

The Real Reason there are no Silicon Valleys in Europe - lupin_sansei
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."
======
ldambra
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.

~~~
Xichekolas
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.

~~~
ks
> "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...](http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/14/60minutes/main3833797.shtml)

Video is here: <http://60minutes.yahoo.com/segment/140/happiness>

~~~
yummyfajitas
>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.

------
DanielBMarkham
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.

~~~
david927
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.

------
rvega
"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?

~~~
mixmax
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 :-)

------
m0nty
"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.

~~~
tim2
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.

~~~
meatpeople
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.

------
finisterra
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".

~~~
tim2
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.

------
lupin_sansei
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?

~~~
jules
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?

~~~
jsmcgd
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.

------
WenomousVit
>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.

~~~
vixen99
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.

~~~
DXL
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.

------
pg
It would be hard to imagine an article with a first sentence like that turning
out to be good.

~~~
mixmax
There's a lot of truth to it nonetheless.

------
dusklight
This article is at least as biased as the textbooks are claimed to be.

~~~
gojomo
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?

------
lupin_sansei
"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."

------
nraynaud
Oh ! and we are taught to eat children too !

------
geebee
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.

~~~
constant
"But you should also ask why there aren't any other silicon valleys in the
United States."

But there are. Route 128 for example.

------
angstrom
"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.

------
ocastaneda
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.

~~~
ocastaneda
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_phenomenon)

------
run4yourlives
Counterpoint> George Bush is your president. Twice.

~~~
geebee
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?

------
wlievens
Europe has the DSP valley. Sure, it's not half as sexy as "web 2.0"...

------
eusman
that's not even a real title

------
tphyahoo
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.

~~~
lupin_sansei
I wouldn't call 11.7% unemployment doing fine:
<http://www.heritage.org/index/country.cfm?id=Germany>

~~~
mdemare
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.

~~~
lupin_sansei
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?

~~~
bocajuniors
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

~~~
llimllib
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?)

~~~
tphyahoo
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.

~~~
llimllib
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.)

~~~
tphyahoo
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.

~~~
llimllib
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.

