4 ms·

Yup. Another good examples are Nortel and BlackBerry. The government in Canada needs to be supportive about developing global leaders in expertise. Healthcare,

by drchiu 6y ago

Yup. Another good examples are Nortel and BlackBerry. The government in Canada needs to be supportive about developing global leaders in expertise. Healthcare, once considered a world’s top, isn’t really today, but many Canadians still retain to the idea it is.

wenc 6y ago
As a Canadian living in the U.S., I noticed a subtle thing that comes up when we Canadians lament the lack of global leaders in business. We often instinctively say "the government ought to do this or that" (I do this too). Whereas Americans tend not to bring up the government at all -- they go straight to private capital and get it done. I'm a big government person (especially for society-wide services like healthcare, public health, education) but in business, I've come to realize that it's not helpful to have the mindset of relying on the government. (exception: defense, which almost always needs government funding. But almost everything else does not.) I had a friend who was running a nascent high-tech commercial business and he spent a large chunk of his time writing proposals for government grants. Money is money, of course, but it's a little strange to me that even business people in Canada rely so much on the government instead of just going to the capital markets. And what's worse, a lack of government programs in a particular area is interpreted as a constraint. This should not be. The 2nd largest company in Canada by market cap right now is Shopify, and it succeeded with no significant government support. We need to shift our people's mindset to not default to invoking the government -- instead we need to encourage non-risk-averse capital investment into bluesky projects from private parties. It is true that we are not awash in capital, being a small country and all, but we have enough (we're 16th in the world in GDP/PPP). Much smaller countries in northern Europe with smaller GDPs have done better than we have in establishing global business leaders.
- mschuster91 6y ago
  > instead we need to encourage non-risk-averse capital investment into bluesky projects from private parties. The problem is that said "non-risk-averse capital" usually comes from previously successful founders at least in early stages, and when you look at the startups there, a lot of their founders or key staff have relevant prior startup experience too. The US has a massive advantage there in networking, which is insanely hard to replicate in other areas or countries.
  - wenc 6y ago
    Right. That's why we need to be outward looking and tap into US capital markets/ecosystems [1] -- and also beyond, into untapped ecosystems in growth markets like Southeast Asia (which has a very active VC/startup ecosystem, but most Canadians wouldn't know this). There are many parts of the world where we just don't have a presence because we like orderliness and like to focus on developed markets. [2] We need to evolve to be more than just hewers of wood and drawers of water. Global companies in smaller European countries didn't look domestically to grow -- they either have had to have an EU/global business model from day 1 or in the case of older companies, had to evolve in that direction. When you're small, you have no choice. [1] If you look at YC lists in recent years there are usually a few Canadian companies in there. [2] Most Canadians have an affinity to Europe because they think the setup similar to ours, but unfortunately Europe is heavy on regulations, not a growth market and not a good bet
- vikramkr 6y ago
  I think we might not bring up the government in america because our government has not really had a problem getting big things done and has helped us lay the foundation for what the private sector has since built on. For all its faults, the government helped drive nuclear power, the space race, the internet, and biotech. I dont know where the US would be without the bomb, apollo, arpanet, and the human genome project. We had a private sector able to pick up from there to carry on the next steps, but our success is rooted in literal moonshots by out government as well. And we can argue all day about whether the private sector could have done all that more efficiently or whatever, but the fact of history is that the government did it. And, it did it in a way that involved the private sector through contractors etc that seeded talent outside government agencies and gave the private sector a good launching off point.
  - jbay808 6y ago
    I think GPS also belongs in that list of government-developed revolutionary technologies.
    - vikramkr 6y ago
      I grouped that with the space race
- 908B64B197 6y ago
  That's, ironically, what Hydro-Quebec did when it nationalized in the 60's. The Federal Government wouldn't load a single penny (they maintained for 50 years that these projects were the scope of the Provinces until they bailed out the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland) and neither would the Canadian financial elites of the time. So the capital injection came in US dollars straight from Wall Street.
- goatinaboat 6y ago
  we Canadians lament the lack of global leaders in business. We often instinctively say "the government ought to do this or that" (I do this too). Whereas Americans tend not to bring up the government at all -- they go straight to private capital and get it done. But there are things that only governments can do, that actually are necessary. The Canadian government, as another poster has mentioned, failed to protect Nortel from IP theft from a rival nation-state. The Americans are much more willing to do this (I say willing, not always able).
  - wenc 6y ago
    The government has a role to play. To be sure even American businesses recognize this — this is why there are lobby groups. That’s not my contention though. My point is more about mindset. The government is not responsible for competitiveness and expansion of businesses into new markets — that’s on the business. But I think many people in Canada default to feeling the government ought to take a bigger role in those areas in order for us to have the next Blackberry or Nortel. I’m like, maybe we shouldn’t rely on that (or let lack of government involvement hold us back) and instead take our own risks?

by drchiu 6y ago

wenc 6y ago

As a Canadian living in the U.S., I noticed a subtle thing that comes up when we Canadians lament the lack of global leaders in business. We often instinctively say "the government ought to do this or that" (I do this too). Whereas Americans tend not to bring up the government at all -- they go straight to private capital and get it done. I'm a big government person (especially for society-wide services like healthcare, public health, education) but in business, I've come to realize that it's not helpful to have the mindset of relying on the government. (exception: defense, which almost always needs government funding. But almost everything else does not.) I had a friend who was running a nascent high-tech commercial business and he spent a large chunk of his time writing proposals for government grants. Money is money, of course, but it's a little strange to me that even business people in Canada rely so much on the government instead of just going to the capital markets. And what's worse, a lack of government programs in a particular area is interpreted as a constraint. This should not be. The 2nd largest company in Canada by market cap right now is Shopify, and it succeeded with no significant government support. We need to shift our people's mindset to not default to invoking the government -- instead we need to encourage non-risk-averse capital investment into bluesky projects from private parties. It is true that we are not awash in capital, being a small country and all, but we have enough (we're 16th in the world in GDP/PPP). Much smaller countries in northern Europe with smaller GDPs have done better than we have in establishing global business leaders.

mschuster91 6y ago
> instead we need to encourage non-risk-averse capital investment into bluesky projects from private parties. The problem is that said "non-risk-averse capital" usually comes from previously successful founders at least in early stages, and when you look at the startups there, a lot of their founders or key staff have relevant prior startup experience too. The US has a massive advantage there in networking, which is insanely hard to replicate in other areas or countries.
- wenc 6y ago
  Right. That's why we need to be outward looking and tap into US capital markets/ecosystems [1] -- and also beyond, into untapped ecosystems in growth markets like Southeast Asia (which has a very active VC/startup ecosystem, but most Canadians wouldn't know this). There are many parts of the world where we just don't have a presence because we like orderliness and like to focus on developed markets. [2] We need to evolve to be more than just hewers of wood and drawers of water. Global companies in smaller European countries didn't look domestically to grow -- they either have had to have an EU/global business model from day 1 or in the case of older companies, had to evolve in that direction. When you're small, you have no choice. [1] If you look at YC lists in recent years there are usually a few Canadian companies in there. [2] Most Canadians have an affinity to Europe because they think the setup similar to ours, but unfortunately Europe is heavy on regulations, not a growth market and not a good bet
vikramkr 6y ago
I think we might not bring up the government in america because our government has not really had a problem getting big things done and has helped us lay the foundation for what the private sector has since built on. For all its faults, the government helped drive nuclear power, the space race, the internet, and biotech. I dont know where the US would be without the bomb, apollo, arpanet, and the human genome project. We had a private sector able to pick up from there to carry on the next steps, but our success is rooted in literal moonshots by out government as well. And we can argue all day about whether the private sector could have done all that more efficiently or whatever, but the fact of history is that the government did it. And, it did it in a way that involved the private sector through contractors etc that seeded talent outside government agencies and gave the private sector a good launching off point.
- jbay808 6y ago
  I think GPS also belongs in that list of government-developed revolutionary technologies.
  - vikramkr 6y ago
    I grouped that with the space race
908B64B197 6y ago
That's, ironically, what Hydro-Quebec did when it nationalized in the 60's. The Federal Government wouldn't load a single penny (they maintained for 50 years that these projects were the scope of the Provinces until they bailed out the Muskrat Falls project in Newfoundland) and neither would the Canadian financial elites of the time. So the capital injection came in US dollars straight from Wall Street.
goatinaboat 6y ago
we Canadians lament the lack of global leaders in business. We often instinctively say "the government ought to do this or that" (I do this too). Whereas Americans tend not to bring up the government at all -- they go straight to private capital and get it done. But there are things that only governments can do, that actually are necessary. The Canadian government, as another poster has mentioned, failed to protect Nortel from IP theft from a rival nation-state. The Americans are much more willing to do this (I say willing, not always able).
- wenc 6y ago
  The government has a role to play. To be sure even American businesses recognize this — this is why there are lobby groups. That’s not my contention though. My point is more about mindset. The government is not responsible for competitiveness and expansion of businesses into new markets — that’s on the business. But I think many people in Canada default to feeling the government ought to take a bigger role in those areas in order for us to have the next Blackberry or Nortel. I’m like, maybe we shouldn’t rely on that (or let lack of government involvement hold us back) and instead take our own risks?