For context I spent years in my 20s doing start ups in London, and undoubtedly would have been better off financially now if I'd worked for some soul-sucking consultancy instead. I do agree with him that raising money in the UK is quite hard.
> The downside of early-stage investing is that you lose 1x your money - it’s genuinely not worth worrying much about
The only potential downside is only losing all your money, what kind of stick in the mud would care about that?
So anyway, we might ask why is the VC ecosystem so much stronger in California than in the UK. But a lot people don't like to think about that because the answer is so obvious: in the 70s when Silicon Valley was getting established and the flywheel of founder->startup->success->sale->VC->founder was spinning up, the UK was mired in socialist hell with rotating power outages, militant unions toppling governments, four-day working weeks and an IMF bailout. At that time making a startup was entirely pointless and a VC fund literally impossible, because the top tax rate on investment gains peaked at 98%. You could invest in startups but the deal presented by Labour was: if you lose money you lose it, if you gain money you still lose it.
Thatcher and then Major beat back some of the most extreme aspects of this, and in this period the top level tax rates were systematically reduced to more normal rates. But Britain of the 1980s was still drastically more investor-hostile than the USA and there was no venture culture as a consequence. In particular the practice of granting equity in startups was not really known (notable exception: ARM, one of the few successful tech startups the UK has ever produced).
Even today British governments routinely levy so-called "windfall taxes" to grab the profits from companies that are doing well, the moment they have an opportunity to do so politically. That culture gap is ultimately the major difference. The idea of a windfall tax in the USA is hard to imagine, I'm not sure it's ever happened.
- SFBA has ~2% of the population of the US
- London has ~10% of the population of the U.K.
- the populations of the areas are similar (ca 7e6)
So for SFBA to feel full of startups, you can get away with e.g. 0.2% of the population of the US doing tech startups in the Bay Area at any one time, but for London to feel similarly full of startups, you would need 1% of the population of the UK doing tech startups in London at any one time.
Is that the point you are making about size, or is it something else? Network effects in VC?
I don't see how this affects innovation. Labor interests need to be taken care of too in a startup-friendly economy. In fact, I will probably never work for a startup simply because of the lack of safety net here in the states. That's a risk founders don't seem to consider too thoroughly - the lives they're entangling with their experiment.
Also on checking it turns out I misremembered. The UK went to three day weeks during this time:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Day_Week
TV stations were also required to shut down at 22:30 to conserve power. Bodies went uncollected, hospitals shut down, TV stations routinely went dark even when there was sufficient power. It's impossible to overstate the apocalyptic state of Britain in this era. You can read about it here:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter_of_Discontent
The government was so left wing any thought of building a high tech ecosystem was out of the question and even keeping existing 1930s era industries was hard. Whilst the Americans were building Intel the British were living through something from a disaster movie. The 1980s were spent partly repairing the damage. By that point the US tech ecosystem was well under way.