I don't know if I buy your point about inherited wealth but there is what I'd describe as a stifling culture of rentseeking that, if not actively encouraged is certainly tolerated and overlooked, at many levels of society, and across both businesses and public organisations. And once you become aware of it you start to realise how obnoxious and oppressive it is.
We certainly don't lack for talent, but we're very good at suppressing or wasting it.
The UK is a marvel that it manages to cultivate such an incredible creative scene in the shadow of the rent seeking mediocrity.
[0] I'm sure there are exceptions: in fact I know there are. There are always exceptions. 20-odd years ago for a while I shared a flat with a couple of guys where the private landlord deliberately charged far below market rent in order to be able to offer affordable accommodation to people who weren't well off. Good people, the family that owned that place.
Incidentally, the Royal Family themselves privately own 1/250th of the UK's land, and it is mostly not particularly valuable. Only about £15bn.
As a proportion this is only four times what the richest private landowner (the Emmersons) in the USA owns of the USA. And the Emmersons have come by their share pretty quickly by comparison, wouldn't you say?
The Duke of Westminster (not a member of the royal family) has a physically much smaller (private) estate that is worth more than half of the royal estate.
What the royal family own privately should not be confused with what the "Crown" owns. The Crown estate is basically owned and operated by the state.
If anything, I feel like the speed (or how recently the land was acquired) is actually in the Emmersons favour here. A generation or two ago somebody got wildly successful, vs. land being inherited because your 30x great-grandfather was Henry VIII.
All subpar but the marketing and virtue signaling is great. A lot of 'make Canada look good' comes at the expense of Canadians.
There's nothing in the tech space that is worth even looking at twice in this province that isn't headquartered elsewhere. Most larger companies open up here just to tap into the potential talent that don't want to leave their home province and a lot of companies aren't willing to put in the effort of dealing with Quebec being the exception to everything.
If you want to understand Quebec it really boils down to three points:
- Protect French language - Protect culture - Have more children. This achieves 1 & 2 in a cycle.
Things that are going well for the province, cheaper car insurance, cheaper housing, cheaper electricity, and subsidize daycare. Oh! This all ties back into our 3 rules.
All these advantages come at the cost of higher taxes, but that is apart of the strategy. Don't build wealth, but just provide enough for hope, dreams of having a family and rope as many into this to fulfil the 3 points.
And aviation. The Bombardier C-Series is a very advanced plane, and the first modern plane developed outside of Boeing or Airbus (outside of the smaller regional Embraer). Sadly American protectionism was the final nail in the coffin for the programme, but Airbus is comitted to the Mirabel site and assembly line, so Quebec still is one of the top aviation hubs in the world.
Curious to see you prove that beyond an imagined stereotype. It's not as though we are in the first generation of US entrepreneurship and there is not a huge quantity of US inherited wealth in those VC funds. The founders of Intel, Apple, Walmart, Standard Oil etc. have all passed on. And on the other side, it's not like there haven't been a dozen generations since Norman lords chopping up all the land wealth. I think only one British billionaire is an aristo, the rest are business folk.
People underestimate the effect of how wealth attracts wealth in terms of commercial hubs - money chases opportunity and opportunities chase money and they end up in the same place for all sorts of reasons. It's just a system effect rather than a consequence of higher virtues that some love grant themselves.
- Dyson: actually an innovator! Made many of the same criticisms of the UK lack of tech strategy. Promoted Brexit, which has made the situation worse by erecting barriers to a key UK market.
- Ratcliffe: owns INEOS: oil refineries. Old school engineering? Or just provision of capital?
- Hinduja: purchaser of Ashok Leyland, which became a huge success once unshackled from disastrous management of British Leyland. Counts as "engineering" but not "tech"?
- Grosvenor, 7th Duke of Westminster: classic aristo landlord. Owns large areas of London.
- Platt: hedge funds.
""The reality is that there is no willingness within the Eurozone to share wealth," he said. "In the United States, if California is having a really difficult time, the rest of the United States will send money to California. This is not the case in Europe." -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Platt_(financier) , perhaps a surprising advocate of redistribution
- Coates: gambling. Counts as "tech startup" (bet365)
- Bamford: heir to JCB, the excavator company. "Engineering". Brexiter, as a result of being sued for antitrust by EU
- Branson: definitely self-made, across a large number of different companies. Space billionaire, closest figure to British Musk.
- Currie: also INEOS. Almost no wp bio.
- Reece: also INEOS. Almost no wp bio.
- Cadogan, 8th Earl Cadogan: aristo. Dead.
- Lewis: trader. Like Soros, profited from Black Wednesday. Under arrest in Manhattan.
- Reuben: metals. Seem to have made a killing from 90s Russia.
- Graff: diamonds. Looks like classic self-made from nothing story?
- Calder: Jive records.
- Morris: Home Bargains. Wildly successful discount shopkeeper.
(you know who's NOT on this list? Anyone to do with ARM. Even Hermann Hauser appears to have only £150m net worth)
I wonder if ARM's success, or rather, popularity and market dominanance, is because they (intentionally or otherwise) devalued themselves enough.
The defining question is if the world is better off by having people play that game or the one where everyone tries to takeover everything all the time.
They have collected very little profit from their market-dominating IP.
(I wonder what answers you would get?)
None of them would recognise Eben Upton (except as Jason Statham)
Ah! Now I get it. That rhymes with companies like Shell and Unilever leaving the EU in favour of UK after brexit.
(Not that Frankfurt, Milan, Amsterdam or Paris are known to be heavy investors in tech innovation, btw.)
Now, I know what you're thinking, that that's just because both firms coincidentally signed multi-billion dollar deals coincidentally with Sunak's family business, Infosys, to coincidentally outsource all their IT jobs but I assure you that's a mere coincidence.... probably. :P
You just described the capital markets in the entire western Europe, not just the brits.
If you look past the tech bubble economies where the "new money" owners are, and into the world of physical assets, what you find is a constellation of families concentrating wealth, swirling around the central families of the 21st Century -- the Waltons, the Mars family, the Kochs, and so on down -- a power series of family wealth that has ordinary investors in the long tail.
The USA is easily distracted by the vibrancy of the market-driven tech economy, and hoodwinked into ignoring the astonishing growth of private equity controlled by inherited wealth.
