What can the Government do, aside from spending money to boost the economy?

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So, much the same as Japan then. Or even China. How many resources does Taiwan have? Then you have places like the Philippines and many African countries, bulging with resources but no industry to speak of. We can draw lessons from all of these.

China - I am not even going to bother replying to that comment.

Taiwan / Japan have competitive advantages in consumer electronics.
We. Don't.

SimpleSam wrote:

Same way as any business gets started. Take your pick, examine the market in that industry, and work out how you can produce competitive products or services. There is still a lot of legroom in most industries.

Do you understand the concept of comparative advantage?

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote: »

China - I am not even going to bother replying to that comment.

Sorry, what don't you like about that. China imports massive amounts of raw resources every year to fuel their industrial base. Resources aren't an issue for them.

Deleted User wrote: »

Taiwan / Japan have competitive advantages in consumer electronics.
We. Don't.

They didn't start out with that advantage, they accumulated it over time. Better to start now than be stuck fifty years down the line still wringing our hands and crying "but we can't".

Deleted User wrote: »

Do you understand the concept of comparative advantage?

You seem to have a real problem with the idea that Ireland could possibly support any industrial base at all. Your only rebuttal was the lack of resources available in Ireland. I responded to that. Oh yes, and:

The primary Natural resources of Ireland, include natural gas, petroleum, peat, copper, lead, dolomite, barite, limestone, gypsum, silver and some zinc.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sorry, what don't you like about that. China imports massive amounts of raw resources every year to fuel their industrial base. Resources aren't an issue for them.

Sorry, I presumed it was common knowledge that it is cheaper to make something in China and ship it around the world then to produce it elsewhere.

China has a cost advantage in production, yes they import resources but they can make things out of these resources for cheaper then elsewhere.

They didn't start out with that advantage, they accumulated it over time. Better to start now than be stuck fifty years down the line still wringing our hands and crying "but we can't".

Switzerland has pretty much an monopoly in making good watches. Yet production in switzerland is not cheap. Why is this?

Countries with first mover advantage (eg CHF for watches, JPY for consumer electronics) can now produce things for less then the start up / intial production costs in countries that have cheaper labour costs.

Add to that the effect of learning curve and you start to see why we can't just decide to make something off the bat, you need to have an advantage in it for it to be profitable.

For china - they had people working in a subsistence environment, from which it is easy to switch into production as it is a benefit to all.

You seem to have a real problem with the idea that Ireland could possibly support any industrial base at all. Your only rebuttal was the lack of resources available in Ireland. I responded to that. Oh yes, and:

Because I have a gold filling in my mouth - do I start a jewelery store? We don't have enough of these resources to either compete or build a sustainable industry.

My problem is with the fact that the world is a lot more complicated then the way you are suggesting it.

Do you expect Ronan Murphy? Director of a non exportable industry to pack it in and start shovelling turf (an exportable product)?

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote: »

Sorry, I presumed it was common knowledge that it is cheaper to make something in China and ship it around the world then to produce it elsewhere.

Sorry, I presumed we were talking about resource availability, not production costs.

Deleted User wrote: »

Switzerland has pretty much an monopoly in making good watches. Yet production in switzerland is not cheap. Why is this?

Monopoly my arse. I have a €500 seiko on my wrist right now, and I'm very happy with it. Quality costs more, no matter where it comes from. Have you thought about that in your quest for Ireland's competitive advantage?

Deleted User wrote: »

Countries with first mover advantage (eg CHF for watches, JPY for consumer electronics) can now produce things for less then the start up / intial production costs in countries that have cheaper labour costs.

Yes, this is why all computers are now built in the USA.

Deleted User wrote: »

Add to that the effect of learning curve and you start to see why we can't just decide to make something off the bat, you need to have an advantage in it for it to be profitable.

By your logic nobody would ever start a business, unless there was some immediate clear advantage that only they had. Sorry, thats not how business has ever worked.

Deleted User wrote: »

Because I have a gold filling in my mouth - do I start a jewelery store? We don't have enough of these resources to either compete or build a sustainable industry.

Hey you were the one that was making out we had no natural resources worth speaking of. There are many mining companies that would disagree with you. There might be many more if the government allowed prospecting for uranium.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Sorry, I presumed we were talking about resource availability, not production costs.

Monopoly my arse. I have a €500 seiko on my wrist right now, and I'm very happy with it. Quality costs more, no matter where it comes from. Have you thought about that in your quest for Ireland's competitive advantage?

Again, learning curve, production costs, and dare I say it, Marketing.

You can't just decide ad hoc that 'Ireland will be the watch making capital of the world'. Lets say Ireland tried to do that..

1) Cost of building a watch industry

From scratch, very expensive. Huge fixed costs mean that straight off any watches we produce are going to be very expensive

2) Building watches -

First off, they would be crap. It takes time to make a quality product. But we already know that these watches will cost a lot, so we are producing expensive crap (which is exactly what happens when you produce somthing you don't have an advantage in)

Yes, this is why all computers are now built in the USA.

note the difference between assembles and built.

I bought a dell that was assembled in ireland but the components were not built here.

By your logic nobody would ever start a business, unless there was some immediate clear advantage that only they had. Sorry, thats not how business has ever worked.

Thats how every bloody business works! You do something because people pay you to do it. You do what you are good at, because it is easier to do better at it. I am tone deaf, i am never going to be a music teacher. However, if I am good at mechanical things, I may become an engineer.

Seriously, econ101 here...

Hey you were the one that was making out we had no natural resources worth speaking of. There are many mining companies that would disagree with you. There might be many more if the government allowed prospecting for uranium.

Yes, there are mines here and yes, we can make some money out of this but they are not long term (we run out, some mine just announced that it will be finished in 5 years) and again, we can only produce if the global price is greater then the production price - so we are still dependent on an exogenous variable.

Now, countries with an advantage in mining ie OPEC countries, south american copper producing countries will make more money as they have lower costs.. see where I am going here?

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote: »

Again, learning curve, production costs, and dare I say it, Marketing.

In your watch making analogy, you failed to witness the progress of history. Seiko started out building dodgy little plastic devices, simple and almost a byword for "cheap watches". Now I have a very expensive and attractive Seiko on my wrist. You can't just leap into it and expect a full blown industry to pop out of the ether.

The point you are missing is that we cannot continue to be dependent on other countries' direct investment forever, that is suicidal. We need to start this process, and the sooner it starts, the sooner we can be world class contenders.

Deleted User wrote: »

note the difference between assembles and built.

I bought a dell that was assembled in ireland but the components were not built here.

That was my point.

Deleted User wrote: »

Thats how every bloody business works! You do something because people pay you to do it. You do what you are good at, because it is easier to do better at it. I am tone deaf, i am never going to be a music teacher. However, if I am good at mechanical things, I may become an engineer.

Seriously, econ101 here...

Seriously, grasp this. People aren't born as engineers and music teachers. You don't need to have an overwhelming startout advantage, which is what you seem to be saying. Things are not nearly so black and white as you might think - just because there are competitors doesn't mean you should just quit. In fact, that there are competitors indicates a healthy demand for a product, I would view that as a good thing.

Deleted User wrote: »

Now, countries with an advantage in mining ie OPEC countries, south american copper producing countries will make more money as they have lower costs.. see where I am going here?

I weep, I seriously do. NOBODY is suggesting that Ireland exports raw resources like those countries. NONE of those countries you mentioned have a significant industrial base. There is no reason why we cannot follow in the footsteps of countries with a significant industrial base and poor local resources, unless you are just "ah them paddies are thick, sure what can they do".

This particular discussion is starting to go round in circles, so unless you have something new to add, which I sincerely doubt, I'll leave it there.

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

So, much the same as Japan then. Or even China. How many resources does Taiwan have? Then you have places like the Philippines and many African countries, bulging with resources but no industry to speak of. We can draw lessons from all of these.

Those are terrible examples of countries to follow (bar Japan).

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

If you're referring to the recent Enterprise Ireland grant scheme, that's a fairly ludicrous effort that highlights the ignorance of beaurocrats when it comes to the SME sector, typically enough in my experience. Among the criteria for available assistance were "training key managers" and "technology aquisition". Worthless to most companies.

What is needed is

• a streamlined business accounting and registration process
• remove the red tape
• a direct channel for investors to find and fund startups, and ideally some measure of insurance for investors so that they won't take a bath entirely if their enterprise goes under (even a nominal amount would provide assurance). Either that or joint funding. This involves an element of risk mind you, something alien to the public sector.
• easy access to enterprise grants (and I mean grants, not just the find your own funding and we'll refund you a small percentage of that when you hand us the receipts)
• a grace period of a few years for taxation on startups
• foreign marketing assistance - if you want export based industries you need to form partnerships with foreign sales groups, and data on existing markets
• possibly a relaxation of IP laws to encourage innovation

Thats off the top of my head, I'm sure I could come up with a few more ideas if I spent a couple of hours on it.

Well, i wasn't but that was a nice rant all the same.

I am referring to:

• Huge investment in research - €2.5 billion in National Development Plan 2000-2006 earmarked for R&D and Innovation
• Major sectoral funding programmes
• Establishment of Science Foundation Ireland (2000) and Programme for Research in Third Level Institutions (PRTLI)
• Established in 2000
• Key areas: Biotechnology and ICT (Information and Communications Technologies)
• Funds research based on excellence of science
• Funds large and small programmes and conferences and workshops
• Established > 160 new research groups
• 34 of these led by international scientists brought to Ireland by SFI
• Seven Centres for Science, Engineering and Technology (CSET, e.g., Alimentary Pharmabiotic Centre at UCC)
• Industry research heavily promoted
• Targets to increase PhD numbers significantly
• Position of chief science advisor to Irish Cabinet

Basically all of the recommendations stipulated in the Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation. A plan that aims to move Ireland into the high technology sector and follow the models of Finland or Iceland and not Taiwan like you suggest.

daveirl

This post has been deleted.

SimpleSam06

daithifleming wrote: »

Those are terrible examples of countries to follow (bar Japan).

I didn't say we should follow their lead, I said we should learn from them. Specifically from their mistakes.

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, i wasn't but that was a nice rant all the same.

It was, wasn't it?

daithifleming wrote: »

Basically all of the recommendations stipulated in the Strategy for Science, Technology and Innovation. A plan that aims to move Ireland into the high technology sector and follow the models of Finland or Iceland and not Taiwan like you suggest.

And the total number of export based industries that have come out of these intiatives? In fact the total number of commercial entities that have come out of these no doubt worthy investments of public money? Seriously, I'd be delighted to know that my irritation with the government is misplaced, and we are happily sailing into a secure economic future.

These measures are all well and good but again they highlight the essentially beaurocratic (non commercial) nature of government involvement to date. This fundamental lack of understanding of what business is won't do the country at large any good in the short to mid term, although they may have some value in the long term. To someone, anyway, even if its not the Irish people.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

In your watch making analogy, you failed to witness the progress of history. Seiko started out building dodgy little plastic devices, simple and almost a byword for "cheap watches". Now I have a very expensive and attractive Seiko on my wrist. You can't just leap into it and expect a full blown industry to pop out of the ether.

You really don't get this do you...

You want Ireland to become an export orientated production economy in order to prevent us from becoming dependent on the non exportable service industry. The latter part of the sentence is reasonable, I agree that over dependency on services is a bad thing.

However, if we go down the route of production, then we must suffer years of no-to-low economic growth and, providing we make it as an export orientated country, we are still dependent on an exogenous factor - namely whatever it is which we are exporting.

We. Don't. Have. An. Advantage. In. Production. Full Stop.
Eastern Europe, China, Asia, South America and Africa can produce things for export for far less cost then we can.

Therefore, we focus on what we are good at. Off the top of my head there are two things:

-People
-Agriculture

The government is focusing on investment in people, investment in 4th level education has seriously increased over the last while. We have smart people which firms are looking for.

Agriculture becomes a policial issue which I am not willing to discuss here.

The point you are missing is that we cannot continue to be dependent on other countries' direct investment forever, that is suicidal. We need to start this process, and the sooner it starts, the sooner we can be world class contenders.

Unless we go the whole hog of isolationism, we will always be dependent on other countries - trade is a two way deal here, people need to buy what we produce/make/provide.

My point (and that of general Interantional Economics) is to make/do/produce what you are good at.

Seriously, grasp this. People aren't born as engineers and music teachers. You don't need to have an overwhelming startout advantage, which is what you seem to be saying. Things are not nearly so black and white as you might think - just because there are competitors doesn't mean you should just quit. In fact, that there are competitors indicates a healthy demand for a product, I would view that as a good thing.

Wrong, people do what they have an advantage in doing, seriously, this is not a hard concept to grasp. I study financial economics because

-a) I like it
-b) I am good at it.

Therefore, I should look for work where I can use these skills.

I will never by a teacher - I could train as one, but what is the point? Other people will be better then me and be able to do the same level of work for less effort. Ergo, I don't become a teacher.

Of course, there will be exceptions given the size of the population and the lack of perfect competition among job offerers. However, (I say it again) People Work at What they have an advantage in.

Of course competitors are a good thing - but, and try and follow me here, lets say there are 10 people going for five jobs. Competition (the same competition that exists in global markets) will ensure that five best people (ie most talented) people will get the job, and not the other five people who really aren't good at the job but want to do it...

Get my drift?

I weep, I seriously do. NOBODY is suggesting that Ireland exports raw resources like those countries. NONE of those countries you mentioned have a significant industrial base. There is no reason why we cannot follow in the footsteps of countries with a significant industrial base and poor local resources, unless you are just "ah them paddies are thick, sure what can they do".

You just did...

I asked you what do we have an advantage in.. You linked in some wikipedia facts saying we have x resources..

Ireland has an advantage in its people - thats where the investment should lie..

Now, I am not saying that all investment should go into this, but the government is investing in its people in order to try and create a knowledge based economy.

There will still be people working in McDonalds, and I'm sure ABS pumps and Sola lenses will be making (and exporting) pumps and lenses down in Wexford, but why prop an industry that is going to get hammered in international markets?

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote: »

I study financial economics

I directly and solely own a spectrum of businesses with offices on three continents, so I'll be giving your opinions due regard.

Seriously, even in your last comment there are so many holes I could drive a truck through. You mention agriculture as one of our strong points. You are aware that agriculture in this country only exists through massive subsidies designed to keep us from being dependent on tinpot third world dictators?

We don't have any particular advantages in production, but then again we don't have any special disadvantages. Say resources again, I dare you.

Why would you focus on one particular export product and hence be dependent upon that? Why didn't the rest of the world stop exporting since these third world countries are so much better at it?

The actual point of international economics, and one which I and many others have leveraged greatly, is that one man can do what another can do, not "do what you're good at".

When you don't have an advantage, you make an advantage. This is business. I find your utter disdain for the ability of the Irish people to do so, offensive, not to mention extremely ill informed.

SimpleSam06

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I directly and solely own a spectrum of businesses with offices on three continents, so I'll be giving your opinions due regard.

Ah yes, the e-penis effect..

Seriously, even in your last comment there are so many holes I could drive a truck through.

then please do -

We don't have any particular advantages in production, but then again we don't have any special disadvantages. Say resources again, I dare you.

Our spiraling costs would be one off the top of my head..
The whole being in surrounded by water another (less important) one..
Resources ARE a factor..
The lack of a tradition of producing, and hence being on the wrong end of the learning curve...

Why would you focus on one particular export product and hence be dependent upon that?

Why indeed?

Why didn't the rest of the world stop exporting since these third world countries are so much better at it?

Eh... how about all those firms outsourcing and switching production to China?? The country with comparative advantage..

The actual point of international economics, and one which I and many others have leveraged greatly, is that one man can do what another can do, not "do what you're good at".

Show a bona fide source who advocates

When you don't have an advantage, you make an advantage. This is business. I find your utter disdain for the ability of the Irish people to do so, offensive, not to mention extremely ill informed.

You can't just pull an "advantage" out of your arse.. you either have it or you don't.. many countries have potential advantages, but don't use them. However the potential is there.. and we don't have one in production of exportable goods. No matter how much you wish it were case.

I find this 'the Irish can do anything' attitude both infantile and insulting..

nesf

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I directly and solely own a spectrum of businesses with offices on three continents, so I'll be giving your opinions due regard.

Um, how do you find the time to post so much here then? I'm genuinely curious.

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

And the total number of export based industries that have come out of these intiatives?

Well, the plan has only been fully implemented in the last one and a half years, so give it time, would you?

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

In fact the total number of commercial entities that have come out of these no doubt worthy investments of public money? Seriously, I'd be delighted to know that my irritation with the government is misplaced, and we are happily sailing into a secure economic future.

See above, I think the best model for Ireland in the future is Finland, and this is exactly what the govt are aiming at.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

These measures are all well and good but again they highlight the essentially beaurocratic (non commercial) nature of government involvement to date. This fundamental lack of understanding of what business is won't do the country at large any good in the short to mid term, although they may have some value in the long term. To someone, anyway, even if its not the Irish people.

It is aimed at stimulating business, and is a very wise move, in my opinion. They are acknowledging that the manufacturing sector is out the gap and are attempting to stimulate R&D. These are exactly the recommendations anyone would make looking at Ireland's economic indicators. I don't know what you are harping on about really. What do you see as the way forward in your grand vision? No bullet points, just stick to a couple of topics.

SimpleSam06

Deleted User wrote:

Ah yes, the e-penis effect..

No, its a real penis, I assure you.

Deleted User wrote:

The lack of a tradition of producing

And that is the main thrust of your entire objection to the concept. Sure we never have so we never will.

nesf wrote:

Um, how do you find the time to post so much here then? I'm genuinely curious.

Delegation is a wonderful thing. Also sleeping four hours a day does help.

daithifleming wrote: »

Well, the plan has only been fully implemented in the last one and a half years, so give it time, would you?

Well connect me so, whats the link between these projects and a widespread industrial base? Surely the government has a roadmap for that as well?

daithifleming wrote: »

See above, I think the best model for Ireland in the future is Finland, and this is exactly what the govt are aiming at.

I disagree. The knowledge economy is only enabled by a race to the bottom in terms of manpower and industrial capability (get someone else to do your heavy lifting), but it is not sustainable for even a mid term duration. I am aware that this is a very complex and in depth topic, so I'll call it my opinion and leave that.

daithifleming wrote: »

It is aimed at stimulating business, and is a very wise move, in my opinion. They are acknowledging that the manufacturing sector is out the gap and are attempting to stimulate R&D. These are exactly the recommendations anyone would make looking at Ireland's economic indicators.

I agree its not bad, I just don't think its enough and its not in the right direction.

daithifleming wrote: »

I don't know what you are harping on about really. What do you see as the way forward in your grand vision? No bullet points, just stick to a couple of topics.

What confused you about the bullet points.

nesf

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

Also sleeping four hours a day does help.

You should get that looked at.

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

No, its a real penis, I assure you.


And that is the main thrust of your entire objection to the concept. Sure we never have so we never will.


Delegation is a wonderful thing. Also sleeping four hours a day does help.


Well connect me so, whats the link between these projects and a widespread industrial base? Surely the government has a roadmap for that as well?


I disagree. The knowledge economy is only enabled by a race to the bottom in terms of manpower and industrial capability (get someone else to do your heavy lifting), but it is not sustainable for even a mid term duration. I am aware that this is a very complex and in depth topic, so I'll call it my opinion and leave that.


I agree its not bad, I just don't think its enough and its not in the right direction.


What confused you about the bullet points.

Because all i see you talking is empty rhetoric, and no coherent argument backed by empirical evidence.


HINT: I think you are talking ****.

SimpleSam06

daithifleming wrote: »

HINT: I think you are talking ****.

See, this is why I don't bother telling people what I do anymore.

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

See, this is why I don't bother telling people what I do anymore.

Thank you for vilifying my belief.

SimpleSam06

daithifleming wrote: »

follow the models of Finland or Iceland and not Taiwan like you suggest.

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I disagree. The knowledge economy is only enabled by a race to the bottom in terms of manpower and industrial capability (get someone else to do your heavy lifting), but it is not sustainable for even a mid term duration.

I don't often, say this, and when I do its as a measure of my respect for a debating opponent, but lol.

While financial stocks were being battered on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean, in between one goverment was scrambling to prevent a meltdown of an entire economy.

Iceland, which has boomed on the back of exponential growth in its banking sector, is now suffering in the clutches of the credit crunch.

One commentator said: "Iceland is being treated like one big toxic hedge fund. It's a tiny country whose corporate and banking sectors have leveraged up to get better returns and punch way above their weight. That leverage is now magnifying their losses. The story doesn't make sense any more. Nobody wants anything to do with it."

In recent weeks the Icelandic kroner has plummeted in value, the banks have had millions of dollars wiped off their stock and lending lines from both American and European banks have been savagely curtailed. As with HBOS, Kaupthing, Iceland's biggest bank, has been besieged by rumours that it could be nationalised, although the government and management deny any liquidity issues. Even so, traders in credit default swaps (CDS) have pushed the cost of protecting the country's three main banks' debt against default to stratospheric levels, leaving the banks facing prohibitively high funding costs.

CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??

daithifleming wrote: »

Thank you for vilifying my belief.

Jesus its like a kindergarten around here. Is it at all possible you meant "verifying"? For some things, theres a spellchecker, for everything else theres an education.

shnaek

As far as encouraging enterprise in Ireland goes, does anyone else think it's a real shame that the two Limerick lads had to go to America to get funding for their company? Enterprise Ireland turned them down over here. Probably told them to go on a course. That's what I've been told both times I went to them with ideas.

Unless we get our attitude right, and start thinking like the Americans to when it comes to starting up business, then we are never going to grow indigenous industry here.

nesf

shnaek wrote: »

As far as encouraging enterprise in Ireland goes, does anyone else think it's a real shame that the two Limerick lads had to go to America to get funding for their company?

Details? That's not necessarily a bad thing, a company idea that would work in the States is not necessarily a company idea that would work here.

Time Magazine

They were kids, something like 19 and 15. They said if they'd wanted €20k from Enterprise Ireland, they'd have to match the investment themselves. That principle isn't a bad general rule for obvious public-return reasons; but it does cause obviously problems for people who have simply no access to capital. EI have said they'll look into lightening restrictions.

Ekancone

SimpleSam06 wrote: »

I don't often, say this, and when I do its as a measure of my respect for a debating opponent, but lol.



CAN YOU HEAR ME NOW??


Jesus its like a kindergarten around here. Is it at all possible you meant "verifying"? For some things, theres a spellchecker, for everything else theres an education.

Moronic. So you believe a global systematic banking crisis and speculative attacks on the Icelandic Krona means that I have somehow been proved wrong? None of this detracts from the reality of Icelands economic achievements of the past decade, as the problems it is experiencing now are being mirrored across the globe. Once again you have shown yourself up with your lack of economic knowledge/intuition.

By the way, attacking grammatical errors is the lowest form of debate, and belongs in this kindergarten you so fondly refer to. For some people, there are self-formed opinions based on years of education, for others, there is relying on the media to tell you what to think. How sad.

shnaek

Ibid wrote: »

They were kids, something like 19 and 15.

But we aren't talking about just any 19 year old here. One of them was a former Irish Young Scientist of the Year and runner up European Young Scientist of the Year. Surely that deserves the attention of Enterprise Ireland?

If they aren't going to fund a young scientist of the year, who are they going to fund? The son of a politician? The daughter of someone they know? Or some rich kid with 20k in their pocket?

nesf

shnaek wrote: »

But we aren't talking about just any 19 year old here. One of them was a former Irish Young Scientist of the Year and runner up European Young Scientist of the Year. Surely that deserves the attention of Enterprise Ireland?

Being bright and capable doesn't mean you know how to run a business. The problem with a 19 year old is that they don't have a lot of business experience and while you will meet exceptions who were born to be entrepreneurs, it's still a big risk to take backing them. If you've not had a chance to see how a business works from the inside (either through employment or through a family member running their own business) then it can be very hard to make one work. Arguably the gap between employee and employer can be huge in terms of knowledge but a diligent and observant person can figure out a lot from working for other people for a while.

shnaek wrote: »

If they aren't going to fund a young scientist of the year, who are they going to fund? The son of a politician? The daughter of someone they know? Or some rich kid with 20k in their pocket?

Matching grants are good though for these kinds of things. They get rid of most of the wasters (yes, some good people/ideas can't get funding and this is a problem but it's worth it imho). If I was offered 20K with no strings attached I could think of a bunch of business ideas, most very risky. If I had to put 20K of my own money into it, I'd be a lot less likely to start a very risky business that had little chance of success.

20K isn't that hard to scrap together if you're serious about starting a business, it'll take a few years of hard work but that experience in itself can be very useful for when you strike out on your own. If you can manage to work in the area you hope to start your company in then you can use the years to network and start building the contacts you need to make a business work too. Having a "good idea" is only a small part of running a successful business.

Thomas_S_Hunterson

shnaek wrote: »

As far as encouraging enterprise in Ireland goes, does anyone else think it's a real shame that the two Limerick lads had to go to America to get funding for their company? Enterprise Ireland turned them down over here. Probably told them to go on a course. That's what I've been told both times I went to them with ideas.

Start-up capital is high risk. Especially when you're giving it to two lads with no business experience. If they were given 20 grand, I'd be shocked at the waste of public money. The government has no right to put public money into a company with that high a risk profile.

Ekancone

Well why couldn't Enterprise Ireland help them to locate domestic investors who did have business experience? I think the point that EI dropped the ball on this one is valid.

Time Magazine

shnaek wrote: »

But we aren't talking about just any 19 year old here.

I wasn't implying they were incompetent but rather that their age profile meant they found it hard to secure necessary matching capital.