在下一节中，作者将讨论为什么企业家和初创企业没有为整体经济增加价值。这是整个内容中更相关的部分，包含一些来自可靠来源的相关示例和统计数据。作者从对创业企业的字面理解开始。他说，我们通常引用的初创企业的成功例子并不是真正的初创企业。他查阅了《政治经济学杂志》和美国《经济学人》的报道。如果一家企业的起步资金为2.5万美元，并且能够在头5年创造10万美元的收入，那么这家企业就被称为初创企业。笔者完全抛弃了谷歌、沃尔玛、SAP，将其归类为初创企业。这是他提出的有力论点。他通过增加34个国家的全球创业监测数据集的引用来加强他的观点，强调创业所需的种子资金有限(Carree et al.， 2002)。
有了这些论点，作者在为自己的论点辩护时迈出了一步，使他的论文值得一读。作者进一步补充说，企业家精神不是经济增长和就业机会的驱动力。他提到了John Haltiwanger, Julia Lane和James Speltzer的研究，该研究表明公司的生产力随着年龄增长而增长。作者认为，真正意义上的初创企业不可能维持五年以上。这样的初创企业只会消耗资源，不会有任何回报。从这里开始，作者开始全球化地为自己的论点辩护，这对于论文格式来说是一个好兆头。他说，对一个国家财富的估计是根据初创企业的下降速度得出的。他引用荷兰经济学家尼尔森·斯诺德·黑文(NielsNoorderhaven)的话作为自己这番话的参考。随着经济发展水平的提高，劳动力平均工资水平的提高和资金不足的初创企业将无力应对。它似乎在某个现实的地方，但我发现它不同(伯恩斯坦，2002)。
The author presents arguments in the next section about why entrepreneurs and start-up are not adding value to overall economy. This is the more relevant portion of entire content with some relatable examples and statistics from reliable sources. Author starts with the literal understanding of a start-up business. He says that the successful examples of start-ups we normally quote are not real start-ups. He referred Journal of Political Economy and Report by U.S Small Business Administration that a business will be termed as start-up if it starts with $25,000 and capable of generating $100,000 revenue in first five years. The author completely discards Google, Wal-Mart, SAP to be categorized as start-ups. This is a strong argument presented by him. He strengthens his point by adding the reference of Global Entrepreneurship Monitor dataset regarding 34 countries, stressing the fact of limited seed money required for a start-up business (Carree et al., 2002).
With these arguments, the author took a pace in defending his case, making his paper worth reading. The author further adds to his case, by saying that entrepreneurship is not the driving force for economic growth and employment opportunities. He referred to the study of John Haltiwanger, Julia Lane, and James Speltzer, which states that productivity of a firm increases with age. The author is of the belief that businesses that are start-ups in real sense are not capable of sustaining themselves for more than five years. Such start-ups only consume resources and pay back nothing. From here on, the author goes global in defending his argument, which is a good sign for a paper format. He says the estimate of a country wealth is taken from the rate at which the start-ups go down, he used Dutch economist NielsNoorderhaven as reference to his statement. With increase in economic development, the average labour wages raise and low funded start-ups will not be capable to coping with it. It seems somewhere realistic but I find it otherwise(Bernstein, 2002).
The pace of Government sector and multinational firms cannot be compared with start-ups as it won’t do justice. But this perspective challenges the reader’s perception to see the other side of picture. If investing in established businesses can accommodate more people to work and generate more revenue than why to waste resources on slow ventures. Here the author hits the right button; he triggers the readers’ mind by breaking the stereotype of believing in entrepreneurship. The author goes further with the mentioning of Economist David Blau and his study that the more a country advance economically, the lesser self-employed people it has. The example of countries shifting their focus from agriculture to manufacturing and then to services supports the author argument very well. Sustainable and faster economic growth is the need of the hour rather than slow risky uncertain options. This part of his paper is very much intriguing.
The last section of this paper is interesting, where author put forward the solution to end failures associated with new businesses. He stresses stringent scrutiny techniques before allowing any new business to launch. This will save many resources to go waste unnoticed. He suggests reducing benefits allocated to new ventures, and keeping them on hold for second phase. He explains polices of French and German governments to invest blindly in such ventures and are getting nothing out of it. The author says that we are so blindly following the myth that an entrepreneur will end up in generating revenue that we have stopped focusing on accountability tactics to keep record of billions invested in start-ups every year. The solution section has been explained very much well by author and adds to his counter argument. Startups that start in collaboration or with the scrutiny of established firms who have expertise and experience go well. Multiple cases have been discussed by author pertinent to that(Shane, 2008).