71–80 of 196 posts
A US citizen wants to move to a country with public healthcare, socially liberal policies, and an environment that welcomes small business.
Which country does this person choose?
Is emigration required, or is a visa available for starting up there?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[deleted]
If that were true, eliminating all risk would lead to an explosion of risk taking. But it doesn't. Plenty of trust fund babies face no risks and accomplish nothing. Of course, another way to look at things is to realize that taking no risks is the biggest risk of all. If one wishes to sit and wait for life to do whatever to you, you can always do that. Don't go to school, don't strive. Don't ever invest in anything t…
This is more due to the poor design of these programs in the US than anything else (speaking as a someone with a fairly significant amount of student debt in the UK).
So sad that in the US people like him host comedy shows.
I don't know what you are talking about. The Daily Show is not comedy. Its where everybody under the age of 30 gets the news from. Fox News - now that's comedy. Seriously, they crack me up. And if you want tragedy, there's always MSNBC. CNN - I don't know what that is - maybe comedians trying their hand at tragedy. You see their chief mascot Anderson Cooper standing knee deep in flood water, or being blown around by…
Mr Stewart erupted: 'You're insane... Here's the difference between you and I.
'I'm a comedian first. My comedy is informed by an ideological background, there's no question about that.
Stewart has a large audience, and he's feeding people his brand of BS. With such a large viewership, he has a great responsiblity but he is acting as if he doesn't. He cops out by saying "I'm just a comedian"
The suggestion of a "social safety net" for entrepreneurs can only come from such a man who doesn't take on responsibility and who isn't an entrepreneur.
A real entrepreneur starts a company, takes responsibility for it, and assumes the risks. Putting up a safety net for this will just tax middle-class families that much more, and make it even harder for someone to start up a company and be dedicated to it.
Consider the organizational qualities that create successful startups: agility, speed and clear vision. Entrepreneurs live and die by efficiency and effectiveness. This is the exact opposite of what government programs give us. Believing that any government initiative will enable entrepreneurship is naive. Founders relying on a government cushion to lower risk will be inviting unnecessary encumbrance. Government prog…
If government programs are so inefficient, why is U.S. healthcare the most expensive per capita in the world? I just don't buy the argument that governments do everything terribly.
With a shortage of medical services in the US, the price has been driven up. Other countries just impose their shortages and have no market to actually drive prices up or down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is." I don't think that has any relevance to the question at hand. If we eliminated wasteful medical spending then we could literally insure every uninsured person at least 10x over. (Medical waste is ~700B per year, whereas it would cost about 50B to insure everyone.)
Can you please cite sources for those numbers?
OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…
I completely disagree. No two people are in the same situation; some people are in situations that make it extremely risky to start a business, and instead will coast through life without acting on a dream. I don't necessarily think this means they're not dedicated enough or not made for it.
People don't do things for a lot of reasons, and those reasons often aren't because they don't want to -- rather it's often because there's some boulder blocking their vision.
Consider the organizational qualities that create successful startups: agility, speed and clear vision. Entrepreneurs live and die by efficiency and effectiveness. This is the exact opposite of what government programs give us. Believing that any government initiative will enable entrepreneurship is naive. Founders relying on a government cushion to lower risk will be inviting unnecessary encumbrance. Government prog…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The industry joke at the time this research came out was that if the regulators were serious about auto safety they should mandate a sharp dagger sticking out from the steering wheel aim directly at the driver's chest. People would drive very carefully!
If you did that some people would regard the dagger as the perfect place to attach their mobile phone on long journeys.
OK, so, I am ardently socially liberal, and I've had a man-crush on Jon Stewart that hasn't waned ever since his appearance on Crossfire. But. I don't think that decreasing risk will result in more entrepreneurship. I would support a wider social safety net for entrepreneurs -- er, business owners -- on principle alone, because I think what we should be saying is that these people are vitally important to our economy…
I agree that starting a business isn't for everyone. I'm doubtful that I would enjoy it, but I would like to be an early employee at a company. If that company can't afford health coverage, then I can't take that risk for my family. It just baffles me that health coverage is so tied to where you work. What if you could only send your kids to the schools that your employer selected, or eat at the restaurants the your…
If employer-sponsored housing was a similar tax dodge, you'd see employers bidding for employees with salary + rent free living.
Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. But, as far as I can tell, health insurance really is the biggest factor keeping people from starting new companies. For myself and my peers, with new families and houses and student debt, etc., it's the one thing that scares us more than anything else. The prospect of a business going under is…
Countries with much broader safety nets for entrepreneurs are not producing the risky innovative companies that America is. Could this be because countries with broader safety nets also have more regulation and make it hard to fire people? I've always kind of thought a combination of making it easy to hire people and let them go, along with strong safety nets (ie, good unemployment insurance and not having health car…
Not only optimal, but compatible. If it's easy to get rid of people, then it makes sense to lessen the burden born of being let go. And if there is a strong safety net, then it makes sense to make it easy to get rid of people.
One perspective might be that government mandated difficulty in getting rid of people is a form of safety net: it's a safety without being required to be a net (that is, catching people on their way down, since it's designed to not let people fall).