Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

GP's phrasing is wrong but there is a point there - it is much easier to achieve success and then regulate and distribute its benefits than to go the other way round.

I am not a fan of unbridled capitalism a la the USA and fully agree that more countries should strive to reach European levels of worker and civil rights... however, there is validity to the statement that Europe is currently coasting along on the spoils of centuries of loot and plunder. A lavish, comfortable lifestyle was handed to the citizens of western europe and many of their older firms have struggled to innovate as technology has spread across the globe. There is a good reason why a fast moving industry like tech has taken root in the US while Europe as a whole is playing catch up.

The US will solve its problems, i have full faith in that country's ability to rise to the challenge as they have done numerous times in the past. Europe's problems with tech innovation run deep and go beyond simply vacation days and worker rights. Look no further than the current spree of tech regulation. I wish more countries did that but there is a fundamental problem - the EU is trying to legislate without having a good alternative.

My prediction - If the US resolves its immigration system and allows more talent to flow in without having to worry about a visa, European skilled immigration is toast.



> Europe is currently coasting along on the spoils of centuries of loot and plunder. A lavish, comfortable lifestyle was handed to the citizens of western europe

Well, apart from the whole WW2 business.

This is the trouble with generalisations across the continent, the closer you look the less well they fit. And if you look across a continent and back in time, the situation varies even further. Germany used to be "the sick man of Europe": https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/jep.28.1.167

The overhang of colonial benefit is present in Britain; I'm not really sure about France (the disasters of trying to hold on to Vietnam and Algeria?). It's not present in Germany or Italy which had it taken off them. It may well be an issue to Portugal and Spain, which were dictatorships well after the war.


Spain was razed to the ground during the Civil War (1936-1939) and people were literally eating cats and rats off the streets so I doubt that any of our current wealth is inherited from our former Imperial glory, aside from maybe some intangible, indirect and minuscule effects such as “historic capital”.

To your point, same goes for Germany indeed… Have you guys seen the pics of what cities like Berlin, Nuremberg or Frankfurt looked like after the war?

There is a lot of old money in Europe, as some families managed to shield it from these crises, then compound interest did the rest, but I’d really like to see some proof about the sentiment being repeated ITT that Europe’s current wealth is inherited or handed down, because the idea sounds contrary to everything I know about the continent’s history.


Perhaps not Europe as a whole, but definitely the concentrated structure of land ownership, e.g. https://www.businessinsider.com/why-hugh-grosvenor-duke-of-w...

To some extent I think the social structures produced by inherited wealth are anti-conduicive to innovation. Where's the innovation in the US? Most would say it's concentrated out west, in a state that didn't exist until 1850. The social structures of concentrated wealth in the South from the slavery era make it less innovative. And the northeast centers on money-making-money and property ownership.

The real sweet spot, of course, is cashing out: finding how to get the old money and oil money to invest in your new innovation. The success of WeWork, for example.


"Spain was razed to the ground during the Civil War [...] same goes for Germany indeed"

I wouldn't say that Spain was "razed to the ground" compared to Germany.


Yes, it is an exaggeration while in the case of Germany it’s literal (though in Spain, a few towns were razed, and many were heavily shelled)

People eating cats and rats off the streets is not an exaggeration however - there is abundant oral testimony to support that.

The point is that the damage hardly justifies talking about economies who live off inherited wealth, in either case.


There is an old saying in Spain meaning "they scammed you": Te han dado gato por libre (They gave you cat -meal- as hare). So, yes. after the civil war and Francoist repression Spain was utterly crushed down.


The use of that expression goes back several centuries, it has nothing to do with the war.


WW2 could be taken as a benefit for Europe in the macro sense.

* Influx of funding and loans from the US to rebuild

* Able to rebuild legacy systems that were destroyed in the world (roads, buildings, new code standards, etc)

* Reduced population means each individual is more valuable (See rising wages after plagues in the middle ages)

* Increased interdependency to combat Russian and US pressures

* The UN, NATO, etc


Some of which applies to SV as well. The US Navy:

- taught a huge number of people enough electronics to do field maintenance of radio and radar

- had a further more theoretical education for radar operators

- at the end of the war, sold off a huge amount of kit cheaply; some of this is still kicking around the ham community in California. See e.g. https://mightyohm.com/wiki/resources:surplus and the geographic distribution

The US picked up a lot of refugees (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Martians_(scientists) , Intel founder Andy Grove etc).

There's all sorts of odd little path dependencies. Shockley and Fairchild semiconductors were in California because Shockley himself wanted to live near his mother and managed to recruit people to move across the country.


I find it very interesting how it all played out to make society today. Thanks for sharing these articles. I'm gonna check them out


This is the "broken window fallacy" on steroids. There is no net benefit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parable_of_the_broken_window


How so? It's pretty axiomatic that destruction and rebuilding cycle that follows a continental-scale war lead to widespread investment and an economic boom.


That's not what "axiomatic" means. Maybe you meant "self-evident"? But that's not true either: Not every country ravaged by war goes on to become an economic powerhouse.


How about Germany after WWI?


Ok


I wonder if we should perhaps bomb some nations every once in a while for their benefit... /s


* And random effects over nature also, some negative, but other beneficial. The war submarines acting as a new top predator and the deploy of sea mines were a bless for fisheries, for example.


I was at university, back when Germany was the sick man. And I was truely worried about getting a job. Well, things turned out very differently.


> Well, apart from the whole WW2 business.

Let's be clear. By the time the last bullet was fired in WW2, Europe was basically destroyed, rumble, from the North Sea cross to Moscow. Brittan, although not occupied, was also hopelessly broke after the war. This weakness in Europe was one of the prime reasons why the colonies could break away from their European overlords. Europe was in no condition to do much about it either. They had more important things to worry about like food, and hoping that the Americans would come through with their Marshall Plan.

That's just counting the western half of Europe which wasn't under new (communist) management.

The loot and plunder was truly gone.


the destruction of world war two was absolutely insane, especially on the eastern front.

for instance: Belarus lost a quarter of it's population many villages and cities where utterly destroyed. also, don't forget world war 1 (and the other conflicts sparked after, like Russian civil war, breakup of Austria Hungary, Greco Turkish war etc) was only 25 years prior..


people from the US seem to underesti


> however, there is validity to the statement that Europe is currently coasting along on the spoils of centuries of loot and plunder.

oh boy.

Time for you to crack the spine of a history book covering the 20th century, me thinks.


People will take my phrasing to their preferred way, I was aware of it when I wrote it. It's the internet.

I'd need to be a great philosopher and writer, to write a boring book with the same opinion that wouldn't hurt them. Unfortunately, I am none of those two. Those who want to take it in the wrong way will and I'm ok with that.




Consider applying for YC's Winter 2026 batch! Applications are open till Nov 10

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: