21–28 of 28 posts
Interesting talk. Some parts of the reasoning that might need work: "if there was no possibility to get rich, there would be no startups". Does not explain patronage, i.e. people investing in people for reasons other than getting rich. "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth". Prizes, like the Ansari X-Prize, is another model that drives innovation, it can be viewed as a low-risk inves…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Often their simple things that don't take a ton of money like head start funding, lower the cost of post-secondary education and training, and providing certain basic services like health care." What is 'head start' ?
http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_Start_Program It's an early childhood learning program. Nothing's perfect but it has a pretty good track record.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure VC's are doing that calculus, but they're not chasing risk, they want to be the insurance company. They want to invest in enough risky things that the success of one or two of them is certain and more than covers the rest of the investments that didn't pan out. The problem with this is that works great when you have a large number of relatively cheap startups all trying to be the next app fad. But that model…
> [VCs] want to be the insurance company Wow, I never looked at it that way but it makes so much sense. I always wondered why supposedly pro-entrepreneurial factions so heavily cheered policy that would increase payouts while simultaneously slamming social policy that would decrease activation barriers when, to me, the latter seemed like it would be much more effective at achieving the goal of increasing entrepreneur…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RpD_Sz_ZWPk&t=775
explains the most of it for a bureaucratic politician. The rules one make in society will tick (in the eye of the common folk) the balance for risk taking. Most of Europe is plagued by this social condition that Mr. Graham describes in here.
Addition: The scope of Paul Graham's talk is only of relating the economic risk-taking with inequality, but it would pay to give a deeper thought to the company-founding phenomenon. Economic ground poisoning (through patent trolling or regulation hammering) is also a very important factor to it, and that is something that can be fixed also only on political levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> [VCs] want to be the insurance company Wow, I never looked at it that way but it makes so much sense. I always wondered why supposedly pro-entrepreneurial factions so heavily cheered policy that would increase payouts while simultaneously slamming social policy that would decrease activation barriers when, to me, the latter seemed like it would be much more effective at achieving the goal of increasing entrepreneur…
I suppose you could gauge it against entrepreneurship rates in places where there is more 'social security', ie Scandinavia and other parts of western Europe.
Interesting talk. Some parts of the reasoning that might need work: "if there was no possibility to get rich, there would be no startups". Does not explain patronage, i.e. people investing in people for reasons other than getting rich. "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth". Prizes, like the Ansari X-Prize, is another model that drives innovation, it can be viewed as a low-risk inves…
Interesting talk. Some parts of the reasoning that might need work: "if there was no possibility to get rich, there would be no startups". Does not explain patronage, i.e. people investing in people for reasons other than getting rich. "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth". Prizes, like the Ansari X-Prize, is another model that drives innovation, it can be viewed as a low-risk inves…
The amount of money flowing from patronage pales in comparison to the capital of the VC industry. Patronage could never take over later rounds. There would still be bootstrapped startups, but far less of them. Another thought is that 10% weekly growth would flat out kill many businesses without access to easy capital. I don't think the statement "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth"…
Interesting talk. Some parts of the reasoning that might need work: "if there was no possibility to get rich, there would be no startups". Does not explain patronage, i.e. people investing in people for reasons other than getting rich. "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth". Prizes, like the Ansari X-Prize, is another model that drives innovation, it can be viewed as a low-risk inves…
The amount of money flowing from patronage pales in comparison to the capital of the VC industry. Patronage could never take over later rounds. There would still be bootstrapped startups, but far less of them. Another thought is that 10% weekly growth would flat out kill many businesses without access to easy capital. I don't think the statement "without start-ups, there would be slower rates of technological growth"…