NationStates Jolt Archive

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_8t59jorH2DM/Ro7dOO2QKaI/AAAAAAAAAiQ/ogxWMAzhtag/s400/US%2BEconomy.jpg

A special report on entrepreneurship
The United States of Entrepreneurs
Mar 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
America still leads the world


FOR all its current economic woes, America remains a beacon of entrepreneurialism. Between 1996 and 2004 it created an average of 550,000 small businesses every month. Many of those small businesses rapidly grow big. The world’s largest company, Wal-Mart, was founded in 1962 and did not go public until a decade later; multi-million dollar companies such as Google and Facebook barely existed a decade ago.

America was the first country, in the late 1970s, to ditch managerial capitalism for the entrepreneurial variety. After the second world war J.K. Galbraith was still convinced that the modern corporation had replaced “the entrepreneur as the directing force of the enterprise with management”. Big business and big labour worked with big government to deliver predictable economic growth. But as that growth turned into stagflation, an army of innovators, particularly in the computer and finance industries, exposed the shortcomings of the old industrial corporation and launched a wave of entrepreneurship.

America has found the transition to a more entrepreneurial economy easier than its competitors because entrepreneurialism is so deeply rooted in its history. It was founded and then settled by innovators and risk-takers who were willing to sacrifice old certainties for new opportunities. American schoolchildren are raised on stories about inventors such as Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Edison. Entrepreneurs such as Andrew Carnegie and Henry Ford are celebrated in monuments all over the place. One of the country’s most popular television programmes, currently being recycled as a film, features the USS Enterprise boldly going where no man had gone before.

If anything, America’s infatuation with entrepreneurialism has deepened further of late. People like Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have all the upsides of Carnegie and Ford without the downsides—the useful products and the open-handed philanthropy without the sweatshops and the massacres. Preachers style themselves as pastorpreneurs. Business books sell in their millions. “When I was in college, guys usually pretended they were in a band,” comments one observer. “Now they pretend they are in a start-up.”

Advantage America
American companies have an unusual freedom to hire and fire workers, and American citizens have an unusual belief that, for all their recent travails, their fate still lies in their own hands. They are comfortable with the risk-taking that is at the heart of entrepreneurialism. The rewards for success can be huge—Google’s Mr Brin was a billionaire by the time he was 30—and the punishments for failure are often trivial. In some countries bankruptcy spells social death. In America, particularly in Silicon Valley, it is a badge of honour.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090314/CSR871.gif
America also has several structural advantages when it comes to entrepreneurship. The first is the world’s most mature venture-capital industry. America’s first venture fund, the American Research and Development Corporation, was founded in 1946; today the industry has an unrivalled mixture of resources, expertise and customers. Highland Capital Partners receives about 10,000 plausible business plans a year, conducts about 1,000 meetings followed by 400 company visits and ends up making 10-20 investments a year, all of which are guaranteed to receive an enormous amount of time and expertise. IHS Global Insight, a consultancy, calculates that in 2005 companies that were once backed by venture capitalists accounted for nearly 17% of America’s GDP and 9% of private-sector employment.

The second advantage is a tradition of close relations between universities and industry. America’s universities are economic engines rather than ivory towers, with proliferating science parks, technology offices, business incubators and venture funds. Stanford University gained around $200m in stock when Google went public. It is so keen on promoting entrepreneurship that it has created a monopoly-like game to teach its professors how to become entrepreneurs. About half of the start-ups in the Valley have their roots in the university.

The third advantage is an immigration policy that, historically, has been fairly open. Vivek Wadhwa, of Duke University, notes that 52% of Silicon Valley start-ups were founded by immigrants, up from around a quarter ten years ago. In all, a quarter of America’s science and technology start-ups, generating $52 billion and employing 450,000 people, have had somebody born abroad as either their CEO or their chief technology officer. In 2006 foreign nationals were named as inventors or co-inventors in a quarter of American patent applications, up from 7.6% in 1998.

Amar Bhidé, of Columbia University, suggests a fourth reason for America’s entrepreneurial success—“venturesome consumers”. Americans are unusually willing to try new products of all sorts, even if it means teaching themselves new skills and eating into their savings; they are also unusually willing to pester manufacturers to improve their products. Apple sold half a million iPhones in its first weekend.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090314/CSR867.gif

America faces numerous threats to this remarkable entrepreneurial ecology. The legal system can be burdensome, even destructive. One of the biggest new problems comes from “patent trolls”—lawyers who bring cases against companies for violating this or that trumped-up patent. Because the tax system is so complicated, many companies have to devote a lot of time and ingenuity to filling out tax forms that could be better spent on doing business. And the combination of the terrorist attacks on America on September 11th 2001 and rising xenophobia is making the country less open to immigrants.

Today more than 1m people are waiting in line to be granted legal status as permanent residents. Yet only 85,000 visas a year are allocated to the sort of skilled workers the economy needs, and there are caps of 10,000 on the number of visas available for applicants from any one country, so the wait for people from countries with the largest populations, such as India and China, is close to six years.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090314/D1109SR3.jpg

Illustration by Nick DewarYet despite these problems, America plays a vital role in spreading the culture of entrepreneurialism around the world. People the world over admire its ability to produce world-changing entrepreneurs, such as Bill Gates, wealth-creating universities, such as Harvard and Stanford, and world-beating clusters, such as Silicon Valley. Simon Cook, of DFJ Esprit, a venture-capital company, argues that Silicon Valley’s most successful export is not Google or Apple but the idea of Silicon Valley itself.

Foreigners who were educated in America’s great universities have helped to spread the gospel of entrepreneurialism. Two of Europe’s leading evangelists, Sir Ronald Cohen and Bert Twaalfhoven, were both products of HBS. Chinese and Indian entrepreneurs, who cut their teeth in Stanford and Silicon Valley, are now returning home in ever larger numbers, determined to recreate Silicon Valley’s magic in Bangalore or Shanghai.

America is putting hard financial muscle behind this soft power. The Kauffman Foundation spends about $90m a year, from assets of about $2.1 billion, to make the case for entrepreneurialism, supporting academic research, training would-be entrepreneurs and sponsoring “Global Entrepreneurship Week”, which last year involved 75 countries. Goldman Sachs is spending $100m over the next five years to promote entrepreneurialism among women in the developing world, particularly through management education.

Old Europe
The other two of the world’s three biggest developed economies—the EU and Japan—are far less entrepreneurial. The number of innovative entrepreneurs in Germany, for instance, is less than half that in America, according to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor (GEM), a joint venture between the London Business School and Babson College. And far fewer start-ups in those countries become big businesses. Janez Potocnik, the EU commissioner for science and research, points out that only 5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%.

This reflects different cultural attitudes. Europeans have less to gain from taking business risks, thanks to higher tax rates, and more to lose, thanks to more punitive attitudes to bankruptcy (German law, for example, prevents anyone who has ever been bankrupt from becoming a CEO). When Denis Payre was thinking about leaving a safe job in Oracle to start a company in the late 1980s, his French friends gave him ten reasons to stay put whereas his American friends gave him ten reasons to get on his bike. In January last year Mr Payre’s start-up, Business Objects, was sold to Germany’s SAP for €4.8 billion.

European egalitarianism, too, militates against entrepreneurialism: the EU is much more interested in promoting small businesses in general than in fostering high-growth companies. The Europeans’ appetite for time off does not help. Workers are guaranteed a minimum of four weeks’ holidays a year whereas Americans’ vacations are much less certain. Europeans are also much more suspicious of business. According to a Eurobarometer poll, 42% of them think that entrepreneurs exploit other people’s work, compared with 26% of Americans.

These cultural problems are reinforced by structural ones. The European market remains much more fragmented than the American one: entrepreneurs have to grapple with a patchwork of legal codes and an expensive and time-consuming patent system. In many countries the tax system and the labour laws discourage companies from growing above a certain size. A depressing number of European universities remain suspicious of industry, subsisting on declining state subsidies but still unwilling to embrace the private sector.

The European venture-capital industry, too, is less developed than the American one (significantly, in many countries it is called “risk” capital rather than “venture” capital). In 2005, for example, European venture capitalists invested €12.7 billion in Europe whereas American venture capitalists invested €17.4 billion in America. America has at least 50 times as many “angel” investors as Europe, thanks to the taxman’s greater forbearance.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090314/CSR872.gif
Yet for all its structural and cultural problems, Europe has started to change, not least because America’s venture capitalists have recently started to export their model. In the 1990s Silicon Valley’s moneybags believed that they should invest “no further than 20 miles from their offices”, but lately the Valley’s finest have been establishing offices in Asia and Europe. This is partly because they recognise that technological breakthroughs are being made in many more places, but partly also because they believe that applying American methods to new economies can start a torrent of entrepreneurial creativity.

Between 2003 and 2006 European venture-capital investment grew by an average of 23% a year, compared with just 0.3% a year in America. Indeed, three European countries, Denmark, Sweden and Britain, have bigger venture-capital industries, in relation to the size of their economies, than America. Venture-capital-backed start-ups have produced more than 100 “exits” (stockmarket flotations or sales to established companies) worth more than $100m since 2004. Tele Atlas, a Dutch mapping outfit, was recently bought by TomTom for $4.3 billion.

The success of Skype, which pioneered internet-based telephone calls, was a striking example of the new European entrepreneurialism. The company was started by a Swede and a Dane who contracted out much of their work to computer programmers in Estonia. In 2005 they sold it to eBay for $2.6 billion.

Several European universities have become high-tech hubs. Britain’s Cambridge, for example, has spawned more than 3,000 companies and created more than 200 millionaires in the university. The accession of ten eastern European countries to the EU has also tapped into an internal European supply of scientists and technologists who are willing to work for a small fraction of the cost of their pampered western neighbours.

Slowcoach Japan
The Japanese can hardly be accused of aversion to long hours. Big Japanese companies have an impressive record of incremental improvement, particularly in the electronics business. But for the most part the Japanese have been less successful than the Europeans at adapting to entrepreneurial capitalism. The latest GEM global report gives Japan the lowest score for entrepreneurship of any big country, placing it joint bottom with Greece. The brightest people want to work for large companies, with which the big banks work hand in glove, or for the government. Risk capital is rare. Bankruptcy is severely punished. And the small-business sector is wrapped in cotton wool, encouraging “replicative” rather than “innovative” behaviour. Over the past quarter-century the rate at which Japan has been creating new businesses has been only one-third to half that in America.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216037

http://education-portal.com/cimages/multimages/16/entrepreneurship2.jpg

A special report on entrepreneurship
Lands of opportunity
Mar 12th 2009
From The Economist print edition
Israel, Denmark and Singapore show how entrepreneurialism can thrive in different climates


DOV MORAN’S desk is littered with the carcasses of dismembered phones. Mr Moran has already had one big breakthrough: inventing the now ubiquitous memory stick. But he dreams of another one: he wants to separate the “brains” of the various gizmos that dominate our lives from the “bodies” to enable people to carry around tiny devices that they will be able to plug into anything from phones to cameras to computers. Mr Moran sold his memory-stick business to SanDisk for $1.6 billion, creating a thriving technology cluster near his office. This time he wants to build an Israeli business that will last, challenging the giants of the camera and phone businesses.

Israel is full of would-be Dov Morans. It is home to 4,000 high-tech companies, more than 100 venture-capital funds and a growing health-care industry. Innovations developed in the country include the Pentium chip (Intel), voicemail (Comverse), instant messaging (Mirabilis, Ubique), firewalls (Checkpoint) and the “video pill”, which allows doctors to study your insides without the need for invasive surgery.

Even more than other countries, Israel has America to thank for its entrepreneurial take-off. A brigade of American high-tech companies, including Intel and Microsoft, have established research arms there. And a host of Israelis who once emigrated to America in search of education and opportunity have returned home, bringing American assumptions with them. Many Israeli entrepreneurs yo-yo between Silicon Valley and Tel Aviv; almost 70 Israeli companies are traded on NASDAQ.

The Israeli government helped by providing a ready supply of both human and physical capital. Israel has the world’s highest ratio of PhDs per person, the highest ratio of engineers and scientists and some of the world’s best research universities, notably Technion. The country’s native talent was supplemented by the arrival of 400,000 well-educated Jewish refugees from the former Soviet empire.

However, Israel’s main qualification for entrepreneurialism is its status as an embattled Jewish state in a sea of Arab hostility. The Israeli army not only works hard to keep the country at the cutting edge of technology, it also trains young Israelis (who are conscripted at 18) in the virtues of teamwork and improvisation. It is strikingly common for young Israelis to start businesses with friends that they met in the army. Add to that a high tolerance of risk, born of a long history and an ever-present danger of attack, and you have the makings of an entrepreneurial firecracker.

Danish dynamism
Compared with a lion like Dov Moran, Frederik Gundelach is a mere cub, but he has some of the same sense of purpose about him. Sitting in one of Denmark’s “growth houses” (incubators for entrepreneurs), he places a flask on the table and launches into an elaborate explanation.

http://media.economist.com/images/20090314/D1109SR5.jpg
Mr Gundelach claims that he and his father have discovered a novel way of boiling water that does not require the application of heat. He hopes to sell the flask to outdoor types and soldiers, but that is not the limit of his ambition. The chemical reaction that heats the water can also be used to heat or cool houses, he claims, radically reducing the cost of domestic heating and the threat of global warming.

It is too early to say whether Mr Gundelach’s flask will turn out to be a miracle in a bottle or a pipedream, but the Danish government is doing everything it can to give him the support he needs. Denmark is engaged in a social experiment to test whether it can embrace capitalist globalisation yet continue to preserve its generous welfare state. The Danish economy has traditionally been divided between big multinational companies (such as Carlsberg, a brewing behemoth) and a welter of small family firms. The government now wants to add a third economic force: start-ups with the potential for rapid growth.

The government has done everything a tidy-minded Scandinavian country can to cultivate these start-ups. The World Bank ranks Denmark fifth in the world for ease of doing business. There is a network of growth houses—ready-made offices that provide start-ups with many of the advantages of large companies such as consulting advice, legal services and conference rooms. The government has created a public venture-capital fund, the Vaekstfonden, and is now trying to change attitudes to entrepreneurs and promoting “education for entrepreneurship”.

When Muslim countries boycotted Danish goods in 2005 after a Danish newspaper published some disrespectful cartoons of the prophet Muhammad, wags joked that this hardly mattered because the only things that Denmark produced were beer and bacon. But the government’s embrace of entrepreneurialism is clearly changing the economy. Denmark is already home to about 20% of Europe’s biotech companies. It also has thriving clean-technology, fashion and design industries. As a proportion of GDP, Danish companies attract more venture capital than any other European country.

Sizzling Singapore
At first sight Denmark and Singapore do not have much in common, yet they share not only the same official enthusiasm for entrepreneurialism but also many of the same policies. Singapore’s government has invested heavily in digital media, bio-engineering, clean technology and water purification, creating huge incubators and enticing foreign scientists with fat pay packets, as well as setting up a public venture-capital fund that has in turn brought in lots of private venture capital. More than 5% of Singapore-based companies are backed by venture capital.

The government has done everything in its power to make life easy for entrepreneurs, which has earned it first place in the World Bank league table for ease of doing business. It is also trying hard to encourage a traditionally passive population to become more innovative. Schools teach the virtues of entrepreneurialism. The universities put ever more emphasis on business education and links with industry. The Nanyang Technological University (whose chairman, like that of the National University of Singapore, is an alumnus of Hewlett-Packard) offers a graduate degree in technopreneurship and innovation.

Singapore sees entrepreneurialism as a prerequisite to future growth. It has spent the past few decades climbing up the “value chain” from manufacturing to services and from trade to finance. Its biggest test yet may be to create knowledge industries and produce companies that can commercialise intellectual breakthroughs.

All three countries have both advantages and disadvantages when it comes to embracing entrepreneurship. Israel depends too heavily on America and is being hit hard by the downturn there. Denmark is too egalitarian. A top personal-income-tax rate of 63% drives the most successful entrepreneurs out of the country.

Singaporeans have even deeper cultural problems with entrepreneurship. The best and brightest have little appetite for risk-taking entrepreneurship, and most people suffer from an excessive fear of bankruptcy, according to Monitor. The country’s consumers are anything but venturesome: for all the island’s cultural diversity, they remain obsessed by Western brand names. The country is paying a heavy price for this. A Singapore-based company, Creative Technology, invented a digital music player, the NOMAD, two years before Apple launched the iPod, but Creative’s NOMAD looked like a clunky CD player rather than a miniature fashion accessory. It received $100m from Apple for patent infringement, but that did not make up for the loss of a mass market.

Still, the governments of all three countries remain enthusiastic supporters of the entrepreneurial idea. The Danes and the Singaporeans regard it as their ticket to success in a global economy and the Israelis as a matter of survival. All three are also helping to spread the creed in their regions. Arab countries are beginning to realise that the best way to deal with Israel is to copy its vibrant economy. Denmark serves as a model to European leaders such as France’s Nicolas Sarkozy who want to combine dynamism with social protection. The Chinese regard Singapore as a useful laboratory for reform. In the 1980s China asked Goh Keng Swee, Singapore’s former finance minister, to advise on the development of its special economic zones; today it is keeping a watchful eye on the city-state’s model of state-sponsored entrepreneurship.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displaystory.cfm?story_id=13216097

So what do you think about:

1. The articles?

2. The differences between America, Europe and Japan when it comes to entrepreneurship?

3. The developing entrepreneural states of Israel, Denmark and Singapore?

What is your personal opinion on entrepreneurship?

The number of innovative entrepreneurs in Germany, for instance, is less than half that in America

Since Germany has less than a third of America's population, wouldn't this suggest Germany are more entrepreneurial.

And to describe the EU as a fully developed economy is foolish. The likes of Germany, UK, etc are. But the newer eastern european states, hardly. Also to note that it's much easier for a business to go USA-wide than EU-wide. Language/cultural obstacles for a start.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see America as more entrepreneurial than europe. That's more of its model of living. American Dream and whatnot. To talk about europe having 'cultural problems' is twisting it. It's because the population prefers a different model, involving the welfare state and higher taxes etc.

That article is just taking different systems and viewing them through a subjectively chosen prism to portray America as 'better'.

Inb4 Nationalistic Dickwaving.

Wait, are people against entrepreneurship? Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Since Germany has less than a third of America's population, wouldn't this suggest Germany are more entrepreneurial.
Hmm, not sure about that, actually. It does seem to be strange. Perhaps a typo on their part?

And to describe the EU as a fully developed economy is foolish. The likes of Germany, UK, etc are. But the newer eastern european states, hardly.Yeah, but if you'll see, The Economist actually states that Eastern European states are a benefit here:

The accession of ten eastern European countries to the EU has also tapped into an internal European supply of scientists and technologists who are willing to work for a small fraction of the cost of their pampered western neighbours.

Wait, are people against entrepreneurship? Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Well, here are a four examples:

Europeans have less to gain from taking business risks, thanks to higher tax rates, and more to lose, thanks to more punitive attitudes to bankruptcy (German law, for example, prevents anyone who has ever been bankrupt from becoming a CEO). When Denis Payre was thinking about leaving a safe job in Oracle to start a company in the late 1980s, his French friends gave him ten reasons to stay put whereas his American friends gave him ten reasons to get on his bike. In January last year Mr Payre’s start-up, Business Objects, was sold to Germany’s SAP for €4.8 billion.

European egalitarianism, too, militates against entrepreneurialism: the EU is much more interested in promoting small businesses in general than in fostering high-growth companies. The Europeans’ appetite for time off does not help. Workers are guaranteed a minimum of four weeks’ holidays a year whereas Americans’ vacations are much less certain. Europeans are also much more suspicious of business. According to a Eurobarometer poll, 42% of them think that entrepreneurs exploit other people’s work, compared with 26% of Americans.

Singaporeans have even deeper cultural problems with entrepreneurship. The best and brightest have little appetite for risk-taking entrepreneurship, and most people suffer from an excessive fear of bankruptcy, according to Monitor. The country’s consumers are anything but venturesome: for all the island’s cultural diversity, they remain obsessed by Western brand names. The country is paying a heavy price for this. A Singapore-based company, Creative Technology, invented a digital music player, the NOMAD, two years before Apple launched the iPod, but Creative’s NOMAD looked like a clunky CD player rather than a miniature fashion accessory. It received $100m from Apple for patent infringement, but that did not make up for the loss of a mass market.

But for the most part the Japanese have been less successful than the Europeans at adapting to entrepreneurial capitalism. The latest GEM global report gives Japan the lowest score for entrepreneurship of any big country, placing it joint bottom with Greece. The brightest people want to work for large companies, with which the big banks work hand in glove, or for the government. Risk capital is rare. Bankruptcy is severely punished. And the small-business sector is wrapped in cotton wool, encouraging “replicative” rather than “innovative” behaviour

Yeah, but if you'll see, The Economist actually states that Eastern European states are a benefit here:

For a start the states are recent entries, so to expect quick change is unrealistic. And there is a benefit of cheap brains, but the markets and consumers aren't developed. Less disposable income and whatnot.

Also

5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%.
For about a third of that period of time a large segment of the EU was ruled the Soviets? What a brilliantly fair comparison.

Inb4 Nationalistic Dickwaving.

What? Come on . . . lol

What? Come on . . . lol

You know thats what this will descend into.

As to the topic/article...

Doesnt suprise me.

For a start the states are recent entries, so to expect quick change is unrealistic. And there is a benefit of cheap brains, but the markets and consumers aren't developed. Less disposable income and whatnot

Oh I wasn't arguing that, there are obviously huge problems with having the Eastern European states included in the EU at the moment, but you didn't list any positives, and I was showing how there is the rather large positive of using Eastern European brains for cheap.

It's the sort of boom that Israel got after the Cold War in which tons of ex Soviet, highly educated Jews moved to Israel.

But I wouldn't be surprised to see America as more entrepreneurial than europe. That's more of its model of living. American Dream and whatnot. To talk about europe having 'cultural problems' is twisting it. It's because the population prefers a different model, involving the welfare state and higher taxes etc.

That article is just taking different systems and viewing them through a subjectively chosen prism to portray America as 'better'.
It's not a subjectively chosen prism, it's which enviornment is more healthy a breeding ground of Entrepeneurship.

Well, here are a four examples:

None of these are examples of people being explicitly against it, just prioritising other things above it, or just generally not being as 'courageous'.

So what do you think about:

1. The articles?

2. The differences between America, Europe and Japan when it comes to entrepreneurship?

3. The developing entrepreneural states of Israel, Denmark and Singapore?

What is your personal opinion on entrepreneurship?

1. Biased

2.Fairly obviously rooted in their culture, and likely to change slowly if at all.

3. As above, but also slightly patronising to say that fairly mature capitalist economies are somehow 'lacking' because of this.

Also : "5% of European companies created from scratch since 1980 have made it into the list of the 1,000 biggest EU companies by market capitalisation. The equivalent figure for America is 22%" does not strike me as particularly positive; it means lots of the top 1,000 companies shrink and/or fail. Just because something is dynamic does not make it by default, good.


Wait, are people against entrepreneurship? Why on earth would anyone be against that?

Because they hate freedom, silly!

Inb4 Nationalistic Dickwaving.

*hands you these*

http://www.sustainable-gardening.com/images/bahcoshearer350_000.jpg

:D

That article is just taking different systems and viewing them through a subjectively chosen prism to portray America as 'better'.

I don't think the article is making such a broad value judgement at all.

None of these are examples of people being explicitly against it, just prioritising other things above it, or just generally not being as 'courageous'.

Well, what about this? This is people being explicitly against it:

According to a Eurobarometer poll, 42% of [Europeans] them think that entrepreneurs exploit other people’s work, compared with 26% of Americans.

I wouldnt say I consider entrepreneurs to be some great, amazing human beings. Theyre business owners, like any other business owner.


I also dont see being a less friendly entrepreneur environment as a 'bad' thing.

Well, what about this? This is people being explicitly against it:

Maybe they are against the rich entrepreneurs around at the moment, but that doesn't mean they are against the concept of being an entrepreneur itself. But whatever, doesn't really bother me.

It's not a subjectively chosen prism, it's which enviornment is more healthy a breeding ground of Entrepeneurship.

Maybe I'm reading it too much into it. But the article talking about cultural/structural problems seemed to be saying 'America is better'. When really it's deliberately differently constructed system.

If you're aiming for a fast car you can go less powerful and light or more powerful and heavy. One way or the other isn't necessarily 'wrong'.

I don't think the article is making such a broad value judgement at all.

Eh, perhaps I'm being overly suspicious.

I wouldnt say I consider entrepreneurs to be some great, amazinh human beings. Theyre business owners, like any other business owner.


I also dont see being a less friendly entrepreneur environment as a 'bad' thing.

Not inherently, but it's something you want to avoid, and is definitely not something you want merely for the sake of it. Entrepreneurship creates growth, we want to maximise that. For instance, redistributive justice can be good, but sometimes the loss of growth and funds outweigh the positives if redistribution goes too far and causes everyone to be worse off.

I think I may have entrepreneurship. It really hurts to pee and junk is getting really red. I totally asked that girl if it was okay to, you know, not use protection and she said it was cool. What does NSG think? Do I have entrepreneurship or is something else? God, I hope it isn't entrepreneurship.

Maybe I'm reading it too much into it. But the article talking about cultural/structural problems seemed to be saying 'America is better'. When really it's deliberately differently constructed system.
Well it seemed to be saying that American culture/structure is better in terms of being receptive, compatible and promoting of entrepreneurship. . . not just 'better' in general.

Now, obviously in this one area, they consider a country better receptive, compatible and promoting of entrepreneurship better than less so ones at fostering entrepreneurship, but that's obvious.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this seems to be a measure of how low tax, low regulation, and anti-union states are.

I believe in protection for workers, support for small businesses over large multinationals, and in redistributive taxation and the provision of a welfare state. I also belleve that a government should try and help the poorest rather than just go full out to try and ensure a few people can become very rich.

I would argue that its a good thing to balance the need to encourage entrepeneurship with other political, economic and social goals. America is the most entrepeneurial country, but this is tied in as much with what is bad with America as what is good.

I still need convincing that America coming top makes it better than nations lower in the listings.

I thought this thread was going to be about environmental devastation.

Inb4 Nationalistic Dickwaving.
I thought this thread was going to be about environmental devastation.

And so it begins with a shot across the bow...

I thought this thread was going to be about environmental devastation.

China would win that one, if you're going by how much Co2 it releases.

I thought this thread was going to be about environmental devastation.

You know that old saying . . . how does it go?

If you don't have anything nice to say, shut the hell up? ;) Yeah, do that.

You know that old saying . . . how does it go?

If you don't have anything nice to say, shut the hell up? ;) Yeah, do that.

Lax environmental laws could be construed (and probably are) as being supportive of entrepreneurial esprit.

By the way, very mature.

I've never understood why conserving and conservatism don't go together.

Lax environmental laws could be construed (and probably are) as being supportive of entrepreneurial esprit.

Because you worded it in such a manner as to relate it to the OP :rolleyes:. Come on man, youre better then that. We all can see that comment was meant soley to pick a fight.
By the way, very mature.
As opposed to, what? Entering a thread and making a comment meant to antagonize just because you have a personal dislike of the OP?

Because you worded it in such a manner as to relate it to the OP :rolleyes:. Come on man, youre better then that. We all can see that comment was meant soley to pick a fight.

As opposed to, what? Entering a thread and making a comment meant to antagonize just because you have a personal dislike of the OP?

I didn't mean to antagonise anyone. Though I will drop it, because I wouldn't want to threadjack.

I love my country.
But if you got to bring up things like this all the time your insecure about your country.

I love my country.
But if you got to bring up things like this all the time your insecure about your country.
1. The people who wrote this article are not Americans so I fail to see how it's insecurity about America.

2. The first is an excellent article about entrepreneurship and actually goes into about how Europe is progressing as well . . . while the second article has nothing to do with America but shows 3 excellent emerging entrepreneural hot-spots.

Personally, I found the articles simply fascinating so I posted them.

European, yes.

Europe is just incredibly more mellow than America. We're more interested in culture than business.

No "It depends on the enterprise" poll option? :(

1. The people who wrote this article are not Americans so I fail to see how it's insecurity about America.


To be pedantic, you don't know that.

They're good articles, some of the dodgy comparisons annoy me but I don't think it invalidates the argument.

I admire enterpreneurs who are also honest: that is, those enterpreneurs who don't exploit workers grossly, who don't evade the taxes, who don't scream "free market!" when they want to cut jobs - then run to mommy State as soon as things get tough, who don't run Ponzi schemes...

Yes, I know they're precious few, expecially in the big business, but there are some.

Of course not, dirty Capitalist scum. :p

Yes, thank God for that wave of financial services entrepreneurs.

Where would we be without them?

To be pedantic, you don't know that.
Don't know that they aren't Americans? They are English . . . based in London.

I think the culture is probably more entrepreneurial than the EU in general. Though I'm not sure you could characterize the various US authorities as super pro-small business and pro-start up. Venture capital stuff is obviously much loved for grifting reasons (especially with private equities demise again), but apart from that it's not terribly friendly to small business.

Just looking at the past ten years I'd guess asia ex-japan probably has an edge.

Don't know that they aren't Americans? They are English . . . based in London.

The Economist is well known for keeping its contributors anonymous. According to wiki two thirds of the journalists are based in London.

I fail to see how entrepreneurship is something inherently positive. At best, it's a neutral value.
And I would support laws that make it somewhat difficult to become an entrepreneur, definitely. If you want to start a business, there should be criteria to meet before you're allowed to go ahead with it.

We're more interested in culture than business.

Where is the money in that ?

I fail to see how entrepreneurship is something inherently positive. At best, it's a neutral value.
And I would support laws that make it somewhat difficult to become an entrepreneur, definitely. If you want to start a business, there should be criteria to meet before you're allowed to go ahead with it.

What sort of requirements.

Where is the money in that ?

US American tourists pay handsomely for it.

US American tourists pay handsomely for it.

That's why Europeans complain we never go out of our own country. they want more of our tourist money.

What sort of requirements.

I'm not an economist, but I think you should :

- Have enough capital to sustain the business through the first couple years. No point keeping founding businesses every 6 months cause the last one failed

- Get some market research done to see if your business stands a chance

- Familiarise yourself with accounting and tax laws, in detail

- Comply with labour laws if you employ people.

- Comply with environmental laws and recommendations

That's just the first couple of things coming to my mind now... I like watching Dragon's Den, and I keep getting amazed at how many people try starting companies without the slightest clue about their target market, the legal and financial requirements to launch their product/get their company started, health and safety regulations, etc etc still think they should get money from others to start a business. It's simply mind-boggling.

That's why Europeans complain we never go out of our own country. they want more of our tourist money.

Well, truth be told, we found other markets. Asians have very deep pockets as well. :)

I'm not an economist, but I think you should :

- Have enough capital to sustain the business through the first couple years. No point keeping founding businesses every 6 months cause the last one failed

Issue with this most of your business are done off of loans.
Few banks give a start up company more then 1 year of loans.
The reason for using credit is simple. 1 it isolates your personal assets from being seized if the company goes under. and 2 you get outside input from a bank who will suggest adjustment in business plans in order to qualify for the loan.

- Get some market research done to see if your business stands a chance

That can be expensive and I find the people who would conduct this research are more interested in telling you what you want to hear so they can get their check. which is why One should use the bank because they do not want to make a bad business loan. Also if your expanding into new markets such as Software in the 1970's marketing research wont give you much info.

- Familiarise yourself with accounting and tax laws, in detail

Or hire yourself and accountant come Tax time.

- Comply with labour laws if you employ people.

- Comply with environmental laws and recommendations

Complying with the law is a given.In the US labor laws are not so tough for small business normally comply with wage laws and report the income to the IRS/send the with holding.

That's just the first couple of things coming to my mind now... I like watching Dragon's Den, and I keep getting amazed at how many people try starting companies without the slightest clue about their target market, the legal and financial requirements to launch their product/get their company started, health and safety regulations, etc etc still think they should get money from others to start a business. It's simply mind-boggling.
You should borrow. It protects your assets and gives you outside input from someone who has something to lose if your business flops.

how long can we breathe money?

god will forgive us if we destroy the world. sure.
but the world will still be destroyed and we'll still perish with it.

how long can you breathe money?

I have invested in an oxygen supply company. Repeal the environmental laws and let the god times roll for me.

I have invested in an oxygen supply company. Repeal the environmental laws and let the god times roll for me.


hardy har. and where? prey tell, is this 'company' going to get its product FROM?

air doesn't grow on trees/... well actually it does, it just doesn't grow anywhere else without them. well not just trees as such of course, but the green parts of vegetation.

the point does illustrate trading real freedom for symbolic wealth.
something a whole lot of people still seem to have not yet figured out.

on the other hand, you COULD bottle smog now, and set it aside for when it becomes rare and thus expensive later. there's always someone who'll want the oddest things, no matter how destructive.

hardy har. and where? prey tell, is this 'company' going to get its product FROM?

air doesn't grow on trees/... well actually it does, it just doesn't grow anywhere else without them. well not just trees as such of course, but the green parts of vegetation.

the point does illustrate trading real freedom for symbolic wealth.
something a whole lot of people still seem to have not yet figured out.

on the other hand, you COULD bottle smog now, and set it aside for when it becomes rare and thus expensive later. there's always someone who'll want the oddest things, no matter how destructive.

electricity + water = oxygen + hydrogen.
Goods and services and standard of living are far from symbolic.

electricity + water = oxygen + hydrogen.
Goods and services and standard of living are far from symbolic.

have you worked out the actual cost bennifit ratios?
in reguards to the energy involved and its sourcing?

goods are indeed tangible. services may or may not be of more then emotional value depending on a gazillion factors and specifics and context.
standard of living is one of those trite political phraises.
who'se standard of what way of life?
personally i find not being allowed to live in freely improvised shelter as a perminent address tyrannical.

have you worked out the actual cost bennifit ratios?
in reguards to the energy involved and its sourcing?

goods are indeed tangible. services may or may not be of more then emotional value depending on a gazillion factors and specifics and context.
standard of living is one of those trite political phraises.
who'se standard of what way of life?
personally i find not being allowed to live in freely improvised shelter as a perminent address tyrannical.

As long as the government subsidizes oil and coal I should be able to turn 20% profit ratios.
Furthermore the more I do it the more demand goes up for clean Air, increasing profits on rather large basis.

Issue with this most of your business are done off of loans.
Few banks give a start up company more then 1 year of loans.
The reason for using credit is simple. 1 it isolates your personal assets from being seized if the company goes under. and 2 you get outside input from a bank who will suggest adjustment in business plans in order to qualify for the loan.

You should borrow. It protects your assets and gives you outside input from someone who has something to lose if your business flops.

Again, I'm no economist... but looking around, I can't help noticing that extensive borrowing and banks giving out loans to all and sundry may not have been the best thing since sliced bread...


That can be expensive and I find the people who would conduct this research are more interested in telling you what you want to hear so they can get their check. which is why One should use the bank because they do not want to make a bad business loan. Also if your expanding into new markets such as Software in the 1970's marketing research wont give you much info.

So you'd have people start up businesses, run them into the ground within a few months and lose other people's money?
By all means, get the banks involved. But market research can also mean just going online and checking if there are other companies offering the same product as yourself, and see how they are doing. How much money will that cost you?


Or hire yourself and accountant come Tax time.

What, month end?

electricity + water = oxygen + hydrogen.
Goods and services and standard of living are far from symbolic.

I'd like to see you produce electricity without oxygen ;)

Again, I'm no economist... but looking around, I can't help noticing that extensive borrowing and banks giving out loans to all and sundry may not have been the best thing since sliced bread...

The industrial revolution would not have happened with out.



So you'd have people start up businesses, run them into the ground within a few months and lose other people's money?
By all means, get the banks involved. But market research can also mean just going online and checking if there are other companies offering the same product as yourself, and see how they are doing. How much money will that cost you?

If the bank makes a bad loan who's fault is that? Ive never heard of a bank willing to give a business loan with out knowing all the gritty details of the business. These loans come with strings and directives.



What, month end?

Here our small businesses pay taxes at the end of the year. Once they incorporate they pay taxes quarterly by then they should be large enough to have a full time accountant. If business in Europe needs to pay Tax monthly I suspect that may be a large reason why no one starts businesses over there.

Again, I'm no economist... but looking around, I can't help noticing that extensive borrowing and banks giving out loans to all and sundry may not have been the best thing since sliced bread...
Right, but alot of those loans were because:

a) Banks were giving out money/loans like it was going out of style. That's a bank's fault, not the entrepreneur who receives it.

b) The government dictated that it should be made easier for low income people with bad credit to buy homes.

None of that has to do with a fault in entrepreneurship, really. You are trying to mix entrepreneurship in there for some reason.


So you'd have people start up businesses, run them into the ground within a few months and lose other people's money?
Risk is the primary factor for real entrepreneurship. People know what they are getting into when they invest in a hypothetical. Bankruptcy is something which in Germany is bad but in America it shows "you've been there." (as long as you make it back out of bankruptcy, that is :p )

By all means, get the banks involved. But market research can also mean just going online and checking if there are other companies offering the same product as yourself, and see how they are doing. How much money will that cost you?
This point is pretty, eh, baseless. Do you really think that a hypothetical entrepreneur, who is going to be investing a large amount of his own time and money into whatever poject he is working on, is really not going to check around and scope out the competition, the market for that product and so?

I mean really . . . that's ridiculous to assume that. :p

Well, truth be told, we found other markets. Asians have very deep pockets as well. :)
Good thing you're not in the tourist industry. You'd be fired for sure for suggesting that Europe doesn't need American tourist dollars. :p

Right, but alot of those loans were because:

a) Banks were giving out money/loans like it was going out of style. That's a banks fault, not the entrepreneur who receives it.

b) The government dictated that it should be made easier for low income people with bad credit to buy homes.

None of that has to do with a fault in entrepreneurship, really. You are trying to mix entrepreneurship in there for some rason.


No. I'm saying that banks here are careful who they give money to, and rightfully so.
And it doesn't matter if that money will go into business or into houses. Unless you can convince the bank that you'll be able to pay it back, you're not getting it.


Risk is the primary factor for real entrepreneurship. People know what they are getting into when they invest in a hypothetical. Bankruptcy is something which in Germany is bad but in America it shows "you've been there." (as long as you make it back out of bankruptcy, that is :p )

So bankcruptcy, in other words losing your money and in the case of having debts also losing other people's money, is a good thing? That's wrong on absolutely every level I can think of


This point is pretty, eh, baseless. Do you really think that a hypothetical entrepreneur, who is going to be investing a large amount of his own time and money into whatever poject he is working on, is really not going to check around and scope out the competition, the market for that product and so?

I mean really . . . that's ridiculous to assume that. :p

I don't think so, I happen to know people who tried that. Thankfully they failed to get any money together to start anything. And then, do you really think Drangon's Den would be half as entertaining if it wasn't for the throves of clueless entrepreneurs?


Good thing you're not in the tourist industry. You'd be fired for sure for suggesting that Europe doesn't need American tourist dollars. :p

Where did I say that? All I said is that we found a second source of income in the East.

And then, do you really think Drangon's Den would be half as entertaining if it wasn't for the throves of clueless entrepreneurs?
Nothing beats the cake shield (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIgdGTg5mSw).

No. I'm saying that banks here are careful who they give money to, and rightfully so.
And it doesn't matter if that money will go into business or into houses. Unless you can convince the bank that you'll be able to pay it back, you're not getting it.Which is all fine, but you're trying to tie this into your rant againt entrepreneurship, which, my point was, is baseless.



So bankcruptcy, in other words losing your money and in the case of having debts also losing other people's money, is a good thing? That's wrong on absolutely every level I can think of
It's something that happens when you take risks investing in a hypothetical. Bankruptcy is not that bad in the U.S., and it needs to remain that way or else it would discourage otherwise entrepreneurs from getting out there and trying their hand at the market. But like I said, everyone knows what they get into when they take that risk. Those people don't need a Cabra West, or an over-bearing government telling them what they may or may not, should or should not do with their money.


I don't think so, I happen to know people who tried that.
Well then you know idiots. Entrepreneurs, real entrepreneurs scope out the market and their competition until they are as sure as possible that it is a good investment to make. Remember, these people are interested in making money. They are not going to blindly throw their money into something without making sure it's a good investment. There's no logic in that. It's false. It's just your anecdotal claim while trying to make Entrepreneurs seem clumsy, carelss and bad. Thankfully, your country does not see things that way and Entrepreneurship is on the rise in Germany.

You cannot stop an idea who's time has come. That is entrepreneural capitalism.

Where did I say that? All I said is that we found a second source of income in the East.
By stating, in response to Greed and Death's post that you guys want American tourist money, that we've found 'other markets', the structure indicates that you use that 'other markets' to mean that they are insted of, or replacing the American market.

It's false.

Which is all fine, but you're trying to tie this into your rant againt entrepreneurship, which, my point was, is baseless.

Rant? I was merely saying that I regard entrepreneurship as something neutral, not as something automatically positive.
Is this going to turn into something like that "OMG - you're SO anti-American!" thing you had a while back when I simply said I wouldn't want to move there?


It's something that happens when you take risks investing in a hypothetical. Bankruptcy is not that bad in the U.S., and it needs to remain that way or else it would discourage otherwise entrepreneurs from getting out there and trying their hand at the market. But like I said, everyone knows what they get into when they take that risk. Those people don't need a Cabra West, or an over-bearing government telling them what they may or may not, should or should not do with their money.

Which is why I said they should have enough money of their own to see their business through at least the first couple of years.
They can do what they like with their own money.
As long as they're not wasting other people's.



Well then you know idiots. Entrepreneurs, real entrepreneurs scope out the market and their competition until they are as sure as possible that it is a good investment to make. Remember, these people are interested in making money. They are not going to blindly throw their money into something without making sure it's a good investment. There's no logic in that. It's false. It's just your anecdotal claim while trying to make Entrepreneurs seem clumsy, carelss and bad. Thankfully, your country does not see things that way and Entrepreneurship is on the rise in Germany.

You cannot stop an idea who's time has come. That is entrepreneural capitalism.

No true Scotman, eh? Have you sunk THIS low already?
Real entrepreneurs are of course only those that you refer to yourself, nobody else can call himself one.


By stating, in response to Greed and Death's post that you guys want American tourist money, that we've found 'other markets', the structure indicates that you use that 'other markets' to mean that they are insted of, or replacing the American market.

It's false.

Right... because finding a new market always implies that you will totally ignore the old market from now on?

Leads at phailing, yes. *Runs*

Rant? I was merely saying that I regard entrepreneurship as something neutral, not as something automatically positive.Which is expected from a Leftist viewpoint, but thankfully not a notion shared by your government.

Is this going to turn into something like that "OMG - you're SO anti-American!" thing you had a while back when I simply said I wouldn't want to move there?
Please, :p . . . you're anti-American already, without taking into consideration anything in this particular thread. Don't try to create a strawman.


Which is why I said they should have enough money of their own to see their business through at least the first couple of years.
No, that's not how it works. Usually they'll get a loan because almost nobody has enough free capital just sitting under their bed to create a 'start-up'.

You're trying to exclude people the possibility of entrepreneurship simply because they either aren't older and already have free money from being rich or younger and simply born into wealthy families with free money. You're trying to exclude everyone else.



No true Scotman, eh? Have you sunk THIS low already?
What are you blabbering about here? I'm not No True Scotman? ? ? :confused:
Real entrepreneurs are of course only those that you refer to yourself, nobody else can call himself one.
The hypothetical and unrealistic person you mentioned that does not check out the market, does not assess the risk, does not inquire to see if there is sufficient demand and does not evaluate the competition is obviously not a real entrepreneur, no. Obviously not.

Right... because finding a new market always implies that you will totally ignore the old market from now on?
If the conversation and sentence structure apply it as so, yes.

By stating, in response to Greed and Death's post that you guys want American tourist money, that we've found 'other markets', the structure indicates that you use that 'other markets' to mean that they are insted of, or replacing the American market.

Entrepreneurship has no limits. It leads to raw consumerism: consume, consume, consume, produce, produce, produce. To what end? Why is our food shipped for hundreds of miles, our clothes from halfway around the world? It may be cheaper, but is it sustainable?

Consumerism cannot hold the answer. It destroys genuine human culture, and, just as bad, it is ruining the earth. We must move to a value system that actually esteems the biosphere, that works its legitimate right to be intact into economic calculus, that values the equality of every human being and animal.

The United States, even if it pulls through this crisis, is a sinking ship. The Earth cannot take this for much longer. Only socialism---a Green socialism---coupled with a massive worldwide reduction of human population and down-scaling of industry, can offer a sustainable solution.

Yup... everything is just like it was when I left. TAi still making the same pedantic threads and completely failing to understand what the other side is saying.

I'm home :)

Yup... everything is just like it was when I left. TAi still making the same pedantic threads and completely failing to understand what the other side is saying.

I'm home :)
Our president may have offered you change™, but I sure as hell didn't. :p;):p

Nice empty propaganda broadsheet, TAI.

Nice empty propaganda broadsheet, TAI.

How so?

How so?

It disagrees with his Worldview.:wink:

It disagrees with his Worldview.:wink:
Lol, in that case, why stop there?

*gets on soapbox*

"The world is flat. Sex is bad. The sky is purple. Dinos still exist."

Lol, in that case, why stop there?

*gets on soapbox*

"The world is flat. Sex is bad. The sky is purple. Dinos still exist."

the Braindead Megaphone at work again.

the Braindead Megaphone at work again.
Oh, come on. You reply to that but not this below???
Nice empty propaganda broadsheet, TAI.
How so?