Peterson interview of Jim Balsillie raises obvious questions

I recently watched the Jordan Peterson interview of Jim Balsillie regarding (among other things) the upcoming Canadian election. I hesitate to comment at any length, but feel it is worth sharing a few basic comments and questions.

In case you are not aware of Jim Balsillie’s background, he made his fortune as co-CEO of Research in Motion (Blackberry) from 1992 to 2012. According to ChatGPT he “was instrumental in RIM’s business strategy, helping expand BlackBerry into a global powerhouse, especially in corporate and government markets.”

In the Peterson interview Balsillie is asked for his take on state of Canadian business and, somewhat peripherally, what he thinks will be the impact of the current confrontations with Trump over tariffs and threats to Canadian sovereignty.

Balsillie spends most of his time spelling out what he considers to be the failure of Canadian business to repond to the changes that took place over the last 30 years. He focuses on two international agreements bearing on “intellectual property rights” that were made in the 1990s – NAFTA and TRIPS. The outcome of these agreements was to shift the focus of business away (partially) from the production and trading of physical goods to the accumulation of monopoly rights on ideas (“intellectual property”.)

This shift meant that success or failure in business became much more dependent on the development, accumulation and control of ideas rather than simply the production and sale of physical goods (wheat, clothing, cars, etc.)

Canada’s problem, according to Balsillie, is that the stewards of the Canadian economy continued to focus on the development of production and trading of goods (this is primarily what NAFTA was about), rather than encouraging innovation, the development of ideas, and creating an environment where these ideas could be controlled and nurtured.

In his interview Peterson goes out of his way to explain this idea as if it was something new to him. This is somewhat misleading since Peterson had worked as an advisor to Balsillie when he was working on committees such as the UN Panel on Global Sustainability and the Council of Canadian Innovators.

Balsillie’s analysis is interesting and instructive, but in my estimation is overly vague and theoretical. Peterson seems to love these kinds of vague generalizations. If you have ever suffered through any of his public conversations with Sam Harris you’ll know what I mean. And this analysis by Balsillie definitely fits the bill.

But why doesn’t Peterson ask him for some concrete examples to illustrate his point? Why, for example, doesn’t he ask him how this analysis applies to Blackberry which rose to prominence in the late 1990s, became a global phenomenon right up until 2012, and then essentilly dropped off the map when it was wiped out by IOS (Apple) and Android.

Apparently Blackberry (RIM) was able to succeed in spite of Canada’s purported ignorance of the new business environment. And did they come crashing down because of a lack of government focus, or did they simply fail to respond to changes in the market and the challenges of serious competitors?

Or why doesn’t Peterson ask why a country like South Korea – with a population only slightly bigger than Canada’s – has been able to sustain a thriving automobile industry and compete on a world level, while Canada has not. Obviously there are reasons, but Balsillie’s analysis fails to illuminate them. It is not good enough to say, as they both do, that other countries like Sweden, Norway and the USA adapted to the new environment while Canada did not. Well yeah…duh. That is not very helpful.

I suspect the reasons are political. This video is ultimately about the Canadian election. Peterson wants to bolster his claim that the Liberals under Trudeau have ruined the country. And, in spite of his repeated claim to be non-political, Balsillie sounds suspiciously like he supports Poilievre. They both pan Carney based on his 2022 book “Values” and they completely ignore his most recent statements about strengthening the Canadian economy. On the other hand, they take a quick look at recent statements by Poilivre and conclude that there is real promise that he understands what needs to be done. Without telling us what that is.

So go ahead, vote for Poilievre.