Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk • Hacker News Board

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#141

Post by stretchwithme » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:29 AM UTC

intended wrote: post #115

stretchwithme wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter how they are designed. They are eventually changed to suit the various lobbies. Things are seldom re-evaluated logically. These programs go on for decades without obvious problems being fixed. If you have a business and you figure out that something that was supposed to make you money was NOT actually making you money, you change it ASAP. With government, change only happens when something becomes a…

You are cherry picking parts of the narrative to fit your beliefs. Your assessment on the causes of the fin crisis overlook other more significant factors. Primarily the effects of deregulation and under funding the SEC. Those choices playing out against the development and evolution of CDOs as risk transferring instruments. The utter rapacious greed with which the financial services industry reacted to its incentive…

And how was that total dislocation from risk created?

It started with government insuring banking deposits. And Glass Segal kept that part of the financial industry separate. But eventually, the lobbyists broke that down and they used it to export risks to the banks using credit default swaps/

And they also got Fannie and Freddie to take on all the lame mortgage risks. That made it easy to shift even more risk to the government. How did that happen? Subtle changes pushed by lobbyists.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#142

Post by goggles99 » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:35 AM UTC

Nogwater wrote: post #12

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

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…

>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 company had a deal with? It's just weird. I don't know if government provided insurance is the solution, but employer provided just doesn't make sense as the only solution.

Does it baffle you that the school location for your kids is so tied to where you live?

Does it baffle you that your employer decides how much it wants to pay you as well? How about what size your desk is or how up to date your computer at work is. How about your 401k match? Bonus size? Vacation days? Promotions? Who your boss is? Dress code? Where does it end?

Do you think every employer could actually afford to let you get the health care plan and provider of your choice?

You are free to look for another job at a company who offers health care from the provider that you wish to use.

Let me ask you though. What if your employer would give you the money they put toward your health care to choose the provider of your choice (even if you had to pay the difference for any shortcoming)?

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#143

Post by jacoblyles » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:37 AM UTC

jeffool wrote: post #94

arohner wrote: post #31

The US already has the most lenient bankruptcy law in the world. It already has the highest "social tolerance" for entrepreneurial failure. I'm in great health, and young, so I'm not worried about saving for retirement (yet). But starting a company is still really damned hard. It's years of hard work, too much time at the office, too much time away from friends and family. Too much fear that tomorrow no customers wil…

Speaking of bankruptcy laws, I wonder how the ballooning student debt (which cannot be dismissed through bankruptcy) plays into that. Anecdotal, but, did (m)any people here on HN graduate and then start a business while still in debt with student loans?

I started a business with a ton of student loans (almost 6 figures). I actually took out an extra student loan I didn't need and put it into Apple stock, using the gains to last another two months. And then I went into credit card debt.

I don't recommend doing all that. You can put away $20k pretty easily working in the Valley. That would be much less stressful.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#144

Post by sterna » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:39 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

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 can back you up with real word evidence for your claim.

In Denmark we have system very close to what John Stewart proposes but still we have far fewer entrepreneurs than in the US. This suggests that culture is much more important for entrepreneurship than a social safety net.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#145

Post by jacoblyles » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:40 AM UTC

krakensden wrote: post #125

Evbn wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was it worth the money?

Well, appendicitis can kill you, so theoretically, it's always worth the money. On the other hand, when clever people notice this and decide to get in on that infinite, inelastic demand, the rest of society tends to get grumpy. Hence the ceaseless political trench warfare over how to pay for health care since the Johnson administration.

In a free economy, a company would notice that, say, 2% of people get appendicitis in their lifetimes and that it costs $50,000 to treat - an expected cost of $1,000. Then they would offer you lifetime appendix insurance for $1,500.

Unfortunately there are tens of thousands of pages of regulation preventing that from happening.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#146

Post by dllthomas » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:41 AM UTC

slurgfest wrote: post #140

vm wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We need to define risk here. Startups are risky and most fail. That doesn't change, even if we gave people free health insurance and other benefits. Jon Stewart is arguing to increase the safety net so that downside of failure is less harsh. It won't make the downside scenario less likely, just not as brutal for those who experience it. But I bet his proposal would INCREASE the risk of failure for precisely that reas…

By this 'principle,' measures like eliminating the corporation as a risk management tool, or even imposing artificially severe punishments for business failure, should increase hustle and therefore mean more successful businesses.

True. That doesn't mean that there isn't some optimum amount of downside, for optimal progress and human flourishing and whatnot. But an automatic assumption that what we currently have is that optimal amount seems to just be a bias towards the status quo.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#147

Post by jacoblyles » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:43 AM UTC

jcromartie wrote: post #9

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…

I suppose there's no reason why social safety nets and stifling heavy taxes and regulation need to go together, but in practice they do. In this country, the people pushing for higher taxes and regulation are also supporting greater safety nets. So if you see them winning on one front, they are probably winning on all three.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#148

Post by vacri » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:51 AM UTC

bhb916 wrote: post #131

_delirium wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know a few such people myself, and I don't even really know that many people. One category is people with issues from birth: one friend of mine has a congenital heart defect, which is well managed, but completely disqualifies him from buying health insurance on the open market as an individual. So he is basically forced, against his will, to work for a large corporation, so he can qualify for their group health pla…

You misunderstand individual freedom. Freedom, in the context of a "free nation", isn't freedom from consequences or risks (even those out of a person's control), it's freedom from the imposition of state-sponsored force. This is an important distinction. We all invite a little state-sponsored force into our lives (i.e. the persecution of violent crimes, the civil court system, etc). Your version of "freedom" actuall…

You're not really illuminating much by explaining with the contorted libertarian definitions of 'individual freedom'. Seriously, you can't think of a 'meaningful' definition of freedom that includes helping each other? Not necessasrily one you have to agree wtih, just one that is 'meaningful'?

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#149

Post by subsection1h » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:55 AM UTC

pinchyfingers wrote: post #85

kalleboo wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Government inefficiency is the cause of unreasonable expense of U.S. healthcare.

Since we're providing unsubstantiated explanations, I blame Satan.

Re: Jon Stewart: Lower entrepreneurial risk

#150

Post by speccy_geek » Fri, Oct 19, 2012, 6:56 AM UTC

thaumaturgy wrote: post #5

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…

Presumably you think that the laws of supply and demand are bunk? The risk of having poor health cover is part of the cost of entrepreneurship. Reduce the cost of something and people, in the aggregate, will buy more of it.