I think, though know this is anecdotal, US startup success is based largely on its market size of both consumers and venture capital.
Is Peter Thiel comically uninformed?
Incidentally, you probably don't want to drag body counts into a conversation that's teetering on the brink of a larger critique of capitalism. Unless, that is, you'd like to review deaths world-wide from preventable illness due to lack of access to healthcare? In the US alone it's estimated to be 45,000 deaths annually. Meanwhile Texas (in all it's staunch conservative glory) has 3rd world infant mortality rates.
Regarding collapsed leftist economies, what percentage of these are attributable to inherent failures of socialist policy vs simple economic sabotage and regime tampering by the US and it's allies? Would you like to review what the CIA has been up to since the 1950's?
Or would you rather simply review the number of times conservative legislators have run afoul of the constitution just in the last 5 years? We can start with the electoral maps of North Carolina getting chucked over illegal racist gerrymandering, and a thick stack of executive orders that have died in a judge's trash can this year.
There are definitely principled conservatives that are highly informed.
But the strategy the Republican party and media uses to win elections, includes a lot of disinformation and caters to the uninformed.
People like to believe their own tribe is the exalted one, but exploiting the uninformed isn't a partisan strategy.
[1] https://www.politico.com/blogs/ben-smith/2011/04/more-than-h...
Whether comparing very large and very small populations is reasonable is a separate question mind you, but that aside, the comment stands.
I think that's slowly changing. Dutch startups are told to think big nowadays and access to venture capital is also improving.
Nordic startups that focus too much on their local market die. The whole point of startups is to SCALE. This cannot be when the country you live in has less population than greater LA.
What actually happens is that the startups here are "Global-first". They immedietly start talking about branching overseas and meeting with investors that can help them do so.
It's actually the SV startups that can huddle in their bubble for years of time, before doing an easy US wide launch, that already is a huge market.
Even international by default aka pure internet companies like Facebook start as English only and tend to stay that way for a long time.
Uber on the other hand is only useful inside specific cities.
Remember they where .edu only for 2 years even thought they had significant funding. Their core problem was if nobody in Australia signs up then it's boring for the first users in Australia. However, by starting with an EDU focus they could leverage word of mouth to grow a network by location.
The path was starting a Harvard, then other ivy's, then other US collages, then US high-schools. That's clearly designed to leverage exclusivity.
How long was Facebook English only after they got VC?
[1]http://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/...
Since I moved to San Jose, it's only rained a handful of times, and this place's harsh colds of winter have reached such dreadful temperatures as I'd witness on a mild fall day in my former country of residence.
That certainly can't help those numbers, even if I do think the absurd costs of living are quite bad, depressing the QOL for everyone outside of the engineer class here.
And of those homeless, a fraction of them create the 'bad experience' chronic homeless with drug or mental problems that make most people dislike the homeless.
In San Jose it is 7.8x.
Nationally, it is 3.8x (5.8x in NYC metro).
http://www.burbed.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/SFvNational...
Nations are not isolated systems. Comparing national policies as though they didn’t interact gives wrong answers.
Unless, of course, you're the one who's afflicted, then all of a sudden, it's a great tragedy and it wasn't your fault. In other words, we're full of shit.
We've had great mechanism to address this, namely insurance and savings. The underlying principle here is planning ahead, and sacrificing some of today's sweet instant gratification in exchange for protection tomorrow should you need it. This is a concept that people have seemed to lose sight of, so we're now seeing people want protection today even though they made no sacrifice yesterday. Those people with zero foresight have now ruined it for the people that did plan ahead.
For example, health insurers have been found to have done such things as kick cancer patients off insurance as a pre-existing condition, based on previous general practitioner visits. "Oh, we, and you, didn't know it was cancer at the time, you were just sick. But since you were sick shortly after getting insurance, you most likely already had cancer. Therefore it was a pre-existing condition, you didn't disclose it, whether or not you knew about it, and we are terminating your coverage back to the first physician visit about your illness".
Or "We are refusing to cover the costs of the ambulance/air ambulance ride that ferried you to the trauma center after your MVA, because that ride wasn't pre-approved by a call to the insurer".
Both of the above examples happened. I'm not sure what should have happened in either case, but I'm pretty sure in the latter it wasn't, "Hello, Blue Cross? This is John, I'm a paramedic working on one of your patients who was hit by a truck. We would like to fly him to the hospital due to his extensive multisystem trauma but we need your approval. His name? Hang on, let me find his wallet. No, that's Smythe, S-M-Y-T-H-E, sorry, it's a bit loud with the jaws of life in the background... Yes, I can hold for a nurse consult..."
Health insurance in the US is amortization of costs, and has little to do with risk pooling and actuarials.
Does it? Is the purpose of a nation state to compete with others based on economic metrics? Yes, I know that most countries are doing that, but in a thread where we compare individualism/selfishness with nanny/"charity" state, shouldn't this competition be questioned?
For me, I'd say that society is about taking care of everyone -- government should merely (!) play the role of the administrator in that process.
I always feel that way too many people I speak to think that 'the government' is some kind of independent force, rather than a reflection of what society wants. (Sure, in many cases, it really is a reflection of what a tiny handful of people orchestrate -- but since we're talking idealism here...)
Besides, if the will of the people is to take care of everyone through social services, then why do you need a government to do it? It should just happen naturally. What you are saying, is that a few select people that are chosen by a popularity contest should be given the authority to make people do things against their will.
The question is - cui bono?
Your alternative presumably is the current system, where a few self-selected people, kept in power exclusively by wealth, caste, and social connections - often in defiance of real wisdom or foresight - force everyone else to act in ways that benefit that self-sustaining governing class at the expense of everyone else.
If you want to pool resources collectively in a smaller scale you are just replicating this structure with different powerful people, or different structure of power, but a society will always need it, doesn't matter if resources are money, materials or labour.
Yes, but that's a direct consequence of having an ill-informed, poorly educated , credulous, angry, compliant majority. Societies where the elite are looking to retain their power base will typically channel fewer resources to public education, and more to the institutions that reinforce their own position.
Difficult to undo once it's been started, and (IMO) it's been happening for a very long time in AU, UK, US -- and presumably almost everywhere else that self-identifies as a capitalist democracy.
So, yes, the will of the people can get hairy, but of the two options -- force the agenda of the elite upon everyone else, or work towards a better society -- the preferable option very much depends which of those groups you're in right now.
Also noting that if you're in the uninformed group, you may not recognise that, or think anything needs changing.
Nobody would stop you from helping with your neighbour's hospital bill if you were filthy rich.
Beyond that, it's an insulting way to avoid having a real discussion on this issue. If the charity of the rich were enough to solve this social problem, we wouldn't be talking about it. Why are you participating in these discussions if the only solution you have to offer has been tried and failed for most of human history?
I'm sorry, I was unaware of the existing solution that has succeeded at solving all social problems in the countries in which it's implemented.
If the alternative is not flawless, then one needs to show that the disadvantages of the alternative vs the current situation are outweighed by its advantages over the current system.
So you agree we should stop massive government programs that have always resulted in centralization, bankruptcy, and systemic poverty? Venezuela, Cuba, USSR, Greece, Spain, Italy, China, ... How much more failure do you need to realize Government isnt the answer?
they would be amongst the poorest states by median household income, purchasing power parity, cost of living, and gdp per capita
First, it would seem that all those people are too ignorant to understand how much better their lives would be if they were, for example, living in Michigan. If only we could teach them how unhappy they are!
Second, the claim that the people are "poorer" is not a cogent claim that their countries are failures. Your argument reminds me of something I tell my children:
"Human beings are the most successful form of life on Earth, by all the metrics that humans choose to measure success."
The USA is still the violent prudish religious DIY Wild West compared to most areas in Europe (East-Europe excluded that is more like the USA).
what makes you think that this is reasonable for government to provide? How do you know that the era 1950-20xx is not an anomaly? If you look at the broad scope of history, governments are not very good at doing the things that you suggest they should be doing.
[disclosure: am Canadian]
Pragmatically, the fact that it works well and has reasonably good outcomes in every first world country other than the United States.
I'll let you google and find out which ones.
They seem to work just fine.
Know what's awesome? Knowing that I can break my arm and have it taken care of with virtually no out-of-pocket cost.
Tax-wise, I'm totally speculating here because I don't know the ins-and-outs of the American tax system, but here we go.
https://simpletax.ca/calculator https://www.irscalculators.com/tax-brackets-calculator.php
I'm going off of $85,000USD/$106571CAD (equivalent today according to Google), and using California.
California: total tax paid $25,252.56USD, you keep $59,747USD
Saskatchewan: total tax paid $30,465CAD ($24,308.33USD), you keep $76,106CAD ($60,702.91USD)
So on the same amount of income, we pay about the same as California residents, but all of our health care costs come out of the taxes we've paid. Seems like a pretty good deal, not having to pay any health insurance premiums on top of that.
You're also ignoring the multiple tax breaks available in the US that aren't an option in Canada: mortgage interest deduction, uncapped 401K contribution, etc.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_California_locations_b... http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/f...
Median family income in California: $70,187 USD Median family income in Saskatchewan: $86,970 CAD ($69,516.86 USD)
The currency conversion seems pretty reasonable. And yes, I'm ignoring the various tax breaks available on both sides, as well as a number of other perks (e.g. 55% paid maternity/paternity leave for 35 weeks). We're in the same ballpark here though.
European politicians prognose bad times because of the demography (too many old persons, too few young persons).
IMO politicians and many experts are very bad at predicting the future. Like many other people, they feel smart when they prognose problems and anounce austerity.
IMO technology and automation could and probably will solve any poverty problem soon enough for most Europeans. Even today, most poverty in the world is a political problem and not a natural or technical necessity.
No, nor is it a right. It's a luxury.
I suggest you revise your argument to one that's more plausible and convincing.
The reality is that the opposite is not just possible, but encouraged - right-wing governments in the US consistently use economic policy to prevent social mobility, economic freedom, and the kind of collective social investment that generates long-term social, political, and economic benefits.
It's all about concentrating economic power among an increasingly narrow sub-group, and economically disenfranchising the rest of the population.
https://www.oecd.org/eco/Decoupling-of-wages-from-productivi...
And I voted for a system like this. Just like my parents, my neighbor, the guy on the corner and my jobless neighbor.
It's not holding anyone back in any way.
Of course there are probably government spending you disapprove of (long-term prison sentences for drugs, war on drugs, "bridge to nowhere", and military/foreign wars are likely candidates)
Everyone disapproves of some government spending, but it involves compromise between differing perspectives on what government should be doing.
Whereas if healthcare was properly regulated, his neighbor could pay for it himself and actually be independent in his community.
I'd rather be independent among my peers and neighbors even if I have to rely on a supra entity to regulate my food quality and organize my warfighting than the other way around. We're all dependent at some level even if just to the past, no matter what "Atlas Shrugged" says.
You're free to donate as much of your income to people in need as you want, but you need to stop thinking you should be able to make other people do the same thing. You may not like it but we have a right to our labor and freedom to spend it how we please.
A good social support system is not detrimental at all to a rich startup culture. It is financed by taxes, and as startup you only need to pay taxes on profit, so you don't bear any additional costs.
If you are in a high-tax state, your employees will pay a lot in taxes, and the cost is passed on to you, their employer. You will need to pay them enough to pay 40% in taxes and have some money left for living expenses.
Which may make your startup (or any business, really) uncompetitive, or even infeasible compared to low-tax countries/states.
There needs to be a cautious balance between providing social support (which I am all for) and overtaxing. For me, the most important part is the amount of tax money that actually goes to benefit the people who need it, rather than the bureaucracy.
In the US, the value we get for our taxes is VERY low.
Well, you could have a "unicorn or bust" strategy, chasing primarily high margin b2b and b2c products so big salaries aren't a dealbreaker.
Of course, I just described the current SV startup scene, including why things like Juicero get funded while affordable real estate development is a comparatively unattractive investment.
The flip side is of course:
If you are in a low-tax state, your employees (or you) will pay a lot for things like health care and retirement, and the cost is passed on to you, their employer. You will need to pay them enough to pay those costs and have some money left for living expenses.
A part of this is cultural (appreciation of self-reliance) but the other half of it (the state-/support-structure-influenced side, let's say) is surely the precise opposite of your suggestion? Countless studies have shown that support structures encourage risk-taking behaviour and entrepeneurship. Even in the US, entrepeneurship will be much more common amongst those with well-educated, supportive family backgrounds - the rags-to-riches stories are certainly highlighted as inspirational examples of the American dream but are minority cases in reality.
Both of you are right. Americans are not more selfish than other nations, individually. Culturally they do tend to hoist self-reliance up on a high pedestal. In theory these traits should be unrelated, more or less.
However, it is a very unfortunate "feature" of the American political system that there are many, many demagogues who take things that are inherently good, virtues one could say, such as self-reliance, and weaponize them to serve the interests of some extremely selfish rich power brokers. Not every time, but in many cases when you hear the word "freedom" in the American political discourse, you might be close to an example of this pernicious distortion of basic notions.
TLDR: Americans, stop obsessing over by now empty slogans such as "freedom", start thinking more about building a society that works well for all its participants.
The general rule in America is that the individual gets all the credit for the great things they do, and doesn’t have to share it with any social inputs/factors—and the individual gets all the blame when society deems them worthless, and society doesn’t have to share any of that blame.
> our culture leaves very little room for appreciating, valuing, revering, looking up to, or attributing positive social accolades to anything but self-reliance.
Our societies are made up by individuals, but we are all in this together. All of us are human beings who are trying their best to succeed in life.
I believe that someone like my father made no known mistake in his life to blame him for his disease (the cause of MS is still unknown), and I have zero understanding for someone who beliefs that he, in his situation, should've ended up on the street, forcing him to be self-reliant. Like, how? He'd have died rather quickly as a blind, homeless man who cannot walk. And his example is just one of the many. I have one word for a society in the 20th/21st century who pushes people towards that path: compassion-less. And I judge a society by the way it treats its weakest links. Because that is a sign of wealth. Not United_States_Dollar-wealth, but maturity of society akin to how a parent nurtures their child. (Its not the same in this context because the child has a chance to succeed in life, but its close, and in case of temporary illnesses its accurate.)
[1] America is bigger than USA, and Europe isn't one nation either. These are caricatures of Europe and America. We're overgeneralizing, in so many ways.
When I say we expect/demand self-reliance, I mean that is the dominant cultural & historical narrative & social expectation here in the US. I do not mean I personally expect or demand that of others as a general rule--but I am expected to. A fair amount of the political division in this country often revolves around where individuals fall on the spectrum of expecting/demanding self-reliance of their fellow citizens. America doesn't care about its poor, homeless, disadvantaged, disabled, and otherwise weaker citizens. In fact, I don't think Americans typically look at such people as citizens at all--or at least not as equals. They are, instead, burdens.
Why is a richer startup culture considered something positive?
Isn't the EU the biggest economy in the world? For now at least, Brexit and all that...
There are economic advantages to a high tax welfare state as well.
Looking at the stats clearly the US needs a little more nanny state to generate better outcomes for the bottom half of the country. But equally europe needs more appreciation of self-reliance and entrepreneurship to enable a richer startup culture and let the EU become an economic leader instead of follower.