
What Every Government (Except One) Doesn't Get About Startups - jlind
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/09/what-every-government-except-one-doesnt-get-about-startups/244467/
======
myth_drannon
The main point these types of articles ignore is the huge wave of immigration
from Soviet Union in the 90's. It was extremely skilled population with many
phd's , professors that worked on pretty amazing stuff back in USSR. Then to
help these 1 million (20% of country's population) the government just helped
everyone a bit with their ideas.

THAT'S ALL , the rest is history!

I remember my backwater desert town 50k population where they quickly build
cheap office buildings and stuffed them with all these 1-2 person "startups"
full of bearded Soviet Phd's. They called them "hothouses" (of ideas). What
happened to Israel can not be repeated again unless US collapses and 1 million
of Silicon Valley engineers(not that they have so much) will move back to
India or China.

------
krmmalik
I havent gotten round to reading the book yet, but there is further evidence
of this in the book "Startup Nation: The story of Israel's economic miracle"
By Dan Senor.

He also did an introductory talk which was brilliant, on Fora.tv. I'll post
the link here, but it may be affected by the new Pay Wall.

[http://fora.tv/2009/11/03/Start-
Up_Nation_The_Story_of_Israe...](http://fora.tv/2009/11/03/Start-
Up_Nation_The_Story_of_Israels_Economic_Miracle)

~~~
cletus
Israel is a somewhat controversial example in economic terms. Some like to
point to it and say "look what they made from nothing" but Israel has, over
the years, been the beneficiary of significant economic (and military) aid
from primarily the United States.

But more importantly (IMHO), Israel was the beneficiary of the largesse and
support of a people decimated by the horrors of WW2.

It's fair to say that the US probably had a large cultural impact on the
development of Israel, both for direct economic reasons but also that the US
has a large Jewish population.

The lesson I personally take from the success of Israel is how important it is
for a country to be bound together by a common set of ideals and purpose. Not
that I'm arguing for any kind of cultural homogeny but if people in one
country become sufficiently different it tends to drive that country apart. I
think you see that in the US today as the red and blue state divide.

~~~
bignoggins
Jews only make up 2% of the population in the United States. I would argue
that US policy toward Israel is motivated more by Christian end-times theology
of the religious right than by the Jews themselves.

~~~
beagle3
The right context is the cold war. For a long time, Israel was the ONLY
dependably-US friendly country in the middle east. Almost all the others
(Egypt, Syria, Iran, Iraq, Libya, ...) were, in the context of the cold war,
soviet outposts. Their army was trained by the soviet union, all their arms
supplied by soviet union, and high ranking soviets were roaming all around.
The other US-friendly middle east countries like Saudi Arabia did not have a
meaningful army or fighting ability, and were unable to make any difference if
the cold war ever heated in the middle east (which was not improbable).

In that context, US support for Israel was a cheap hedge against soviet
domination of middle east - everything else is secondary. Furthermore, that
support came (and still does) with strings attached - almost all of it must be
spent in the US (and I am sure some of it is/was specifically earmarked, even
if it isn't official). So you also get to divert money to your military-
industrial pals, get a bunch of right wing and jewish americans feeling good
-- and get some investment in an anti-soviet force. Isn't that a good deal?

Regardless of whether you agree or disagree with what the US is doing in Iraq,
both wars were much helped by Israel's experience fighting the soviet war
doctrine (which is what iraqi defense/offense was based on; Israel had
experience with it fighting Syria and at an earlier stage, Egypt).

~~~
jbooth
Overstating it a bit WRT Egypt, Iraq, Iran. They played both sides to get the
best deal they could, sometimes that was the soviets, sometimes that was us,
but notably there was no period where all 3 were sponsored by the soviets at
the same time, and more notably they weren't reliable proxies for either side
- always kept their own interests first. Egypt even managed to split the US
from Britain during the Suez Canal war.

Egypt - entirely US armed after 78

Iran - entirely US/British armed prior to 79

Iraq - a mix but very US-supported post-79 and a pariah to all post-91 (with a
few covert non-soviet Russian arms).

Syria - Pragmatist dictator who never happened to line up with us.

Libya - The only case here where the leader actually had an ideological
disposition towards the soviets (but only a little)

I agree with your take on the motivations for US aid at that time, though.

One other caveat, Israel did help train US forces but it was their experiences
in Lebanon and Palestine that helped, not those with Syria and Egypt. Syria
and Egypt had/have iraq-like armies of medium-quality gear and poor quality
conscripts, that's conventional warfare. It was the nonconventional stuff that
they helped train US troops for on the way to Iraq.

~~~
beagle3
I shouldn't have lumped Iran with the rest of them, you are right about that
-- it is a completely different story. I stand corrected.

But I don't think I was overstating when I claimed

> Israel was the ONLY dependably-US friendly country in the middle east

Look at your own dates: that's 30 years (1948 till 1978) in which Israel was
almost the only middle eastern country WITHOUT soviet influence -- and one
that's strategically positioned near the Suez canal.

We are not in disagreement about the reasons, only about the magnitude.

Re: training experience - I've heard differently from people who were
involved. "Conventional war" is still not a standard thing, and knowledge of
your enemies' doctrine is golden. From what I heard, the whole Iraqi doctrine
in '91 (where you put your defense tanks, how you back out when outnumbered,
how you plan your battlefield supply chain, how you plan ambushes, etc) was
almost exactly the same as Syria's '67, and getting all that info from the
Israeli army made life much easier for the US Army.

(For all I know, this was self-glorification and/or disinformation from the
Israeli side, but it was supported by supposedly knowledgeable US people I
inquired with)

------
tptacek
Briefly: this reads like Steve Blank is wandering the Earth trying to get
companies to legislatively promote venture capital as the preferred vector for
starting companies.

~~~
alabut
An amendment to make it more accurate: "...trying to get _countries (not
companies)_ to legislatively promote venture capital as the preferred vector
for starting _scalable startups (one of the 6 types he outlined in the article
and not just any company)_."

~~~
tptacek
Countries/companies was a typo. Thanks.

The 6 types of companies Blank outlines:

* "Lifestyle companies", like the companies associated with individual professional surfers.

* "Small businesses", like money-losing corner groceries.

* "Scalable businesses" (ie, your typical YC company, "born to be big")

* "Born to flip" companies that are conceived of as features of some other company's product

* "Large companies" like Google

* "Social companies" with missions other than making money

The implication of my brief comment was specifically that this way of breaking
down companies suggests that he's promoting venture capital.

 _

------
sequence7
Wouldn't a better (read less link baiting) title be. What one country got
right in one example of funding start-ups? The article basically describes a
bunch of different business models and then hails the Yozma program. I don't
know anything about it and maybe it's been immensely successful but I would
have thought it would be far more interesting if it told me why and how it had
been successful. To be honest I would have thought a better explanation of the
success of entrepreneurs in Israel would be the large number of highly
skilled/motivated first/second/third generation immigrants moving into the
country.

