Since it's obvious that Dyson's statement is <i>way</i> too optimistic, I assume that for her it is (was) a good marketing - you bet a lot by investing in Russian startups, why not bet a little bit more to show to your future partners how confident you are?<p>Here is why the statement is <i>way</i> too optimistic:<p>- Resources <i>always</i> move to places where they can be used most effectively (econ 101) unless there is a significant friction<p>- For that type of resource (talented programmers/mathematicians) the friction is very small<p>- Russia has bad regulation and bad business environment in general<p>- Specifically, very hard to get investments[1], and investors interests are poorly protected[2]<p>- Silicon Valley utilizes these resource much more effectively, so that even other places in the US - NYC/Boston/Chicago - could not compete effectively<p>- Also, managerial talent in Russia is concentrated on more profitable business, like participating in natural resource explorations or working for state-run monopolies - very profitable and risk free if you have the right connections<p>Disclaimer: I'm Russian living in Silicon Valley. That may have affected my judgement.<p>[1] I can share the following anecdote: When I was helping some friends to find VC funding in 2008 in Russia, I learnt that most VCs in Russia require <i>kick-backs</i>(!) from startups that they're investing in - presumably as a way to steal from their limited partners (and even provide some advice on how these kick-backs could be recorded in accounting books).<p>[2] Khodorkovsky's and Chichvarkin's examples are probably the most well-known on the West.
In the interest of being completely fair to Dyson, I'm not sure anyone could have fully predicted just how bad of a regime Putin's would be. That said it seems like a long shot just the same.
Here's an interesting long bet: Warren Buffett has bet $1M that the S&P500 will outperform hedge funds over a 10 year period.<p><a href="http://longbets.org/362/" rel="nofollow">http://longbets.org/362/</a>
Dyson's right about Russia having a wealth of talent, but I'm surprised he didn't take into account the US University system and the amount of immigrant talent it attracts each year.
If you've been in the industry long enough (in my case, since 1975) you realized a <i>long</i> time ago that Esther Dyson doesn't have even the vaguest of clues when it comes to the computer industry. The smart bet is to do the exact opposite of whatever she predicts.
In fairness, if you replace Russia with India, is it so far off? Remember that there were many years of books with titles like, "The rise and fall of the American programmer" that talked about the educational system in Eastern Europe.<p>Thanks for sharing the site!
People tend to assume that in today's era, progress is inevitable. The is a dramatic illustration to the contrary. Progress depends on a stable, pro-business system of government. Which, in turn, depends on a certain kind of underlying culture. (This is why I find Occupy Wall Street threatening.)
I found this one on bit coins:
<a href="http://longbets.org/611/" rel="nofollow">http://longbets.org/611/</a><p>Nobody has taken the other side of it. I'm skeptical (but intrigued) by bit coins, but I wouldn't take the other side of this bet, simply because bit coins have just started out and aren't yet a "fully mature form of money". That is to say, its a lot easier for a penny stock, or any other cheap commodity, to double (or outperform by 2 orders of magnitude) a global currency or form of money that has millions of owners, and relatively stable value.