One problem with other countries is there is an industrial oligarchy that can't get shake itself out of the "The Innovator's Dilemma." Disruption is not considered valuable. The Russians have two aircraft design bureaus Sukhoi and MiG to help somewhat in preventing stagnation, but it would be impossible for a SpaceX to come out of nowhere in Russia like it did in the U.S. Elon even went to Russia in the early SpaceX days to buy an old ICBM and they told him to screw off.[1]
One related anecdote. I read somewhere a while ago about how Apple had a lot of internal security, even between teams. They said the reason for that is that if someone in the iPod department found out about the iPhone they'd realize the threat to their career and work to undermine it.
I never understood why Canada would restrict international players from disrupting sectors like telecom (a commodity really) but didn't seem to have any problem with Airbus taking over the CSeries program for almost nothing.
> but didn't seem to have any problem with Airbus taking over the CSeries program for almost nothing.
This is actually a somewhat amusing to bring up in this context, because US protectionism is what made that happen.
Boeing tried to kill off the C-Series by getting the US administration to impose 300% (sic!) import duties because ... it threatened US jobs. Airbus was targeting the program aggressively as well with tactics like price matching, so the CSeries was already struggling before that.
Bombardies only viable way out was to join a partnership with Airbus (which got 50.1%), so the planes could be manufactured in their Alabama plant and it could be positioned within the Airbus product range instead of competing.
The partnership was forced move, and quite a big middle finger to Boeing. The alternative would have probably been just shutting it down.
Bombardier already had a huge backlog of orders and the program was getting profitable. Since the tariffs were later ruled illegal, why not simply get the government support to weather the storm?
Could you imagine the French letting Dassault, Airbus or the US government letting Boeing fail?
Perhaps the government doesn't like foreigns tapping Canadians' communications? The NSA listens in on its own citizens with the coöperation of the US telcos, so what chance would foreigners have?
Telecoms are protected sectors in the same way that Banking and Entertainment are, they are strategic industries, and 'wire tapping' while somewhere on the list of issues, is down the list.
Canada's position on foreign ownership and trade is fairly consistent with norms in advanced countries, and fairly liberal, probably more so than most nations.
Non-market forces also play a huge role in this, for example, irrespective of what the auto-trade policies actually are between the US and Japan ... the Japanese would simply never allow US firms to compete on equal terms there.
Cultural factors, some more systematic and institutionalized than others, provide enough impetus that they represent at least as much of an issue as anything agreed upon formally by trade representatives.
Never understood putting barriers and quota on entertainment (as well as government subsidies). Companies like Disney and Marvel both made billions simply by making content people want to watch. Canada is pretty much free to export its content anywhere and sell it. Why not simply compete?
There's no import tariff for importing cars in Japan, and regulations aren't special (except Kei cars) but US cars aren't sold well (Except Jeep?). It's just because US cars/brands aren't attractive or not practical in Japan market (or Japan market is not attractive for US makers to invest). German cars are somewhat sold well despite expensive and not more practical (There's no Autobahn, max speed is recently increased 120km/h from 100k in new highway) compared to domestic cars.
> Perhaps the government doesn't like foreigns tapping Canadians' communications?
As if foreign countries needed to actually own the infrastructure to tap it [0]. All they need is to have employees inside with double allegiances [1] [2] [3]
In many locations, essentially once you get outside of major cities, it is not economical to run more than one line to each property - telecoms often ends up a monopoly, similar to power distribution or water supply. You can lessen the effects by having the physical infrastructure owned by a different entity to the service provided - like in the U.K. with BT Openreach for example, and in that case maybe the service is a commodity - but I don’t think the infrastructure ever really is.
Canada did prop up this program for quite a long time. It never achieved its sales goals. Moreover the money that they dumped into it was ruled illegal by the WTO. In true Trump fashion the White House overreacted and put 300% tariff to kill the program. Airbus rescued the program.
The comment about 'Canada blocking foreign investment out' is basically not correct.
Also, Telecoms, Banking and Communications are protected industries in every country, Canada is not special there.
If Canadian Telecoms Bell, Rogers and Telus went up for grabs, and even if Canada realistically had the same access to US markets - do you think Telus would be buying AT&T? Or the other way around?
It doesn't matter 'how well run' Canadian telecoms are (I don't think they are, but even if they were) - or how poorly US firms were run. The 'big' would eat the 'little'.
All of the 'good jobs' in Telecom like network planning, research, anything related to R&D, executive management - would go to the US. Canada would be left with 'Customer Service' and some local marketing.
There wouldn't really be that much gain for anyone, the net 'savings' would be marginal, and then, you'd be left with the Canadian government trying to regulate giant behemoths the size of entire sectors of the Canadian economy without much leverage.
That sector is verticalized with Entertainment and so with Bell, would go a whole bunch of TV / Cable stations etc.
Then AT&T/NBC would even more effectively be able to push their own programming, guests (who promote films, books, sports) and further push down anything remotely local towards hegemonic products.
So aside from the not-so-obvious economic advantages, there are quite a few externalities to worry about as well.
America in particular likes to push the concept of 'Free Markets' - because it has tremendous advantage in that context.
'Just Open Your Economy!' is the strategy of a 'Giant Economy' telling 'Little Economies' that 'We Will Devour Everything Of Value'. It's essentially a form of economic colonialism.
Adam Smith isn't exactly wrong, there can be many benfits to both sides, Canada has this kind of 'Gilded Cage' situation wherein it can maintain a very high standard of living by being next to the US, but it comes at the cost of losing the ability to do almost anything exceptional that in any way competes with the US.
The EU is not as unbalanced and they have different national constituents, with longer history and more potent foundational industries. Tiny Sweden makes Jet Fighters (!) which comes out of their cold war Air Force history of independence and a formerly relatively giant Air Force.
That America can have guys like 'Elon Musk' + Space X is a function of a few things, but at very least, it's scale.
The US is a huge market and only certain things can only be done at that scale. Most small countries do not have competitive automakers. Space X is essentially dependent on US Government contracts, at least indirectly.
Second, it's 'much bigger than it's peripherals'. This means that the US sucks all the talent and capital from neighbouring states into it's systems.
Think of the 'Silicon Valley' as not an 'American' place - think of it as an 'International Zone' that happens to be in the US. A 'super cluster' with a giant critical mass of talent.
Right now, arguably due at least partly to the inherent advantage that the Euro gives to Germany - Spaniards, French, Italians etc. are moving to Germany at considerably greater rates than in the other direction. That's where the industrial base will grow jobs from. Peripheral European states that don't manage to found their own competitive sectors will turn into places like Alabama and Louisiana where the talent vacates before it can establish into critical mass.
Third, another major artifact is inequality. Low-end jobs in American don't pay well, and they don't get benefits. The surpluses to the high side of the pyramid are huge. But when you take into consideration the 'off the books' economy, it's massive. California has almost 3 Million undocumented citizens, who are more likely to be young, more likely to be workforce participants, almost entirely working at the lowest end of the labour pool, and definitely earning far sub-minimum wage. Every manual activity from planting, to picking, to trucking, to food preparation and cleaning - everything but the 'front facing stuff' is often fulfilled by people 'off the books' and the consumer and corporate surpluses from that are gigantic. Add to that the downward pressure on wages ... and basically you have a giant wealth transfer machine with enormous surpluses floating into the hands of those with middle to upper class incomes.
Just consider what all of the US stats would look like if we accounted for those jobs, at those wages. What would GDP/capita start to look like, GINI coefficient, other measures of inequality and % 'uninsured', voting rights.
I'm not making a political comment here, it's a problem and a paradox, but pointing out the material advantages to the non-serfdom population.
This excess free cash-flow both on an individual level and corporate level enable so many things to happen, it's hard to fathom. It's so common in America for individuals to have hobbies i.e. drones, cars, travel, tech etc. that are 'really expensive', beyond the reproach of the middle class in other nations.
Relatively cheap energy, wide open spaces and relatively cheap land, especially compared to Europe for example, again, this has all sorts of 'unseen surpluses'.
So those are just a few of the differentiators and of course, there are so many more, it's complicated.
> The comment about 'Canada blocking foreign investment out' is basically not correct. Also, Telecoms, Banking and Communications are protected industries in every country, Canada is not special there.
... So they do block international investment. Therefore, the comment is correct.
> Second, it's 'much bigger than it's peripherals'. This means that the US sucks all the talent and capital from neighbouring states into it's systems.
Choosing innovation has the side effect of attracting talent. Other countries can simply compete on perks to retain their talent! I recall Musk, in an interview, saying that he felt going to Stanford was a better use of his time than military service for the (then apartheid)
regime.
> Think of the 'Silicon Valley' as not an 'American' place - think of it as an 'International Zone' that happens to be in the US. A 'super cluster' with a giant critical mass of talent.
And yet it's very much in America. And every time you are hearing "the Silicon Valley of X" it's someone trying to sell you something...
I've come to believe that the most important quality of capitalism isn't markets or some super-human intelligence that markets somehow possess, but simply the ability to bypass stagnant incumbents, entrenched interests, and bureaucracies.
In other words the most critical quality is permission-free innovation.
In all other systems from feudalism to socialism to communism there generally is just one department or agency responsible for each thing, and it's usually either the state itself or some state-blessed entity with an enforced monopoly. If that entity does it's job well, that's great. If it doesn't, tough shit. Nobody can go around it.
This is also why I disagree with market purists about anti-trust. If a private company gets so huge that it is able to occupy an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, it's important to do something to either break it up or incentivize other entrants. A private company allowed to remain super-dominant in one sector for too long starts to look and behave like a Soviet bureau.
> This is also why I disagree with market purists about anti-trust. If a private company gets so huge that it is able to occupy an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, it's important to do something to either break it up or incentivize other entrants. A private company allowed to remain super-dominant in one sector for too long starts to look and behave like a Soviet bureau.
I would say that if a private company gets so huge and can control an entire market niche for a prolonged period of time, they will inevitably stagnate which leaves them open to competition. The biggest problem issue for such private companies is not that they can control entire market segments but that they can lobby the government for regulations that permanently entrench themselves by making competition illegal in some way. The regulations are almost always done in the name of safety (if we don't regulate this then new unsafe entrants who don't follow all our internal practices could enter the industry and kill people). So they get government regulations created that exactly follow the company's own internal regulations. That both accelerates the company toward stagnation (they can no longer update the regulations) and also puts up walls for new competition as the new entrants can't innovate if they have to follow all the legacy processes.
That further gets trade unions/teamsters involved who learned to follow those regulations in trades schools and further act to restrict any improvement as it would kill their jobs.
Them being a monopoly in and of itself is not a problem, as long as we can prevent them from putting up barriers that would protect themselves from competition once they stagnate.
Actually the US declared they were willing to spend money for commercial space flight at the end of the shuttle program. They literally said “I’m a demander for a good/service” and entrepreneurs got to work.
Personally, I think it has a lot to do with American sub-culture, the US dollar, our crazy university system, and immigration. This is speculation on my part so take it with a BIG grain of salt.
The USA brings in 50 million or so people from other countries. Often they are bloody minded, stone cold, hard workers that will sacrifice everything to give their children the opportunity to be Americans. These people are some of the best in the world in my opinion.
The US dollar being used as a reserve currency for most of the world means that it is the center of international investment. This means that the billions of dollars that flowed into PayPal and Elon Musk's startups probably came in large part from foreign investment funds.
Our universities crank out some of the weirdest and least conventional engineers you can imagine. Most of them are half-crazy in the first place. The archetype of Mad Scientist can be found in physics departments and engineering labs all over the country. Conformity is often seen as a kind of perversity. We idolize professors like Feynman and read novels like Ignition! This is why you see bridges collapsing and power grids failing while we build some of the most advanced technology in the world. We hate boring maintenance and love to launches cars into space.
Finally in no small part is American sub-culture. Specifically the science fantasy of space travel and colonization that is in the heart of a lot of American engineers and scientists. The same fantasy that captured the heart of Elon Musk, a billionaire South African immigrant who made his fortune in Silicon Valley. In addition there is the added fact that few other countries would allow some random small company to build ICBMs in their metaphorical backyard. The USA is kinda loose like that...
> The USA brings in 50 million or so people from other countries. Often they are bloody minded, stone cold, hard workers that will sacrifice everything to give their children the opportunity to be Americans. These people are some of the best in the world in my opinion.
Over the last 40 years I've known and worked with some of these people, and I marvel at their tenacity and the sheer force of will they have to succeed. It just blows me away. Sadly, it seems to disappear from the next generation. I'll admit that I have a small sample size.
I've worked with a lot of people like that as well. It's always a bit awe inspiring.
I don't know what component is responsible for the difference between immigrants and natives. Maybe it's the selection, the change of environment, the adversity, or sheer diversity of individuals. If we could manage to build an education system that produced students as dedicated, creative and hard working as our best immigrants, the USA would secure a place in history that would make the 1400 years of the Roman Empire seem like a blip in comparison.
These people are actively undermining the American spirit - I am saying this as an immigrant to USA and a person of color. I am fine with understanding racism in USA, it is completely unacceptable to inject this into STEM education. The next generation is going to grow up learning more about race at the expense of learning mathematics.
This disgusts me. Some kids are stupid (Apologies for blunt language, but it's true, life is unfair.) or have poor home lives, so let's remove education that can help them have better lives because some of the struggling kids are black. Counterintuitive, oversensitive, and directly hindering
Dragging everyone down because some diversity quotas aren't met is awful. Unless there's clear evidence that teaching advanced math directly contributes to racism, teach it, make it harder. Make our kids work and succeed and fail again.
Come on, they are right next to a world class math department (Berkley).
Instead of paying for a committee of bureaucrats (with generous pensions!) to write about "racism in math", why not hire a couple of undergrads as extra tutors for students of color struggling with math?
Public education is the front lines of the culture wars. I've observed many waves of reform (fads).
Overcorrection is the norm.
Probably because incrementalism simply isn't possible. So when reform does happen, it releases decades of bottled up pressure. Like a dam bursting.
I don't have a dog in this fight. I've seen too many of these spasms to care too much.
That said, my hot take on bias training is two fold.
1) Bias training for teachers (and every other profession) is long overdue. This is indisputable.
2) I'm unaware of any validation which shows bias training for students is worthwhile. Maybe it is. But hippocratic oath dictates that we figure this out before committing.
Teachers et al should dog food their own training for a while. Lead by example. See how well it works.
My hunch is that students will pick up most of the important lessons thru osmosis.
Simply removing teacher-born biases, those negative role models, certainly couldn't hurt.
I just skimmed through that document. Based on your description I was expecting a polemic. But actually about 90% of what they recommend looks like really good ways to improve math instruction.
The big problem to me is that teaching math is hard, and teaching math well, as recommended in that booklet, is really hard. You can write all the pamphlets you want, but in the end the answer will be about the same - get really good teachers. Which probably means paying teachers a lot more than we do now.
Big time! The USA could use a lot more maintainers. People who want to see beautiful, well built, and carefully taken care of cities and streets. People who make sure the power is humming and pipes are clean. Unfortunately the political situation is more of a "Keep building shitty car dependent walled garden suburbs that no one can afford, except investors. Keep that up until the house of cards collapses under the weight of our poorly maintained and expensive infrastructure."
Those are all good points, but the rest of the world turns out, pound for pound, Engineers that are just as good and crazy.
But have access to fewer resources, networks, capital, markets etc..
Also, the % of US immigrants that are on the 'high end' is relatively smaller.
Migration to the US, when you include off the books migration, is a little bit towards the low skilled end.
But definitely the smaller relative portion of 'hardcore talent' is still actually quite large in real terms, and yes, they do disproportionately contribute. It frankly doesn't take a large quantity.
This is why I didn't just mention the engineers. It's the conflation of all those factors. Not just a single one. Crazy engineers can get a lot done with no capital, but mostly they will end up doing soul crushing Dilbert style jobs.
For instance, look at Russia! Their engineers are probably twice as crazy as Americans, but they have very little room to do crazy things with that talent. They don't have trillions of US dollars being sheltered in their tech startups by VC funds.
The US offers unlimited resources for pursuit if one is willing to venture after them with resilience. Having said that, it always comes down to passion and willingness of pursuit and this is why many with lesser means can still achieve greatness and even better in a country with the resources available.
" it always comes down to passion and willingness of pursuit"
I think this mostly populist myth.
It's definitely possible for people to do 'great things' but there are innumerable factors beyond that. 'Passion' I would say is not even an important or necessary element.
'Grit' is probably necessary, but not nearly sufficient either.
That anything is possible, doesn't mean that it's remotely likely to happen even with unlimited 'passion and grit', or even talent.
I think it certainly could happen anywhere else in the world.
After years of living abroad, I've come to realize one thing about America and Americans. We're a bit more willing to risk it and fail. Sure, loads of people would rather have a secure job and not make risky decisions. Still, I think there's a higher concentration of those who will. Compared to lots of places on Earth.
Also, for many who immigrate here, there's kind of no choice but to risk it and try to do something bold and crazy to make it.
US government space funding, as a percent of GDP, is the second highest in the world. The only country which beats the US at %GDP government space funding is Russia; but in absolute terms government space funding in the US is 7 times that of Russia, due to how much bigger US GDP than Russia's is. SpaceX has received a lot of business from the US government (both NASA and military) and is hoping to receive a lot more in the future.
US arguably has the world's easiest access to venture capital. Compared to the US, venture capitalists in other countries tend to be more cautious, demanding much more equity for the same investment, and often much more interfering as well.
A low regulation, low corruption business environment. Trying to start something like SpaceX in many other countries, the government will force you into various inefficiencies – using politically favoured suppliers, etc. The US has comparably little of these problems.
> Compared to the US, venture capitalists in other countries tend to be more cautious, demanding much more equity for the same investment, and often much more interfering as well.
Because there are a lot of other factors that are different. Other countries have different interest rates, tend to have much smaller markets to sell into, and tend to have much more tightly regulated labor markets. There's also an absence of large tech acquirers that exist in the US.
VC economics rely on a portfolio theory of a few gigantic winners making up for the other losses. So if different economic conditions creates a difference in the ultimate size of our 'winners' than you have to figure out how to have fewer (or smaller) losses.
Your points are true, but I think other factors also play a role. What makes, for example, Australian investors behave differently to American investors? No doubt differences in economy size, regulatory regimes, etc, make a difference. But I also think some of it is due to differences in national culture. People have been talking about "tall poppy syndrome" as an element of Australian culture for decades; people don't say the same thing about American culture. (That said, it looks to me like the concept, but not the name, is increasingly making inroads into the US.)
Certainly investor culture matters a ton. And US is a big place and certainly isn't monolithic. All the stories of early silicon valley speak of a clash with 'East Coast' investors who are viewed as being more conservative on both terms and stages.
It's a little goofy, but I have a personal hunch that the high level of sunlight in Silicon Valley help entrepreneurs there - as building companies is rough so it helps to persevere if it's always bright out.
(Background, I grew up in Boston, moved to Silicon Valley, and have tried to start companies with varying amounts of success.)
One related anecdote. I read somewhere a while ago about how Apple had a lot of internal security, even between teams. They said the reason for that is that if someone in the iPod department found out about the iPhone they'd realize the threat to their career and work to undermine it.
[1] https://www.inverse.com/article/34976-spacex-ceo-elon-musk-t...