Slashdot Mirror
Why Startups Condense in America
bariswheel writes "The controversial genius developer/writer/entertainer Paul Graham writes an insightful piece on Why Startups Condense in America. Here's the skinny: "The US allows immigration, it is a rich country, it is not (yet) a police state, the universities are better, you can fire people, work is less identified with employment, it is not too fussy, it has a large domestic market, it has venture funding, and it has dynamic typing for careers. Inquire for details within."
nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American public!
But I don't agree with all of it: That's odd, all the studies and anecdotal evidence presented to me suggest otherwise. I don't think the universities themselves are better, you're just more likely to make better contacts here than abroad. And the only reason for that is because Americans have money and a lot of them use it to invest (as Paul pointed out).
I've been through undergrad and grad schools in the US and I have to say that there were more than a few courses where I didn't learn anything.
Why is he asking about Universities in Europe? What about Eastern Europe or the Ukraine or Russia? What about the results to the programming challenge that everyone made a big fuss about? What about China's Universities?!
I'm not as confident about the US as Mr. Graham is. In fact, I'm kind of afraid when someone like him writes an article like this because it feels like we're creating a false sense of security as an industry leader.
My work here is dung.
Duh! It's because American companies can negotiate better deals with the Coca-Cola Co. (or PepsiCo if they prefer it), which enables them to have those free drink machines. Free drinks draws in the geeks, which results in heavily caffeinated smart people. Wrangle a few MBAs together to lord over them and you have a successful startup.
America is the western nation that LEAST protects its workers. The overclass here has managed to use a variety of propaganda techniques to allow the ruination of legal protections for American workers. That makes us easier to exploit than the workers in other nations. So, startups want to be here--honest, educated, hardworking and exploitable.
Get back to work, you good little american sheeple!
Homo Sapiens Americanus--A documentary in p
As a European I find the article rather America-centric. Here for example in the UK about 10% of people are self-employed. Yes, technically those are pretty much all "startups". Here however most people don't have the desire to chase VC funding, float on the stock market or found an international company (as a number of US startups have).
Of course part of the problem (both in the US and over here) is that a lot of businesses tend to have a blinkered restricted view of just selling/dealing with their domestic market (which of course in the US is larger) rather than doing business globally (which in a lot of businesses is the best way to grow).
Video Game cheats, hints a
The guys evidence that there aren't any good Universities in Europe, is that American professors can't name any aside from Cambridge?
Does this say more about higher education in Europe or the US?
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
But the US style has it's problems. US companies wind up as slaves to the markets and often damage their engineering skills. The problems in the US car industry show this. While the German car industry has come up with fuel injection, ABS braking and constant four wheel drive over the past 20 years the US industry has invented the cupholder and the SUV.
Likewise, somehow the Japanese are great craftsmen. This skill is reflected in the quality of Toyota's manufacturing and the remarkable qualities in Japanese portable electronics. Apple may have invented the ipod, but the walkman and the transistor radio all came out Japan.
It's good that the world is like this. Countries specialise. But presuming that one companies system is superior for everything to all the others is silly. The best is what is created when the systems work together - as in the computer industry where the parts are made in Asia and the software comes from all over the world, and in particular from the US.
I myself just finished a hard 16 hour day sewing shoes for chicken feed.
I apologize, but I enjoyed the fact that "least" was in all caps.
One more reason could be that US has fewer bureaucratic barriers comparing to that in Ukraine or Russia for example.
It's much easier to find investors in USA than in Europe (i'm speaking as a french entrepreneur who tested the both side of Atlantic to run it's own business).
Biais.org : Python, art and chicken pie.
You know, it could also be something to do with the fact that the US is the world's largest economy.
lots of bitter, negative opinions on this one. To add to the discussion instead of criticizing (which is fine - in small doses), I believe government (or lack thereof) is key for innovation. If you have an oppressive regime luring over you, there will be minimal startups; people will have little incentive to innovate, or fear to innovate. What he's trying to do in this article is to find commonalities within the 'American persona' to find out whether Silicon Valley is clonable. I believe That's the root of his thesis. He addresses personality traits such as Americans being free spirited risk takers, and it's a point well taken. "Startups are the kind of thing people don't plan, so you're more likely to get them in a society where it's ok to make career decisions on the fly." - P. Graham
Insinct is stronger than Upbringing - Irish Proverb
Illegal immigration is a whole other story, we still allow millions of legit immigrants every year.
Regards,
Steve
In America you can put a rock in a box, give it a name, and make millions. Why would you not want to start a company in a nation with that level of purchase discretion? "Now with more sodium -- Sweet Jesus!!!"
I'm not bashing the USA, but I do think that Americans get a very distorted view of the world because:
a) The USA is very big. If you take into consideration population size then things can look quite different.
b) For some reason, Americans tend to compare themselves with developing countries rather than other first world countries.
Actually immigrating is becoming harder every year. You can get time limited visa with all sorts of strings attached, but green card fraud isn't the widespread topic for nothing.
The author writes
> Of course, it's not saying much that America is more open to immigration
> than Japan. Immigration policy is one area where a competitor could do better.
Laughably incorrect. The difficulties of immigrating to Japan are 20 times worse than the US.
If you're a foreigner in Japan, your sponsoring employer owns you, something like H1-Bs here. But in practice there is no green card system, and you can live there for decades without getting more than year-to-year status. There is a foreign resident designation long-time residents sometimes receive, but I've seen it denied more often than granted. There are plenty of racists in the US, but we will never have the phantasm of ethnic purity the Japanese do. Unless you're an Iranian construction worker, or a Korean pachinko parlor operator, in which case they don't care.
OK, a competitor could do better than the US does, some countries do. In practical and cultural terms, it's hard to imagine a country doing worse than Japan.
And this survey demonstrates what, other than the parochialism of the American computer science professors with whom Graham happens to be acquainted?
To start a corporation in America all you have to do is file out a simple form and mail in a cheap fee. I started mine for a whole $100 in costs to the gov't. While it is more than I want to pay, it isn't bad. I pay less in taxes than foreign counterparts, so I have more to actually invest into my company to grow it, another great reason why it is easier to start a small business in America. Employment laws as well. In France it takes 2 years to fire someone. If someone is destroying my small business, they can be out the door that day (well, depends on the state really). THere are tons of other reasons, but ease of doing business, ability to put your own capital into your business is def up there. Look how many businesses are started by those w/o college educations, it isn't the schools.
uncontrolled illegal immigration is not the same as controlled legal immigration.
I thought you would have learned that in one of your vaunted non-US universities?
Surely it's more a question of critical mass than of individual components? Because so many other companies are located there, new ones will gravitate there as well. After all, they have the infrastructure, not to mention the reputation. People seeking employment will follow demand, and startups need employees so they follow supply.
Yes, it's easier to get slave workers (well, not really slaves, you have to shelter and feed slaves while with "normal" workers you can pay them less than shelter&food would cost you), it's easier to get investors, it's less bureaucratic hassle and so on. It's easier to get the biz rolling.
But with the patent laws and the legal system around it, opening a biz in the US is risky. As soon as you're actually starting to make money, some corporation will cover you with suits 'til you hand it over for a nickle or a dime because some harebrained patent they got offers them a foot into that door.
In other words, startups are the risk-free way of "innovation" for corps. If it doesn't fly, it doesn't cost them money. If it does, hand it over!
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Decades ago, companies stayed where they were started. They certainly stayed in the country where they started and they often kept their headquarters or a major plant where they started.
Movie producers run out to California, mostly to escape legal process servers because a patent cartel wanted to price-gouge them for the unlicensed cameras they were using, stayed, and founded Hollywood.
A guy named Chesney starts up a business in Pittfield, MA and GE ends up headquartered there, and employing tens of thousands of people prior to Neutron Jack Welch.
Digital Equipment Corporation starts up in Maynard because the guys who founded it were connected with MIT, and there was cheap space in an old mill there... and grow in that location to a multi-billion-dollar company.
But I can easily see an unstable state in which the United States continues to be a good place for startups, for the reasons mentioned, but all of the really economically important activity gets moved overseas just as the company begins to take hold. Over time, of course, that will undermine all the things that make the U. S. a great place for startups, but not immediately... just as U. S. researchers continue to win Nobel prizes for work performed under conditions that existed in the U. S. decades ago.
Tangentially, New England is a great place for startups because of the existence hundreds of small, independent machine shops that can do prototype work. I believe those shops are a long-lived legacy of a century or two ago when New England and its mills were the most sophisticated industries in the U. S. I wonder whether anyone in the state government is paying attention to the care and feeding of those small businesses?
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
With an attitude like that, I can understand why you'd favor more protection.
The world is made by those who show up for the job.
I am not sure american universities are better, but they certainly are different. I have had the opportunity to take a few classes at KUL in Belgium (the "best" and largest university in the country). I would say students here LEARN the same things we do at universities in America, but they don't DO anything. In the US, courses consisted of a lot of work....exercises/homeworks, multiple tests/exams/quizzes in a quarter/semester, and labs + lab reports (often as frequent as one per week). In Belgium, you attended classes, perhaps there were optional exercises (in class, not at home, nor graded), and the only grade you get is the final exam, which is often about 15 minutes long and oral. Coming from US universities, you get a wealth of knowledge combined with hands-on experience that many places in Europe don't seem to be offering. Additionally, students here are not allowed to work during university (only allowed to work 2-3weeks per year), and their internships are usually severely limited (you think an intern job in the US is crap....here it can consist of just pushing a button). This has a huge effect on the job market and the prospects of what you will be doing in a job after you graduate. IMO, US students leave university much more prepared than their counterparts in Europe (well, maybe only Belgium?)
The things that made America great can mostly be summed up as 'Freedom'. Richard Florida in "The Rise of the Creative Class" points out that cities with booming economies are the ones in which creative people feel the most freedom. Being an economist, he has the statistics to prove it. Creative people move to cities where they can thrive and then go looking for a job. They won't move to a city where they feel stifled just because there's a job for them there. Most of what he says totally supports tfa.
Florida's next book is "The Flight of the Creative Class". In it he points out, as does tfa, that a rising wave of intolerance will drive away or prevent the immigration that America needs to stay on top of the game. All this paranoia about terrorism is going to ruin the country and we're all going to feel it in our wallets.
US allows immigration... uhmm
.nl and yes out immigration policy sucks.
so this is why they need this heavy control at the mexican border?
and what was this plan about tagging new immigrant with rfid chips?
the thing I don't understand is why people would -want- immigrate to the US.
disclaimer: yes I live in
There are national characteristics - the fact that the World Cup is repeatedly won by a small group of nations that manage to maintain a style over years also shows this.
Horse dung. The World Cup only highlights that America's best atheletes play American football, baseball, and basketball. If they played soccer (your football) their size and speed would transform the game.
But the US style has it's problems. US companies wind up as slaves to the markets and often damage their engineering skills. The problems in the US car industry show this.
It is called global competition. Car industry is down, aerospace, computer technology, industrial equipment are way up. By in large we compete very well.
While the German car industry has come up with fuel injection, ABS braking and constant four wheel drive over the past 20 years the US industry has invented the cupholder and the SUV.
Don't forget satellite radio and Onstar!.
Likewise, somehow the Japanese are great craftsmen. This skill is reflected in the quality of Toyota's manufacturing and the remarkable qualities in Japanese portable electronics. Apple may have invented the ipod, but the walkman and the transistor radio all came out Japan.
You criticize the American car industry but you fail to recognise that Japanese electronics are in dramatic decline. Be fair.
It's good that the world is like this. Countries specialise. But presuming that one companies system is superior for everything to all the others is silly. The best is what is created when the systems work together - as in the computer industry where the parts are made in Asia and the software comes from all over the world, and in particular from the US.
If it made sense to specialize you wouldn't have an EU. The whole idea is to have a widely diverse economy that is immune from downturns in any single industry. Your ideas are totally antiquated and discredited.
an ill wind that blows no good
That's odd, all the studies and anecdotal evidence presented to me suggest otherwise. I don't think the universities themselves are better, you're just more likely to make better contacts here than abroad. And the only reason for that is because Americans have money and a lot of them use it to invest (as Paul pointed out).
.. I do not like the way the article was written. I wish he had used more statistics and numerics than just, for example "half the people in silicon valley have accents". How about showing us the stats of how productive they are etc. The numbers can't be that hard to find. Just because you have references at the end of an article doesnt really boost the usefulness much. Reason i am saying this is that without facts and numerics people who sort of disagree haven't really anything tanglible to be convinced by. And those who already agree, well they don't have reinforcing data they can use in convincing others.
Differing from your opinion, I agree with the entire article 100% (including the assertion that our universities are better), BUT
That said it's a good article in that it puts things to forefront that maybe people (especially those in other countries) will research or utilize.
The faulty logic in this article is a good reason just to pass it up
From the article:
"it is not (yet) a police state"
Why is it there are people in this country are screaming and yelling about their imagined "police state", yet want to leave the other countries in the world to people who want to turn the whole world into a police state?
Actually, the U.S. is not at all extraordinary when it comes to national debt as a percentage of GDP. There are plenty of countries with far worse debt problems than the U.S.
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Yes, We USAans are self-centered, self-absorbed, and generally think very highly of ourselves. Just like those in the European countries many of us came from.
In the realm of international relations, how many countries are riding the coat tails of long dead empires? Why should any outside of France have any care for what goes on inside of France? And what about the English? They're guilty more than anyone. Okay, at one time the UK was a big deal, but that time is over. Is Britain really a significant economic, political, or military power anymore? Certainly not to the extent you think of yourselves.
For a European to raise the charge of 'America-centric' seems the height of 'it takes one to know one.' I don't deny the charge, but when you point one finger at me, you have three pointing back at yourself.
- Immigration: The US has a great immigration policy, but it's not really that much different from a lot of advanced Western countries, esp. when it comes to skilled workers (researchers, college graduates, etc). E.g., the UK has a much larger talent pool it can draw from for immigrants (esp. Commonwealth citizens) yet there have been very few successful UK startups. Same could be said for Germany, the Nordic countries, and most of Southern Europe.
- The US is a rich country: so is most of Western Europe, Australia, NZ, Southeast Asia, Japan, etc. Arguably the latter regions have even better infrastructure than the US.
- The US is not a police state: again, neither is any EU member or the rest of Western Europe. Still, the only big European startup as of late has been Skype, and even that was US-funded.
- American Universities are better: absolutely, but not for the reasons stated. American universities are just more free to make money from their R&D, unlike most say European ones. Since they can run research for profit they can also hire the best professors and researchers they can find and that creates a virtuous cycle. In Europe for example, most research schools are state institutions and thus professor salaries are set to a nationwide scale. Plus it's much harder to profit from R&D.
- You can fire people in America: labor mobility is not a US invention. If you are faced with stifling labor laws, you can work around them. You can use contractors, bankruptcy law, subsidies, the list goes on. Plus, Anglo-Saxon countries with liberal labor laws (UK, Australia), still haven't fostered startups that well.
The rest of the list is even more wooly than these bits. Here's my take as to why the US does startups better:Don't forget about unions. They are all about letting the cream rise to the top... Wait a second, no they aren't. Oh well.
Mean what you say...say what you mean.
Excellent! I've been looking for a new career! I dynamically type 65-180 WPM.
$ touch
PS. the article uses america Not USA...
Yeah; I noticed that. I had to keep reminding myself that he could have been referring to any of those other countries with "America" in their names.
He should have just written "United States" (or "US"). That way there wouldn't have been any such confusion.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Don't forget that, for many years, the USA have been at the forefront of technology and science because the US Governement -- meaning you, Happy American Tax-Payers! -- has been very happy to sign big, fat juicy checks to US corporations, US Universities, US Think Tanks, etc. Also, the US Governement was able to do this because, right after the end of WWII, the USA were one of the very rare country in the world with industries left intact and a lot of natural resources.
Now that the US Governement is pretty much anti-science, and that the US debt is soaring to ever more dangerous summits, I am not so sure the USA can maintain their advance on the rest of the world. But we'll see.
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
The European Union (EU) is the biggest market in the world!
The article says that German and Dutch universities are not especially good (because good professors are spread out around the country). This is completely wrong. I'm from the US. I did my undergraduate work in the US and went to graduate school in the Netherlands.
First, the quality of professors. It's true that there are a lot of good professors in America. But many of them are not american. Instead, they're Europeans or Asians who've decided to come to the US because of the better pay, etc. However, the one great thing about american professors (from America), if you're lucky enough to get one, is that they're very didactic. I don't know why, but Americans seem to make great orators and writers. But they're not necessarily the top researchers. They also don't seem to challenge the students like my Dutch professors did. Lastly, remember that Holland only has about 15-20 million people, versus about a bit under 300 million in the US. At least in my area, the Dutch easily produce more research per capita than the US and I would say this work easily gets cited more often in general than what comes out of the US.
Now as to the quality of students, which the article does not really consider. Let me point out that, before I left, I was one of the best students in my class in the US. I learned that, to my horror, the Dutch students were much better thinkers than I was. They had been challenged to think for themselves by their professors in Holland. In the US, I had been taught to solve certain problems quickly (things our professors had told us would appear on exams). I was horrified to find on some exams that I took in Holland that we would have to solve problems which weren't directly covered in the course material, but could be derived given what we knew. The strangest thing, though, was the general student atmosphere. There was a high level of competition in the US, almost animosity between students where I went to school. That didn't translate into studying hard, though, just sort of jealously guarding what you knew from others. In Holland, this was completely backwards: the Dutch students studied much more than their American counterparts, and were genial towards one another in general (both in undergraduate and graduate work) - e.g. if you needed some class notes, etc. they would happily oblige. Probably more comraderie between the students because the professors were so hard on them.
So, I would argue that, at least in the case of the Netherlands, this author's got it completely wrong. The US could learn a thing or two from the Dutch system of challenging students to think for themselves.
Two childhood friends both struck it big (20+M and 300+M) starting software companies, so the American dream does happen.
o ur-own-business.html) but only if you do it for the right reasons.
However, the statistics are against you if your goal is to become very rich - but it is the possibilty that motivates people.
Here in the USA, we have an interesting cultural/political phenomenon: many lower middle class people strongly support the republican party whose policies are very biased towrads helping the very rich. I think that part of this phenomenon occurs because people dream of having a great idea and striking it rich.
I think that having one's own business is a good idea (http://mark-watson.blogspot.com/2006/04/owning-y
I was under the impression that the US creates more new companies each year than Europe.
Are you saying that's not correct?
Actually, I would suspect that the developing countries create more new companies each year than "other first world countries" do.
Clear, Dark Skies
I think it's also our history as a capitalist country. Countries that aren't used to it will hesitate to invest in something, especially if they've been burned. For example, the MMM company in Russia was just a large pyramid scheme, but most people weren't aware of the warning signs that it was a scam. Not surprisingly, the whole thing collapsed and many people lost their money. Afterwards, few people wanted to invest in a start-up again. In America, a decade later, is this starting to change. Over here, after something like that happens, people just avoid that company and find a new one. After the dotcom bubble, most people just avoided those companies and reinvested in more "safe" companies, rather than pulling out completely.
I'm an American, and I have to say it's for two reasons:
1) On average, Americans have a lot of money.
2) On average, Americans are fools when it comes to money.
For many Americans, it's not just easy to part them from the money they have now, it's easy to part them from the money they'll be earning for the next 15-30 years (through high interest credit cards). I don't think this will last much longer, though. Another poster mentioned that the exploitation of workers is going up (which I agree with). Pretty soon #1 won't be true anymore, and a lot of businesses in America will dry up.
As a European I find the article rather America-centric.
As an American I find this article to be Bay Area-centric. Silicon Valley ceased being an engine of significant economic growth after the dotcom bust. It is unlikely to return to its former glory. It is kind of humourous that pundits like Paul Graham are still taking victory laps for an era of growth in Silicon Valley he had little to do with. In the US the economies of the southwest and southeast are much more vital.
an ill wind that blows no good
I hate to say this, but the US is in deep troubble at least for the next 2-8 years. With fiat money, way over extended housing debt, heavy bond debt, an account deficit of 7%, and now the carry trade unwinding behind 100's of trillions (with a T) in derivatives contracts - it won't be long before all freakin satanic hell breaks loose in US financial markets.
The bad news, is that I don't think there is anything that can stop an economic collapse, the good news is that I think after the collapse the US has the highest potential of any country in the world for a spectacular recovery assuming that people don't panic and impose all sorts of controls that take away economic freedoms.
(PS, those people who have written off gold and silver as barbaric immature monitary systems are going to be in for a very rude awakening, he he)
it is not (yet) a police state
Funny, apparently we're talking some other USA here.
" it is a rich country, it is not (yet) a police state,"
I am going to hazard a guess that the person who stuck "ye"t in there has lived his or her entire life in a free western country and has little or no understanding of what a police state really is. All this person knows is 1. bush bad , 2. bad is police state, therefore bush = police state. This reminds me of every college kid who knows 1. bad 2. bad is nazi, therefore if you disagree with me you are a nazi.
Idiotic use of extreme terms like this just erodes any meaning they may have. Its is about as effective in conveying meaning as the F-word if you use it as almost every other word.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Ok. Cute. And how very patriotic. I am an entrepeneur who recently set up a US operation. Our main headquarters is in Sweden. And here's my take on the article, for what it's worth (and I think it is if you want to know how the supposed targets of above article actually think).
It's all bullshit. All of it except one comment, which is on the other hand the Holy Grail for us and any other company setting up shop in the US. It is the world's largest market.
Everything else is complete bull. Crap universities, hostile patent litigation, asshole lawyers, extremely expensive software development compared to ANY other country, incompetent hierarchical structures, police state (now), you can fire people but not if they're a minority or you accidentally touch their ass while passing them in the hallway (you'll get sued). And as for immigration, since when did the US have an immigration policy that allows anything but foreign capital easily into the door?
I'm not slamming the US. I'm slamming the obvious wrongness of this article. I love the US, and our hopes are up for a successful launch. Just don't put tapestry on Slashdot by some dick proclaiming proganda without providing the slightest bit of criticism. The US has gone very, very unfriendly with Bush at the helm.
Text read "A friend of mine started a company in Germany in the early 90s, and was shocked to discover, among many other regulations, that you needed $20,000 in capital to incorporate."
I'd like to give a little more info on that. Yes, for one kind of corporation (GmbH, the equivalent of a limited liability company) you do need to put at least 25000 Euros (more like $30000 these days) into it. That isn't a price that you pay someone else, it's the minimal investment into the company. A GmbH limits creditors rights to the assets of the company and protects the owners of the corporation from claims against the company. Therefore the German legislative thinks it's wise to make sure that the corporation actually has assets from the get go. There are other forms of incorporation with less steep barriers to entry, but they come with more responsibility for the owners.
All that aside, anyone in Europe can now incorporate as a British "Limited" with a deposit of 1 British Pound, even if the operations are located in another European country.
Yeah I'm sure you were so confused because everyone refers to Canada as the United Provinces of Canada-America or to Mexico as the United States of Mexico-America. Wait whats that? The only nation in North America that has "America" in its name is the United States of America? Why that would mean you could merely mention "America" and everyone who isn't a cockfaced asshat would know you meant United States of America.
Its amazing how clear communication on Slashdot can become once you overcome the pedantic demands of the "Never Got Out Of My Moms Basement" set.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
U of I is in Urbana Champaign, not in Chicago.. and wouldn't you know it, Urbana-Champaign is *full* of start-ups. Mosaic was started there. Wouldn't you know..
Startups happen in clusters. There are a lot of them in Silicon Valley and Boston, and few in Chicago or Miami. A country that wants startups will probably also have to reproduce whatever makes these clusters form.
While I agree with the overall tenor of his presentation, starting with a number of begged questions weakens his argument.
1) Startups happen ALL OVER THE COUNTRY. He maybe right about 'clustering' when you're talking about certain industries, but in a country where The above paragraph makes a LOT more sense (and is factually more supportable) if instead of "Startups", you read "The cool trendy startups that we like to talk about". In fact, Raleigh-Durham and Austin are (like SFO) in the top quartile of VC investment but he doesn't seem to think they are "cool" enough to discuss.
2) "The US allows immigration, it is a rich country, it is not (yet) a police state..."
Please. I'm sure the horse is dead, so you can stop beating it with your non sequitur stick. Anyone who connects the "US" and "police state" in a sentence merely illustrates how little they know about an actual police state. I understand it's very important to continue the shtick so PERHAPS your side has a chance to win an election sometime in the next half-dozen years, but you'd be much more persuasive if you left your political baggage at home with your pom-poms.
3) (Paraphrasing) "German Universities suck because there are no Jews there." That's just plain stupid. Aside from the overt racism of the statement, then why aren't we all heading pell-mell for the universities in Israel? Perhaps there's only a certain 'dose' of Jewishness that we need, and too much is somehow poisonous (hands waving dramatically)?
4) "You can fire people in America" - I think he's absolutely right, but isn't using our academic system a particularly BAD example? If he's willing to venture into the speculative fiction of the US becoming a police state, his omission here is the deletorious effect of Affirmative Action, and a litigious society where where a woman or minority is fired, their first thought is "hm, I wonder if it was my race/sex/preference/etc." and not "What did I do wrong?".
5) "In the US it's ok to be overtly ambitious, and in most of Europe it's not. But this can't be an intrinsically European quality; previous generations of Europeans were as ambitious as Americans. What happened?" They left Europe and came to America?
5) "Silicon Valley is too far from San Francisco....The best thing would be if the silicon valley were not merely closer to the interesting city, but interesting itself.... (The suburbs are) the worst sort of strip development...The kind of people you want to attract to your silicon valley like to get around by train, bicycle, and on foot." No projection there, no sir. Funny, I'd think that the people you'd want to attract people that are interesting, intuitive, hard working, conscientious people...not just smarmy, self-important, elitist black-clad coastal urbanites. I didn't realize Greenpeace membership is required for this job sir, would donating to the Nature Conservancy be enough?
Pssst, Paul: there are a lot of interesting startups in what you'd call boring, flyover country. Telecommuting means that you can have outstanding information-based companies in Granite Falls, MN, Paragould, AR, or even Nampa, ID. In fact, a lot of people may even PREFER rural or small-town life, but they probably drive pickups or something (shudder).
6) Immigration - this is just utopian and thus nearly valueless. The US already has the most open immigration system (even in these days of leather-clad jackbooted thugs summarily executing everyone trying to enter the country). He spent the previous ten paragraphs talking about how the US system is unique, particularly because of its poor educational system compared to other countries, and then when discussing the US's requirement of a college degree for entry he uses examples of....Americans. Circularity anyone?
-Styopa
What do you get when you take the very few best students out of a nation of 300 million people and put them in a university where you've bought the very few best professors by offering more money (because of huge tuitions) than anywhere else? A very small number of very good universities. Also, when you say a state university can be top in its field, remember you're talking about the professors, NOT the students. (From my experience, these professors are often foreign and have come to the US because of better pay.) Also remember to include technical schools when you talk about the community college system in Europe. From what I've seen in the US, there's almost always a place for you in some (possibly not-so-good) university no matter how poorly you've done (or unmotivated you've been) in high school, especially if you're willing to pay enough for it. In Europe, a lot of these people, I think, would be off to a technical school instead.
b) For some reason, Americans tend to compare themselves with developing countries rather than other first world countries.
Have you visited California lately?
an ill wind that blows no good
The United States itself was a start up, colonized by greedy English, French, and Spanish people who came over and exploited the Native Americans.
Aside from Graham's tendency to extrapolate wildly from a sample size of one: "I felt oppressed as a geek/nerd in high school therefore America oppresses geeks/nerds in high school", "I was successful in a computer tech startup using LISP therefore successful computer tech startups should use LISP", "I now have enough money to indulge my eccentricities and a stage on which to let the stream of my ego's consciousness spew forth without worry about the consequences, therefore I must be a public intellectual". Like Chomsky, I'm sure Mr. Graham is certifiably brilliant within his chosen field of study. Like Dr. Chomsky, Graham tends to mistake brilliance within one field with the capability to achieve deep understanding and useful insight on a variety of unrelated topics.
As a simple counterexample to the current topic I'd offer India's IT sector. Although India has a few world class schools they are nowhere near as numerous as in the US, India does not have a large immigrant population, India's red tape while improving is still closer in style to "in Soviet Russia" than the Rand's libertarian paradise etc. However start up businesses in India are booming, mostly as spin offs of subsidiaries of American tech companies. Likewise Taiwan's semiconductor and electronics manufacturing industry has largely shed its foreign owned component and can be considered a startup success story. Not all start ups form in little red barns, or unkempt Cambridge, MA apartments; Intel formed from disgruntled Fairchild employees, as did Zilog and in a generation or two similar stories are likely to be common in the Indian tech sector.
However the above is not a rigorous counterargument, and is not meant to be. My larger point is merely that if one narrows one view enough the world can seem remarkably simple. And then one starts to believe any story that can explain that simple world. Fortunately most of us have enough of a sense of shame to keep those stories to ourselves. Perhaps Mr. Graham, and Dr. Chomsky and many other public intellectuals should spend their efforts looking into what particular combination of genetics and environment lead to a pathological inability to refrain from espousing cranky theories in public.
Chicago has bad karma. I'm not kidding. I always feel nervous when I'm there and I can't say why. Chicago always just feels wrong to me. Some people really like it, but I can't stand it. I always can't wait to get out of town when I'm there.
Several other people I know feel the same way about Chicago, though I have a good friend who moved there a couple years ago and really likes it.
I don't know. I always get the feeling that Chicago is on the wrong side of the lake or something when I'm there.
Just be sure to wear the gold uniform when you beam down -- you know what happens when you wear the red one.
Why I don't agree on some of the generalizations you've made(there ARE good universities in the US...), you strike a lot closer than the actual article, which is basicly a bunch of wishful thinking. Would have been getting my mod points.
1. No sig. 2. ???? 3. Profit!!!
I don't know about Asia or other regions, but these are my thoughts about the relative difficulty of starting business in Europe:
#1 reason: Government is an obstacle rather than help or even better: JUST DON'T MESSING TOO MUCH. Bussinesses in Europe has to comply with municipal, state, country and european community regulation. Municipal laws are often vary a lot whithin even the same province. The local government has to give permission and get taxes (not cheap) just to open the company's door. Also the nation's government. And guess what? They are not exactly very fast nor cheap. The high costs of starting a bussiness make it very difficult for people who is not already rich or other bussiness who have already a lot of money! Paradox of social-democracy? Government as reverse Robin-Hood?
Other:
- the "progressive" taxes system doesnt award personal effort and risk. The taxes for businesses are as high as 30% or 35% of profits, even higher for wealthy individuals (Social Security not included). Where does this force capital to go? Easy question: any other place.
- Public workers are impossible to fire. Once they pass their exams they can even just not go to work and they will keep their salary and benefits forever. Not the best to stimulate efficiency and speed. They also have higher salaries than private companies employees. Young people here dream about working for the government.
- Trade unions degenerated to political parties. Their leaders and representants are too busy doing nothing and helping #1 in their labor to increase regulation.
- We spend about 40% of the E.U budget subsidizing the low-margin, low-innovation, low-tech agricultural sector. This money should be better in their legitimate propietaries' pockets thus lowering the high tax pressure on business and individuals. As a side effect we screw up emerging economies with our protectionism (OK, maybe also the USA)
- We have literally dozens of different languages. I dont think this is necessarily wrong, it's just a consecuence of our history. But the really stupid thing is the politicians are very busy trying to revitalize dead or semi-dead languages and dialects like galician, basque and catalan to have another more justification to fight with other regions, get local privileges, and keeping their positions. Of course these languages are studied in schools, diminishing the time young people should rather use studying maths, literature, economics, english or whatever. Mix this with governmet regulation and you get a lot more overhead for business.
- We dont fight strong enough against terrorism, instead we let the terrorists (convicted killers included) form political parties and negotiate with our governmets as equals. Shame on us. Insecurity scares the capital who tends to go away.
It's not that is easy to start a bussiness in the United States because they are rich: they are rich because is easy to start a bussiness.
Who's closer to a police state?
n eeds-to-be-destroyed-and-soon.html
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/why-eu-
Where can I be fined for blasphemy?
Where can I be sent to jail for writing a book or violating some hate speech law?
How about having a swastika? What will that buy me in France?
This article goes on and on about why there are more startups in America, and how other countries could stimulate the same thing. The obvious question that I would ask is: "Why is it better to have 100 single-persons startups than a single company with 100 employees?" I really don't see a clear cut answer..
I want a good work-life balance. I want some security. I don't want to deal with marketing or accounting. I fail to see what is wrong with that. I really don't know why you would value an entrepeneur higher than an employee.
Made them so great that their customers never needed to buy another one. So they were forced out of business by companies who made cheap computers that break exactly 15 seconds after their warranty expires.
I know this from my scientific sample of one laptop I reinstalled. Older machine. Well put together and installed right off the CD with no extra drivers needed. Most impressive.
I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
There seems to be some kind of cultural bias (at least, amongst people like the author) that only sandal-wearing californians are capable of creating innovative IT. Linux was created by a Finnish student. The WWW was created by an Englishman working at a public institute in Switzerland. Yes, i'm typing this on an Apple. But there is no technological reason I'm not typing this on an Acorn instead.
If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
ROTFL - do you get much hate mail for that sig?
Clear, Dark Skies
1) the US allows immigration: Hardly! It is extremely hard even for skilled people to get a work visa to the US. This was true maybe around 1920, but not any more. 2) it is a rich country: Not a contributing factor. So is Europe and some Asian economies. 3) it is not (yet) a police state. True, but some people are certainly at work trying to improve that. 4) the universities are better: Not true. Some US universities are great, many are not up to European os Asian standards. 5) you can fire people: You can in most countries, or simply hire them as temp workers. 6) work is less identified with employment: What does this mean, exactly? That "temp work" or being a freelancer is atually work too...? 7) it is not too fussy: In what sense? What does this mean, exactly? 8) it has a large domestic market: True, but so does the EU or China. 9) it has venture funding: Yes, that is probably the main contributor. 1) it has dynamic typing for careers: Another one of those fuzzy statements. What does "dynamic typing" really mean?
Beauty is in the beholder of the eye.
One comment in the artical amused me "There have never been swarms of beggars in the streets of American cities", erm no excpet maybe during the 1930s era great depression, or the civil war.
They do? Because I didn't saw any proof that shows that the % of startups relative to the % of population is bigger in the US than anywhere else.
We stole land. We purchased land at a ridiculously low price from France and Russia. The land was fertile and had many varied natural resources. Our immigration policies were conducive to turning that land into an extremely productive economic engine. As an added bonus we speak the language of international business (currently). As for schools, simply being tought in English is a huge advantage.
All of that being said, we are also innovative and I would imagine, yes, we are good at startups. But I would guess this has more to do with the confidence that the last paragraph tends to give us. Misplaced confidence. Confidence that it was merely through our superior spirit, fortitude, and God's blessing that we are so successful.
Of course, that is rubbish. We got land and resources cheap or free, and the British Empire ensured our language would be the one used throughout the world for business
It doesn't matter, though, if it is misplaced confidence. We are innovative. We still have a lot of resources. I would just advise that those who think that we have something particularly special in our character or country that makes us better at (fill in the blank) should step back and think about where and how we got our riches.
I never clip my fingernails for fear of dangling symbolic links.
The UK may have fireable employees and top-notch universities, but it's got a much smaller domestic market than the US does (and is quite a bit closer to becoming a police state, sadly enough).
See how this works? A does not imply A && B.
I have read that in many countries, you get one shot and if you fail that is it. America is rife with stories of people who failed several times before they finally succeeded big-time.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Immigration: The US has a great immigration policy, but it's not really that much different from a lot of advanced Western countries
This one is pretty easy - the US is made almost entirely of immigrants, within a dozen generations or less. Immigrants tend to be the type who get sick of the status quo, take risks and strike out on their own.
All that genetic selection has to have an influence on concentration of the types of people who think doing a startup is a good idea. From those countries that sent a large portion of the population to the US it might have a similar diluterious effect in the other direction.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
We discuss a lot of things... When dealing with American politics it can be very difficult to discern the reality of the American sentiment (which does usually win out) and the rhetoric of ideological political posturing.
The reality is that Americans, by and large, continue to support fairly open immigration policies. The recent political lunacy is really more about 'energizing' a certain political base in an election year. This base is the 30% of Americans that you guys outside of our country perceive to represent 100% of what we do. They are loud.. I can see why you do.
Turn s60 photos into awesome videos with mScrapbook for all S60 3rd edition phones!
I apologize, but I enjoyed the fact that "least" was in all caps.
You must have missed the word "western nation". We're not comparing the US with Zimbabwe or Bangladesh, we're comparing it with Canada or the UK.
If you compare like with like - for example, the EU which would have similar qualities to those listed in the original article - then the deficit spending makes a huge difference.
(BTW I'm not being critical of the US policy - just comparing it).
This benefits the startup, firstly, because the deficit is run up against government expenditure - and (as in the EU) government funding of projects always allows for generous budgets (wastage); thereby providing good capital for the investment in the non-core or business development aspects of the startup.
Secondly, a lot of investment is in military development, which is always good for a high-tech startup as there is access to good funding and non-civilian technology as well as a willingness to fund the more risky projects.
I think (being critical), however, that the grandparent's point was that there is a relationship between the ability to support this deficit and the international oil market - which many might see as having too strong an influence on American foreign policy.
Genesis 1:32 And God typed
Of those reasons the only one correct is IT HAS VENTURE FUNDING.
It costs money to set up companies, even more in Europe and Japan where the taxes and costs are high. USA has a large amount of venture funding, other countries don't.
Immigration is not a factor, since only a tiny % of startups are from first generation immigrants.
US Universities? Not really.
Wealth? GDP per capita is higher in Norway and Luxembourg and neither of those is a startup country.
You can fire people easily in many other countries with a far lower risk of lawsuits.
Money, funding is all that really matters.
The Germans can and do work during the semester breaks, and that internships in Germany (or at least, the one's I did at Bayer-Leverkusen) were substantive, and could last a month or two if your break was long enough. So as far as I know, there is no formal limit on how much a student can work during their studies, at least as a "Werkstudent".
However, when I was at the TH-Darmstadt (as an exchange student for two semesters) I found the study/homework situation to be very similar to what you describe in Belgium. Homework amounted to optional excersizes, ungraded, and the entire semester grade was derived from a single final exam called a "klausur." However, said exams tended to be more comprehensive than you describe in Belgium (though not universally so), and while they might have an oral component, they often did not. I would say most of the finals I took (required for me to get course credit at the University of Illinois) were approximately the same level of difficulty as those I took at U of I.
But the lack of homework, and the ability to cram for a klausur the last couple of weeks and do reasonably well, certainly meant coming out of a course with less long-term retention and practical, applicative experience than a similar course in the states. On the other hand, the Germans must take a large, truly final exam to graduate, which very rigorously tests their knowledge of all they've learned throughout their entire college experience. In addition, they must do a "diplomarbeit", which is similar to what we would call a thesis. This compensates, and means stuff learned years earlier must be reviewed and/or relearned, whereas in the states we may have long since forgotten most of what we learned in that sophomore course we aced. Germans like to consider their Diplom the equivelent of an American masters, but in my experience it actually comes in somewhere between a Bachelors of Science and a Masters (it is more than a bachelor's degree, less than a masters degree). Americans like to consider the Bachelors of Science as equal to a German diplom, which is equally inaccurate.
For the most part, I find these comparisons less-than-useful and often quite rife with bias (and I'm sure my take on it is no exception). Europeans take their degrees more seriously than American B.S. or B.A. degrees, we take our degrees more serious than theirs. Neither stance is particularly justified, and both stances underscore the respective prejudices of each society. As for this article, I agree with with another post. There are a plethora of successful startups in the UK, and in contental Europe, and while the US may have more VC capital to throw around, or more investors willing to throw it around, lets not forget the number of successful startups that have been subsequently ruined by the VC capital they received (and the strings attached to it).
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
... as I was under the impression that, EU citizen or not, you couldn't just jump to a random university in some other country.
You can, actually. (Assuming you qualify for the education.) As of a few years ago EU law guarantees this. Before that time it was generally still quite easy (again, assuming you qualify), thanks to the international connections most good universities have.
AES, the encryption algorithm, was invented at a Belgian university. A country like this, with less inhabitants than NYC cannot afford to have universities leading the world in all kinds of disciplines. This is a big problem for European universities: every country wants a silicon valley, AND a biotech center, AND nanotech,... But really they can't afford it, and therefore the money gets spread out too thin. If you work with small groups and good funding you can beat the world in a niche discipline, just like the AES guys did.
10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then
Japan does have a Silicon Valley, it's called Sony.
"There have never been swarms of beggars in the streets of American cities."
Obviously this person has never been to San Fransisco or New York City before.
"Ironically, of all rich countries the US has lost the most civil liberties recently. But I'm not too worried yet. I'm hoping once the present administration is out, the natural openness of American culture will reassert itself."
Oh yea, and it wasn't a police state under Clinton or Reagan or Nixon. *rolls eyes*
" I asked a handful of American computer science professors which universities in Europe were most admired, and they all basically said "Cambridge" followed by a long pause while they tried to think of others."
I'm quite sure if you were to ask a Chinese comp sci professor what good a American tech school is, he would say, "MIT" and then pause...
"I found myself thinking: "I can understand why German universities declined in the 1930s, after they excluded Jews. But surely they should have bounced back by now."
What kind of racist bullshit is that? He is blatantly promoting the idea that a, "Jew world conspiracy" is a good thing.
OK, I can take no more of this dullards rubbish.
~ So sayeth the wise Alaundo
Yes, a language spoken by more than 265 million people will surely dissapear. Or how about German, spoken by more than 100 million. (http://www2.ignatius.edu/faculty/turner/languages .htm)
Using this reasoning the only languages left will be Chinese, English, Spanish and Russian (the only languages that rank higher than french).
Idiot.
1. Immigration. Nah, I don't think that immigration has anything to do with it other than a fair percentage of people in the "good" universities in technical programs ARE aliens. I feel that it has much for to do with general culture, i.e. Japan is EXTREMELY conservative, while less so Taiwan doesn't do too bad of a job of R&D even if they aren't really up to snuff technically, similarly Europe is also highly conservative(but not nearly as much so as Japan) and would be a MUCH more likely place to see similar areas to Silicon Valley spring up especially in some of the city-states or possibly Eastern European countries AND they should be at a nearly equal technical level although they haven't done much in quite some time. Actually now that I think of it Canada should be even closer than Europe if it wasn't for their f'ed up tax system. (I'm really surprised in a way that ATI & Bioware stay there, but then again, they probably make enough that the taxes don't seem that bad, plus I imagine that the Canadian gov't gives them special breaks to make sure that they stay, just like M$ was threatening... agricultural related industries also get MASSIVE subsidies, goodies, and tax breaks as well, which I know of as my bro-in-law is Canadian and owns a nursery(plants)... still bitches like hell about hte taxes though...)
2. India doubt it, not for centuries at least anyways.
3. China, hard to get much more police state than that unless you consider Iran or North Korea...
4. Universities: Actually when I was considering completing a Ph.D. in engineering a CS professor(Korean) suggested Switzerland as they had: a) money(lots), b) spoke english, and c) good Universities. Additionally the chairman of our department while have done his BS & MS in the US completed his Ph.D. at Cambridge(his advisor took a position there and several of his students went along for the ride) Lastly, I met a post-doc (CS) from France out our University and a friend of his from France(Ph.D. EE prof) they both ccompleted their Ph.D. at Grenoble and seemed to be as good as the regular engineering department staff(the other guy now works as an EE prof at a university on Corse IIRC). Japanese Universities are supposedly pretty good too, esp the University of Tokyo, although there is a bit of a language barrier there so analysis is somewhat difficult(and I don't know any Japanese with decent English AND who have technical degrees to say much). Now universities from other parts of the world, e.g. India, Pakistan, etc. the university ALWAYS made them finish a BS here until recently as they have sub-par programs in the VAST majority of their universities.
5. You CAN fire people in Canada too, and also in Eastern European countries, and Western European countries are changing. Technically you can do it in Japan as well, but again their arch-conservatism and not doing so by tradition, which is also slowly changing... Also in the U.S. it is VERY difficult to fire some types of people, and I have seen the extremes that companies go through when they wish to fire those types of people.
6. Not really a good thing IMHO. It leads to massive instability. Workers will tend to feel little to no loyalty to their employer and hence won't hesitate much, if at all, to steal or otherwise sell company secrets, etc. Also in the U.S. it NEVER went as far as it is in Europe or Japan.
7. I don't have any experience with that other than when companies here are in "garages" they usually only have a couple to a few people working for the "company". Would this really be noticed elsewhere, would people really care?
8. Canada is right next door, and it is fairly easy to cross the border with produced items. Europe, in theory, has a lrge market although you have to contend with the multiplicity of regional languages which in most cases would limit initial markets to England, Ireland, Scotland, France, Germany, Austria, and Switzerland.
9. VC isn't such a great thing as the real people behind new ideas tend t
"...the universities are better,..."
L LLLL!!!1111!!L!1!
BBWWAAHAHAAahahahaAHAHAHHLLLooLOLOLOLOLOLolololLO
Mr Graham states that one driver of startups is the fact that America allows immigration. That's at odds with my own story.
When I was growing up, all I ever wanted to do was move to the USA. When I finished school, my parents could not afford to send me to university, so I had to start work straight out of school. I spent 5 years working my way from cable laying guy to networks guy to Unix guy, and then tried to move to the USA. After 2 years of trying, I gave up and moved to the UK.
Next year, I will _finally_ be eligible to apply for an H1B visa, but I won't be. Because I don't have a degree, I need 12 years work experience. The first 8 years of that experience are no longer technically relevant to anything I do today. Sure, it taught me a lot about dealing with people and integrating into the 'real world', but I don't see how that is relevant since I would have been eligible for entry fresh out of university with none of that experience.
Even if I did want to apply, I would have no guarantee of permanent settlement. I would have to 'emmigrate' to the USA knowing that if the company I was working for went under, or declared a loss for a number of years running, or laid off too many other people, I would have to pack my life back into boxes and go home. 30 is too damn old to be taking that kind of chance.
I took that chance coming to the UK at 25, and even then I was almost guaranteed permanent settlement when I moved here. It was certainly never tied to the company that I moved here to work for. At 25, I could take those risks, but not anymore.
So instead of adding to the US economy, I've got a successful life adding to the UK economy. Overall, the US immigration policy is NOWHERE near as friendly as many places in Europe.
The start-ups would all be happening in France except that they don't have a word for "entrepreneur".
No, really! Type that into Babelfish and ask for an English-to-French translation, and it spits the same word back at you. OK, maybe it's in French dictionaries, but it's obviously one of those words that they're always borrowing from other languages (e.g. the days of the week sound suspiciously like the Italian names).
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
American businesses can:
Hire people they want to hire
Fire people they want to fire
Pay people what they are worth
Corporate taxes are much lower here than in Europe.
There is no mandatory "3 months paid time off" if you choose to have a child. There's no mandatory 8 weeks of vacation per year. There's no mandatory 35 hour workweek.
Only the USA has the intellect available to constantly come up with new ideas. Other countries just steal our ideas and IP. We really need better protection of our IP, and I hope Bush will continue to show other countries that you just don't mess with us. Obviously we need the war on terror to expand even more into protecting our IP. If we let anybody take our property, as previous leaders have done, we will lose our steam.
By in large doesn't mean anything. By and large means all possible directions and has come to mean "all things being considered."
Man, you really need that seminar!
You can't really teach this out of people. It's a cognitive heuristic which saves on brainpower, which is deeply embedded in the human psyche. The only way to escape it is with large doses of intelligence: larger than most people possess. The core issue is about compression as a way to aid comprehension: to make a sentence like "America has many of the world's top universities" tractable - easier to reason about and remember - it has to be translated into something simpler. The most obvious example is "America == top universities". There's an obvious loss of information here, but arguably, the main point has been retained. A lot of human silliness is explained by this trick.
I take some exception to this. America became what it is because of the natural resources we have (that were stumbled upon and which we commenced to plunder.) So even today our natural resources bless our economy in ways most people never notice. This is not because of the southwest and southeast, it's because of the whole. You grow it, dig it up, or chop it down; everything else is hard to base a sustainable economy on.
What a ridiculous post. There are clear regional variations in economic growth in the US. All regions do depend on raw materials. And your point is?
an ill wind that blows no good
The US bias in the individual vs. society question is relatively more in favor of the individual than Asia and Europe.
Talking to my lovely German wife, I was shocked to discover that, if you own a bookstore in Germany, you can't be open whenever you want, or sell books at your desired price point.
Sure, there are restrictions on such activity in the US. You can't just offer books at next-to-nothing indefinitely, to break the market. My perception, however, is that the amount of government interference in the market is substantially lower in the US than elsewhere.
Government is the second oldest business. Can't have it stifling the rest.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
Not much of this will stand up to a serious checking, I'm afraid.
A lot of this is just economics of scale. If you compare the US to, say, the UK, you are comparing 298 mio. people to 60 mio. people - a scale of 5:1. It isn't a surprise that the bigger domestic market, bigger pool of labor, bigger pool of inventors, banks, universities and everything else produces more start-ups, even on a scale higher than 5:1 (since some of these factors multiply).
Take the "better universities", for example. How many really top notch universities does the US have? It's always the same five or so names you hear. It's not like there were a hundred great universities, it's a small bunch. If you scale that down by 5:1, you'll realize that the UK (or any other 1st world country you want to compare to) can hold it's own.
There are also several factors that are overlooked and ignored. For example, many countries lack the venture capital culture of the US. Germany, for example, is much more conservative with funding. Getting thrown a few millions for a cool idea is not something you can count on over here. On the other hand, I'm sure that this caution results in a much lower rate of failed startups as well.
Finally, consider cultures. Not everyone shares the "american dream" of becoming the super-rich boss of a huge corporation. Quite a few other cultures have other dreams. They might be happy at having found their niche where they perform best, even if it's on a smaller scale. They might not wish the ruthlessness sometimes necessary and often demonstrated by US "robber barons" and corporations, but put more value on human values and moderation. Your "success" does not necessarily have to be my success, and we both might laugh over what someone else considers his personal big success.
So why are there so many startups in the US? Maybe because the US culture considers startup to be more interesting, valuable or important than other cultures do. And if you want to go round the circle, I'm sure everyone can write an article titled "why are there more (something) in (country Y) than elsewhere?".
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Spelling flames, grammar flames, condescending parsing of unmeaningless phrases just wastes everyones time. I am surprised that is all you came up with.
an ill wind that blows no good
California collected far more in income taxes this year than previously expected, to the tune of $2.2 billion. Much of that surplus has been attributed to Google, its employees, and its shareholders.
The rise in income tax payments goes hand in hand with a rise in net worth for a lot of people in the Bay Area, most of whom are both smart and talented. I would expect to see a number of newly wealthy people head out and create new startups of their own.
People who continue to think that Silicon Valley's heyday is over, never to return, are wrong. The Bay Area is already bouncing back, in part due to the factors mentioned in the article. Technical jobs are already more plentiful than technical workers. Any IT person in Silicon Valley who wants to change employers can do so, and will get a raise in the process.
I wouldn't count Silicon Valley out any time soon.
Remember, it's not just cream that rises to the top. Scum rises too.
Sorry folks, but that is the definition of a police state. The fact that it doesn't happen as often as it does in other police states doesn't change a damn thing. The US absolutely fits the definition of a ploice state!
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Luck and natural resources might explain Fooistan's rise to dominance.
Something about Fooistan's people would be the only possible explanation if, everywhere they emigrated, they founded startups and became their new country's business class. Especially if Fooistan was huge, conquered other countries, but didn't have entrepreneurship at home.
Way to tell us once again the same old truisms we've heard expressed much more eloquently by others a 100 times before (immigration, labour laws, US universities...), mixing it with complete batshit insane bullshit (it's good to have a bad public school system? French and German will disappear?).
I wish I hadn't wasted 10 minutes of my life to read this article.
And I thought that advantage was because you didn't have to initialize your education variable by hand.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I am an European, born and grown up in Italy and living in Norway.
In my experience I have not seen any country being so fiendish at visitors as the US. The mega-fence on the border with Mexico is one example. The continuous controls for what-the-hell-they-are-looking for at airports is another. Then again I have not been to Uzbekistan or Iran.
Comes down on how you define "rich". I was definitely not impressed (in fact, a bit disappointed) by American infrastructure. In 2004 I could not even call Europe from a public phone in Chicago airport (maybe I hit a streak of broken phones). The same year, a conference I attended in Austin, TX had 5,000 participants and not a single Internet connection available. Then again, Italy is worse, but America is not really so impressive.
See above for the requests of fingerprints, the queues when entering the country and the like. They gathered so much data about me they probably know me better than my mother.
That's why I am staying here, thanks. I prefer to be able to plan my life beyond this week. Of course you can fire people in Europe, only you cannot fire at a whim. If you don't have a good reasons you can get sued, which happens way more often in the US than in Italy (about 10 cases a year for 58 million people; not sure about the US but I suspect it's way higher).
Who said it is illegal to work in your garage? What laws should prevent it? Why would that swiss lady report to the police the start-up in the garage? Have you Americans this sort of laws? For I am totally unaware of such laws in Italy, Norway or elsewhere. Of course, if the start-up is a mechanic workshop that keeps the neighbourhood up all night, people have a right to protest, but it does not seem to be the case discussed in TFA.
This is the most ludicrous claim ever. Italy has been under foreign domination for 1,500 years (Ostrogoths, Byzantines, Franks, French, Northmen, Arabs, Spaniards, French, Germans, and a bunch of others I cannot remember), and we got at most a few words. Thinking that a country can shift language as often as a geek changes his underwear is patently insane. And changing for what, English? Wake up, you will all soon have to learn Chinese!
I do not know American or German law in much detail, but in Italy (and presumably in Germany as well) there are different levels of incorporation. To start a SpA ("shareholder society") you need about 100,000 euros in capital; if you cannot make it, you have to limit yourself to a Srl (limited-responsibility company). The difference is in practice small; the friend probably looked at the GmbH level in Germany and thought it was the minimum threshold; instead, that threshold is meant for investors to be sure they are investing in a company that actually has capital, and not an Enron of some sort. Then again, I am not much in the details.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
According to this,
s .htm
http://ed.sjtu.edu.cn/rank/2005/ARWU2005Statistic
the UK has more universities in the top 100 per head of capita than the US does. You can make statistics say whatever you want.
I have no doubt that the top universities in the US are excellent, but are they really indicative of the education that the average graduate receives.
It seems like it would be fairer to rank every university in each country, then pick the median and then compare that value.
U.S. is at the bottom of every list for the developed world. In fact, the U.S. is less and less resembling a developed country in many ways.
-Education
-Health/Longevity
-Debt
-Trade
The only things that keep the U.S. from turning into some crashing 2/3rd world disaster are:
-Immigrants from good education systems
-Acceptance of our Debt (for now)
THe marriage thing will no longer work at all. Neither will the getting sponsored part if you've already moved in here illegally. During the later half the clinton administration, a new bill was added that barred illegal immigrants from legalizing themselves should they have spent any time here illegaly. If ti was fairly short, under a month or so they would be barred for a year or so. The next level they'd be barred from staying here for ten years.
Gaining illegal entry from foreign countries via airport is also quite difficult.
Hmmm... Pie...
Just how many countries in the world are there where a politician could make a career and a run for President talking about "pointy-headed intellectuals", where "egghead" is a term of contempt.
Wow, you are sure on an agenda push as your point was already refuted by the parent you were responding to! I suggest you re-read it - his whole point was that Americans are all pro education, and just differ on what should be tought - and also dislike people who talk down to them assuming they "know better". Thus a "pointy headed intellectial" is someone who has let education go to their head and assumes they are better than everyone else, particualrily when they have only academic education and little practical education.
As for "egghead" I don't think that is always a term of derison, lots of people use it in a pretty gentle fashion.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
Rebublicans do not "support the very rich" any more than the Democrats do, just different groups of very rich people.
"Support for the rich" is not a reason to be either for or against either the Democrats or Rebublicans. People choose party support for other reasons.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
People seem to assume that because there has historically been a dominating power, that there must always be one.
By way of fluffy example, take this:
1950s - Elvis Presley
1960s - The Beatles
1970s - ???
Record labels spent much of the 1970s trying to mint "the next Beatles". There was no obvious artist/group that could claim that title -- pop music diversified to the point where there were many big artists, but no dominating one.
I suspect that in the likely case the U.S. isn't still considered the big superpower by the end of this century, that there just won't be one. Barring a big shift in the geopolitical landscape, I suspect China, India, the E.U., and the U.S. (among others) will be big players in their own right. Of course, it would be entirely unprecedented for an entire century to pass without a big geopolitical shift, and I dare not predict what that would be, other than it'll probably be ugly.
There may well be a hundred or more truly great universities in the US.
Outside of the top ten you speak of, which is only a name recoginition thing there are a lot of truly impressive universities doing interesting work and churning out very well educated students. For instance take the school I attended - Rice University. It's probably not on that "top ten" list, but it's where Buckyballs were first developed.
There are similarily smaller schools all over that may not have as many students or as much name recognition as the larger schools, but are still just as impressive in terms of the education you can get and the work that is done.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Interesting information, but anecdotal. Google is a decent company for California, but it hardly makes the state economy as you ridiculously suggest. I am not suggesting the SV is like Pittsburg after the steel bust, but its growth pales when you consider the booming growth in states surrounding it. The heady days of the 80's and 90's are behind. The innovations that come out SV have been reduced to a comparative trickle. I stand by that observation.
an ill wind that blows no good
One reason to value many companies over one is that even if half of them fail, you still have half that are working and growing. If you have on large company that fails then you have nothing, which is why communities want some large companies but also a lot of smaller companies so that one failure does not doom the whole community.
The other reason to value small companies more is that work matters more in a smaller company. I have been in very small companies (ten people) and also very large ones (well, sort of large - thousands of employees). I generally actually prefer the smaller companies because you get more intersting work, and the work that you do matters a lot more to the direct success of that company. That in turn is a very empowering feeling and leads you to realize that you, too, could really start a company if you wished.
Small companies also do not have to mean innstability, there are a lot of smaller companies just plugging away that make enough to cover costs with some growth in a stable field. It's just that we as technical folk think of software startups which are generally more make or break propositions than the vast majority of startup companies.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
> treat people like cattle by making them wait in lines (like our DMV)
Not every DMV is inefficient, badly managed, or hostile to the customer. The one I use is the most efficient
public service I've ever seen, and most services are available online anyway.
> Nazis were socialists.
Nazis called themselves socialists and perhaps they affected the meaning of the word by doing so. Hitler loved the socialist ideas as long as they could only benefit people of "German blood". You picked a real good example to show your understanding of what socialist ideas are there.
FWIW, I also do not agree that America is a "police state", although I do feel that the Executive Branch has asserted more authority than I believe they are entitled.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
One thing he seems to have forgotten - the outrageously high cost of university education in the US. Ireland has made university education free for it's citizens - and is now the leader in high tech employment in Europe.
I think you may have a point.
I was thinking about that scene in Quest for the Holy Grail, where the Dad is explaining about how strong his castle is. ("..that one burnt down, fell over, then sank into the swamp. But the forth one stood. It's the strongest castle in all...", you know the scene.)
Do British laugh because the old man IS daft?
Do Americans laugh because they've all been there?
If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
USA (or more exactly it's Government), more than any other country is far more "friendly" to business than to it's citizens, because at the end of the day it's the corporations that contribute the majority of the politicians bank balances
Where as in most of the rest of the developed world they are either more balanced (UK) or swing to far towards the individual (France), while politicians there wish they had been born in USA
Most people in the western world just watch with amazement at what the american people let their politicians and their paymasters get away with.
So so true. What scares me the most are these paranoid folk on here who are so quick to abuse terminology only to name the US as a "police state" because they know a guy who knows a guy who read an article about a guy who was "supposedly arrested, detained, and tortured" for holding Star Wars Episode 1.
Honestly, when was the last time any of you Americans were dragged out and beaten by the police for just being in the minority on religion (or lack thereof), political view, or ripping CDs?
Obviously the temperature must be lower, the pressure greater or a combination of both in America to facilitate condensation. There may also be cool surfaces.
Stick Men
I submit that the reason startups happen most often in the USA is simply because US society approves of people getting rich. There's no embarrassment in being wealthy. Your property rights are protected and taxes are relatively low.
In many other parts of the world the rich must fear "the people". As a result the "pre-rich" give up before they start for fear of making themselves a target.
A: Because the stakes are so small.
That is all.
However some of your points underestimate the differences between the two regions:
Labor mobility may not be an American invention but America is the place where it is currently practiced. Of course there are ways of "getting around" anti-mobility laws, as there are ways of geting around any laws, but law avoidance (like tax avoidance) is costly, difficult, and incomplete. Just saying that you can "work around" laws greatly understates the difficulty in so doing. In many countries of the EU, firing someone or laying them off is practically impossible.
There are far fewer large tech incumbents in Europe than in the US. Obviously every country has a phone company but most European countries do not have an IBM, Microsoft, or Cisco.
In my experience foreigners are as tolerant of failure as Americans. In fact foreigners are probably more tolerant of failure because career success is less important in most countries than in the U.S.
Furthermore, it has been my experience that many or most employees of silicon valley startups are Asian or European. Even some of the founders of companies in silicon valley are foreign. If foreign people were terrified of failure then they would not come to the US to fail, only to be sent slinking home. Bear in mind that many people working in silicon valley companies are employed using H1-B visas which means that if the company fails then their visa is revoked and they must return home immediately--implying to their fellows that they went to silicon valley, tried, failed, and were booted out of the place. If they were afraid of failure then they wouldn't take a risk like that.
Since foreigners are as likely as Americans to work at silicon valley startups, cultural differences between employees can't be the reason behind silicon valley's success. The fact that the employees are from all over the world, but the companies are American, suggests that the difference is economic not cultural.
I believe the primary reason there are more large startups in the US is because there is far more venture capital. It's natural that Europeans would be terrified of failing in Europe because the enterpreneurs there must bear the risk entirely by themselves. If you wish to raise money for a startup in Europe then you must risk all of your personal savings, and your house--and even then you really wouldn't have enough money to fund the startup. In America you use somebody else's money, and the risk to you is greatly decreased. Of course, if you accept venture capital then the potential rewards are also decreased, but if the startup succeeds then you'll be filthy rich anyway and you won't worry about the 33% cut of your massive fortune that must now be paid to ventu
But that would mean the police arresting themselves ...?!
Not every DMV is inefficient, badly managed, or hostile to the customer. The one I use is the most efficient public service I've ever seen, and most services are available online anyway.
I suppose I should have written "like America's typical large town DMVs".
Hitler loved the socialist ideas as long as they could only benefit people of "German blood". You picked a real good example to show your understanding of what socialist ideas are there.
I was attempting to dispel the myth that right-wing in America equates to Hitler or Skinheads. Many of the socialists in Germany at the time turned communist. This led to the left wing being communist and the right wing being socialist. In America, many blue collar, FDR loving Union workers of the 60s were racists (many still are).
the Executive Branch has asserted more authority than I believe they are entitled.
I remember hearing about the super spy project of the NSA called "Echelon" during the Clinton era. I never heard one Democrat speak out against it during that time. The income tax is one of the biggest invasion of one's privacy, yet I never hear Democrats speak out against it. Internet companies buy and sell our personal information, yet the government does nothing about that. Our social security numbers were never meant to be a form of ID, but everyone seems to ask for it and the government has done virtually nothing to limit its use. The left invades our privacy in order to take our money and to socially engineer, the right invades our privacy in order to "protect us." I don't know which is worse.
In my opinion, the activist Judicial branch has done way more over-reaching than the Executive branch. At least the Executive branch is popularly elected.
the US industry has invented the cupholder ..because they listen to their customers. It's called market research. It's a very common US characterictic.
I would not buy a car without a cupholder. That's right, I would refuse to purchase a multi-thousand dollar car that did not have a $5 piece of plastic to hold a cup. I've had two cars that didn't have cup holders and I'm never buying another one like them.
I don't need "German engineering" or "European styling", but I do want a cup holder.
Silicon Valley startups still receive more VC funding than the next four largest regions combined. Why is this? Stanford and UC Berkeley nearby? The pretty scenery? The affordable housing? In part. But mostly, it's because tens of billions of dollars in VC money resides within a few blocks on Sand Hill Road. And for the most part, VCs don't have any reason to leave the area in search of investments. The Web browser was invented in Illinois, but when it came time to found Netscape, the founders moved West because this is where the VC money lives. That hasn't changed.
Very interesting graph. But it mostly just says that VC's went to school and want to hang around California and Boston. Most businessmen in the country look at VC as a bad deal, which it is. Overall growth in each area is low. They are clearly exhaused. The historical trend data is even more interesting. Total VC now is about 20% of what it spiked at in 2000. After the bust growth has been nearly flat. Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the model. Netscape is often trumpeted as a great triumph of VC. It made a few insiders rich -- at the expense of the majority of investors who got screwed. Goggle revived the frenzy for a while. Investors luckily have short memories, huh? Also the investments are very narrowly focused to software and biotech. After 30 years these areas simply do not have the growth potential they once had. I am surprised at little attention is paid to energy and transportation.
The bay area will certainly remain prosperous. But there will be no more Wozs, Jobs, Andy Groves, or Jim Clarks. What the bay area is is a charactature of its former self, choked with wannabees and 2nd stringers for whom making a cheap buck comes before changing the world.
an ill wind that blows no good
Silicon Valley was _well_ underway before the US opened the floodgates in the 60's. I personally think had the US not had open immigration, the US would be a stronger country technologically and financially.
The first transistor radios were from the US. I have old RCA, Zenith, and GE radios (i collect them) dating in the late 1950's, well before the Japanese (sony etc) came out. We now think of transistor radios as Japanese because they took over the market thru the near-slave-level wages that they were paying their workers in the early 60's.
I invented the walkman in 1964. I was in the fourth grade. I soldered a 1/4 inch jack to my shortwave style headphones, and inserted it into my 6 transistor radio. I walked to school, rode my bike, etc. with them on. It was great. Everyone considered me to be geekey geek, even before the term was invented. I was picked last for sports, etc. Oh well.
LOOK UP JOSEPH COTTON SEABREEZE ON GOOGLE. Why doesn't it return my page? Now go to yahoo and do the same.
Yes, seriously...
One advantage the USA definitely has for technology startups is that basic research is funded with about $36 billion in public funds, i.e. roughly two-thirds of the basic research budget. That pays for a lot of research and potential business opportunities, and it is a spending level that most US competitors cannot hope to match.
Of course a discovery is not a product, and industry pays for most of the applied research and almost all the development. But it is basic research that provides the core around which a startup can condense. Or it keeps an industry alive and growing -- the success of the US aviation industry was to a considerable extent the success of NACA/NASA. And Silicon Valley started out from the base of Stanford University.
On overall R&D expenditure, the USA still outspends Japan and China by about a factor three.
The list on the linked page that's most relevant to the issue Graham is referring to is "Top universities worldwide by research impact". Those are the kind of institutions that people think of when asked what the "most admired" universities are, and it's also very relevant in terms of the connection to startups.
On that list, only 1 out of the 10 top universities is outside of the U.S.
Since when is being buisness friendly good-in-of-itself? I could live off of half the pay I make but everywhere wants 50 hours a week so there is no point in taking a lower paying job. Seriously, society exists as a social contract to help its citizens... how many citizens benefit from a buisness-friendly enviroment?
Your CPU is not doing anything else, at least do something.
The phrase "intellectual property" is a misnomer, as it conflates disparate legal traditions. I'll expand what you wrote into what you probably meant:
Copyrighted works spring from the labor of authors and lobbyists, and patented inventions and trade-secreted know-how spring from the labor of inventors and lobbyists. Trademarks and rights of publicity spring from the labor of marketers and lobbyists. So we've collapsed all of so-called "IP" into labor, much of it being inefficient rent-seeking labor.
You claim that limits on firing should exist. But the United States does in fact have limits on firing. For instance, a business can't fire an employee for being in one of the following classes:
Even with the more recent safety and ecology regulations, which often require patented processes to be incorporated into the car?
So how do I know what patents a particular product is using before I sell it?
what people call communism, is in fact a very small layer of socialism painted on a hard core of fascism ... a 1-party-system.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
1. Americans are not at all larger than everyone else [wikipedia.org].
No news here. I always thought it was the Danes who were largest. By the way, quoting Wikipedia as chapter and verse is really annoying and intellectually lazy. Next time do better.
2. In fact - the Americans only seem to grow wider [newyorker.com], unlike the rest of us.
In some places like New York, southeast you may be right. In other places (Seattle, Boulder) people are very fit. It is a big country. It varies. You are very unworldy for a European sophisticate.
3. The US football side was just thrashed by the Czech
It only proves my point. I wish we had better athletes playing soccer. Losing to Europeans is intolerable. I really thing the size, stength, and speed of American football players would be an interesting addition to soccer. The 6'8" attackers on Czech suggest what is possible.
4. You are an ignorant hick.
All I can say is: Cornell '86! Hick is no longer a very insulting word. It has been hurled so often by the effete left as to have lost its meaning.
an ill wind that blows no good
American businesses can:
Hire people they want to hire
Fire people they want to fire
Pay people what they are worth
Well, no wonder that they've taken it too far and wonder why the public is against them - being corporation friendly is only going to bring the "Robber Baron" class back.
Fix the H1B/L1 loophole (add teeth by specifying that the job can actually be done by the millions of US citizens - no "5 years experience for a 3 year existing skill" requirements allowed). Labor mobility only works if the laws arent engineered against the worker, and if it takes account external costs to move.
Redirect subsidies from other places to education and turn all universities to merit-blind, full open admissions education (in other words, bring a form of Net Neutrality to higher education).
Since some states (like Ohio and Michigan) have gotten into an economic disaster, removing the high cost tiered system of higher education would be the only real way to pull them out. Moving out is not an option as the people that could move out have moved out.
The big question is, what is it with an economy that makes it good to punish the worker and it inherently evil to allow the majority to benefit?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
That's one reason why venture capital finds its way to America.
Slashdot "libertarians": Small government for me, big government for those I disagree with. -1, I disagree with you
Just to mention a few names that come up: Albert Einstein, Emilio Segrè, Bruno Pontecorvo, Enrico Fermi's wife. Segrè and Pontecorvo were in Fermi's team (Panisperna Boys) in Rome where they discovered slow neutrons (crucial for fission).
I submit that the reason startups happen most often in the USA is simply because US society approves of people getting rich. There's no embarrassment in being wealthy.
Well, when ethics is no problem here, you're going to get this kind of business activity.
In many other parts of the world the rich must fear "the people". As a result the "pre-rich" give up before they start for fear of making themselves a target.
Unfortunately a few bad apples (read: Industrial/Victorian robber barons, slave labor multinationals, corporate lobbyists, Modern day off[s|w]horers, and the Enron types) have ruined things enough to require robust regulation. The US is just getting to the point where there might not be shame in being rich- just that you will fear the majority out of respect.
I ask the question - why is it fine to freely punish (via such things as offshoring and pro-employer hiring practices) "the people" who make up for the majority, versus it being a cardinal sin to keep businesses honest(as evidenced in the immigration reform and H1B/L1 debates)?
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Guess what? Richard Stallman having a website does not make what he states on it fact. There is no natural or man-made law that states income must be drived from absolute production.
Mac OS X and Windows XP working side by side to fight back the night.
My beef was not with the existence of patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, and rights of publicity, but instead with your lumping exclusive rights that are more different than similar together into the blanket term "intellectual property". What specifically do patents and trademarks have in common such that they deserve to be described with the same terms?
What patent, copyright, trademark, trade secret, or right of publicity is not derived from labor?
That's all there is to it. (Almost) anything for money.
Simpy
"If natural resources take such a huge stance, why are most of the oil producing nations still 'poor'?"
Hint: They are not.
What news channel have you been watching? Let yourself peek into reality for just a second:
The largest exporter of oil to the largest consumer(USA): Canada. Not Poor.
The largest exporter of oil period: Saudi Arabia. Not Poor.
The largest oil exporting newish government: Venezuela. Not Poor.
The third largest oil producer in the world: USA. Not Poor.
The UK is ranked 13th.
In fact, of the top 10 oil producers in the world, not a single one of them is "poor". You might consider Russia poor, if you count their temperary economic problems as being poor. Plus, they are so big that oil alone cannot prop up their economy and they have (rightfully so) throttled their output in reflection. You might count Iraq poor, but come on, Bush bombed their capitol, killed their president's sons, and captured their leader, throwing them into civil war. To make matters worse, he invited international terrorists and Al Queda, a group previously not operating in Iraq, into the most powerful opposition group in Iraq. And they still have fucking curbside trash services and cellphones for christs sake. Does sticking your thumb in blue ink to be able to vote make you a poor country? Does dust in the wind because you live in a desert make you poor?
Please look at this list and tell me, which of these countries are "poor"???? And you were modded Insightful? Learn reality. Don't spout off bullshit.
Natural resources are the KEY to thriving economies. Wealth is CREATED solely (SOLELY!) by natural resources. Nothing more. Natural resources are the starting point of ALL created wealth. Stock markets don't create wealth. Business don't create wealth except through natural resources. Banks don't create wealth except through financing business. You have inflation, and it is caused by the mining of natural resources. You have raw materials, and they cost money to dig up. But most natural resources cost less to dig up than they bring back in sales. This is why natural resources are the begining of the economy. The entire world economy is rooted in this principle. Economies were STARTED with the trading of natural resources. Where did you learn economics? Wal-Mart?
I have to agree, a government playing games with the economy can be the difference between successfull and failing in extreme cases of government abuse (of which there are many examples in history). But governments have negligable meaning in the long run(and usually even in the short term) when looking at the big picture. Without self sustaining natural resources, a local economy CANNOT SURVIVE without external and continuing investment. End of story.
Next time, before posting utter bullshit, think about the ignorance you spread to the rest of the world in your posts. It can only serve to hinder progress.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
ETH-Zürich:Niklaus Wirth:Pascal, Modula-2,Oberon
Frauenhofer Institute:MP3
EPF-Lausanne:Apple's Quartz Composer
etc.
There are some extremely good unis here. My own personal idea is simply that starting a business is less bureaucratic in the US than elsewhere. The comment about Europe and the second world war was simply stupid. How many Americans are still traumatised by the civil war? It was also a long time ago and extremely bloody and controversial.
I wonder if your own mother tongue just happens to be among the few imperial winners which deserve to live on while all others could as well be euthanized in the name of an ever more efficient global business environment?
But how did literature slip into that list of yours of subjects that the young people (in Europe?) should spend their time on instead. Perhaps you meant that studying the literature of those linguistically surviving empires (only) would be beneficial in moulding the populations of the lesser nations into more homogenous and thereby more easily targeted markets?
The largest military empires and their obedient sidekicks all agree that it is the "freedom of business" that matters, with other supposed freedoms and rights merrily relegated to the lip-service pages of international conventions where they don't bother the money people.
Pob hwyl i'r dyfodol...
Should invading one's peaceful neighbours be opposed, or rewarded with trade deals?
- The US allows immigration - i'd say since 9/11 that can be scratched off
- it is a rich country - with extreme wealth inequality
- it is not (yet) a police state - kindly dispense with the charade
- the universities are better - depends on the yardstick. i also think it doesn't really matter where you go to uni as long as you study
- you can fire people - true
- it is not too fussy - i take great issue with this statement! the opposite is true: ridiculous bureacracy combined with oppressive behaviour laws
- it has a large domestic market - true
- it has venture funding, and
- it has dynamic typing for careers - what's this? some fluffy HR term?
Paul Graham totally missed the ball on this point.
Having high Capital Gains Tax doesn't influence how popular doing a startup is. Once your company has done an IPO and is listed in Nasdaq,
YOU HAVE MADE IT. YOU ARE NO LONGER A STARTUP and you have to start behaving like a grownup company. Thats when Capital gains taxes start mattering.
Besides, for the most part, the stockmarket is built by and for gamblers. It's used to raise capital but that's only after the initial startup has been accepted by VCs and has had some funding already. I feel that having to answer to shareholders actually limits the options a CEO has to move the company forward since shareholders ALWAYS prefer shortterm gains over longterm development. Flame me if you want but after seeing google being bent over by shareholders over the China issue, Im probably correct.
Cheers,
Ben
From the Detroit News: http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=
From a paper at the Cato institute, with appropriate source references sited: http://www.cato.org/dailys/02-25-04-2.html
Finally, the state of california, which is pretty much the slant of the original aritcle:
http://www.calchamber.com/CC/Headlines/Archive/Ec
Interesting, the California Chamber of Commerce reports that most jobs lost in California go to....Texas.
I guess one could call this the Colin Powell rhetorical device.
Wealth is CREATED solely (SOLELY!) by natural resources
How is this the case? How is it the wealthiest man on earth is not the one who owns the most natural resources? Bill Gates built a company of ideas, not gas or oil or anything else. Wealth is built by the efforts of human minds, not by the existence of gold or dirt. In fact, if it weren't for the efforts of man, these resources would be useless. Oil does not hold value or create wealthy men if there is no automobile to drive it with. In this case, natural resources are assigned value by the efforts of men who use them, not vice versa. Can a man create wealth by extracting oil under the land he owns? Yes. But a man can create wealth by designing a car that runs on something other than oil and selling that car. Or selling that idea for the car. Wealth begins with the efforts of men. That is why natural-resource-'poor' nations like Israel pre-1948 can become economic success stories.
And what I meant about oil producing nations being poor is that the wealth is piddled away by Sheiks in Saudi Arabia.
Saudi Arabia is the largest oil exporter. It is 30th on the GNP list and has a GDP pp of $12,800 (2005 est.)
Meanwhile the U.S. has a GDP pp of $42,000. I would say selling the most of the arguably the easiest to sell, most in demand product in the world, and still only being at maybe the bottom of the first world economies is pretty terrible.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
"ow is this the case? How is it the wealthiest man on earth is not the one who owns the most natural resources? Bill Gates built a company of ideas, not gas or oil or anything else. Wealth is built by the efforts of human minds, not by the existence of gold or dirt."
You are forgetting that the most abundant (ROI wise) natural resource on this planet, the human resource, is what Bill Gates is mining in his company.
Do you think Gates himself is writing those programs? Marketing those products? Managing those employees? No. he is farming out labor to a large group of highly trained humans. The same humans that depend directly on other natural resrouces.
You import (or buy) natural resources (Food, water, building materials, shelter, and humans) insert them into your business model, and out pops a product created with those natural resrouces. You can say that the idea of that business model is what creates wealth. But all it does is turn the already expensive resouces you put into it combine. The product is not inherantly worth MORE than the value of the resrouces you put into it. Every single cost must be factored in, including the human cost and profit cost, and then it is a break even. The human cost is obvious, but the profit cost is a direct transfer of wealth (by transforming resources into money) into a seperate account set aside for the investors. This is not a wealth creation but a wealth transfer.
The reason Billy G is so rich is because his resource cost is so large, and his sales output is so large, that shaving off fractions of his margin into profit(a cost of the business) by transforming resources into money, and then placing a fraction of that money into a savings account. There is no wealth creation in this process, only a transfer. The only wealth creation is by mining the raw materials. Everything else is wealth transfer, not creation. In the case of Microsoft, most of the wealth is in transfers.
The Employees of Microsoft are trading (transfering) wealth to their employer in the form of ideas and mental capacity. In exchange, Microsoft transfers a smaller amount of wealth (the difference defined as the gross margin of the resource) to the employee in the form of cold hard cash. The employee then spends that cash on natural resources for consumption, much of which goes to waste in the landfill. The cycle continues.
You can argue a lot of things about economics by shuffling money around into different places, assigning a dollar price on every single activity that a human can do, with investments "creating" wealth magically through interest rates and human ingenuity and what not, but at the end of the day, when actual costs of resources are itemized out, individually, properly, 100% of all GENERATED wealth is in the "production" (or mining or collection) of natural resources. EVERYTHING else is a wealth transfer via manipulation of margins. There is no other correct way of looking at economics. This is the FOUNDATION of all economic principles. It is the foundation of Wal-Mart, Microsoft, and any other rich company. This realization is the difference between wealthy people, and the rest.
Your ignorance is infinitely greater than you realize.
Sorry, but you are way off.
The University of California system is a step above the California State University system, and costs more, but it is still very much a state school system (regardless of if they are run like a private one) and costs nowhere near what a private school does:
University of Michigan is the same from what I can tell.
Here are the state resident fees for some schools:
Cal State Chico full-time semester: $1398.00 ($2796/yr)
UC Berkeley semester: $3,716.95 ($7434/yr)
University of Michigan semester: around $5,000 (~$10,000/yr)
Stanford QUARTER regardless of state residence: $10,998 ($32994/yr)
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
Don't forget that hospitals wouldn't have to charge $50 for an asprin to make up for giving care to those that sneak in and can't pay for it.