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

Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

hothardware.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–66 of 66 posts

Re: Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

#61

Post by anamax »

mconnors wrote: post #53
hnal943 wrote: post #29

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.

> Because its paid for by taxpayers doesn't make it automatically a bad idea either.

If it was such a good idea, how come folks won't fund it voluntarily?

> Many things you use on a daily basis are thanks to government / taxpayers, including the internet you are using to read this.

Actually, very little internet funding came from govt. Yes, govt funded the basic research, but the infrastructure came from private investment.

Re: Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

#62

Post by jbooth »

anamax wrote: post #59
jbooth wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Fascism has a definition, 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…

The program might be a minor league failure. Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous.

The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving.

Re: Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

#63

Post by kiba »

EGreg wrote: post #45
kiba wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why are so many people angry about this? Lots of our country's wealth and jobs comes from companies started recently (e.g. Apple, Google). And we have to develop alternative energy sources to break our dependence on oil (which is coming to an end sooner than the foreign oil cartel will let on). Just let the energy market do its damn job. Once oil become cheap, nuclear and solar energy looks damn good.

How is attracting more startups to certain industries by improving the conditions for them, preventing the energy market from doing its job? What is its job?

You don't need to pour any money into energy research since the high cost of oil will incentivize research into energy!

Until then, it's unnecessary spending of money that could be productively diverted to area where they desperately need more research such as anti-aging. If we can cure aging, that will allows us to maintain the knowledge and experience contained within the elderly, not to mention that we effectively save lives several times over.

Re: Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

#65

Post by anamax »

jbooth wrote: post #62
anamax wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Fascism has a definition, 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…

The program might be a minor league failure. Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures. Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous. The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving.

> Approximately 90% of research spending consists of minor league failures.

The program in question isn't research. It's startup funding.

> Drawing a comparison to fascism, oblique or not, is ridiculous.

Surely you're not arguing that if it isn't fascism, it's good?

While you're vehemently insisting that it isn't fascism, you haven't responded to the fact that it is a close cousin, corporatism....

> The DARPA comment was serious. There's a huge military component to getting green energy moving.

So what? The military does lots of dumb spending. It also has different needs. So, even if green energy makes sense for certain military applications, that doesn't imply that funding it for general applications is a good idea.

Re: Obama-Endorsed VC Program Promises 6,000 New Startups

#66

Post by _pius »

hnal943 wrote: post #57
_pius wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's just not true ... bringing new businesses to an economically depressed area helps all of the existing businesses.

How does a tech startup that employs a few highly skilled people affect people the surrounding area?

If you're lucky the employees spend money in the area and move there. Also the business is likely to use local vendors, even if it's just the Kinko's and grocery store.

That's all just for starters. It's pretty much a guaranteed net positive.

Post reply on HN