2 ms·
It doesn't change your claim, but it now means you're down from 1 to 0 pieces of evidence for it. If people start lots of startups in Sweden despite the high t
by pg 18y ago
It doesn't change your claim, but it now means you're down from 1 to 0 pieces of evidence for it. If people start lots of startups in Sweden despite the high taxes, what are they?
I don't think most people are the same. And that is a topic I know a lot about, since I am in the business of trying to identify the exceptional ones. I think the distribution of ambition follows a power law, like the distribution of any talent. So if you give people equal opportunity, you'll have a power law distribution of wealth.
- david927 18y agoAh, but in a way it was a great example, because while the innovation still happened in Sweden (regardless of the tax base now), it was real innovation, disruptive and tectonic shifting. Whereas 99% of the stuff that comes out of the valley is cotton candy that wouldn't be missed if it went away tomorrow. There it's about "make something people want," not "make something people need." In fact, it's a bit like the film industry. Yes, most films in the cinemas of the world are American films. And most of these are fun amusement despite being idiotic. But I wouldn't make the statement that the fact that "Angels & Demons" is an American film is an indicator that America is on the right track, and that's exactly what you seem to be saying: Twitter and Facebook are American companies, so America is on the right track. I know you're a Web 2.0 VC, and you see the world through such goggles, but I don't think it's a standard indicator of a functional, healthy society. As for your second statement, sure, Bratislava has its millionaires. Wealth distribution is always power law to some extent (but not because of people, but because certain talent aspects are always more heavily rewarded depending on the culture, time period, etc). What I'm talking about is exacerbating that. A good example is the Ivy League system, which takes very bright kids and very rich kids and mixes them up and gives them both the same degree. Again, it's about mechanisms that make the rich richer and poor poorer and eliminating those to whatever degree possible.