Last week I wrote about using bailout money to fund start-ups rather than supporting already failing companies. Leave it to Techdirt’s Michael Masnick to show how short my post fell.

Obama’s bailout plan, as he says, is focused strictly on creating jobs as quickly as possible.  But truly successful start-ups create jobs slowly. And if they’re truly revolutionary, they even destroy the need for other jobs.  Masnick explains this:

So, think about it from a government bureaucrat’s perspective right now. Go back a few decades, and assume someone came to you with a plan to create the internet — and even accurately described how it would allow a great free exchange of information. The reaction, if you were trying to deal with an economic crisis, would be to focus on all of the jobs it upset. People can share music online? Think of all the job losses in the music industry! People can read news for free? Think of all those newspapers shutting down! But they wouldn’t consider all of the economic activity created by the internet — the billions of dollars and millions of new jobs created thanks to it.

The internet makes so many things easier, it makes those jobs obsolete, but doing so, it opens up millions of new jobs over the long-term.  It takes more jobs to make cars than it did to make and sell a horse and buggy.  Bailing out incumbent companies prevents the risk-taking and innovation that will create the next industry. It’s short-term thinking that is, part, of the same problem Wall Street got into. When all you think about it the quarterly job report, sustainable economic growth is always another quarter behind.

Thomas Friedman this weekend wrote a column asking for more stimulus money to go to start-ups rather than bailout failing car companies and banks (again).  Originally I was just go to praise and agree with Friedman until some bloggers came out criticizing his position.  So now I actually have to be persuasive.

Friedman’s argument is we need to stop giving public money to companies that screwed themselves up.  GM and Ford and begging for another $20 billion.  Friedman says let them fail and rightfully so. GM and Ford spent billions lobbying Congress to avoid fuel regulation and letting Toyoda out-innovate them.  After laying of 50,000 employees, these companies want more public money (on top of the $15 billion they already got) for no other reason that avoid economic catastrophe in Michigan.  But why are we rewarding companies that were run so badly?

Silicon Alley Insider says most start-ups are bad and investing them will lead to misallocation of resources.  My question – how much worse than GM and Ford can than these start-ups be?  These massive firms are laying off tens of thousands with little plan on how to fix themselves.  Start-ups, even likely to fail, provide widespread job creation, at least short term,  and creativity and experimentation leading to long term benefits in technology, innovation, and new business models.  Friedman points out, Intel and Google both grew out of recessions – harder economic times make start-ups more grateful for the opportunity and aggressive to succeed.  There’s less a flood of new companies, allowing the cream to truly rise to the top.

Stimulus money shouldn’t hand out money to just anybody.  It should function just like a venture capital firm (with the ability to offer tax credits on top of grants and subsidies).  Money rewards smart business plans that serve the public good – by creating jobs and long term benefits, and even failures can be learned from.  And just like any venture firm, we’re banking on one or two companies actually taking off and paying back the taxpayers with equity.  When do we expect GM, Ford, and all the banks to pay us back?

Risk alone should never be a reason not to do something.  Even failure has benefits; failure is also why we diversify so no loss alone is catastrophic. This means still helping larger companies that provide a tangible plan for how to succeed.  Fixing 10-20 years of bad management can be just as hard as starting a business from scratch – just think about how many start-ups could be built with $20 billion.  This is what risk-benefit analysis is all about.  We are not comparing our risk to benefit.  Rewarding smart and innovative businesses sounds like a good risk to make.