4 ms·

>> the idea that all the most innovative people only exist in the United States (or even that people in the US are on average more innovative than others) is ri

>> the idea that all the most innovative people only exist in the United States (or even that people in the US are on average more innovative than others) is ridiculous, and stating it is just blind nationalism... You couldn't be more wrong. First, no one ever said "all" the dynamic people were in the US. The implied point was that the majority of them are. I believe that to be true for some very obvious, logical reasons. The U.S. benefits from some unintended social and genetic engineering because of a few factors... 1. The U.S. has no ethnic culture (since Europeans supplanted the native population and then opened the doors to the rest of the world rather than embracing an "only European" ideal). So innovative people could more easily immigrate here provided there were advantages to doing so (which there were as I'll outline below). I'm not saying that couldn't happen elsewhere but a Frenchman who lives in England is still considered a Frenchman. A Frenchman who lives in America is considered an American and that inclusion makes people more likely to come here. 2. From our founding to the early 1900s the U.S. was far and away ahead of the world in recognizing and rewarding entrepreneurship. We didn't have an entrenched royalty or class system and democracy made sure laws benefited the populace in general rather than a ruling elite. This drew entrepreneurs to the U.S. and their descendants are likely still here (and in many cases inherited that dynamism either by nature or nurture) 3. From WWII to around the mid-1980s the U.S. was far and away wealthier than the rest of the world because WWII caused decades of damage to the European and Asian economies. Remember with the exception of a handful of planes attacking the West Coast there was no fighting done in the U.S. whatsoever. That means no reconstruction needed while the rest of the world was devastated. So again entrepreneurs (who are drawn to where the wealth is) came to the U.S. 4. The U.S. has a culture built around the idea that you can come here with nothing and become rich. That influences a lot of our laws and customs. For example, there's a reason why our tax rates are lower than a large portion of the world. So even today, when the advantages to starting a company in the U.S. are smaller than they've ever been, the U.S. tends to draw entrepreneurs to it. So in the end it isn't nationalism it's just common sense.

stephen_g 15y ago
I think that perhaps the world is a much bigger place than you believe (and maybe this is endemic to the general nationalistic line of thinking that I'm objecting against). The US has 4.4% of the world's population. How you expect that even with the 'social and genetic engineering' you describe the US could still have the majority, I don't know. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of innovative people in the US - just that there are greatly innovative people all over the world, and perhaps it's time people start to acknowledge that...
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  Yes but the western world itself is less than a third of the world's population and no one would argue against it having the majority of so-called "dynamic" people. Without knowing how many people we're talking about (and neither of us do) you can't argue percentage of the population as a reason. The one point I'd agree with though is this: there are probably tons of third world people who are just as entrepreneurial as people in the U.S. but who don't have the resources to do anything more than start a coke stand. But in terms of dynamic people who have the resources to start a company I still think the U.S. is in the lead
- bradleyland 15y ago
  No one is saying that innovation doesn't happen in other places in the world, or that the people there aren't brilliant. Only that by evidence of the size and output of the economy in the US, it is the most effective. That may not be true forever, and there have been a great number of words dedicated to making that argument, but it appears to be true today. What worries me most about the thinking in the US right now is the xenophobia. If there is one thing I'm most proud of, as a citizen of the USA, it's that people want to come here. I want to welcome them with open arms. I want to work hard to make the US the "place to be" for starting a business.
- stonemetal 15y ago
  No one is suggesting that. What is suggested is that it doesn't really matter how innovative you are if you are a child soldier in Zimbabwe, in a place where the taxes are so high that very few can start a new business, or in a country that is so corrupt that only an official's cousins brother could get the necessary permits to do business. Therefore business leaders in the US are more innovative because there are fewer non-merit based restrictions. The fact is the most successful people in the US were not born here. But ask yourself why didn't Brin, or Grove start companies back home? Mostly because those countries didn't provide the right environment to do so, and America does.
- phreanix 15y ago
  There might be a little confusion with semantics here. I don't believe any of us can argue that the US has't led MOST of the world in innovations that are adopted on a large scale. There is a difference between being innovative and actually having the resources to profit from that innovation. I've seen ingenious solutions to problems in my travels, but due to the lack of marketing/funding/distribution/etc., these inventions/solutions are only adopted by the town the inventor lives in. ed, sp.error.
mattmanser 15y ago
There's so much wrong with this 'common sense' that I don't know where to begin. Sorry, but this is just nationalist dogma with little basis in reality of the last 60 years. Funniest bit is implying that entrepreneurship is heridatry!
- TomOfTTB 15y ago
  Actually there's plenty of evidence to say entrepreneurship could be partially hereditary (or more to the point a genetic disposition to be intelligent and a genetic makeup that allows you to deal with stress through low blood pressure, a chemical makeup that gives you a calm disposition, and so on) So do you have another point or do you just specialize in attacks?
  - mattmanser 15y ago
    Sure: 1. Explain the economic powerhouses of Germany and Japan in the context of your 'wasn't bombed so more prosperous' theory. 2. Explain the White European Christian dominance of the US in the 'no culture' theory of the US. 3. Explain why if everyone coming to America is an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is hereditary why there's so many poor people in the US compared to rich people. Did they breed it out of themselves or something? 4. Explain why Britain became the most prosperous and richest empire in the world even though apparently from founding to the early 1900s the U.S. was far and away ahead of the world in recognizing and rewarding entrepreneurship, which is exactly the period that Britain, not the US, rose to be the dominant economic power in the world. Hint, you've got your history wrong. Remember you accused the original commentator that he 'couldn't be more wrong' without a single shred of evidence just generalisations of an idealized 'American Dream'. It's nationalism dude, sorry.
- matwood 15y ago
  I'm not sure about the hereditary bit (whether culture or risk aversion can b passed through genetics), but the culture bit has a lot of basis. Just look the the whole 'American Dream'. The US has been sold as a place where anyone can make it with some smarts, work, and perseverance. That attitude was ingrained in the country through its formation and then its expansion. Look at the silver rush in CO, gold rush in CA, oil boom in Texas, financial boom in NYC, and tech boom in SV. People have been coming to the US from all over the world to get rich since the country was formed. One thing to remember is that the US is a relatively young country. It may be that all young countries have a disproportionately large number of risk takers and that over time that portion shrinks.

stephen_g 15y ago

I think that perhaps the world is a much bigger place than you believe (and maybe this is endemic to the general nationalistic line of thinking that I'm objecting against). The US has 4.4% of the world's population. How you expect that even with the 'social and genetic engineering' you describe the US could still have the majority, I don't know. I'm not saying that there aren't a lot of innovative people in the US - just that there are greatly innovative people all over the world, and perhaps it's time people start to acknowledge that...

TomOfTTB 15y ago
Yes but the western world itself is less than a third of the world's population and no one would argue against it having the majority of so-called "dynamic" people. Without knowing how many people we're talking about (and neither of us do) you can't argue percentage of the population as a reason. The one point I'd agree with though is this: there are probably tons of third world people who are just as entrepreneurial as people in the U.S. but who don't have the resources to do anything more than start a coke stand. But in terms of dynamic people who have the resources to start a company I still think the U.S. is in the lead
bradleyland 15y ago
No one is saying that innovation doesn't happen in other places in the world, or that the people there aren't brilliant. Only that by evidence of the size and output of the economy in the US, it is the most effective. That may not be true forever, and there have been a great number of words dedicated to making that argument, but it appears to be true today. What worries me most about the thinking in the US right now is the xenophobia. If there is one thing I'm most proud of, as a citizen of the USA, it's that people want to come here. I want to welcome them with open arms. I want to work hard to make the US the "place to be" for starting a business.
stonemetal 15y ago
No one is suggesting that. What is suggested is that it doesn't really matter how innovative you are if you are a child soldier in Zimbabwe, in a place where the taxes are so high that very few can start a new business, or in a country that is so corrupt that only an official's cousins brother could get the necessary permits to do business. Therefore business leaders in the US are more innovative because there are fewer non-merit based restrictions. The fact is the most successful people in the US were not born here. But ask yourself why didn't Brin, or Grove start companies back home? Mostly because those countries didn't provide the right environment to do so, and America does.
phreanix 15y ago
There might be a little confusion with semantics here. I don't believe any of us can argue that the US has't led MOST of the world in innovations that are adopted on a large scale. There is a difference between being innovative and actually having the resources to profit from that innovation. I've seen ingenious solutions to problems in my travels, but due to the lack of marketing/funding/distribution/etc., these inventions/solutions are only adopted by the town the inventor lives in. ed, sp.error.

mattmanser 15y ago

There's so much wrong with this 'common sense' that I don't know where to begin. Sorry, but this is just nationalist dogma with little basis in reality of the last 60 years. Funniest bit is implying that entrepreneurship is heridatry!

TomOfTTB 15y ago
Actually there's plenty of evidence to say entrepreneurship could be partially hereditary (or more to the point a genetic disposition to be intelligent and a genetic makeup that allows you to deal with stress through low blood pressure, a chemical makeup that gives you a calm disposition, and so on) So do you have another point or do you just specialize in attacks?
- mattmanser 15y ago
  Sure: 1. Explain the economic powerhouses of Germany and Japan in the context of your 'wasn't bombed so more prosperous' theory. 2. Explain the White European Christian dominance of the US in the 'no culture' theory of the US. 3. Explain why if everyone coming to America is an entrepreneur and entrepreneurship is hereditary why there's so many poor people in the US compared to rich people. Did they breed it out of themselves or something? 4. Explain why Britain became the most prosperous and richest empire in the world even though apparently from founding to the early 1900s the U.S. was far and away ahead of the world in recognizing and rewarding entrepreneurship, which is exactly the period that Britain, not the US, rose to be the dominant economic power in the world. Hint, you've got your history wrong. Remember you accused the original commentator that he 'couldn't be more wrong' without a single shred of evidence just generalisations of an idealized 'American Dream'. It's nationalism dude, sorry.
matwood 15y ago
I'm not sure about the hereditary bit (whether culture or risk aversion can b passed through genetics), but the culture bit has a lot of basis. Just look the the whole 'American Dream'. The US has been sold as a place where anyone can make it with some smarts, work, and perseverance. That attitude was ingrained in the country through its formation and then its expansion. Look at the silver rush in CO, gold rush in CA, oil boom in Texas, financial boom in NYC, and tech boom in SV. People have been coming to the US from all over the world to get rich since the country was formed. One thing to remember is that the US is a relatively young country. It may be that all young countries have a disproportionately large number of risk takers and that over time that portion shrinks.