Hacker News Reader

> Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity?

Military spending has spawned huge amounts of both direct and indirect innovation. Aviation and the space program, the internet, scores of "trickle down" consumer electronics such as GPS, Popeye (created to sell a surplus of canned spinach after WWII!), the list goes on and on. Plus there's the education of large numbers of the population that would otherwise lack opportunity.

The doctrine of "small government and a strong military" is an oxymoron. Military spending is an extremely effective form of high tech government subsidy. Of course the downside of having a huge military is the temptation to use it inappropriately...

Military spending is fine if it's making the country and the world safer. I'll pay for that. But the recent multi-billion-dollar handout to Bush's and Cheney's contractor friends has made the world a lot less safe.

Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity?

I think this has been covered by other posters and I can't add much to what they have already said.

I ask this because about every state nowadays has special departments and programs to promote hi-tech startups. But of course they are actually only flourishing in a small number of spots. I've worked with a few of these programs, and some are led by extremely talented and skilled administrators.

Right, because the initiatives I have in mind are national and, therefore, unlikely to have targeted local effects. You're talking about a separate issue, which is that it's very hard (impossible, in most cases) for a city to become a startup hub if it's not one.

Government intervention is not going to turn Dubuque, Iowa into a startup hub. There are too many ingredients necessary-- good universities, venture capital, entrepreneurial culture, good hackers, the ability to reach relevant customers, and reasons for a startup to stay there once it is successful. It would be possible to upgrade cities that have some or most of these ingredients (e.g. Pittsburgh or Minneapolis) to full-blown startup hubs, but most cities will never reach that level. However, the nearly impossible problem of turning Dubuque into a startup hub has nothing to do with that of increasing entrepreneurship on a national basis.

Seems to me, and it's just my opinion, but societies with lots of government-provided goodies actually have less startups.

I would imagine that you're talking about the European countries, but the government benefits have nearly nothing to do with the EU having fewer startups. Regulation and a less entrepreneurial culture take more of the blame.

> Can you point to other situations where an advanced infrastructure created by government led to an increase in entrepreneurial activity?

USPS. Interstate Highways. Airports. Seaports. SEC, FDIC, FAA, NTSB, etc. The Internet.

Quit thinking so small - swimming pools, hi-tech office parks, is this all you can muster?

Then how come startups don't flourish everywhere those services are offered? How come, for instance, Israel is the scene of a lot of startups? Or parts of India?

Why does nothing grow if you pour water on a rock? How are large plants able to grow in the desert?

You need a mix of many factors in order to encourage tech startups, and startups can't "flourish everywhere" because many of those necessary ingredients are only found in half a dozen "star cities".

I've heard of quite a few Israeli startups. FilesX being bought by IBM comes to mind off the top of my head. Bangalore is also starting to see its share of startups.

> Then how come startups don't flourish everywhere those services are offered?

I'm not sure how to start tackling the logical fallacies in your response because there are so many.