Cultural individualism and businesses

https://www.ecfed2018.unican.es/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/Empreendedorismo-20180530-Daisy.pdf
Individualism, Culture and Entrepreneurial Opportunities*

brb altering history

The present paper evaluates the effect of living in an individualistic society on
entrepreneurial opportunities, using cross-country data from the GEDI. Individualism
is one of the five cultural dimensions proposed by Hofstede (2001) and it is considered
by intercultural psychologists the main dimension of cultural variation. For individualism is a cultural trait that emphasizes freedom and rewards one’s own personal
achievements, it increases the propensity to open new businesses and realize own ideas,
despite the possibility of failure. So as to prevent reverse causality between individualism and entrepreneurial activity, we use the frequency of blood types and other
genetic data as instruments. The data show a positive and highly significant effect
of individualism on entrepreneurship, even after controlling for education, religion,
fertility, unemployment, the ease of doing business, networking, among others.

Economists try to pretend the race-culture connection isn’t important but….

I screencapped.

Look at ‘lil Venezuela down there, I wonder what will happen to them?

This is why Trump doing the trade war is a genius move. THIS.

In countries with more individualistic cultural characteristics, they have a predominance of individuals seeking potentially better opportunities to conduct an initial business, as well as characteristics with a greater perception of entrepreneurial opportunity. Similarly, Figure 5 suggests that countries with
more individualistic cultures often have greater opportunities to start a business. As for example, Canada, United States, Great Britain and Australia. The ten countries with the highest GEI index in 2017 were: the USA, Switzerland, Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Australia, the United Kingdom, Ireland and the Netherlands.

I wonder what THEY have in common.

1950s GDP: not race (only) but cultural individualism.

Therefore, it measures the quality of entrepreneurship, as we are concerned with the quality of entrepreneurship: the entrepreneur driven by opportunities that generate commercial success. The definition of entrepreneurship that we will adopt is related to job creation and growth through innovation.

aka GDP, real ingroup gains

No, Asians can’t take over capitalism. That can literally never happen.

They’re collectivists, they get crony capitalism, they’ll fuck it up.

We just have to survive that.

I wonder what this figure indicates…

Yes.

You’ve got me.

Yes, this is definitely my opinion.

My educated opinion.

As you can see, I am very jelly.

Thus, the most appropriate model for the analysis of the effect of entrepreneurial activity on individualism is that of column (5).

Considering the above-identified situation of a possible endogeneity between the variables, instrumental fractional variables were included for the econometric analysis. This process requires variables that are related to individualism, but not to entrepreneurial activity.
This hypothesis is sufficient so that the causal relation can be established in the proper direction. Thus, for individualism we use the blood distance of Mahalanobis and the pathogenic genes according to Gorodnichenko and Roland (2017). In table 2, the individualism and each possibility of instrument: distM-UK and mean of pathogens, which are, respectively, Mahalanobis blood distance between the country in England and the mean of the presence of the nine genes pathogens considered relevant to Murray’s individualist collectivist analysis: leishmaniasis, trypanosomes, malaria, schistosomiasis, filaria, leprosy,dengue, typhus and tuberculosis.

My opinion, clearly.

I magically altered their blood, to lie.

I can do that.

The relationship is negative, because it suggests that the closer to the entrepreneurial country, the more individualistic the culture will be.

Table 3 includes some more control variables, particularly related to institutions and their long-run effect on development. Precisely due to their persistence, it is important to separate the effect of culture from institutions as good as possible, although this it is a difficult matter and still an ample field of research (Gorodnichenko and Roland 2017; Spolaore and Wacziarg 2013)

Muh opinion, clearly.

I’m just jealous of cultures that enslave their children to make my phone.

Table 4 repeats our preferred estimation, the fractional probit instrumental variable model,
for a number of subsamples. On the one hand, the sample is divided into countries that
experienced European colonization and those that did not. The former may have suffered
a mixture of cultures that is not captured by the genetic data. Therefore, if any, we expect
the effect of individualism to be stronger and more precise in the latter subsample.

To sum up, we find remarkably few differences in the magnitude of the individualism index
across the estimations in tables 3 and 4. In fact, the point estimate is not statistically
different from the baseline regressions in table 2 and in all of the seven estimation do
we obtain a positive and significant effect of individualism on the opportunity to start a
business.

The argument for muh civic nationalism, muh brain drain immigration is a pack of lies.

They are not the same as us.

The present paper evaluated the hypothesis that individualism can influence the entrepreneurial activity, accounting for cross-country differences in education, religion, fertility, unemployment, ease of opening a company and networking. The data shows a strong and remarkably robust relationship between living in an individualistic culture and entrepreneurship.

Things libertarians pretend to give a shit about.

The West is WEIRD – nobody else.

Although one should be careful in interpreting our results as causal, our estimates of fractional probit instrumental variable approach suggests a plausible interpretation of this relationship. We explored other potentially important channels in determining entrepreneurial activity.
The effect may potentially be confounded by geography, climate conditions, or through European colonization, as well as through persistent institutions, such as the risk of expropriation. In addition, the influence of the culture dimension of individualism was tested separately for each group of countries belonging to the OECD or not. It was concluded that the effects remained positive and significant, confirming the validity of the results and of the instruments.
Finally, the perceptions of the opportunity to start a business are different from society
to society, so the origin of these differences and their influences is important. Thus, this
article thus complements the studies on entrepreneurship (Pinillos and Reyes (2011), Liñán
and Fernandez-Serrano (2014), Dheer (2017), Doepke and Zilibotti (2014), Laskovaia et al.
(2017) and Nikolaev et al. (2018).

Ya snooze, ya lose.

Video: The true time cost of entrepreneurship (and overnight success)

It isn’t part-time.

It isn’t 4 hours a week.

It’s a mindset that plagues you every waking hour.

This guy should be famous in redpill self-improvement circles. (Well, I guess they want a part-time get rich quick scheme some of them but the rest of them yes).

This guy needs to be famous. He isn’t a household name because he tells the truth. It is hard. It takes decades of work. In convenience culture, this cannot be true to us, we feel. And when you GET there…

I’ve had that. Be nice to nice people, gracious to gracious people and so on, treat as you find, but the bulk of messages you get from weak connections will be chancers, the exceptions. The two main types of user are casual and malignant.

The best response to the fake nice shirty ones trying it on casually is actually;

I was working every single time you were out having fun. You got memories, I got paid. That’s the price of success and why by now you’ll never be able to catch up to me. But sure, ‘luck’, it was also luck I got better grades than you too, huh?

The reformed bullies are funniest. It’s like a script. Don’t think it’s about you, hence I’m posting the generic script.

Hey, remember me? (they’ll mention where they sat in a class) Listen I’m so sorry about (awful things I did) I was just a kid and I’m really ashamed of it now and I’d like to make amends and I saw (successful thing you’re doing) and I wanted (contact, connection, time, free stuff), it’s (compliments, often back-handed, like allusions ‘luck’) and I’d like to be friends.

The bolded phrase is the entire reason for their correspondence. If their sweet nothings are so good or you make an excuse they really mean it (that’s your vanity talking) say you forgive them but you don’t want them to contact you again. Oh, they’ll contact you again. Bullies can’t stand the victim taking control away. A sincere person would not reply, not even to snidely infer you’ll be sorry (I hope you can find it in your heart….)

It’s like, honestly? You think I’m stupid? Do I have doormat stamped on my forehead? I want you to fuck off and die you abusive piece of shit, you set the terms and chose to start on me. How dare you try and patch this over and further screw me now I’m finally out of school and your clutches. That’s a healthy response to abuse, you are not a bad person for it.
However, if you ignore them, read their messages but resist the urge to reply (reply to a designated vent friend), the mask usually comes off again. Something like…

OMG you’re so ungrateful, (what did they do?) you were always such a (spoiled brat) that’s why nobody liked you and (achieving thing) doesn’t matter because you’ll always be a loser to us.

They still think you care what they think. Just reply: Grow up.
Block them. Done.

When someone’s first impulse is to use you, and emotionally blackmail you with things they have done? That is a sociopath. 1 in 50. They are immature and the best response is to outclass them.

Paper: Entrepreneurship and the Jack-of-all-Trades

http://www2.econ.iastate.edu/classes/econ521/orazem/Papers/Lazear_entrepreneurship.pdf

Abstract;

The theory below is that entrepreneurs must be jacks-of-all-trades
who need not excel in any one skill but are competent in many. A
model of the choice to become an entrepreneur is presented. The
primary implication is that individuals with balanced skills are more
likely than others to become entrepreneurs. Using data on Stanford
alumni, the predictions are tested and found to hold. Those who have
varied work and educational backgrounds are much more likely to
start their own businesses than those who have focused on one role
at work or concentrated in one subject at school.
I rarely post business materials (most aren’t exactly Drucker) but this pertains to the psychology which should be nourished to provide a firm intellectual basis for a startup. Could be of use.

You can be addicted to entrepreneurship?

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/11/141112144726.htm

No, you can’t.

are you kidding me rn seriously wtf da vincis demons
Let me explain.
They don’t account for success.
Plenty of losers get into the game thinking it’s ‘easy money’ and sell their failings as ‘experience’.
Beginning a dozen failed companies would count for 12x a single success.

There are too many startups. It’s a bubble. STEM has no shortage.

Paper: University Entrepreneurship may be failing its market test

http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/INOV_a_00163

The risk in all this is that when everything is entrepreneurial perhaps nothing is. Is it time to speak with a new term? Maybe those who undertake the risks of starting a new for-profit company are really in the business of “firm formation.”

The lament of a million coffee mules