I don't see the point of just not addressing the article. It quite specifically argues that as technology isn't emerging any more so startups can't commercialize those emerging technologies.
Many of these companies were absolutely obvious, just hard to get right. "Everyone" were creating social networks at one point when Myspace was big and Facebook hadn't yet won. And music streaming after Napster, or "mobile blogging" as an Instagram predecessor, or video streaming with Flash, or ... .
Of course it was hard to get it right, but that is why you had a shot to make something with "a good brain and a keyboard". Many companies who didn't make it all the way still sold on some merit of technology. Many VC firms aren't looking for that any more, but things like marketing and sales.
Having that work is specific to Japan. If there is a single example of someone managing to do that successfully, especially with multiple companies, I would like to hear about it. Transit/retail or rail plus property is used in other places, like Hong Kong, but with government owned operators.
It is also meaningless. Yes, if you get to choose what to do, you can do whatever you want. But you don't, so affordable housing remains an unsolved issue in most places. Things haven't changed and aren't changing just because people become convinced otherwise.
I never understood this argument. Japan is one of the most different places relative to everywhere else. That you can't find a more familiar example almost becomes a counter argument. There is something about housing markets that makes people feel like their city is somehow unique and if they could just fix their local problem everything would be great. While pretty much every in demand major city in the world is having the same problems.
"Where there is a will, there's a way" means that if you are motivated enough you will find a way to succeed. Which as I understood was your first point. That if billionaires creates these ventures people will be inspired and go on to succeed. That was also Musk's initial idea, that he would do this stunt of sending a plant to Mars and people would get more interested in funding and do space exploration.
"Where there is a way, there's a will" is the opposite. That if you can find a way to do something, people will want to do it. This is what SpaceX ended up doing, trying to be a part of the space industry.
In one of the videos he compares space and the Internet. That the Internet was first created by DARPA who did the ground work and that private companies commercialized and made it accessible. He suggest that space could be similar with NASA doing the ground work and private companies commercializing and making it accessible. That is why he moved the company to Los Angeles instead of the Bay Area, why they got government contracts, why they started with satellites and then cargo etc. And of course it is also luck, timing and everything else. But it was certainly also specifically because the idea wasn't to fund something to inspire or to do space tourism.
I think systems have become increasingly unpragmatic, but not necessarily people's behaviour. In 2010, which the article refers to, youth unemployment in Sweden was ~25%, the housing market had become a mess already and various rules for student loans and unemployment had changed. So it isn't like they had a fantastic future just waiting for them.
Behaviour, especially widespread behaviour, is rarely irrational. Despite its reputation Sweden has become surprisingly unpragmatic in recent years. It is very easy to end up in a situation where you can't continue your studies, but you can't also enter the job market effectively.
I absolutely think things like loot boxes, sugar and gasoline should be regulated or taxed to decrease their potential to do damage. But at the end of the day you have to provide positive opportunities for people to do the productive thing.
Chances are inspiration is overvalued today. Remember when Elon Musk was going to put a plant on Mars with an ICBM? Instead he managed to leverage the fact that the US has a space industry. He has pretty much argued this himself in that he used to think that "if there is a will, there is a way", but later realized that it was "if there is a way, there is a will".
Building public infrastructure just isn't a priority in the US. We can analyze the differences all we want but at the end of the day it just isn't that important. US society and politics isn't focused on that kind of thing and it is becoming less of a priority in Europe as well.
Addition: I don't know why this would be objectionable. The US has built a lot of infrastructure. Europe has built a lot of infrastructure. So has China, the Middle East, Korea, Japan and whoever else. They all have different system and ways of doing things. And they all fail and fall behind when it is no longer a priority. What the problem then is, is interesting, but not really that relevant. Because the problem is you can't fix the problem. Say you would need to restructure the MTA, who is going to do that? No one because there isn't much to gain, and a lot to lose. It's the same with housing markets. There are dozens of ways you could tackle housing, but it just isn't a priority. While protecting property values and not alienating voters is. It is a social rather than a technical problem.
Things like this absolutely isn't intuitive to people. Partly because the industry have done a "good" job downplaying it to make a lot of money. Many industries, like banking, does similar things. It is just a bit sad that tech has become one of them.
> Because the Internet has enabled clusters like Silicon Valley or Hollywood to be even more prominent.
And bigger cities in general. But I also think people tend to underestimate changes. Small and medium sized cities have been hit hard by the recession and rising housing markets. There are increasingly no good deals to be had anymore. Unless you go to Chiang Mai or something.
I am not sure the situation is the same. Code used to be somewhat valuable, like in for example a game engine. Today code is to some extent free, and programming is a service. You don't sell software, you sell whatever investors wants to see. If the economy takes a hit programming won't necessarily be very valuable anymore.
You simply shouldn't believe the talk about automation. Most people don't even know what they are talking about. What do people think Chinese workers do? Mr. Marsh is right, it is about trade. If you can make something where workers are paid peanuts and have little, throughout the entire supply chain, without any penalties why wouldn't you? (except the obvious moral implications and long term effects).
What people really don't get is that hyper-automation, when you barely need workers at all, isn't going to come from the West. As we soon don't have anything to automate anymore. Most people here, including most engineers, are in the service sector.
In Sweden, where taxes pay tuition, it costs about $4500 per year to educate a student in humanities and twice that in STEM. The salaries are of course lower though.
I wouldn't really see it like that. The limits of physics are with us every day. That is why cars are impractical at speed and why there is latency to other continents. For all the development in technology, it is mostly the same since the 80s. "Just" more of it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Made_in_China_2025