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

Lowbrow wrote:

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.

4runner wrote:

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.

4runner wrote:

As for your 50/50 argument-- you do know that Republicans state politicians in blue states are much more liberal than Democrats in red states?

In California, even the Republicans think that carbon emissions should be limited, immigration should be encouraged, that evolution is science, that abortion should be legal, that guns should be much harder to get, etc.

Just because the vote is close to 50/50 doesn't mean that the state is not overwhelmingly liberal.

As for "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."

This is simply not true. With the exception of places that make money in the extractive industries (oil, farming, forestry, etc.), there isn't a developed and diverse economy that doesn't have taxes, help for the poor, limits on guns, etc.

Show me a place without a government where I want to live. Show me a place without taxes where I want to live. Show me a place without firearm restrictions where I want to live. Show me a place that discriminates against gays where I want to live.

Put your money where your mouth is. Show me anywhere on the plant that meets your criteria.

[quote]Purple headed monster wrote:

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/

Lowbrow wrote:

4runner wrote:

Government spending could also have put Tennessee and New Mexico on the map.

It didn't.

Why is Silicon Valley one of the most liberal parts of the country? Same thing with Boston, New York, LA, etc.

Except for the people who make their money by drilling oil, the economically productive parts of the country are all liberal.

Are you suggesting that the current politics of a locale determine its economic success over a half century? That is wishful thinking. Why hasn't Oregon boomed? Upstate NY? New Hampshire?

The liberal politics are an *effect* of economic success and successful USG investment.

Oakridge has a lot of activity around it. Without this lab, it would be another toilet in Tennessee. An externality of all this investment, and the smart people it attracts, is that the communities around Oakridge are probably more liberal, less religious etc. That is an effect, not a cause.

If a viable fusion method is developed, I guarantee you that Oakridge will boom, and the politics will change markedly.

Purple headed monster wrote:

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:

Look at GDP per capita and voting patterns.

Conservatives in the US are the poor.