| Letting politicians decide which startups get funded and which don't seems like an inevitable way to let politics get in the way of merit: - Politically-connected startups get funded first - Political goals other than merit (diversity, "social justice," etc) are used as criteria - Arbitrary political limitations get placed on the company ("you can't do business with anyone who [performs abortion | does business in Libya | employes illegal immigrants | uses e-Verify...]") - Startups are steered toward political ends rather than growth ("while you're here, why don't you make a version of your app that teaches kids about [why immigration is good | why immigration is bad | why CO2 is evil | why CO2 is necessary to plant life]") - etc. Beyond even that, it's a really tough gig to identify succesful startups from bad startups. Venture funds do it full time and are right only 1-in-5 times. Imagine your favorite city bureaocrat (who gets paid a city bureaucrat wage) trying to figure out if Spotify will be succesful or not. The best VC teams are not suddently going to work for the city government. In short, you get what you deserve when you put politicians in charge of doling out money, especially in a context that has so much discretion. |