The Real Reason there are no Silicon Valleys in Europe(foreignpolicy.com)
foreignpolicy.com
The Real Reason there are no Silicon Valleys in Europe
http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=4095&page=0
"In France and Germany, students are being forced to undergo a dangerous indoctrination. Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias." ... "Taught that the free market is a dangerous wilderness, twice as many Germans as Americans tell pollsters that you should not start a business if you think it might fail."
62 comments
Is this guy supposed to be educated ? I was raised in France and I feel less alienated than the author of this article. He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws.
United States are the epicenter of the economical world without any doubt, the ultimate place for entrepreneurs for sure, "the place where it happens", but history teaches us at least 3 things :
1/ Portugal was this place before (hello America), Spain was before (gold from America), Holland was before (beginning of world commerce, main Harbor of the world), England was before (industrial revolution), etc.
So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place, but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy).
2/ France has never been the epicenter of the economical world in it's history, it has never been the #1 power in the world, never. And with our strategic geographical position in Europe it's pretty ironic. It's not that we didn't try, but the reasons are cultural, and they take their roots far beyond socialism.
3/ You can't have it all. The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history.
France is undergoing a serious cultural crisis right now, and economy is certainly not our strongest skill, but a lot of our problems come from deliberate choices of lifestyle. You cannot have it all. It should not be so hard to understand that there are different kind of lifestyles that all come with their pro and cons. Especially for a traveled reporter.
United States are the epicenter of the economical world without any doubt, the ultimate place for entrepreneurs for sure, "the place where it happens", but history teaches us at least 3 things :
1/ Portugal was this place before (hello America), Spain was before (gold from America), Holland was before (beginning of world commerce, main Harbor of the world), England was before (industrial revolution), etc.
So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place, but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy).
2/ France has never been the epicenter of the economical world in it's history, it has never been the #1 power in the world, never. And with our strategic geographical position in Europe it's pretty ironic. It's not that we didn't try, but the reasons are cultural, and they take their roots far beyond socialism.
3/ You can't have it all. The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history.
France is undergoing a serious cultural crisis right now, and economy is certainly not our strongest skill, but a lot of our problems come from deliberate choices of lifestyle. You cannot have it all. It should not be so hard to understand that there are different kind of lifestyles that all come with their pro and cons. Especially for a traveled reporter.
I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough.
I'm not arguing that this is reality, I'm just saying our attitude is such that anything is achievable. Maybe that makes us naive, but it also makes us much more likely to take a big risk for a big payoff.
I confess I don't know France well enough to add to your views on it's economic attitudes, but I do know the US well enough to say what I just said. I think the point of the article is that since we are not taught to fear capitalism, we are more likely to do stupid things that sometimes actually pay off, and the pay off is generally worth it for society, if not for the individuals that failed en route.
And I think France was the #1 power in the world briefly... the Napoleonic Era. Either way, it has been one of the top powers for quite a while. I, as an American, am still envious of your prowess in Nuclear Energy.
I'm not arguing that this is reality, I'm just saying our attitude is such that anything is achievable. Maybe that makes us naive, but it also makes us much more likely to take a big risk for a big payoff.
I confess I don't know France well enough to add to your views on it's economic attitudes, but I do know the US well enough to say what I just said. I think the point of the article is that since we are not taught to fear capitalism, we are more likely to do stupid things that sometimes actually pay off, and the pay off is generally worth it for society, if not for the individuals that failed en route.
And I think France was the #1 power in the world briefly... the Napoleonic Era. Either way, it has been one of the top powers for quite a while. I, as an American, am still envious of your prowess in Nuclear Energy.
While people raised in the US are being told they can have it all, if they work hard enough, reality isn't so. Social mobility in the US is lower than in most European countries. The correlation between your income and that of your parents is greater in the US than in Europe. Even the Economist, the free-market crusader, admits this. And that's of course a fairly predictable outcome of the US approach to education and health care.
> "I think your assertion that "you can't have it all" is telling. We are raised in the US being told that we can indeed have it all, if we work hard enough."
But unfortunatly, not everyone can have it all. That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness.
60 minutes had a story about Denmark, which is the happiest country in the world. Their secret is to try to get it all, but also know that you might have to settle for less.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833...
Video is here: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness
But unfortunatly, not everyone can have it all. That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness.
60 minutes had a story about Denmark, which is the happiest country in the world. Their secret is to try to get it all, but also know that you might have to settle for less.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833...
Video is here: http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness
>That attitude may lead to more risk taking, but it will also be a constant source of unhappiness.
Not necessarily. It may be a source of unhappiness, but it may just be a calibration effect. Consider the question, "on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you?" I know 1 == sad (not me) and I know 10=="a marijuana forest full of strippers?!?". But what does 5 or 8 mean?
Say I'm the sort of person who might rate myself a 9. But If there is a person, real or hypothetical, who is "happier" than me (1), but not quite a 10. So that leads me to conclude HE must be 9 and I must be 8. But I'm not less happy, I just don't know how to answer a "how happy are you" question.
Similarly, I might want to rate myself a 5, but then I think about how I wasn't eaten by velociraptors, and jack myself up to 7 (my understanding is that something of this nature occurs in Denmark).
(1) His beer comes from further away than my beer and his wife's ass is higher up than my wife's ass.
Not necessarily. It may be a source of unhappiness, but it may just be a calibration effect. Consider the question, "on a scale of 1-10, how happy are you?" I know 1 == sad (not me) and I know 10=="a marijuana forest full of strippers?!?". But what does 5 or 8 mean?
Say I'm the sort of person who might rate myself a 9. But If there is a person, real or hypothetical, who is "happier" than me (1), but not quite a 10. So that leads me to conclude HE must be 9 and I must be 8. But I'm not less happy, I just don't know how to answer a "how happy are you" question.
Similarly, I might want to rate myself a 5, but then I think about how I wasn't eaten by velociraptors, and jack myself up to 7 (my understanding is that something of this nature occurs in Denmark).
(1) His beer comes from further away than my beer and his wife's ass is higher up than my wife's ass.
The best advice I'd have to anyone wanting to begin a start-up here is that the RISK always has to be GREATER than the REWARD for there to be a PROFIT. RISK > REWARD = PROFIT. It's that simple.
I find the saying "you can have it all" to be idealistic bullshit that dooms an economy and its people to failure and exploitation. It merely justifies the reason not to have a welfare system because it is your own damn fault if you take a leap against common sense that is never able to pay off.
Example: 50 years ago AT&T invented the picturephone AKA video phones. The reason it took almost 40 years for it to even become marketable was because it wasn't worth the risk for people. There wasn't enough reward to justify the risk of changing, so no one did.
Simply put it gave 10 frames per second of picture, gave no benefit over voice and cost a fortune. $20 vs $1200 for a handset, it was a retarded product and took 50 years to even get uptake and by that time it was on broadband phones and the housephone market is already beat by VoIP and Webcams.
Would a start-up have survived 50 years with no selling product?
I find the saying "you can have it all" to be idealistic bullshit that dooms an economy and its people to failure and exploitation. It merely justifies the reason not to have a welfare system because it is your own damn fault if you take a leap against common sense that is never able to pay off.
Example: 50 years ago AT&T invented the picturephone AKA video phones. The reason it took almost 40 years for it to even become marketable was because it wasn't worth the risk for people. There wasn't enough reward to justify the risk of changing, so no one did.
Simply put it gave 10 frames per second of picture, gave no benefit over voice and cost a fortune. $20 vs $1200 for a handset, it was a retarded product and took 50 years to even get uptake and by that time it was on broadband phones and the housephone market is already beat by VoIP and Webcams.
Would a start-up have survived 50 years with no selling product?
The reasons why France is #1 tourism destination in the world are also the reasons why we weren't the #1 power at any time in our history.
Your whole comment strikes me as incoherent. France came very close to being the major world power, if it wasn't, several times. It's power was limited by having a relatively small population, not by wine or architecture or art galleries, which are the reasons it is a tourist destination.
I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)
Huh?
He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws.
Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.
Portugal...Spain...Holland...England
Yes, so? Each one in turn was full of people taking ventures rather than welfare checks. Do you think Columbus read about how he should organize a conference for lazy bitches to appeal to the Queen for handouts? That's evidentally what European kids are actually being taught.
You seem to be implying that the welfare state is a lifestyle choice, but France's culture didn't grow up in a welfare state.
Your whole comment strikes me as incoherent. France came very close to being the major world power, if it wasn't, several times. It's power was limited by having a relatively small population, not by wine or architecture or art galleries, which are the reasons it is a tourist destination.
I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)
Huh?
He sounds like Moses coming down from his hill with the tables of laws.
Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.
Portugal...Spain...Holland...England
Yes, so? Each one in turn was full of people taking ventures rather than welfare checks. Do you think Columbus read about how he should organize a conference for lazy bitches to appeal to the Queen for handouts? That's evidentally what European kids are actually being taught.
You seem to be implying that the welfare state is a lifestyle choice, but France's culture didn't grow up in a welfare state.
Please, quote properly. Don't hack sentences in half without even an elipsis to denote that you're altering the context.
> So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place [#1 economic power], but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and [you see that AND it means CARRYING ON] I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle [They have state controlled communist media, that was a blatent fault on your part not the authors] (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)[< those braketed comments, they're the writers side remarks, saying simply communism = bad].
Now that that is out the way; no France was never the worlds #1 economic power in the world. It's a country that has been habitually invaded repeatedly and its only point of success in the Napoleon Era crippled its economy through conscription and a complete halt in technological advances.
> Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.
You obviously agree with the articles author, but its patently poor writing. It's barely above tabloid journalism and merely written to inflame. It's poor, it's biased and it's written like utter capitalist garbage and not credible criticism. Simply put: It's the same shit I've heard for years about socialism, the only thing is that Europe is a bigger faster growing economy than the US. Uhh that means socialism WINS and capitalism LOSES, the market is the ultimate truth and that is capitalist doctrine #1.
EU 3% growth, US 2.2% growth. EU $16.37 trillion GDP(OER), US $13.79 trillion GDP(OER) US inflation is also .9% higher, which means the US GDP(OER) is going to get worse every year.
The US currently beats the EU on poverty line by about 3%, however the EU keeps bringing in countries with unemployment and poverty lines well above acceptable levels, and hey go figure the EU is still growing better than the US.
I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull. It's already been proven that people in the US spend on average twice as much on health care as people in the UK(with the worlds largest nationalised health survice) and the poor in the UK are as healthy as the US' rich. That means there's a proportionally larger, healthier and more productive work force in the UK than the US.
So EU has the #1 economy in the world, it has several of the best health care systems in the world (competing for #1 between UK and Germany really) that are slowly spreading throughout Europe... and the US has what now? The #1 country for citizens behind bars?
> So today it is the turn of the United States to hold this place [#1 economic power], but tommorow it might be China (who knows) and [you see that AND it means CARRYING ON] I don't think you'll appreciate what Chinese reporters have to say about your lifestyle [They have state controlled communist media, that was a blatent fault on your part not the authors] (like not living as an ants colony wich is prejudiciable to your economy)[< those braketed comments, they're the writers side remarks, saying simply communism = bad].
Now that that is out the way; no France was never the worlds #1 economic power in the world. It's a country that has been habitually invaded repeatedly and its only point of success in the Napoleon Era crippled its economy through conscription and a complete halt in technological advances.
> Err, no. He sounds like he's describing instances of school curricula which are neo-Marxist. Credible criticism, as far as I can tell.
You obviously agree with the articles author, but its patently poor writing. It's barely above tabloid journalism and merely written to inflame. It's poor, it's biased and it's written like utter capitalist garbage and not credible criticism. Simply put: It's the same shit I've heard for years about socialism, the only thing is that Europe is a bigger faster growing economy than the US. Uhh that means socialism WINS and capitalism LOSES, the market is the ultimate truth and that is capitalist doctrine #1.
EU 3% growth, US 2.2% growth. EU $16.37 trillion GDP(OER), US $13.79 trillion GDP(OER) US inflation is also .9% higher, which means the US GDP(OER) is going to get worse every year.
The US currently beats the EU on poverty line by about 3%, however the EU keeps bringing in countries with unemployment and poverty lines well above acceptable levels, and hey go figure the EU is still growing better than the US.
I'm sorry, but all 'evidence' of a benefit to capitalism is bull. It's already been proven that people in the US spend on average twice as much on health care as people in the UK(with the worlds largest nationalised health survice) and the poor in the UK are as healthy as the US' rich. That means there's a proportionally larger, healthier and more productive work force in the UK than the US.
So EU has the #1 economy in the world, it has several of the best health care systems in the world (competing for #1 between UK and Germany really) that are slowly spreading throughout Europe... and the US has what now? The #1 country for citizens behind bars?
Great article that is politically unpopular. Nice use of textbooks as examples, unemployment rates, labor policies -- you could go on with this theme to any amount of detail required by the naysayers here. Sure it's a commentary, but that's what analysis pieces are supposed to be like. You can question whether the thesis was supported or not -- I found it adequately done for the genre.
But the most interesting part of the piece is the reaction from the commenters here. The things attacked in the article -- nice cushy jobs for life, the view of politics as the marxist battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the view that political protest is required for job creation -- that's all part of the modern narrative in many colleges. So it's no surprise that such an attack would elicit so many apologists for the Germans and French.
I love the Germans and French, but you don't see very many startups at all coming out of there. I know I would never want to try a startup there nor would I want to take a well-developed company to one of these countries. For those of you who disagree, here's your chance! Go found a great startup in France and let us know how it went for you. BTW, good luck with the local workforce, governmental regulations, and pervasive politics.
But the most interesting part of the piece is the reaction from the commenters here. The things attacked in the article -- nice cushy jobs for life, the view of politics as the marxist battle between the proletariat and the bourgeoisie, the view that political protest is required for job creation -- that's all part of the modern narrative in many colleges. So it's no surprise that such an attack would elicit so many apologists for the Germans and French.
I love the Germans and French, but you don't see very many startups at all coming out of there. I know I would never want to try a startup there nor would I want to take a well-developed company to one of these countries. For those of you who disagree, here's your chance! Go found a great startup in France and let us know how it went for you. BTW, good luck with the local workforce, governmental regulations, and pervasive politics.
I disagree and am doing just that in the Czech Republic. The governmental regulations aren't nearly as good as in the States, but the local workforce is much better and cheaper, and the politics doesn't get in the way in any case. I assume the same is true for France.
I'm an American, but I would never return to live there. It's good for business but not for the average person. You don't see essentially any homelessness or crime here and the quality of life is much higher. It's true the next Twitter probably won't come out of Europe, but I think that's a good thing.
I'm an American, but I would never return to live there. It's good for business but not for the average person. You don't see essentially any homelessness or crime here and the quality of life is much higher. It's true the next Twitter probably won't come out of Europe, but I think that's a good thing.
"In 2004, a bread roll cost 40 cents. For the wheat that went into it, the farmer received less than 2 cents. What do you think about that?"
Am I supposed to be alarmed by this question? It looks to me to be an invitation to an interesting line of thougt. "Where'd the other 38 cents go?" is the obvious next question. Answering it would, I suppose, reveal other players in the production- and supply-chain, and would probably indicate that the farmer received a fair price. It might even lead one to consider other ideas like economies of scale and the role of industrialization in agriculture. And so on.
This article is almost comically biased. Replace a few pejoratives with antonyms and the author's unreasonableness becomes clear: In Texas, they're not "filling students with negative preconceptions and suspicions about businesses and the people who run them." No, they're "filling students with positive preconceptions and faith about businesses and the people who run them."
Are we supposed to prefer the latter?
Am I supposed to be alarmed by this question? It looks to me to be an invitation to an interesting line of thougt. "Where'd the other 38 cents go?" is the obvious next question. Answering it would, I suppose, reveal other players in the production- and supply-chain, and would probably indicate that the farmer received a fair price. It might even lead one to consider other ideas like economies of scale and the role of industrialization in agriculture. And so on.
This article is almost comically biased. Replace a few pejoratives with antonyms and the author's unreasonableness becomes clear: In Texas, they're not "filling students with negative preconceptions and suspicions about businesses and the people who run them." No, they're "filling students with positive preconceptions and faith about businesses and the people who run them."
Are we supposed to prefer the latter?
coming from a European school I have seen many questions like this, and unfortunately your reasoning is wrong.
The premise is that the farmer only gets a small percentage of the selling price, and hence is abused by a capitalist global economy.
I have discussions with intelligent people on a regular basis that still hold on strongly to the belief that the little man is being abused by the system.
We're a bunch of commies :-)
The premise is that the farmer only gets a small percentage of the selling price, and hence is abused by a capitalist global economy.
I have discussions with intelligent people on a regular basis that still hold on strongly to the belief that the little man is being abused by the system.
We're a bunch of commies :-)
You make a very good point about the kind of discussion a question like that should bring up. The problem is it depends on the teachers to lead the class in that direction. I've seen far too many folks however not make that logical next step (not with this particular problem).
For example in the restaurant business on average 10% of the sales price of an item goes towards the food itself (leaving aside super expensive restaurants). Most folks see this and somehow feel they are being robbed of their hard earned cash for having to pay such a "premium". Few take the time to think about other associated costs such as the cost of operating the physical restaurant (employees, the building, utilities, the tables, chairs, silverware, etc).
I really hope that you are right regarding where that question was supposed to lead.
For example in the restaurant business on average 10% of the sales price of an item goes towards the food itself (leaving aside super expensive restaurants). Most folks see this and somehow feel they are being robbed of their hard earned cash for having to pay such a "premium". Few take the time to think about other associated costs such as the cost of operating the physical restaurant (employees, the building, utilities, the tables, chairs, silverware, etc).
I really hope that you are right regarding where that question was supposed to lead.
My only problem with it was that it was quoted as being from a math textbook. I don't find a discussion of economic morality relevant for math class, to be honest.
"Taught that economic principles such as capitalism, free markets, and entrepreneurship are savage, unhealthy, and immoral, these children are raised on a diet of prejudice and bias."
I have to say this in case anyone's got any illusions: this is a different Europe from the one I live in. I mean, the French go on about how the "Anglo-Saxon" work ethic is polluting their culture, and in the UK people will wish you luck if you start a business, while secretly hoping you'll fail. I'm sure other countries have their problems too, but overall Europe is a good place to live, work and do business.
We don't "do" Silicon Valley because it's not how things are done here. Whether or not they should be is the subject of another, far more interesting essay than the one in the title.
I have to say this in case anyone's got any illusions: this is a different Europe from the one I live in. I mean, the French go on about how the "Anglo-Saxon" work ethic is polluting their culture, and in the UK people will wish you luck if you start a business, while secretly hoping you'll fail. I'm sure other countries have their problems too, but overall Europe is a good place to live, work and do business.
We don't "do" Silicon Valley because it's not how things are done here. Whether or not they should be is the subject of another, far more interesting essay than the one in the title.
I'm a little confused by your comment. Does the Europe you know embrace insane work ethic, high risk investments, low job security, and admire those who prefer to start their own companies, or not? Without those, the culture is creating a bad environment for startups.
I can't speak for m0nty but I'd agree that I don't recognise the Europe of the FP article.
I'm in Ireland, historically a very left leaning state until drastic measures were taken in the 1980s leading to our recent growth and prosperity. We've a culture of what's called 'begrudgery' - speaking ill of people who succeed - though in truth it doesn't seem to have held us back.
As to the things you describe I doubt they're of the same caliber. Someone starting a business here will often look to government grants and other funds for bootstrap cash. Does that create a bad environment though? In some ways yes, Govt may not be quick to hand over money and may not have the understanding a lot of venture capitalists do, but overall I don't think so: I know quite a few small business owners and technology startups, it certainly doesn't seem excessively detrimental. I've no experience of that scene in the US though.
In Ireland at least, I think we develop polar love/hate relationships with those that succeed, either lauding or slandering them. Micheal O'Leary of Ryanair is a good example.
I come from a family of business owners and starters and know many others. I've also worked on EU-wide research projects (telecoms related; and see little of the resentment the article implies is prevalent). As such my experience is obviously rather selective.
I'm in Ireland, historically a very left leaning state until drastic measures were taken in the 1980s leading to our recent growth and prosperity. We've a culture of what's called 'begrudgery' - speaking ill of people who succeed - though in truth it doesn't seem to have held us back.
As to the things you describe I doubt they're of the same caliber. Someone starting a business here will often look to government grants and other funds for bootstrap cash. Does that create a bad environment though? In some ways yes, Govt may not be quick to hand over money and may not have the understanding a lot of venture capitalists do, but overall I don't think so: I know quite a few small business owners and technology startups, it certainly doesn't seem excessively detrimental. I've no experience of that scene in the US though.
In Ireland at least, I think we develop polar love/hate relationships with those that succeed, either lauding or slandering them. Micheal O'Leary of Ryanair is a good example.
I come from a family of business owners and starters and know many others. I've also worked on EU-wide research projects (telecoms related; and see little of the resentment the article implies is prevalent). As such my experience is obviously rather selective.
Since Europe is a continent of many countries, each with its own environment I can only speak for my own country (Denmark)
Of the items you mention we have an insane work ethic and that's about it.
Of the items you mention we have an insane work ethic and that's about it.
Probably the most obviously bad attempt at passing "free market" propaganda as some kind of "study" I've read recently, so biased to the point of being infantile.
It has "reddit" politics section material written all over it. Mind-shattering bad in almost any conceivably way, from the premises to the treatment of "evidences".
It has "reddit" politics section material written all over it. Mind-shattering bad in almost any conceivably way, from the premises to the treatment of "evidences".
In that case, lets ignore whatever problems you find in the article and discuss its basic message.
I lived in parts of Europe (though not Germany or France) for a while and found the contrast between there and the US to match the general theme of this article. These biases against the American attitude towards work seemed deeply ingrained into the culture.
I lived in parts of Europe (though not Germany or France) for a while and found the contrast between there and the US to match the general theme of this article. These biases against the American attitude towards work seemed deeply ingrained into the culture.
A lot of the comments here seem to think you can dismiss an article by detecting its bias. You need to actually refute an argument with facts to to dismiss it right?
I will try. I live in the Netherlands. The schools here don't teach us that capitalism is bad. It is true however that they teach us that capitalism does not solve all problems and that capitalism completely without government control can go wrong (e.g. monopolies, Microsoft). They teach us that capitalism is good if everyone gets the same opportunities. So this means that all children should be able to get good education, even if your parents cannot pay for it. It also means that if you are handicapped and you cannot get a job then the government will give you enough money for food and a place to live. They also teach us that communism is good in theory but cannot work in practice (i.e. will lead to totalitarian regimes) (compare with "SCARY! FEAR! ANGST!"). To me this sounds like a balanced view.
I don't know about France (note to the author: Europe is not one country and not eveyone has the same opinions), but similar quotes could be obtained from dutch books:
> Peter says:
> [insert quote here]
> Exercise 5: Do you agree with Peter? Why or why not?
I don't know about France (note to the author: Europe is not one country and not eveyone has the same opinions), but similar quotes could be obtained from dutch books:
> Peter says:
> [insert quote here]
> Exercise 5: Do you agree with Peter? Why or why not?
I agree. Europe is not one country and it's pretty irksome when it is referred to like it is.
I can understand why it is though and for the same reasons it's sometimes easy to think of Africa as being one big homogeneous entity, which of course it isn't.
Of course even individual countries contain huge disparities especially in their adherence to the capitalist ideal. Take the UK for instance. It has the largest financial hub in the world, London. The UK also probably has the largest monument to socialism outside of a communist country, the National Health Service.
So trying to label a single country's political/economic stance with a single label is likely to fail and more to the point trying to summarize an entire continent's stance is worse than ridiculous.
I can understand why it is though and for the same reasons it's sometimes easy to think of Africa as being one big homogeneous entity, which of course it isn't.
Of course even individual countries contain huge disparities especially in their adherence to the capitalist ideal. Take the UK for instance. It has the largest financial hub in the world, London. The UK also probably has the largest monument to socialism outside of a communist country, the National Health Service.
So trying to label a single country's political/economic stance with a single label is likely to fail and more to the point trying to summarize an entire continent's stance is worse than ridiculous.
I grew up in Kansas, and say what you want about our science education, but these are pretty much the exact points we got in sociology/economics/politics classes, even up to University level.
Communism IS a dirty word here, but no one under the age of 30 is foaming at the mouth about it.
Communism IS a dirty word here, but no one under the age of 30 is foaming at the mouth about it.
You need facts to make an argument too. The article doesn't provide any of those in support of its quite slanted assertions about "welfare states". Given that empirical evidence seems to suggest greater hacker activity in Europe than the United States, this guy is running uphill.
What 'empirical evidence' are you referring to?
(If the eurohackers you think of now work for or sold out to US firms, that tends to support, rather than refute, the article's argument.)
(If the eurohackers you think of now work for or sold out to US firms, that tends to support, rather than refute, the article's argument.)
There is quite a hacking scene in Europe, but the people that have ambitions and want to create something big all move to the US. Tim Berners Lee, Bjarne Stoustrup, DHH, etc.
I kind of agree with the article, but would be more likely to dismiss it on the grounds of it being a bit too political for yc news.
To dismiss it, yes. To ignore it, no.
Few of us have the luxury of thoroughly examining every article. If it looks bad in the first sentence, that's as far as we're likely to get.
Few of us have the luxury of thoroughly examining every article. If it looks bad in the first sentence, that's as far as we're likely to get.
>Millions of children are being raised on prejudice and disinformation. Educated in schools that teach a skewed ideology, they are exposed to a dogma that runs counter to core beliefs shared by many other Western countries.
Doesn't this statement apply equally well to American schools, from a European point of view?
It would be possible to write an interesting, informative article contrasting the values taught in Europe and the US without being so inflammatory. And I expect it would be more constructive. Scorn is cheap and easy.
Doesn't this statement apply equally well to American schools, from a European point of view?
It would be possible to write an interesting, informative article contrasting the values taught in Europe and the US without being so inflammatory. And I expect it would be more constructive. Scorn is cheap and easy.
I am not a US citizen. Can you briefly explain what this skewed ideology and dogma is? There's a touch of scorn in your own comment. I rather like inflammatory articles provided there's some beef to the point being made. I'll leave that assessment to French or German readers.
I'm not sure, but I think WenomousVit is referring to the American Dream, the idea that everyone could become rich and successful if they just work hard (thereby implying that those who aren't rich/successful should blame theirselves).
Another thing is that American children are indoctrinated with patriotism and nationalism, which - maybe surprisingly to Americans - are two rather dirty words in other countries - at least in Holland, where I live.
Then there's a more implicit message in "One Nation Under God" (the national motto) that faith/religion (especially Christian) is the norm and all else is Unamerican.
But again, I don't live there, so it's hard to judge for me as well.
But again, I don't live there, so it's hard to judge for me as well.
This article is at least as biased as the textbooks are claimed to be.
It's a clumsy polemic -- but doesn't the author make an evidence-based case?
The polls show greater public suspicion of markets and business in France and Germany. (Is anyone surprised?) Levels of entrepreneurial participation are lower in those countries than in the US. And, the schools and textbooks promote economic beliefs that ensure continued suspicion of markets and businesses, and lower entrepreneurial participation, in the future.
(US schools don't promote the same attitudes -- at least not until college. :)
Ignoring the author's opinion about which way is better, he's identified a real contrast in culture and education which helps explain differences in economic activity.
France and Germany are fine places, but would you expect to migrate there to start or join a young high-growth, high-tech business? How about compared to California, Texas, or most other states?
The polls show greater public suspicion of markets and business in France and Germany. (Is anyone surprised?) Levels of entrepreneurial participation are lower in those countries than in the US. And, the schools and textbooks promote economic beliefs that ensure continued suspicion of markets and businesses, and lower entrepreneurial participation, in the future.
(US schools don't promote the same attitudes -- at least not until college. :)
Ignoring the author's opinion about which way is better, he's identified a real contrast in culture and education which helps explain differences in economic activity.
France and Germany are fine places, but would you expect to migrate there to start or join a young high-growth, high-tech business? How about compared to California, Texas, or most other states?
I sure hope that some of the things they were saying are false, not just biased. I really hope that textbooks do not contain some of the material this article claims they do.
Despite it's innocuous name, I've found "Foreign Policy" to be highly biased every time I've picked up a copy.
"Taught that the free market is a dangerous wilderness, twice as many Germans as Americans tell pollsters that you should not start a business if you think it might fail."
Oh ! and we are taught to eat children too !
I think it's fair to ask why there aren't any silicon valleys in Europe. But you should also ask why there aren't any other silicon valleys in the United States.
A better study would be to take silicon valley out of the picture, and then compare the "best of the rest". How does the start up scene in Copenhagen compare with Seattle? Berlin and Austin? Boston and Oxford?
I have a feeling US based cities would compare favorably, but not as dramatically, and perhaps at a higher social cost.
A better study would be to take silicon valley out of the picture, and then compare the "best of the rest". How does the start up scene in Copenhagen compare with Seattle? Berlin and Austin? Boston and Oxford?
I have a feeling US based cities would compare favorably, but not as dramatically, and perhaps at a higher social cost.
"But you should also ask why there aren't any other silicon valleys in the United States."
But there are. Route 128 for example.
But there are. Route 128 for example.
"In 2004 a bread roll cost 40 cents. For wheat that went into it the farmer received less than 2 cents. What do you think of that?"
I think that the bread makers should be fairly compensated for turning raw material, like grain, into edible prodcuts. If the farmers want more of the cut they should band together and form a co-op to negotiate contracts for better compensation.
I think that the bread makers should be fairly compensated for turning raw material, like grain, into edible prodcuts. If the farmers want more of the cut they should band together and form a co-op to negotiate contracts for better compensation.
I can't say much about Germany and France, but in The Netherlands there is a rich and highly active entrepreneurship culture. At Delft University of Technology, where I study, high-tech start-ups are increasingly being founded and are supported by the University's incubator.
In fact, just today I attended a lecture by Dr. Bert Twaalfhoven. He is one of Europe's premier entrepreneurs and is well known for having founded over 50 high-tech companies.
I think that, especially in current times, entrepreneurship is becoming a global phenomenon. In places like Delft, among others in Europe, there is fertile breeding ground for high-tech start-ups.
In fact, just today I attended a lecture by Dr. Bert Twaalfhoven. He is one of Europe's premier entrepreneurs and is well known for having founded over 50 high-tech companies.
I think that, especially in current times, entrepreneurship is becoming a global phenomenon. In places like Delft, among others in Europe, there is fertile breeding ground for high-tech start-ups.
I've written about the key take-aways from Dr. Twaalfhoven's lecture in my blog...
http://ocastaneda.weblog.tudelft.nl/2008/03/05/the_indivers_...
http://ocastaneda.weblog.tudelft.nl/2008/03/05/the_indivers_...
Counterpoint> George Bush is your president. Twice.
Yeah, but take a look at an election map and note the color of the voting district around startup centers. PG wrote about this in an essay (I forget which one)
Don't look at the country or even the state. Remember, competition takes place between cities. National or state policy can help or hinder, but it's really about the city.
Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Boston, Austin, Seattle. Lots of startup activity. See a pattern here?
Don't look at the country or even the state. Remember, competition takes place between cities. National or state policy can help or hinder, but it's really about the city.
Silicon Valley, San Francisco, Boston, Austin, Seattle. Lots of startup activity. See a pattern here?
Europe has the DSP valley. Sure, it's not half as sexy as "web 2.0"...
[deleted]
that's not even a real title
Berlin is a hotbed of entrepreneurialism and creativity. Movie making, web 2.0 stuff, they have it all. It's a fun, cheap party. Smart people are moving there, and successful people stay. Prenzlauerberg has the highest fertility rate not ony for germany, but all of continental europe.
Germany'll be doing fine long after foreignpolicy.com's idiot anglo american backers slide into a quagmire of expensive energy, stupid land use, collapsing national currency, and corrupt warmongering.
Germany'll be doing fine long after foreignpolicy.com's idiot anglo american backers slide into a quagmire of expensive energy, stupid land use, collapsing national currency, and corrupt warmongering.
I wouldn't call 11.7% unemployment doing fine: http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Germany
Why not? The unemployed are on generous welfare.
If all employees are equal, that means that Germany is running on 88.3% productivity, vs 95% in the U.S. Not a big difference.
But since the people who tend to be unemployed are generally much less productive than people with jobs, the actual difference in productivity is much smaller.
Really, Germany is doing just fine. Which is not to say that they couldn't be doing even better.
But since the people who tend to be unemployed are generally much less productive than people with jobs, the actual difference in productivity is much smaller.
Really, Germany is doing just fine. Which is not to say that they couldn't be doing even better.
They might be on generous welfare, but it's not free - it comes from other German people's taxes including poor Germans. Plus you tend to be poor on welfare even in Germany. Why is it okay to have 11.7% of the population be impoverished and idle? While the UK, Australia and the US have 5% or less unemployment?
US unemployment figures do not capture all of the unemployed. A more comparable figure to the German number might be 8% if you count people who have given up on job searching and don't get counted in the official statistics.
To make a full comparison you might also want to look at the number of people working part time jobs that really want to be working full time. Our laws encourage employers to split some kinds of work among part time employees rather than hire full time employees. The economy still has just as many unemployed man hours, but they don't show up in the statistics because each individual is employed. (I don't know if German law encourages this.)
Germany is in a bad spot for unemployment, but suggesting it is more than twice the US with those statistics is not accurate.
To make a full comparison you might also want to look at the number of people working part time jobs that really want to be working full time. Our laws encourage employers to split some kinds of work among part time employees rather than hire full time employees. The economy still has just as many unemployed man hours, but they don't show up in the statistics because each individual is employed. (I don't know if German law encourages this.)
Germany is in a bad spot for unemployment, but suggesting it is more than twice the US with those statistics is not accurate.
Germany also has high unemployment because of the reunification, so it would be much harder to go down to 5%.
Anyway, of course 5% unemployment is better than 12%. On the other hand, Germans have less to fear from unemployment. Not only are they much harder to fire, but the unemployed are better off in Germany, and don't have to worry about losing health insurance. So Germans have more peace of mind than Americans. This comes with a hefty price tag, of course. So it's a trade-off.
My point was: Germany is doing just fine, in its own way, and there is even a start-up scene in Berlin.
Anyway, of course 5% unemployment is better than 12%. On the other hand, Germans have less to fear from unemployment. Not only are they much harder to fire, but the unemployed are better off in Germany, and don't have to worry about losing health insurance. So Germans have more peace of mind than Americans. This comes with a hefty price tag, of course. So it's a trade-off.
My point was: Germany is doing just fine, in its own way, and there is even a start-up scene in Berlin.
do you really believe that germany has a higher percentage of impoverished people than the us?i would think the lowest american salaries are lower than german welfare
Should be easy to figure out, but a quick google was unable to turn up an average welfare recipients' salary.
In the us, 5.85 * 40 * 52 = $12,168 annually. Figure 30% taxes, and you're at $8517 annually.
Who has better knowledge and/or google-fu to dig up what an average german welfare recipient makes per year?
(Also, most states have a higher minimum wage than 5.85: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm . Also, the Euro/US exchange rate doesn't really express living costs. Perhaps we should measure salary in terms of milk or bread for a more fair comparison?)
In the us, 5.85 * 40 * 52 = $12,168 annually. Figure 30% taxes, and you're at $8517 annually.
Who has better knowledge and/or google-fu to dig up what an average german welfare recipient makes per year?
(Also, most states have a higher minimum wage than 5.85: http://www.dol.gov/esa/minwage/america.htm . Also, the Euro/US exchange rate doesn't really express living costs. Perhaps we should measure salary in terms of milk or bread for a more fair comparison?)
salary is only the supply side of the equation. what about cost of living?
germans living in the city don't need a car. they have health care. even if they are unemployed layabouts, their kids have a chance for a subsidized education, and they don't have to balance the opportunity cost against a crapload of debt.
germans living in the city don't need a car. they have health care. even if they are unemployed layabouts, their kids have a chance for a subsidized education, and they don't have to balance the opportunity cost against a crapload of debt.
Americans living in the city don't need a car. They have health care (Check it: http://www.ncdhhs.gov/dma/basicmedelig.pdf if you make <$12000 per year, you're in Medicaid on top of Medicare. Furthermore emergency medicine is always free.) Their kids have a chance for a subsidized education (public school is always free, many colleges offer ridiculous amounts of aid as well as work opportunities to students from very poor families. I know mine was very good with this.)
(Not that I'm saying our medicare/medicaid/emergency system isn't somewhat broken. For example, many people who qualify have not filled out the necessary paperwork to join. The problem with lack of medical coverage, though, is much less with the indigent than it is with those just over the poverty line.)
(Not that I'm saying our medicare/medicaid/emergency system isn't somewhat broken. For example, many people who qualify have not filled out the necessary paperwork to join. The problem with lack of medical coverage, though, is much less with the indigent than it is with those just over the poverty line.)
You're right in a way, at least regarding education.
If you're very poor, but smart, america probably offers more opportunities than most euro places. Elite Unis heavily subsidize in this case.
The more common case though, is somewhat poor (single mom, 3 siblings, $40,000 a year), and somewhat smart but not national merit level. Many people in this situation seem to wind up getting aid packages with low interest, but huge principal, managing to get their degree but graduating with a lot of debt. This may be changing with even the shift to free tuition by some elite unis, but haven't seen really big changes yet.
In your last sentence, you seem to make the same point, only for med care rather than education.
So perhaps we agree that the american system is harshest on people who are poor but not "poverty level."
That is a bad way to be though. Because what happens when you are poverety level, and work your ass off to get up to the "just poor" level? You lose all that subsidy! And back to poverty level, for many.
If you're very poor, but smart, america probably offers more opportunities than most euro places. Elite Unis heavily subsidize in this case.
The more common case though, is somewhat poor (single mom, 3 siblings, $40,000 a year), and somewhat smart but not national merit level. Many people in this situation seem to wind up getting aid packages with low interest, but huge principal, managing to get their degree but graduating with a lot of debt. This may be changing with even the shift to free tuition by some elite unis, but haven't seen really big changes yet.
In your last sentence, you seem to make the same point, only for med care rather than education.
So perhaps we agree that the american system is harshest on people who are poor but not "poverty level."
That is a bad way to be though. Because what happens when you are poverety level, and work your ass off to get up to the "just poor" level? You lose all that subsidy! And back to poverty level, for many.
Agreed, but the comment I was responding to was talking about the lowest American salary vs. German welfare; not about people making just above the lowest American salary.