I was reading in The Week a summary of Mihir Sharma’s Bloomberg column about Jensen Huang’s verdict on Britain. Apparently we have plenty of talent but not enough entrepreneurial spirit. Give us a million ways to succeed and we’ll find the one reason not to bother.
There’s probably something in that. But whenever a billionaire tells everyone else to take more risks, I do wonder whether we’re talking about quite the same thing.
Losing money when you already have more than you could ever spend is rather different from losing the money you need for next month’s rent.
We’re quite happy to gamble on houses
The strongest part of Sharma’s argument, IMO, is about property. Too much British wealth is tied up in housing, which is treated as the sensible option, while backing something new is regarded as a bit reckless.
The ONS estimated that net property wealth accounted for 40% of household wealth in Great Britain in 2020–22. These are historical figures, with survey limitations, but they give some idea of how central housing is to our finances.
Obviously, owning somewhere to live isn’t the same as speculating. People need homes. But there’s a difference between providing housing and organising your whole idea of financial success around its price going up.
If buying a property looks like the safest route to getting ahead, why be surprised when people choose that over developing a product, employing people and spending years wondering whether the business will survive?
Calling this a national character flaw lets the incentives off rather lightly.
Ambition doesn’t pay the bills
And Britain clearly does have people willing to build businesses. The British Business Bank’s July 2026 equity update reported £12.3 billion invested in smaller businesses during 2025, although that was down 4%. AI firms took a record 44% of the total.
That hardly suggests a country where everyone has given up and gone home. It does raise a question about which businesses investors are prepared to support. Having a good idea outside the fashionable sector might be rather less exciting to the people writing the cheques.
Then there’s the individual starting position. Imagine two people with the same idea. One has family money and somewhere to live rent-free. The other has childcare costs, rent and no savings. Both are supposedly free to become entrepreneurs, but only one can comfortably survive a year of making nothing.
The second person taking a salaried job hasn’t necessarily demonstrated a lack of imagination. They might just have done the sums.
This is why I find the sneering at protection against risk a bit odd. Some security could make trying something new more realistic. Affordable housing, reliable childcare and support when things go wrong would give more people room to experiment.
Final thoughts
Huang may be right that Britain needs to think bigger. Sharma is certainly right to question our attachment to property.
But “be more entrepreneurial” is fairly cheap advice unless we also ask who has the money, time and security to act on it.
I’d be more impressed by a programme that made failure survivable for ordinary people than another lecture about national ambition. We might discover there’s plenty of entrepreneurial spirit once having a go doesn’t mean putting your family’s stability on the line.
