←back to thread

The thing about Europe: it's the actual land of the free now

(www.economist.com)
160 points cruzcampo | 7 comments | 11 Apr 25 08:04 UTC | HN request time: 0.52s | source | bottom
Show context
palata ◴[11 Apr 25 08:15 UTC] No.43651526[source]▶
> There are few unicorns in Europe, alas, and too little innovation.

There is most definitely innovation in Europe. It just gets bought by the US, who is quick to forget where the technology came from.

As for unicorns and trillion dollars companies... some may say it's a feature, not a bug. It's great to claim to have free speech and competition, but when a few people own a few big monopolies and control the media, is it real? Regulations are not bad.

replies(6): >>43651631 #>>43651695 #>>43651698 #>>43651715 #>>43651764 #>>43653696 #
mentalgear ◴[11 Apr 25 08:37 UTC] No.43651631[source]▶
Exactly, regulation benefits the consumers by allowing for a competitive playing field on innovation, cost and labour.

Deregulate the market and you get the oligopoly US of today (not the "great" version of the 1950s that had regulation which distributed the wealth much more equally).

replies(4): >>43651779 #>>43651819 #>>43652144 #>>43668068 #
1. spwa4 ◴[11 Apr 25 09:46 UTC] No.43652144[source]▶
Regulations in Europe also seem to have had the, I'm assuming completely unintentional, side effect of completely cementing the positions of the top of society in place. And this is nothing new, this actually predates modern democracy in Europe. It's been that way for centuries. In Europe the only time to leave, or join, the ultra-rich is during wars.

That the EU doesn't have unicorns is not an accident of whatever rules you like or dislike, it's entirely by design.

replies(2): >>43652195 #>>43656216 #
2. chkuendig ◴[11 Apr 25 09:56 UTC] No.43652195[source]▶
Just leaving this here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Social_Mobility_Index
replies(3): >>43652470 #>>43652803 #>>43653409 #
3. disgruntledphd2 ◴[11 Apr 25 10:51 UTC] No.43652470[source]▶
Amusingly enough, what the GP stated was true in 1910, but now the US is far more like pre-WW1 Europe in terms of distribution of wealth (c.f. Piketty's capital in the 21st century).
4. hansworst ◴[11 Apr 25 11:54 UTC] No.43652803[source]▶
Social mobility index doesn’t really look at how easy it is to become very rich (I.e. get into the 1%). This is also explained in the methodology section of the article you linked.
5. mamonster ◴[11 Apr 25 13:15 UTC] No.43653409[source]▶
I can already tell this index is complete BS as it has Sweden in the 4th place. The ceiling placed at around upper-middle class is made out of cement.
6. palata ◴[11 Apr 25 17:22 UTC] No.43656216[source]▶
The problem with the ultra-rich is not that it's hard to get there, but rather that it is possible. Nobody is personally worth billions, period. The fact that some individuals get there shows a flaw in the system.

The second thing that I wanted to say is that even though there are examples of originally not ultra-rich people becoming ultra-rich in the US (e.g. Zuckerberg and Besos), the likelihood of this happening is almost zero. Why is it that people keep hoping that it may happen to them? We should not build a system for a handful to become ultra-rich, but for most to live as well as possible.

replies(1): >>43675793 #
7. fragmede ◴[13 Apr 25 20:55 UTC] No.43675793[source]▶
The underlying emotionally driven question is what did they do to deserve it. For all of the faults of Mark Zuckerberg or Jeff Bezos, I don't think I've ever heard of them being called lazy. Someone else getting ahead when they don't deserve it is universal. We get told life isn't fair and just accept it but I don't think I'm alone in never actually accepting it. So unfairness matters.