Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.
Duplicate of another approved link: 8249711


(Vox)   The Reagan Revolution is killing entrepreneurialism   (vox.com ) divider line
    More: Sad, Economic stagnation  
•       •       •

1039 clicks;  Favorite

46 Comments     (+0 »)
 
 
2014-05-06 03:59:29 PM  
Hint: monopolies and corporate consolidation lead to a stagnant growth and market.

In other words, the fat kid gots the ball and he ain't a-sharin'
 
2014-05-06 04:14:11 PM  
There's probably more than a minor correlation between access to benefits like health care and entrepreneurialism.  Also, large competitors are able to game regulations specifically to raise the barrier of entry into any given market.  Corruption is what happened.
 
2014-05-06 04:18:33 PM  
Obviously we need to do the following

Cut red tape.

foxnewsinsider.com

Get government out of the way

www.truthdig.com

Stop job killing regulations.

hewit.unco.edu
 
2014-05-06 04:22:38 PM  
This is sort of a terrible chart, since it doesn't say anything about what a "startup" is. I mean, over the last 30 years, I'd imagine fewer people are starting up individual bookstores. So what? That doesn't say anything about the entrepreneurial spirit, it just says that these types of retail companies don't make sense outside of economies of scale.

Anyone who thinks we're suffering from a lack of startups has way more work to do than this one chart.
 
2014-05-06 04:28:09 PM  
Repeat is a repeat.
 
2014-05-06 05:09:19 PM  
I know you can find online dictionaries that list the terms entrepreneurialism and entrepreneurism.

But it's entrepreneurship, you philistine.
 
2014-05-06 05:13:43 PM  
The self-employment tax doubled in 1983.  Let's roll that turd of a tax increase back and see what happens.
 
2014-05-06 05:51:00 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-05-06 05:57:32 PM  
There is nothing the Chamber of Commerce hates more than small business.
 
2014-05-06 06:01:20 PM  

AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 525x294]


That was the only time I ever heard Rush Limbaugh applaud him.
 
2014-05-06 06:05:49 PM  

unyon: There's probably more than a minor correlation between access to benefits like health care and entrepreneurialism.  Also, large competitors are able to game regulations specifically to raise the barrier of entry into any given market.  Corruption is what happened.


With their political power and influence, they don't need to "game" the regulations - they write them, or just have them struck down if they don't like them.
 
2014-05-06 06:18:15 PM  
Reading that gave me an entrepaneurism.
 
2014-05-06 06:20:29 PM  
Maybe if the their health and the health of their families wasn't dependent on continuing to work for a large business, more people would be willing to start their own.
 
2014-05-06 06:23:53 PM  
Good thing Regan doubled the self-employment tax.

/Wife was 1099'd last year
//Ouch
 
2014-05-06 06:24:18 PM  

dforkus: Maybe if the their health and the health of their families wasn't dependent on continuing to work for a large business, more people would be willing to start their own.


It's not any more you know.
 
2014-05-06 06:29:29 PM  
Thanks, Global Bill Clinton!

But seriously.
Everyone is free to become an independent contractor, amirite?!
 
2014-05-06 06:39:21 PM  
Holy fark, where did the last paragraph in TFA come from?  I'm not against immigration, but I'm pretty sure it's not the solution to America's entrepreneurial problem.
 
2014-05-06 06:41:07 PM  

HotIgneous Intruder: Everyone is free to become an independent contractor, emirate?!


I'm a huge fan of this.  All of my work is contract work, and everyone that works for me is a contractor.  Being independently incorporated means that I get to write off all the same stuff that the big boys do in an effort to show as little income as possible.  If they're gonna game the system in favour of corporations, everyone should become a corporation.
 
2014-05-06 06:46:10 PM  

unyon: If they're gonna game the system in favour of corporations, everyone should become a corporation.


Corporations are people.
 
2014-05-06 06:48:00 PM  
Perhaps the bigger question is why this type of entrepreneurship is so idolized in American society.  And by "entrepreneurship", it's usually implied that the founder is young and the company has taken off to astronomical levels (hence the picture of Zuckerdouche under the article).  The motto "no risk, no reward" doesn't apply to Harvard college undergrads with wealthy parents.  Company bombs?  Whatevs, just go back to school and/or try again without impacting your quality of life because Dad's been paying the bills all along.  And as wealth continues to concentrate to the top, the pool of people who are able to take a chance without really taking a chance is diminishing.  And as job prospects become bleaker, the number of people willing to actually take a chance is dropping as well.  Why would you go balls out if at the end of the day, you have no chance of a reasonable backup plans? Most people are not positioned to take all-or-nothing risks in their lives for a number of reasons, most dealing with wanting to be able to eat and sleep under a roof.
 
2014-05-06 06:53:49 PM  

IrateShadow: Holy fark, where did the last paragraph in TFA come from?  I'm not against immigration, but I'm pretty sure it's not the solution to America's entrepreneurial problem.


That surprised me as well.  I guess it's a nod towards an additional (potential) benefit of moving forward with more progressive immigration reform, but it fails to consider that changes to immigration reform may drop the percentage of immigrants who become successful entrepreneurs. It's like saying "athletes are faster than office workers on the whole, so let's consider all office workers to be athletes, and everyone will be faster as a result."  Bzzzzt.
 
2014-05-06 07:01:36 PM  

unyon: I'm a huge fan of this.  All of my work is contract work, and everyone that works for me is a contractor.  Being independently incorporated means that I get to write off all the same stuff that the big boys do in an effort to show as little income as possible.  If they're gonna game the system in favour of corporations, everyone should become a corporation.


Are you one of those guys that writes off any piece of clothing worn at home while working remotely as a business expense, or writes off the mileage driven to any location (including on the weekends) by writing a quick business related email after arriving as a business expense?  If so...

1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2014-05-06 07:03:11 PM  

valkore: That surprised me as well.  I guess it's a nod towards an additional (potential) benefit of moving forward with more progressive immigration reform, but it fails to consider that changes to immigration reform may drop the percentage of immigrants who become successful entrepreneurs. It's like saying "athletes are faster than office workers on the whole, so let's consider all office workers to be athletes, and everyone will be faster as a result."  Bzzzzt.


I guess, but it doesn't even register on my list of reasons people might not go out on their own.  Long before that I would raise questions about:

* Regulatory capture
* Tight credit
* Anemic consumer spending
* Inability to build sufficient savings to support yourself while starting a new venture
* The ease with which some asshole in Texas can crush your startup with some vague, about-to-expire patent
* Eroded legal standing of fair use and seemingly perpetual copyright
* The ability and willingness of established players to bleed your startup dry through questionable litigation
 
2014-05-06 07:12:07 PM  
Less middle class = Less spending at new businesses = Failing businesses.

It's not rocket science.  Trickle-down economics will drive our country completely into the shiatter.
 
2014-05-06 07:18:34 PM  
This is some Silicon Valley navel-gazing, right here.

/You can start a billion-dollar business in your dorm room!!1!
 
2014-05-06 07:53:09 PM  

AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 525x294]


That was Reagan's baby and it was excreted by the Gingrich House.

/Clinton was the best Republican president of the latter part of the 20th century.
 
2014-05-06 08:01:13 PM  
As an entrepreneur, I don't have time to RTFA.

/back to work
 
2014-05-06 08:13:37 PM  
it doesn't help anytime someone creates something we have patent trolls who come along and sue that new idea back into the ground. Armies of lawyers will descend upon your house like locus and devour you on site. companies work very very hard to make sure their market percentage doesn't move.
 
2014-05-06 08:20:02 PM  

valkore: unyon: I'm a huge fan of this.  All of my work is contract work, and everyone that works for me is a contractor.  Being independently incorporated means that I get to write off all the same stuff that the big boys do in an effort to show as little income as possible.  If they're gonna game the system in favour of corporations, everyone should become a corporation.

Are you one of those guys that writes off any piece of clothing worn at home while working remotely as a business expense, or writes off the mileage driven to any location (including on the weekends) by writing a quick business related email after arriving as a business expense?  If so...

[1.bp.blogspot.com image 320x240]


Hate the game, not the player.
 
2014-05-06 08:24:59 PM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 525x294]

That was Reagan's baby and it was excreted by the Gingrich House.

/Clinton was the best Republican president of the latter part of the 20th century.


And it would have gone nowhere if Clinton hadn't cris-crossed the country, convincing the "rank-and-file" that somehow outsourcing their jobs was good for union membership.

And those idiots STILL for Democrat
 
2014-05-06 08:29:05 PM  
AngryDragon:

Do you happen to recall who negotiated that treaty?
 
2014-05-06 08:31:41 PM  

MFAWG: AngryDragon:

Do you happen to recall who negotiated that treaty?


What matters is who signed it into law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries.

No matter what, the man who's signature is on the document owns it.  Period.
 
NFA
2014-05-06 08:49:45 PM  

Darth_Lukecash: Hint: monopolies and corporate consolidation lead to a stagnant growth and market.

In other words, the fat kid gots the ball and he ain't a-sharin'


DONE IN ONE
 
NFA
2014-05-06 09:11:07 PM  

AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 525x294]


img.fark.net

Perot was mocked and laughed at after he made this speech.

But hindsight is 20/20 and Ross Perot nailed it.  H.W.Bush and Clinton both supported NAFTA because it made American companies billions of dollars at the expense of American jobs and our standard of living.

It's not possible to look back and not recognized that our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China and India have been great for them but an economic disaster for Americans.
 
2014-05-06 09:19:21 PM  

NFA: It's not possible to look back and not recognized that our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China and India have been great for them but an economic disaster for Americans.


It's a little implausible to look at a symmetric trade agreement with Canada, evaluate it as a win for them and a loss for us, and then blame the trade agreement. Canada isn't exactly known for its labor abuses and currency manipulation -- what are they doing that we aren't and don't want to be?
 
2014-05-06 09:32:26 PM  

AngryDragon: MFAWG: AngryDragon:

Do you happen to recall who negotiated that treaty?

What matters is who signed it into law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries.

No matter what, the man who's signature is on the document owns it.  Period.



OK. We agree: It isn't Clinton's baby.

/How do you like being hoist by your own potatoe?
 
2014-05-06 09:56:47 PM  

NFA: AngryDragon: [i.imgur.com image 525x294]

[img.fark.net image 525x294]

Perot was mocked and laughed at after he made this speech.

But hindsight is 20/20 and Ross Perot nailed it.  H.W.Bush and Clinton both supported NAFTA because it made American companies billions of dollars at the expense of American jobs and our standard of living.

It's not possible to look back and not recognized that our trade agreements with Mexico, Canada, China and India have been great for them but an economic disaster for Americans.


In 1992 I was 10 and utterly clueless on politics, but I've been saying what Perot said for several years now; Everyone has to be on the same economic scale if this whole international trade thing is going to work long term. If that means uplifting the rest of the world or dropping the USA quality of life to make this work, so be it (and it will very likely be the latter).

I'm regularly mocked by Fark MBAs.
 
2014-05-07 12:04:30 AM  

valkore: Are you one of those guys that writes off any piece of clothing worn at home while working remotely as a business expense, or writes off the mileage driven to any location (including on the weekends) by writing a quick business related email after arriving as a business expense?  If so...



Well, that's tiny thinking, but you've got the right idea.  If it's in the rules, I exploit it.  Vehicle, technology, percentage of all of my bills... Hell, I even write of the better part of my beer budget.  It works out particularily well when your clients also happen to be your drinking buddies.

So you figure I'm Not Helping.  Do you think I'm supposed to overpay my taxes just because I'm a nice guy?  Because that's what would be fair?  When the hell has fair ever had anything to do with taxation?  Because Joe Paycheck to my right hasn't got it figured out and gets his ass soaked by the gubmint, I should feel sorry?  That's like feeling sorry for people that throw their money away playing the lottery.  I have no sympathy for the innumerate.  And if my story is the sort of thing that causes you to wring your hands in anguish about unfair taxation, then go ahead- change the rules.  But change them for everyone.

You're right that on the income side, I may not be helping.  What I am doing is offsetting the taxes my wife pays, and the government loves her.  And I pay taxes on that money twice anyways- My corporation pays business tax, and then I pay personal taxes on what shows up as income.  Lastly, that income adjustment allows me to not have to work particularly hard- giving me time to volunteer with 6 different charitable organizations where I provide my time and talent for free.

Kuta: Hate the game, not the player.


Precisely.
 
2014-05-07 02:54:03 AM  

unyon: valkore: Are you one of those guys that writes off any piece of clothing worn at home while working remotely as a business expense, or writes off the mileage driven to any location (including on the weekends) by writing a quick business related email after arriving as a business expense?  If so...


Well, that's tiny thinking, but you've got the right idea.  If it's in the rules, I exploit it.  Vehicle, technology, percentage of all of my bills... Hell, I even write of the better part of my beer budget.  It works out particularily well when your clients also happen to be your drinking buddies.

So you figure I'm Not Helping.  Do you think I'm supposed to overpay my taxes just because I'm a nice guy?  Because that's what would be fair?  When the hell has fair ever had anything to do with taxation?  Because Joe Paycheck to my right hasn't got it figured out and gets his ass soaked by the gubmint, I should feel sorry?  That's like feeling sorry for people that throw their money away playing the lottery.  I have no sympathy for the innumerate.  And if my story is the sort of thing that causes you to wring your hands in anguish about unfair taxation, then go ahead- change the rules.  But change them for everyone.

You're right that on the income side, I may not be helping.  What I am doing is offsetting the taxes my wife pays, and the government loves her.  And I pay taxes on that money twice anyways- My corporation pays business tax, and then I pay personal taxes on what shows up as income.  Lastly, that income adjustment allows me to not have to work particularly hard- giving me time to volunteer with 6 different charitable organizations where I provide my time and talent for free.

Kuta: Hate the game, not the player.

Precisely.


Out of curiosity, why do you concider yourself taxed twice?

Your corporation profit and your income are two seperate things, are they not? That's the benifit/cost of creating a entity that protects you as a liability and has its own rights.

Who knows, one day you only be a mere shareholder, and not work for it.
 
2014-05-07 02:56:41 AM  

Darth_Lukecash: Out of curiosity, why do you concider yourself taxed twice?

Your corporation profit and your income are two seperate things, are they not? That's the benifit/cost of creating a entity that protects you as a liability and has its own rights.

Who knows, one day you only be a mere shareholder, and not work for it.


Not to mention I would love the living fark out of being able to deduct interest and expenses on my personal return.
 
2014-05-07 03:29:13 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Darth_Lukecash: Out of curiosity, why do you concider yourself taxed twice?

Your corporation profit and your income are two seperate things, are they not? That's the benifit/cost of creating a entity that protects you as a liability and has its own rights.

Who knows, one day you only be a mere shareholder, and not work for it.

Not to mention I would love the living fark out of being able to deduct interest and expenses on my personal return.


I certainly recognize the benefits.  If I didn't, I wouldn't do things this way.  My corporate tax burden is quite reasonable where I live (15%), so I'm not railing against unreasonable taxation.  Things work out quite reasonably, and I have no qualms about paying taxes.  Having that corporate shell, as Darth_Lukecash suggests, is highly worthwhile.  Calgary is a city that is quite business-friendly that way.  There's a large number of self-employed people that can form together for projects and then disband as required, which has great efficiencies.

And a lot of the project meetings of those groups take place informally, often in pubs.  Also another direct expense that can be written off if documented properly.
 
2014-05-07 04:10:22 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: AngryDragon: MFAWG: AngryDragon:

Do you happen to recall who negotiated that treaty?

What matters is who signed it into law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries.

No matter what, the man who's signature is on the document owns it.  Period.


OK. We agree: It isn't Clinton's baby.

/How do you like being hoist by your own potatoe?


Are you high?

So a treaty campaigned for by both Bill and Hillary Clinton for a year, approved by the House while he was president, ratified by the Senate while he was president, signed into law by his own hand, that he even admits to regretting in his later years...is Bush's fault?!

Just...wow. I give you points for layalty at least. Potato indeed.
 
2014-05-07 04:41:02 AM  

unyon: demaL-demaL-yeH: Darth_Lukecash: Out of curiosity, why do you concider yourself taxed twice?

Your corporation profit and your income are two seperate things, are they not? That's the benifit/cost of creating a entity that protects you as a liability and has its own rights.

Who knows, one day you only be a mere shareholder, and not work for it.

Not to mention I would love the living fark out of being able to deduct interest and expenses on my personal return.

I certainly recognize the benefits.  If I didn't, I wouldn't do things this way.  My corporate tax burden is quite reasonable where I live (15%), so I'm not railing against unreasonable taxation.  Things work out quite reasonably, and I have no qualms about paying taxes.  Having that corporate shell, as Darth_Lukecash suggests, is highly worthwhile.  Calgary is a city that is quite business-friendly that way.  There's a large number of self-employed people that can form together for projects and then disband as required, which has great efficiencies.

And a lot of the project meetings of those groups take place informally, often in pubs.  Also another direct expense that can be written off if documented properly.


What does US taxation policy have to do with your company in Canada?
 
2014-05-07 04:57:07 AM  

AngryDragon: demaL-demaL-yeH: AngryDragon: MFAWG: AngryDragon:

Do you happen to recall who negotiated that treaty?

What matters is who signed it into law.

Article II, Section 2, Clause 2 of the United States Constitution, includes the Treaty Clause, which empowers the President of the United States to propose and chiefly negotiate agreements between the United States and other countries, which become treaties between the United States and other countries.

No matter what, the man who's signature is on the document owns it.  Period.


OK. We agree: It isn't Clinton's baby.

/How do you like being hoist by your own potatoe?

Are you high?

So a treaty campaigned for by both Bill and Hillary Clinton for a year, approved by the House while he was president, ratified by the Senate while he was president, signed into law by his own hand, that he even admits to regretting in his later years...is Bush's fault?!

Just...wow. I give you points for layalty at least. Potato indeed.


Dude, what?
When Reagan announced his candidacy, NAFTA was one of his programs.
According to your own bloviation, Bush I owns NAFTA. Here he is taking ownership:
upload.wikimedia.org
Bush signs North American trade pact Clinton says he won't renegotiate

Clinton signed the  implementing legislation, which was passed mostly along party lines. (Fact: Repubilcans provided the votes to pass the implementing legislation.)

/But golly gee, revisionist history is fun.
//What's next? Pretending that the Dixiecrats of the 60s aren't the southern Republicans of today?
 
2014-05-07 06:05:55 AM  

demaL-demaL-yeH: Clinton signed the  implementing legislation, which was passed mostly along party lines. (Fact: Repubilcans provided the votes to pass the implementing legislation.)


Without which there would have been no NAFTA.  Just like Obama opting to extend PATRIOT provisions.  Once you elect to take no action to stop something from occurring when you have to full authority and power to do so, you own it.  It goes a LOT farther than that though.

"November offered two examples of sound policy and questionable politics. After Al Gore plainly bested Ross Perot in a heavily watched TV debate in NAFTA, it passed the House, 234-200. Three days later the Senate followed suit, 61-38. Al and I had called or seen two hundred members of Congress, and the cabinet had made nine hundred calls. President Carter also helped, calling members of Congress all day long for a week. We also had to make deals on a wide range of issues; the lobbying effort for NAFTA looked even more like sausage making than the budget fight had. Our whole team had won a great economic and political victory for America, but like the budget, it came at a high price, dividing our party in Congress and infuriating many of our strongest supporters in the labor movement. " - My Life by Bill Clinton p. 557

You can hallucinate all you want about who is at fault.  The simple truth is that without Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore ACTIVELY campaigning in support of NAFTA it would have been dead.  I know you guys think he was some kind of hero of labor.  He wasn't.  In the end, the Democrats could have stopped that abomination.  They didn't.
 
2014-05-07 06:55:27 AM  

AngryDragon: demaL-demaL-yeH: Clinton signed the  implementing legislation, which was passed mostly along party lines. (Fact: Repubilcans provided the votes to pass the implementing legislation.)

Without which there would have been no NAFTA.  Just like Obama opting to extend PATRIOT provisions.  Once you elect to take no action to stop something from occurring when you have to full authority and power to do so, you own it.  It goes a LOT farther than that though.

"November offered two examples of sound policy and questionable politics. After Al Gore plainly bested Ross Perot in a heavily watched TV debate in NAFTA, it passed the House, 234-200. Three days later the Senate followed suit, 61-38. Al and I had called or seen two hundred members of Congress, and the cabinet had made nine hundred calls. President Carter also helped, calling members of Congress all day long for a week. We also had to make deals on a wide range of issues; the lobbying effort for NAFTA looked even more like sausage making than the budget fight had. Our whole team had won a great economic and political victory for America, but like the budget, it came at a high price, dividing our party in Congress and infuriating many of our strongest supporters in the labor movement. " - My Life by Bill Clinton p. 557

You can hallucinate all you want about who is at fault.  The simple truth is that without Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, and Al Gore ACTIVELY campaigning in support of NAFTA it would have been dead.  I know you guys think he was some kind of hero of labor.  He wasn't.  In the end, the Democrats could have stopped that abomination.  They didn't.


Anything to avoid Republican ownership of a Republican treaty that resulted from Republican administrations' treaty negotiations that started out as a Republican platform plank.

The passage of NAFTA was a political response to the European Community's creation of a massive free trade zone and planned creation of a common currency,

None of this was done in a vacuum, and the fall of the Soviet Union was a significant triggering event for both the Europeans and for American businesses and politicians.

Additionally, the Europeans had begun to adopt semiformal and informal trade barriers in the mid to late 1980s as the Uruguay round of GATT was eliminating formal barriers. The kerfuffle over hormone-treated US beef - and US retaliation, early European adoption of ISO-9000, and similar actions were fairly typical.

The formation of the European Union threatened to place US corporations at an insurmountable and permanent competitive disadvantage in Europe.

It's not neat and pithy. It's more messy than simple. It won't fit on a bumper sticker.
That's what happens when you place actions in context.

That said, NAFTA belongs to the Republicans.
 
Displayed 46 of 46 comments


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report