The decline of entrepreneurship in America

The media is beginning to notice that there are fewer and fewer startups in the USA every year:

If you look at what’s happened in big cities around the U.S. in recent years, it’s easy to think we’re living in Startup Nation. Thanks to the plummeting cost and increased availability of digital tools, as well as greater access to early-stage funding, we’ve seen what the Economist has called a “Cambrian moment,” with digital startups “bubbling up in an astonishing variety of services and products.” The number of companies in Silicon Valley that got seed funding from investors, for instance, more than doubled between 2007 and 2012. Venture capital funding in the U.S. over the last five years has totaled a remarkable $238 billion, and 200 companies today are so-called unicorns, privately valued at more than a billion dollars each.

Meanwhile, though, a host of economic researchers have been telling a much bleaker story: American entrepreneurship is actually on the decline, and has been for decades. As the economists Ian Hathaway and Robert Litan documented in a 2014 Brookings Institution paper, the percentage of U.S. firms that were less than a year old fell by almost half between 1978 and 2011, declining precipitously during the recession of 2007-’09 with only a slow recovery after. According to the Commerce Department, the number of new businesses started by Americans has fallen sharply since 2000, and so too has the percentage of American workers working for companies that are less than a year old. Indeed, in 2013 Americans started fewer businesses than they did in 1980, when the country’s population was much smaller. This decline isn’t just due to the aging of the U.S. population—Americans of all ages just seem less likely to open new businesses than they once were. And, as Hathaway and Litan put it, the decline “has been documented across a broad range of sectors in the U.S. economy, even in high-tech.”

Speaking as a successful entrepreneur who left the country, who is the son of a very successful entrepreneur who is presently in prison, it’s not exactly difficult to understand why Americans are considerably less inclined and less able to start businesses than they were 36 years ago.

  1. The rapacious and criminal tax agencies. You would probably not believe the shenanigans and outright lies these agents habitually engage in if you did not see it in black-and-white documents right in front of you. Even those who think my father merited an amount of jail time for his actions are aghast when they find out what actually happened, and how absurdly egregious the behavior of the various agencies was.
  2. The increasing regulatory and reporting burden. Why go to the effort of building up a company when doing so is the equivalent of painting a big red target on your chest? As one of my entrepreneurial friends said after shutting down his company and taking a job for a big tech firm, “it’s so nice not having to deal with all that shit anymore.” In the USA, self-employment often feels more like working for the government as a paper-pusher. Just trying to get your head around why part-time external contractors who are clearly not your employees must be treated as employees for various compliance purposes is enough to give anyone a headache.
  3. The criminalization of commerce. These days, it’s more work to file the paperwork required to get paid by a big corporation than it is to do the work itself.
  4. The dumbing-down of the populace. Thanks to post-1965 immigration, Americans are 4-6 IQ points less intelligent than they were back in 1980. Less intelligent people are less inclined to start jobs.
  5. Emigration. Many of the American expats I meet around the world are highly intelligent and entrepreneurial. Few of them have any desire or intention to return to the USA. This is a fairly small group of people, but they are a statistically significant percentage of the entrepreneurial class.
  6. International competition. The Internet and semi-free trade means that one no longer needs to live in the USA to have access to its markets. So, would-be American entrepreneurs are much more likely to be beaten to the punch by foreign entrepreneurs exploiting American markets than was the case in 1980.
  7. The politicization of culture. Why start, say, a bakery, if you know you’re going to be forced to choose between being sued into oblivion and violating your conscience as well as your right to free association?
That being said, the situation isn’t much better elsewhere. The worse the global economy gets, the more desperate the various governments are for tax revenue, and the more intensely they go tax-hunting among the successful entrepreneurial class. The first country to offer legal protection and operational assistance to the international entrepreneurs being preyed on in this manner is going to do very well indeed, and do so at the expense of the other countries.

Just wait, Germany

I don’t think the German leadership has yet understood the lesson of #Brexit:

German Leadership Aghast at a Brexit It Helped Cause

Germans – especially German politicians – are waking up this morning to the Brexit reality, and their initial reactions are predictable.  Shock appears to be the overwhelming emotion, followed closely by sadness, anger, and then subdued panic.

The Social Democratic Party, a partner in the governing black-red coalition, has called for an emergency session of the Bundestag today.  (One wonders what this would accomplish except perhaps to issue a statement aimed at shoring up EU solidarity in other wavering member states, or maybe just express petulance.)  Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier spoke of a “sad day for Europe and Great Britain,” while the leader of the Left faction, Sahra Wagenknecht, used the occasion to lambaste the influence of corporations and lobbyists in Brussels (a non-factor in the British vote, as far as I know).

One of the more thoughtful commentaries today is from Torsten Krauel in the right-of-center Die Welt.  Krauel asks whether German Chancellor Merkel is partially to blame for the Brexit and concludes her asylum policy almost certainly played a major role.  And indeed, the spectacle of Germany unilaterally deciding to change the face and future of the European Union by announcing Berlin had opened the doors to all comers – regardless of the wishes of or the impact this would have on other EU states – has been a powerful symbol of elite disconnect with the concerns of average Europeans and an uncomfortable reminder that Germany has come to dominate the union.  Krauel also points out Dover, the British end of the Channel Tunnel to the continent, voted 60 percent to leave.  Maybe this has something to do with the thousands of North African migrants seeking to storm the tunnel and cross to England?

While loathe to admit it, Germans at some level suspect their country’s role in the discontent in Britain.  Speaking to German friends over the past several years, it’s been difficult not to come away with the sense many view the EU as an extension of Germany policy and as a respectable outlet for German nationalism that has been suppressed since the end of World War II.  A new path to German greatness, if you will, camouflaged by warm and fuzzy words about “Europeaness” and immune to complaints of skeptics, all of whom immediately are labeled as right-wing extremists – the kiss of death in German politics.

For me, one of the takeaways from the referendum is the reminder that people care deeply about things other than pure economic interest.

Imagine how surprised the German elites will be when their own nationalists throw them out of power, and if justice is served, put them on trial for their crimes against the nation.

Quintessential cuckservatism

Rod Dreher demonstrates the effete and useless nature of modern conservatism:

The Speaker of the House of Representatives was shouted down by Democratic Congressman as he attempted to regain control of the House of Representatives. Actual US Congressmen behaving like a bunch of giddy Oberlin undergraduates.

They had better not give in. Look, on gun control matters, I am generally — generally — more sympathetic to Democrats than to Republicans. But this mob insurrection on the House floor is profoundly unsettling. I have not looked closely at the legislation, so it is entirely possible that I might support the Democratic proposal. But to attempt to get one’s way by showing utter contempt for rules of the House? No. No, no, no. Their passion does not justify their behavior.

This country is in trouble.

You know he’s serious when he resorts to no less than FOUR (4) nos. This useless, limp-wristed excuse for a purported conservative “opinion leader”, this hapless, low-testosterone shadow of a man, is more concerned about fucking etiquette, than he is about the single most important right in the Bill of Rights.

“Dear God, they’re sitting on the floor! Heavens to Betsy, whatever shall we do?”

If you want to understand the key difference between the Alt Right and the Conservative movement, all you need to do is look at Rod Dreher. If he strikes you as a strong and principled Christian man standing up for what is right and true and important, then you are most definitely a Conservative.

If he strikes you as missing the point so badly that he would have done far better to put on a dress, smear some lipstick on his face, and record a video reading from Amy Vanderbilt’s Complete Book of Etiquette, you just might be Alt Right.

Why gun control will never happen

Scott Adams explains the political impossibility of gun control in the USA:

On average, Democrats (that’s my team*) use guns for shooting the innocent. We call that crime.

On average, Republicans use guns for sporting purposes and self-defense.

If you don’t believe me, you can check the statistics on the Internet that don’t exist. At least I couldn’t find any that looked credible.

But we do know that race and poverty are correlated. And we know that poverty and crime are correlated. And we know that race and political affiliation are correlated. Therefore, my team (Clinton) is more likely to use guns to shoot innocent people, whereas the other team (Trump) is more likely to use guns for sporting and defense.

That’s a gross generalization. Obviously. Your town might be totally different.

So it seems to me that gun control can’t be solved because Democrats are using guns to kill each other – and want it to stop – whereas Republicans are using guns to defend against Democrats. Psychologically, those are different risk profiles. And you can’t reconcile those interests, except on the margins. For example, both sides might agree that rocket launchers are a step too far. But Democrats are unlikely to talk Republicans out of gun ownership because it comes off as “Put down your gun so I can shoot you.”

It does indeed, and not only to Republicans. What gun control advocates don’t understand is that they are advocating a very violent civil war that will lead to the end of the Union. Millions of Americans all across the country will absolutely shoot anyone who attempts to disarm them, and moreover, are also willing to shoot anyone who advocated their disarming.

We all know that the government has its lists. Do you really think that gun owners don’t too? The only reason they’re not shooting gun control advocates now is because they don’t believe it to be necessary in order to keep their guns.

Do you really want to convince them otherwise?

Layouts wanted

We’re looking for 2-3 layout artists who have Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator, and Acrobat and are good with tight detail work to help us get caught up on our print editions. Mac or PC is okay, but it has to be Photoshop and Acrobat proper, not any of the various alternatives. Illustrator can be replaced with a similar vector-based alternative. We’ll pay up to $100 per PB/HC pair; no design is required as we’ll provide the covers and the basic spine designs. The PB/HC will always be the same size.

We have a number of important announcements coming over the next few weeks, which means we want to increase our production capabilities. If you think you’re able and you’re interested, email me with LAYOUT in the title.

The brighter side of Pink SF

Of course, these are Democrats in general, once we limit the discussion to the SJW subset you can be certain that far more than a paltry 34.4 percent of them are suffering from depression or some other mental health issue. These people are not sane or healthy, they are quite literally sick in mind, body, and soul. Case in point: our friends at File 770.

Tasha Turner:

Any trigger warnings for Seveneves? One of the few things I still need to read to finish off my Hugo voting. I’ve had a couple things trigger my PTSD over the last couple weeks and am trying to avoiding books with of my major issues: abuse, suicide, torture, fridging, loads of graphic violence…

Paul Weimer:

RE: Fifth Season. I concur with many above. Not a happy book, and if I was in one of my down depressive cycles, definitely not the book I should be personally reading. Fortunately I read it when I was on an even keel and so was able to absorb the book’s bleak tone (Starting WITH the apocalypse, and not getting happier from there) with equanimity.

Sounds like a fun, upbeat, and totally stable group of people, doesn’t it? I may have to rethink my Hugo voting order; if N.K. Jeminsin’s Hugo-nominated The Fifth Season is inspiring SJWs to off themselves, maybe there is something to this award-winning Pink SF sewage after all!

Article 50

A number of people have been asking what comes next. Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty is the guide.

Article 50

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the Union in accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European Council of its intention. In the light of the guidelines provided by the European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article 218(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. It shall be concluded on behalf of the Union by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining the consent of the European Parliament.

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it. 

A qualified majority shall be defined in accordance with Article 238(3)(b) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

5. If a State which has withdrawn from the Union asks to rejoin, its request shall be subject to the procedure referred to in Article 49.

The EU has no legal mechanism for deny withdrawal to any Member State. This does not mean they won’t try to do so, but it does mean they cannot do so in a legal manner. I expect they’ll simply try to draw it out, as the EU President has already suggested.

Donald Trump on #Brexit

Statement Regarding British Referendum on E.U. Membership


The people of the United Kingdom have exercised the sacred right of all free peoples. They have declared their independence from the European Union, and have voted to reassert control over their own politics, borders and economy. A Trump Administration pledges to strengthen our ties with a free and independent Britain, deepening our bonds in commerce, culture and mutual defense. The whole world is more peaceful and stable when our two countries – and our two peoples – are united together, as they will be under a Trump Administration.


Come November, the American people will have the chance to re-declare their independence. Americans will have a chance to vote for trade, immigration and foreign policies that put our citizens first. They will have the chance to reject today’s rule by the global elite, and to embrace real change that delivers a government of, by and for the people. I hope America is watching, it will soon be time to believe in America again.


Let #Brexit be the beginning. Let the winds of nationalism rise around the world and sweep the New Babel of our globalist would-be rulers into the dust bin of history where it belongs.

England and Wales choose freedom

The Fourth Reich is rejected by a narrow margin, 52 percent to 48 percent, thanks to the actual British people, who outvoted the invaders, the traitors, the sell-outs, and the Scots:

The English shires and Labour’s northern heartlands led Britain out of the European Union in a victory for middle England.

Despite Britain’s biggest cities backing a Remain vote at yesterday’s historic referendum, the country overall headed for the Brexit door.

The results caused immediate turmoil in the markets as the pound collapsed by more than 10 per cent in the hours after the polls closed and the FTSE-100 braced for heavy losses.

Nigel Farage – who earlier appeared to concede defeat – made a jubilant victory speech at around 4am declaring it was a ‘victory for ordinary people’.

Tory constituencies across the south and midlands voted for Brexit in huge numbers.

Places such as Wellingborough, West Somerset and Chesterfield all voted for leave by more 60 per cent.

The referendum map was painted blue for Out across vast swathes of England – despite London and Scotland being bright yellow.

Mr Farage told a jubilant Leave.EU rally in central London: ‘Dare to dream that the dawn is breaking on an independent United Kingdom.

‘This, if the predictions now are right, this will be a victory for real people, a victory for ordinary people, a victory for decent people.

‘We have fought against the multinationals, we have fought against the big merchant banks, we have fought against big politics, we have fought against lies, corruption and deceit.

‘And today honesty, decency and belief in nation, I think now is going to win.

‘And we will have done it without having to fight, without a single bullet being fired, we’d have done it by damned hard work on the ground.’

Some thoughts on the successful #Brexit referendum.

  1. Nothing in his political career has become David Cameron like the manner of his leaving the Prime Ministership. He was dignified and graceful in defeat. I was genuinely surprised that he not only did the right thing, but did it very well. Even though he chose the wrong side and led the enemy charge, it must not be forgotten that he gave the British people their chance.
  2. The referendum was an exercise in the failure of Magic Dirt and why immigrants should never be granted the right to vote. Nor should their children or grandchildren. Few of them give a damn about Britain and it showed in their vote.
  3. Let Scotland hold their second referendum and then let them go. They are a huge political anchor that threatens England’s very survival.
  4. The war isn’t over. #Brexit is a victory, and an important one, but it was just a battle. The war goes on.
  5. “Remember Jo Cox” should be the response to anyone who calls for Parliament to ignore the clearly expressed will of the British people. If Parliament refuses to respect the referendum, violence will almost surely be among the various consequences.
  6. Bring on Fixit, Ixit, and Grexit! Nationalism has only begun to rise in Europe.

UK independence results

This is an open thread to discuss the UK referendum on the European Union. The general tone of the media is that it is going to be a close 52-48 vote for Remain. If so, the failure of Scotland to secede from the Kingdom will prove very costly for England.

The best place to track results is at the Guardian.

UPDATE: So far, REMAIN vote in Scottish and N Ireland strongholds is weaker than expected. It’s looking good for LEAVE barring big Remain overperformance in London.

UPDATE 2: Scotland has smaller margins with smaller turnouts than predicted. If there are 2-3 more big Leave overperformances, we can safely conclude Leave will win.

UPDATE 3: Turnout in LEAVE areas is 10 percent higher than reported. Basildon votes 2:1 for leave. That’s the first overperformance. At this point, we can begin to conclude Leave will win.

UPDATE 4: Second biggest city in Wales, Swansea, narrowly votes Leave. It’s a strong Labour city, and indicates Wales is overall going to vote Leave. That’s the second overperformance for Leave. I now conclude the result will be 55 Leave 45 Remain.

UPDATE 5: Prof. Thrasher forecasts 56 Leave 44 Remain result on Sky News on the basis of current returns vs pre-vote estimates. However, first Remain outperformance appears in Oxford.

UPDATE 6: First bad sign for Leave. First two London authorities are at 69 percent turnout, 76 percent Remain. However, Glasgow turnout was only 56 percent.

Very amusing to see how the talking heads on TV simply don’t understand the significance of turnout. And with that, I’ll turn it over to you all to track how it goes. I’m optimistic, but I’m not certain. I would have felt much more confident about Leave winning if the first London turnout had been under 65 percent.