abstract. You need to show that the specific proposal is likely to work. Surely experience is relevant - if something has failed before, why will this time be different?
> silicon valley works
Actually, silicon valley doesn't work in the sense that is required by your argument.
The part of silicon valley that works is folks risking their own money and they don't agree on winners before the race. Govt programs lack both of those features.
Also, VC model actually doesn't work that well. The average is fairly low which means that the standout funds mask a lot of horrible performance by the vast majority. What are the odds that govt will be like Kleiner and not the typical fund?
> If it was under the DARPA line item would you be more ok with it?
No, but it's nice of you to try the ad hominem slam.
I'm happy to concede that I'm a bad person and you're a good person. However, that doesn't change the fact that these sorts of programs have been a disaster.
I suspect that you place a lot of weight on "good intentions". Are those intentions really all that good when they consistently have bad results?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an expression of the broken window fallacy illustrated by Fredric Bastiat (I believe). You see the advantages to your company in the economy as a result of the program, but you do not see the damage to the economy that the program cost. Plus its worth noting that only priviledged groups and politically correct businesses will be getting this money (according to the fact sheet)... so it isn't even going to be…
I just don't agree NIH programs "damage the economy" and I've provided concrete examples of how it has done the opposite. Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit. We'll have to agree to disagree.
No, you've merely shown that there were some benefits. You didn't discuss costs at all.
> Also I am pretty sure any grant writing process is definitely based on merit.
"merit" means only that the best proposals were funded. It doesn't tell us whether funding those proposals was a good idea.