Winter is coming

+1 just for the title

not really - focusing on this figure is somewhat non-nonsensical and spreads FUD albeit other than to keep prudent awareness of it. The difference between Aus and USA - is our net growth far outweighs the debt we owe and therefore we are relatively liquid if we needed to double-down on this debt. Further, much of our debt has been localed in foreign currencies - which are now all depreciated against the AUD - which is seen as a relatively safe currency given the USA downgrade. I don't propose to know when this will revert. Further, the regulation of our financial institutions has typically been quite tight through judicial activism and aggressive regulation. Unfortunately [for the world] - Wall St wasn't to the same degree. My personal view is that Governments should not adopt fiscal policy which encourages surplus - a responsible government is adopted to spend money on essential services - not carry on for political gain that it is in "surplus'. It should be net-neutral.

Anyway, Feel free to browse this document - http://www.treasury.gov.au/documents/1496/PDF/01_Debt.pdf

"A government’s balance sheet comprises both assets and liabilities. This article has demonstrated that only considering gross debt can result in an incomplete picture of public finances. By taking into account assets the public sector owns, a more accurate view of a government’s ability to respond to economic conditions can be determined.

This article has shown that Australia has undergone several periods of debt accumulation, followed by periods of fiscal consolidation. Periods of strong economic growth following episodes of debt accumulation have helped support relatively quick improvements in the public sector’s net debt position. Australia has a low level of net debt both historically and when compared with G-7 economies."

Check out my counter-argument:

Why are startups hot now? Not because the economy is good or because the startup ideas people are having are particularly good, but because risk seeking investors are trying to shove capital anywhere they can.

After the crash of 2008 lots of avenues (created by Wall Street post Financial Modernization Act) to invest this capital were closed, and the growth of the startup scene, particularly the NY startup scene, is a direct result of this. Couple this with a real negative interest rates and you have a nice long boom period where startups are the best thing going for investors who are getting free money (via negative interest rates) to gamble with.

Why will this continue? Exactly the same reason why Yahoo is still in business and why Microsoft is still profitable. There is tremendous room for innovation, growth, and all the improvements associated with those things.

Soon joe.sixpack@yahoo.com will wake up and start demanding more and more web innovation, and the void will be filled by startups doing clever, lucrative, disruptive things. I personally can't believe that anyone can tolerate using Yahoo for anything... and I'm stunned that people tolerate 2 hour battery life Android phones, Windows Vista, etc. The problems (areas for improvement) are far deeper than most tech-savvy people (such as on HN) can imagine, and the population (thanks mostly to Facebook) is slowly waking up to what it actually wants to do online.

To borrow the OP's metaphor, we're in the very early dawn of a beautiful, early spring day, etc. This will occur at least until the cost of borrowing increases substantially.

Also, anyone who thinks we have an information economy in 2011 will look back in a few decades and laugh.

Then you should google "funding certainty" to see that it is widely used. Just because you don't relish using slightly oxymoronic phrase doesn't mean others don't

I'm not so sure. I think the broader economic forces may help tech companies rather than hurt.

No matter what happens, America (and the world) will still have a lot of very wealthy people and institutions. Those people need to put their money somewhere. The stock market is scary, bonds and banks don't pay anything. If you had $100 million tomorrow to invest what would you do with it? I'd start looking for startups.

10% unemployment seems bad to us, relative to our more historical 5%, but Europe has dealt with that for decades. People still buy iPhones and sign up for Netflix. Even if the market for new services is reduced by a few %, the quality of new services will more than make up for it.

Rich people will still want to make money and startups will still be an appealing way to do it.