Why Startups Condense in America (and not somewhere else)

Why Startups Condense in America:

"Singapore would face a similar problem. Singapore seems very aware of the importance of encouraging startups. But while energetic government intervention may be able to make a port run efficiently, it can't coax startups into existence. A state that bans chewing gum has a long way to go before it could create a San Francisco."

When smart people talk, we should listen. And once again, Graham has presented us with a fine piece of article on his opinions why start-ups are blooming in America (mind you, mostly in certain fertile areas only) and not in other countries. The points are pretty valid if you read it with an open mind and not fall into the trap of thinking that he is biased toward America.

I believe that Graham is one of the most influential advocate for startups. He believes that most (if not all) great ideas come from individuals who have nothing to worry about but to create great technologically sound products. And that is how he argues in his article. I guess the most important point Graham makes in his article is that you cannot have a big company happen overnight. It must start small, like in a startup. And then from that little startup, it might grow into something big (or it might go down the drain, but that's not too bad since it started small and no one lost too much). On the other hand, if you start BIG, you are most likely to fail since that bloated government funded piece of project is probably not going to reach the critical mass that is necessary to sustain itself in the future without annual funding from the government.

In short, techies come first. And then the managers. Not the other way around. It's the same way most thriving ecosystems work.

Based on Grahams observations, it is highly probable that the Multimedia Super Corridor in Malaysia will not take off. This project was conceived almost 5 years ago and has nothing much to show yet. In fact, news of it seems to have been dwindling exponentially since its conception. Again, based on Graham's postulates, this is probably due to the heavy government investment and the dearth of entrepreneurs in that area.

Of course, one go could on and on arguing on the merits of Graham's arguments. But we shall leave that for the comment section of his article. The most important thing to draw from his article is that the proper environment and infrastructure must be provided first before anything really interesting can transpire. Artificially simulating an oasis for tech companies will probably not be the ultimate solution. Nevertheless these artificial Silicon Valleys might serve as catalyst for the real ones in the future. But so far nothing really great has transpired.