I was fishing across my usual roll of Internet sites (looking for something interesting to while away a few boring hours before going to bed), and I noticed this at Larvatus Prodeo (LP is an Australian loose-knit site full of progressive commenters and stories - something resembling an Australian Daily Kos, in fact), about the effects of a social safety net on entrepreneurialism.
I won't repeat the entire post (both because it's worth reading on the original site and because I'm not going to plagiarise from such a nice bunch), but the gist of it is this, for those disinclined to click through:
A strong social safety net will - statistically proven in the LP post - increase entrepreneurialism in an economy.
Out of the OECD 30, 22 have higher densities of market entrants - people starting small businesses in the market, which are by definition the driving force of innovation. Each and every one of these 22 nations has a much stronger social safety net than the USA - they offer free (or much-subsidised) healthcare insurance, decent unemployment benefits and (relatively) cheap higher education for their populations. And they charge the taxes to pay for these things, too.
The reason why, as outlined at LP, is that social safety nets mean that people feel safer to abandon the safe (and stagnant) office job in favour of trying out a risky (but rewarding) idea. More importantly, this effect - from the primary evidence! - outweighs the much-decried retardant effect of the higher taxes that pay for these social safety nets.
I suggest that people go there to give the original post a thorough read-up - it includes original OECD data and a longer write-up than I can manage at midnight where I live. With an American context, the following questions suggest themselves.
What does this mean for the oft-repeated conservative talking point that the taxes required by a state offering safety nets stifle initiative and entrepreneurs?
Why hasn't the American left wing (such as it is) made the hard data a counter talking point?
Why hasn't the Democratic Party made a big deal out of this in it's "efforts" to push for the end of the Bush tax cuts and the restoration of something resembling an American social safety net?
Where is the media when something so foundational to the current political paradigm is refuted so strongly by primary, effects-based evidence?