So you prefer to pay 10 times or 100 times the amount to subsidize debt which drives the capital appreciation of stocks to benefit rich shareholders and executives who either sit around and do nothing, or worse: they use the money to create shitty companies which waste everyone's time and energy... Then when the companies finally go bankrupt after a decade everyone loses except the executives who are actually responsible for the whole mess to begin with... Then they use the proceeds of their years of huge salary and bonuses to fund their next shitty company and repeat the process over and over again.

The situation is so bad now that if you're reading this as an employee, your current boss probably fits the description above perfectly. Your boss right now is probably a serial entrepreneur who created 10 different companies which made him a ton of money but which for some reason are all dead now and either added no value to society or created negative value.

There is so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin. It scares me how quickly the US population is turning on entrepreneurs. Do you really believe starting a company is the easier route? Is it better to just complain and demand tax payers equalize all opportunities for non risk takers like yourself?

I'm pretty sure that I've taken more risks than most entrepreneurs. It's a mistake to assume that if someone is not financially successful, that they haven't taken risks. This kind of logic was never accurate and it's getting even less so over time.

There is a lot of talent and there are many really great projects which go unnoticed these days. Our entire economy is founded on hype and misinformation. It's no longer possible to compete based on merit; the only way to win is through cheating and deception (e.g. the focus is not on value creation for customers, it's all about social scheming). Maybe that is why people are increasingly turning on entrepreneurs.

Social schemes which allow entrepreneurs to make money don't add value to society, they take away value. The VC funnel, corporate acquisitions, IPOs, social media advertising, etc... All these schemes don't create any value and yet that's where most of society's money seems to be going.

I think the financial system has failed. TBH I still can't believe that cryptocurrencies are worth so much money after so many years. The ongoing success of Bitcoin is proof that fiat money and the entire economy is completely speculative.

In a proper functioning economy in which money has real value, Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies wouldn't have been able to last a single year.

It doesn't matter how many risks you take. What counts is taking the right risks.

Fiat currency works fine. Bitcoin only has value for money laundering and drug deals; its value doesn't tell us anything positive or negative about fiat currency.

It is definitely sometimes the easier route for some people when it comes to getting rich quickly without contributing much to society

I believe this is a false dichotomy. Many of us would rather not pay for either and dislike the notion that if we don't pay for one, we have to pay for the other. Why isn't 'neither' an option?

Even if what you say is true, transferring money from taxpayers to other taxpayers to take a year off doesn't fix it.

That's the sound of a door being slammed very hard with no consideration of what you may get back in return.

The whole model of giving people tax money to do work is called research and is quite a large area and has produced some amazingly valuable things that you benefit from.

BTW I do see what you mean, but I have been trying to start a company for ages and getting the money together is just incredibly hard. It's also hard IT, not pet grooming or similar. It's difficult.

I support government funding for basic research as long as there is proper oversight and accountability. That's a totally different situation.

That's a good point, upvoted, however in my one experience of a government funded R&D project many years ago I was involved in, a bunch of universities was asked to produce a product.

There was no proper oversight. We produced nothing of value (and I'd like a post-mortem of why, but never got one). That was UK £2 million wasted.

I've no reason to suppose that company funded R&D is any better than govt. funded though.

We can call it the year of innovation. For one year projects get funded that otherwise never would. The output would solve many problems and create so many opportunities.