4 ms·

> Now, that's a hard thing to contemplate, as 'nobody' can really compete with SV at their own game As in total aggregate, I agree. On a per-capita basis, no.

> Now, that's a hard thing to contemplate, as 'nobody' can really compete with SV at their own game As in total aggregate, I agree. On a per-capita basis, no. Some countries have a very healthy tech sector without being as large as in the US. Canada does not not need to have FAANG, just an F is enough.

jariel 7y ago
Very true, but we don't have an 'F'. An 'F' generally requires a critical mass of competitive expertise in certain areas, along with the 'F' (and smaller entities) to commercialize it. Basically an 'industrial hub'. Sweden, Switzerland have F-like companies, but also the surrounding competitive base (and often direct participation of government) to support them. Switzerland is very competitive in drugs, among many other things. Interesting example: Sweden makes Fighter Jets (Grippon), maybe the most sophisticated of all product categories. Making 'Fighter Jets' requires a highly specialized industrial base, and the investment/cooperation of government: Jet sales are done as much through the diplomatic corps as anything else. Policy is shaped around it. But how did Sweden get there? Well, because they're a sovereign nation and have fought several wars with Russia, 'everyone serves' as part of their community requirements. In the 1960's tiny Sweden had one of the largest air forces in the world! So, out of this (and other developments), they have the ability to make advanced fighters. So it's a panacea of cultural elements and underpinning institutions that enable exceptional entities. The problem with what I have just described, is that it 'does not compute' in the American, neoliberal model. In America, entrepreneurs 'raise money' and 'make companies' and 'many fail, but some win'. This kind of neoliberal model is heralded as the 'true free-market solution', but in reality, it disproportionately favours very large countries. Smaller nations have to play a different game. The Canadian elite has mostly bought into the neoliberal model, even most 'progressives'. So Canada s a small country, caught up in playing from the American ideological playbook.

jariel 7y ago

Very true, but we don't have an 'F'. An 'F' generally requires a critical mass of competitive expertise in certain areas, along with the 'F' (and smaller entities) to commercialize it. Basically an 'industrial hub'. Sweden, Switzerland have F-like companies, but also the surrounding competitive base (and often direct participation of government) to support them. Switzerland is very competitive in drugs, among many other things. Interesting example: Sweden makes Fighter Jets (Grippon), maybe the most sophisticated of all product categories. Making 'Fighter Jets' requires a highly specialized industrial base, and the investment/cooperation of government: Jet sales are done as much through the diplomatic corps as anything else. Policy is shaped around it. But how did Sweden get there? Well, because they're a sovereign nation and have fought several wars with Russia, 'everyone serves' as part of their community requirements. In the 1960's tiny Sweden had one of the largest air forces in the world! So, out of this (and other developments), they have the ability to make advanced fighters. So it's a panacea of cultural elements and underpinning institutions that enable exceptional entities. The problem with what I have just described, is that it 'does not compute' in the American, neoliberal model. In America, entrepreneurs 'raise money' and 'make companies' and 'many fail, but some win'. This kind of neoliberal model is heralded as the 'true free-market solution', but in reality, it disproportionately favours very large countries. Smaller nations have to play a different game. The Canadian elite has mostly bought into the neoliberal model, even most 'progressives'. So Canada s a small country, caught up in playing from the American ideological playbook.