If European-style socialism is so great, why doesn't Europe (2x the population of the USA) have a Sillicon Valley?

Trolls trolling trolls? Now I've seen it all.

Most of the technology you use today was invented by Europeans including the World-Wide Web (Berners-Lee), the phone (Graham-Bell), the car (Benz), the computer (Babbage/Turing), the radio (Marconi), the jet engine (Whittle), the TV (Baird) and Grand Theft Auto (Jones).

Look at the big picture wrote:

4runner wrote:

Silicon Valley is one of the most liberal places in America. It is also one of the richest.

Have a look at the state map of California. The liberal portions are wealthier. The conservative portions are poorer. It is both a local and a national phenomenon.

States don't determine the federal capital gains tax, which is a huge determinant of whether people are willing to take risks on something like founding a company. Most of the people actually creating the wealth are libertarian. The local effect you're talking about has way more to do with the urban/rural divide than with rich/not rich.

Did you even bother to think before writing?

The Federal Cap gains tax is uniform in all states of the union. It has no impact on whether liberal CA is more or less economically productive than, say, conservative Idaho, South Carolina, or Arizona.

The differences between the states that matter are things like employee protection.

Does Silicon Valley even exist without California's pro-employee labor code? How far does Intel get if non-compete clauses in employment agreements are valid? How many garage inventors in pro-business conservative states are stymied by unduly broad obligations to assign?

Silicon Valley's liberalism is one reason that economic growth has happened here.

The U.S. is just #6. But we beat Singapore and Luxembourg!!!!

http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/235756

Silicon Valley became, "Silicon Valley" for one reason - the US Department of Defense.

http://www.innovationfiles.org/government-support-actually-integral-to-silicon-valleys-development/

What the hell is so great about Silicon Valley??? Technology is a bloated bubble sector mostly about frivolous luxuries like 3d TV's and cell phones. If you think you can't live without that stuff, guess what, 20 or 30 years ago it wasn't around and people did just fine.

Developed growth economies like the US are all about the production and distribution of useless things. Essentials are produced so easily and in such volume that nearly everyone would be unemployed otherwise. This is possible only when these frivolities are heavily subsidized and marketed to drum up demand.

The example I hate most is optometrists. American law prevents the sale of corrective lenses without proof of prescription, allowing optometrists to drag you back in every one or two years whether your vision has changed or not. It may surprise you to learn this is not the case in either Canada or Europe (and yes you can have lenses shipped from there!) America is a huge bureaucratic mess of sneaky laws telling people they have to buy this or that commodity. And of course lawyers and clerks to manage that bureaucracy. And lawyers hired to steal from people and corporations. Ad execs who tell you to drink Coke, and more ad execs who tell you no, drink Pepsi. Round and round Americans go like the Sneetches, throwing their money at each other's useless goods and services.

This type of system can endure only if there are either enough people willing and able to spend money on luxuries, or enough people foolish enough to think the luxuries are necessities. The latter is the case in the US, and the foolishness of the public is encouraged and cultivated by industries who know they depend on it. But it can't last forever. Eventually America will have to accept the end of growth, and you know what that means.

Lowbrow wrote:

Silicon Valley became, "Silicon Valley" for one reason - the US Department of Defense.

http://www.innovationfiles.org/government-support-actually-integral-to-silicon-valleys-development/

1) California has one of the lowest ratios in the country of Federal received to federal taxes paid. In 2010, California only got 78 cents back from the feds per dollar paid.

If Fed money explained economic development, states like New Mexico, Louisiana, and Alaska would be something other than economic backwaters.

2) Oh-- and for the person who said that it was an agricultural/non-agricultural divide, Silicon Valley has some of the richest farmland in the country. Silicon Valley became what it is today despite being incredibly desirable farmland.

That's interesting.

Most innovative countries

1. Switzerland

2. UK

3. Sweden

4. Finland

5. Holland

6. USA

Read the article

DoD spending in SV put it on the map. Specifically they bought new technologies like transistors and then memory devices. USG was the biggest VC by far.

4runner wrote:

Or maybe conservatives are just dumber?

Have a look at the state map of California. The liberal portions are wealthier. The conservative portions are poorer. It is both a local and a national phenomenon.

How is there such a thing as a rich liberal? Aren't they giving their money away to those less fortunate?

Brah, you ever been to "Silicon Valley", CA and Europe? Silicon Valley blows, I've lived there. Europe on the other hand is the tits brah. Off the hook. Why wod anyone want to recreate a place full of strip malls in Europe? You crazy brah?

Lowbrow wrote:

Read the article

DoD spending in SV put it on the map. Specifically they bought new technologies like transistors and then memory devices. USG was the biggest VC by far.

The USG is the biggest VC in the entire bloody country. It is not like the USG doesn't invest DoD funds in places like Oak Ridge and Los Alamos. I'd be willing to bet that those places receive much higher funds per capita.

And yet the liberal state of California where Sil Valley arose. The place where the same people were able to found both Fairchild and Intel within little more than a decade-- without being encumbered by non-compete clauses.

The place where public universities were once funded on a grandiose scale to produce an educated populace. Heck-- in the 1980's, there were more Noble prize winners at Berkeley than in the entire Soviet Union.

It is an amazing sign of how money talks loudest when the poorest, most conservative parts of the country think that their path is the path to economic success.

Don't worry. The SAT, AP classes and the new common core, combined with over reaching government policy, lawyers and parents who are eager to blame others will destroy free thought and creativity soon enough.

southerner wrote:

4runner wrote:

Or maybe conservatives are just dumber?

Have a look at the state map of California. The liberal portions are wealthier. The conservative portions are poorer. It is both a local and a national phenomenon.

How is there such a thing as a rich liberal? Aren't they giving their money away to those less fortunate?

Look at GDP per capita and voting patterns.

Conservatives in the US are the poor.

The US is in the grip of late stage consumer fascism and the locals lap it up like free cocaine. The ruling elites are screwing over everyone with impunity. Mixing in a little socialism could help quite a bit.

You're missing the point. Are you really so politically biased / brainwashed that you assign a single political affiliation to a city/state based on election results? Election results that could potentially be very close to 50/50?I'm not saying all these liberal havens are 50/50, but in many major cities it is 55/45 or 60/40, and will likely turn more "red" as you slide out to the suburbs. But you still claim "Conservatives in the US are poor". That's the statement of a partisan simpleton. You clearly don't understand a rather basic economic fact that aggregate political leanings of a particular area have little to do with the economic principles that drives wealth. NYC, Chicago, LA, Silicon Valley, etc didn't become such incredibly wealthy areas by increasing taxes in the name of fairness, or from helping the poor, supporting gay marriage, or trying to ban guns. None of this generates wealth. Ruthless capitalism and competition generated the wealth. "Ahhh! Capitalism!! Runnnn!" Wealth brings higher standards of living via additional ammenities (both privately and publicly funded), more tax revenue, etc. The ammenities and tax revenue attract people for a variety of reasons. Young law and finance grads want to make the big money and live the Wall Street life. Teachers and other public employees come because the salaries will be higher near these cities (because of the tax revenue...from all the profits..."Ahhhh! Profits!! Runnn!"). Young hipster types want to be where the action is, where they can be artsy or find themselves...and irresponsible and waste their parents' hard-earned money. Etc, etc.But, the real tech leaders, entrepreneurs, VCs, power lawyers, financiers, along with a large percentage of people that bust their ass managing these companies on a day to day basis, etc. that actually take the risks and generate the wealth in these areas are likely split down the middle (with deciding factors often based on social issues). The ultra powerful often lean right or Libertarian in their politics.The point is, at the root of these very "blue" areas, there is a lot of "red" that isn't going anywhere.http://mashable.com/2014/11/04/silicon-valley-political-donations/

4runner wrote:

southerner wrote:

How is there such a thing as a rich liberal? Aren't they giving their money away to those less fortunate?

Look at GDP per capita and voting patterns.

Conservatives in the US are the poor.

What?!?! wrote:

Brah, you ever been to "Silicon Valley", CA and Europe? Silicon Valley blows, I've lived there. Europe on the other hand is the tits brah. Off the hook. Why wod anyone want to recreate a place full of strip malls in Europe? You crazy brah?

BroJos, I'd like to nominate this for LR post of the year.

"Socialism"? WTF are you talking about. Sweden is one of the Most neo liberal countries in the world. We have

privitazed schools, hospitals, elderly care, road maintenance, postal service, buses trains etc.

that is the point - The only VC that matters is a government willing to pay '00s of billions to develop infrastructure and ideas. There are a lot of failures along the way.There were other locations in the 50s of startup tech. For matters related to chance, those in SV got DoD contracts, and took off. Many others also got contracts, and failed.If you don't have this sort of backing - a large quasi-public institution backing numerous players - there will be no innovation.In the EU, R&Dis something like 3-4% of the budget, while farm subsidies are 19%. And guess what they want to cut. This is a big part of the reason innovation stagnates in Europe - they will not spend/blow/lose the amounts of money required to develop solid tech. Airbus is a notable exception.NASA was a big spending project that gave birth to a whole range of now commonplace technologies.