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

Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 175 posts

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#121

Post by anamax »

burgerbrain wrote: post #105
dpritchett wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also Canada has dramatically less ethnic diversity, at least if I'm reading Wikipedia correctly.

Are you really suggesting that a few ethnic diseases would render the Canadian healthcare system unworkable? I find it very hard to believe that a few more cases sickle cell or whatever would have that kind of effect.

> Are you really suggesting that a few ethnic diseases

It isn't a "few ethnic diseases", but you are underestimating the cost of high-blood pressure and the like.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#122

Post by mlinksva »

abracat1 wrote: post #117
abracat1 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmmm... That is a really bad comparison. I suspect that you misused the word Apartheid because of its emotional connetation (which circumvents any rational reasoning that a non-emotional argument might entail). Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country. Then again, SA is a country that should not have e…

To come back to my point - after '94 illegal immigration significantly increased. There are several reasons for this, e.g. The military was no longer responsible for enforcing the border (which fell to the police), liberal policies wrt immigration, Mugabe's experiments in Zimbabe, etc... Post '94 there were two patterns of migration - skilled people left the country (e.g. to Usa, Canada, aus and new zealand), and uns…

"Apartheid was concerned with the area people lived in the same country (in this area it might be seen as unjust - since people had citizenship to the country."

I use the term Apartheid advisedly. I do not regard place of birth a legitimate discriminator any more than I do race.

As for the "poorest of the poor", they live in poor countries. Again, I do not see the relatively poor of wealthy countries as being more worthy than the absolutely poor of poor countries. There are huge gains to be had in economic growth and human rights from free migration.

I discuss some of this and the South African example in http://gondwanaland.com/mlog/2007/08/06/apartheid-trends/

I recommend the book "Let Their People Come: Breaking the Gridlock on Global Labor Mobility" by Lant Pritchett.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#123

Post by anamax »

Retric wrote: post #51
anamax wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. Fix the healthcare system. Right now, you're punished if you don't work for a large company in the sense that you're charged up the wazoo for health insurance. Work for a large company and it's close to free. No, it's not "almost free". It's paid for by the company. And yes, paying yourself is tax-deductible in many circumstances. I've actually paid for health insurance out of pocket as an "older american". Rent…

The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care. On average the US and Canadian healthcare systems provide vary similar outcomes on average. So, clearly more government involvement is an option. But, so is less the US could save a ridiculous amount of money if we could stop wasting it on end of life care that proves little to no benefit. Healthcare is…

> The US and Canadian government spend the same amount per person on healthcare but Canada has universal health care.

As does the US, it just doesn't go by that name.

Yes, there is free healthcare in the US. It isn't unlimited and you can buy better, but the same is true of Canada.

However, I'll note that the US govt directly pays for about half of US healthcare (employees, etc.). If US govt healthcare will be so good, why isn't it? (Half of the population is enough to prove what it can do.)

However, I'm willing to give Obama free rein over US govt paid healthcare to show how much better it can be. All I ask is that he spends the same per-person this year, 10% less per person the 2nd year, and 20% less the third year. (Since govt healthcare advocates claim far more savings to be had, this should be easy.)

FWIW, pointing out how the US govt can't do healthcare isn't much of an argument for more US govt involvement in healthcare....

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#125

Post by burgerbrain »

anamax wrote: post #121
burgerbrain wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you really suggesting that a few ethnic diseases would render the Canadian healthcare system unworkable? I find it very hard to believe that a few more cases sickle cell or whatever would have that kind of effect.

> Are you really suggesting that a few ethnic diseases It isn't a "few ethnic diseases", but you are underestimating the cost of high-blood pressure and the like.

I think you are underestimating the prevalence of high-blood pressure in ethnicities technically less inclined to have it.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#126

Post by jszielenski »

gallerytungsten wrote: post #44

If you google the "Early Stage Innovation Fund" this is the first result: Early Stage Innovation Fund - COMING FY 2012 | SBA.gov www.sba.gov/node/15261 Early Stage Innovation Fund - COMING FY 2012. Earlier this year, the President announced the launch of "Startup America," an initiative to support high-growth ... http://www.sba.gov/node/15261 If you go there, you get: Access denied | SBA.gov Seems rather fitting for…

What a sham. Obama fail yet again. I can't believe I voted for this guy.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#127

Post by rphlx »

_delirium wrote: post #102
MikeMacMan wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's not "almost free". It's paid for by the company. You are correct, but large companies get dramatically better rates and better coverage than small companies. My family's small business has seen healthcare premiums increase more than 20% each year for the past few years. We have had to cut benefits (increase deductibles and copays, etc). It's a sad state of affairs that employees of large companies are insula…

More or less because reasonably-priced health insurance requires a risk pool in which membership isn't voluntary, and large companies provide such a pool by requiring that all their employees enroll in the company health insurance as a condition of employment (and pay their portion of the coverage fee with no opt-out allowed). The insurers assume that the number of people who'll turn down the job solely due to disagr…

The insurance company inherently pools everyone that it insures, whether they work in 10 large companies, or 1000 small ones.

So I fail to see a legit statistical/risk-model reason why health insurers MUST gouge small companies/entrepreneurs.

I think it's mostly due to small companies having less negotiating leverage.

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#129

Post by gammarator »

HilbertSpace wrote: post #85
mgkimsal wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(3) TARP was not a 'bailout' but just to solve a short-term 'liquidity' problem, that is, as in 'runs' on the banks. Note: A 'liquidity' problem is when you are worth $10 million but have only $500 in cash and suddenly have a traffic ticket for $600 and have to pay up or go to jail right NOW. You have the money but just don't have it in cash right away; you can get the cash easily enough but will need some days or we…

"What would define a 'bailout' as then?" It's to "help" someone in a "predicament". The context is that the someone is in trouble and to need the help is pejorative. But with this definition, TARP was not a 'bailout'. Help? The "help" is usually much like a gift and not likely to be paid back. The banks had to pay HIGH interest, and did. The US Treasury made out like vulture capital. In the end it was the banks, and…

You seem to have missed the recent story [1] from Bloomberg that the Fed made 7.7 TRILLION dollars--10x TARP, and half of the US GDP--available to banks at 0.01 interest. They used that money to buy Treasuries--ie, loaned the money back to the government at interest, earning an estimated $13 billion in profit.

So yes, they were able to pay back TARP pretty easily.

[1] http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-un...

Re: Obama Announces $2B Fund for Startups

#130

Post by rayiner »

3pt14159 wrote: post #97
rayiner wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have been developments in our knowledge of the market since 1680 (when that quote was uttered).

I was going to respond with something along the lines of "how's that working out for you" but really Alan Greenspan is still a staunch capitalist that would more or less agree with the quote above. If anyone has had the benefit of studying the market since that time it would be him. Edit: After a minute of posting this I've realized I've committed a logical fallacy, Appeal to Authority. Granted I was responded to a c…

> The best way to allocate resources is to have knowledgeable parties commence in free exchange. The role of government is to ensure that force and fraud are absent from the marketplace. If there is any further goal of the government it could possibly be encouraging the spread of information, although that is rife with conflicts of interest.

We have about 50 years of research showing that there are way more barriers to efficient allocations via the market than just information asymmetries. Start here: http://www.hss.caltech.edu/~camerer/ribe239.pdf

Post reply on HN