🇳🇿
Just listening to RNZ and Peter Griffin. Why does anyone think 'Startups' are a) a good idea, and b) deserving of taxpayer funding? Isn't that just trickle down economics?
Peter seems entirely dogmatic that tech progress is always good, and startups are always good (and the only way to do business). I think a lot of his basic assumptions need a lot of re-evaluation.
@lightweight I think we need to adopt a more nuanced language. Startup is a term for a very specific business model. Which is by no means the only way to do business.
You can start a new small business without being a "startup".
I don't think startups are inherently good or bad, same as technology.
Like you hinted there, dogmatic views are always problematic
@nicolas I think in the NZ context especially Startups are mostly extremely wasteful, especially for taxpayer funding.
@nicolas if they fail (as 80%+ do), the money's gone - and there's been no benefit to the taxpayer - there's no ongoing business or money entering the economy, it's a dead loss. If, on the other hand, they're one of the few who 'succeed', the, 9 times out of 10, get 'acquired' by a foreign (usually US-based) corporation, who normally moves them offshore, often keeping only a few staff. Private interests benefit (e.g. founders). NZ (taxpayers) loses on every front.
@lightweight I see your point. However, we should have a way to incentivise people to start new businesses. So that tax money doesn't only go to already established businesses.
@nicolas @lightweight In the USA, businesses get all kinds of tax breaks; the tax code isn't a disencentive to starting a business. Initial capital is the largest stumbling block, but the financial institutions are pretty good at evaluating business plans. Venture capitalists are almost always predatory, much like loan sharks. Unfortunately, people want to have their hare-brained scheme financed. Government shouldn't be involved, exvept to rein in the predators.
