> The EU could significantly advance its innovation capabilities by revising the charter of existing frameworks like the European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT), which despite a budget of over 2 billion Euros doesn’t have a functioning website at time of writing, to emulate the successful models of Arc and ARPA in the US, and ARIA in the UK.
Brit here. Almost no-one in the UK has heard of ARIA, which was an idea briefly pushed by a guy called Dominic Cummings - who was briefly a political advisor to Boris Johnson back when he was prime minister. As far as I can tell it has a yearly budget of just £200million - which doesn't buy very much advanced world-class research when compared to ARPA's $3.6bn budget or that of EIT. Its basically an under-resourced, post-brexit attempt to make the UK look like its playing with the big boys. Calling it "successful" is a stretch.
Also, EIT's website is at https://eit.europa.eu/ and, as far as I can tell, it works just fine.
> [The] question is how you . . . get Europe to regain self-confidence. I’ve never seen anybody succeeding with a lack of confidence,”
The post starts with this quote but the recommendations don't address it.
I only semi-jokingly consider there to be a physical continuum from the Bay Area to Europe. In the Bay Area, investors tend to be more afraid of missing out on upside than they are on losing their money. The further east you go (NY, Boston) the more risk averse (and thus the worse the financing terms). By the time you reach Europe, the fear of loss dwarfs the FOMO, thus the deals are few and small, with onerous terms. It's simply hard to get a business airborne in Europe.
The only significant exception I can think of to this exception is Hermann Hauser, and though he is European he actually did all his investing in the UK
Europe was rich because its nations were high trust societies. They were ethnic monocultures with social cohesion, shared history, religion, and culturally aligned, peaceful, productive populations.
" They were ethnic monocultures with social cohesion, shared history, religion, and culturally aligned, peaceful, productive populations. " I like to hear, when this was the case for Germany, Italy, France, Spain, UK or Poland but I dont know any timespan when this was the case.
Are you claiming that the ethnic composition of every country you listed hasn't changed dramatically over the last 25 years due to mass immigration from African and Middle Eastern countries?
They’ve all changed massively in other ways during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries too as linguistic and cultural diversity began to significantly dwindle under “modern nation-state” style cultural policies, try finding young Oc speakers in the southern half of France these days, followed by the collapse of multinational states (mainly the Habsburg state of course) followed by brutal ethnic cleaning and genocide that’s still going on in old pockets of that ex-empire today.
These places have experienced continuous and significantly rapid linguistic and cultural change for centuries now. If anything high levels of literacy and experience of integrating minorities by force over the last centuries might be making this latest set of changes fairly gentle and manageable…
I think you guys might be talking past each other. Obviously everyone agrees that many Europeans have coexisted within the same political structures for many generations. The difference between historical diversity and the woke kind is that people from other continents, with very non-European cultures and ethnic mindsets, are coming to Europe. Obviously those are two very different kinds of diversity.
TBH it comes across like you're being contrary, not curious. Yes, there's been lots of war. But there are also examples like Switzerland where French- and German- and Italian-speaking people coexist. No, it's not THE SAME EVERYWHERE, but nothing is.
But my larger point is, that kind of diversity, while it has had some success in Europe, is a very different thing from the woke kind of diversity.
While French or German speakers in Switzerland works,
It didn't work between Germany and France between you know 1810 and 1945. If you grow up in Germany and France this would not be a surprise.
Europe had lots of problems in the past (and usually people learn them in high school). You deny them just because of migration which both happen to be starting in the Germanys and France way earlier before the last 20 years (and also the discussions!). This also a known fact for people who care about these countries.
And this is JUST Germany and France. This is not Europe.
If you curious about European or German history start the Wikipedia article , visit the countries instead of following American far right twitter accounts about migration.
Actually I hardly ever spend time on Twitter. I prefer reading original sources and trying to decipher biases that are less subtle than the biases on Wikipedia, and therefore more easily read between the lines. But most importantly I’m neither right nor left. I’m non ideological, which means I think all ideologies have at least some truth and many have good ideas, but I’m not going to subscribe to any specific one. I invite you to expand your mental model to include more than just two ways of thinking, left vs. right.
"which means I think all ideologies have at least some truth " I doubt it. National Socialism and Communism are clearly counter examples. I'm very curious why haven't you thought about these very important ideologies in European history (both killed millions of Europeans)
"mental model to include more than just two ways of thinking, left vs. right." I do. I guess because you haven't mention which European country you are from and the typical demographic of HN, that you are American. And the American mind can not comprehend European history and links between various conflicts. So most peopöe can not put together into two bins of Politics like in the American election system.
- Austria-Hungaria was a multi ethnic, multi religious, multinational entity
- Similar Holy Roman Empire before
- House of Habsburgs at some point ruled parts of middle Europe, some Netherlands and Spain
- Spain is a multi-national state till today, with strong tensions
- Germany was for a long time only a loose group of small countries
- Denmark ruling other Scandinavian countries
- Religious wars devastated Europe for centuries
- Social cohesion? Ever heard of French Revolution and hundred other uprisings?
- Even though British Isles were not invaded after 1066 they had their fair share of infighting. Ask around Northern Ireland about peaceful religious unity
Ethnostates are very recent occurrence and even then it's not 100%. The shared history is a history of non-stop wars. Europe was rich for all other reasons. Some noble (preserving Greco-Roman legacy, enlightenment, birth of democratic ideas etc), some external (mild climate, resources), some not so noble (exploiting colonies).
Ignoring hundreds years of history is moving goalposts. Greetings from a country that almost overnight gained 5% of population from Ukraine (very welcomed by me).
Ethnic tensions brought some of Europe's worst atrocities, not prosperity. Even in last 25 years, the Balkans are still sore.
Post Industrial Revolution we had two world wars and many revolutions. Does your neutral debating place look like Europe's history?
You're pretty good at moving goalposts yourself. What's particular about the last 25 years?
I was at a conference this week where someone spoke about deploying software in the German administration. I translate one of his sentences: "If the northern states install Jitsi, the southern states are going to install Big Blue Button out of pure principle." (Germany is a federal state composed of 16 states.)
Peace in Europe is a bit of an outlier [1]. The period you refer to is also not a good example given Europe’s peace since WW2 has been more a product of American support and might than European identity.
I think Europe was far more ethnically homogenous before WW2 and as the link shows rather violent. So your reasoning is just plain wrong.
I’m pretty sure all Western European countries have been multi-ethnic for the last 25 years. Certainly all I’ve had any experience with (Sweden, Germany, France, UK, maybe more).
Europeans did not become wealthy from plunder and trade. That's preposterous. In fact, their monarchies were assassinated (Russian), overthrown (French), or otherwise forced into the twilight (UK) by non-European influences, starting in the 17th-18th century. The common Christian religions were brought to heel during the same time.
History is written by the victors. They also control the museums. You might want to read some alternative accounts of modern history with an open mind.
Whole idea of nation or ethnicity did not even exist few hundred years ago. And Europe was everything but peaceful up until 1945. Don't forget that we had wars like "30 years war" where we have essentially depopulated central Europe just because one side had little bit different take on Christianity that the other.
Regarding the idea of only taxing corporate distributions (including buybacks?) rather than profits:
There are two types of companies in the United States that are taxed on retained earnings, not profits: bdc and reit.
They can keep 4% of earnings but must distribute everything else otherwise those get taxed.
Since those distributions are sent to people, they are taxed with personal income tax (though they are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income).
What the author missed is that corporate taxes are a great way for legislators to perform graft. The more complex the tax code, the more campaign contributions and other support
36 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 78.4 ms ] threadLol at this. Current European Academia and Establishment literally consider L. v. Mises far-right.
The good thing is that Europeans are gradually waking up and in 5-10 years time something radical enough is guaranteed to happen.
Mises did not, which puts him on the fringe of the right, next to fascists, monarchists and whatnot.
They both have benefits and drawbacks.
Personally i'll take the worker benefits over the CEO lottery.
Brit here. Almost no-one in the UK has heard of ARIA, which was an idea briefly pushed by a guy called Dominic Cummings - who was briefly a political advisor to Boris Johnson back when he was prime minister. As far as I can tell it has a yearly budget of just £200million - which doesn't buy very much advanced world-class research when compared to ARPA's $3.6bn budget or that of EIT. Its basically an under-resourced, post-brexit attempt to make the UK look like its playing with the big boys. Calling it "successful" is a stretch.
Also, EIT's website is at https://eit.europa.eu/ and, as far as I can tell, it works just fine.
The post starts with this quote but the recommendations don't address it.
I only semi-jokingly consider there to be a physical continuum from the Bay Area to Europe. In the Bay Area, investors tend to be more afraid of missing out on upside than they are on losing their money. The further east you go (NY, Boston) the more risk averse (and thus the worse the financing terms). By the time you reach Europe, the fear of loss dwarfs the FOMO, thus the deals are few and small, with onerous terms. It's simply hard to get a business airborne in Europe.
The only significant exception I can think of to this exception is Hermann Hauser, and though he is European he actually did all his investing in the UK
These places have experienced continuous and significantly rapid linguistic and cultural change for centuries now. If anything high levels of literacy and experience of integrating minorities by force over the last centuries might be making this latest set of changes fairly gentle and manageable…
But my larger point is, that kind of diversity, while it has had some success in Europe, is a very different thing from the woke kind of diversity.
While French or German speakers in Switzerland works, It didn't work between Germany and France between you know 1810 and 1945. If you grow up in Germany and France this would not be a surprise.
Europe had lots of problems in the past (and usually people learn them in high school). You deny them just because of migration which both happen to be starting in the Germanys and France way earlier before the last 20 years (and also the discussions!). This also a known fact for people who care about these countries. And this is JUST Germany and France. This is not Europe.
If you curious about European or German history start the Wikipedia article , visit the countries instead of following American far right twitter accounts about migration.
"mental model to include more than just two ways of thinking, left vs. right." I do. I guess because you haven't mention which European country you are from and the typical demographic of HN, that you are American. And the American mind can not comprehend European history and links between various conflicts. So most peopöe can not put together into two bins of Politics like in the American election system.
- Austria-Hungaria was a multi ethnic, multi religious, multinational entity
- Similar Holy Roman Empire before
- House of Habsburgs at some point ruled parts of middle Europe, some Netherlands and Spain
- Spain is a multi-national state till today, with strong tensions
- Germany was for a long time only a loose group of small countries
- Denmark ruling other Scandinavian countries
- Religious wars devastated Europe for centuries
- Social cohesion? Ever heard of French Revolution and hundred other uprisings?
- Even though British Isles were not invaded after 1066 they had their fair share of infighting. Ask around Northern Ireland about peaceful religious unity
Ethnostates are very recent occurrence and even then it's not 100%. The shared history is a history of non-stop wars. Europe was rich for all other reasons. Some noble (preserving Greco-Roman legacy, enlightenment, birth of democratic ideas etc), some external (mild climate, resources), some not so noble (exploiting colonies).
If you want to debate this in a neutral place, I'm happy to do so, but this isn't exactly a level playing field here on hacker news.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoWibRxD_pY
Ethnic tensions brought some of Europe's worst atrocities, not prosperity. Even in last 25 years, the Balkans are still sore.
Post Industrial Revolution we had two world wars and many revolutions. Does your neutral debating place look like Europe's history?
I was at a conference this week where someone spoke about deploying software in the German administration. I translate one of his sentences: "If the northern states install Jitsi, the southern states are going to install Big Blue Button out of pure principle." (Germany is a federal state composed of 16 states.)
I think Europe was far more ethnically homogenous before WW2 and as the link shows rather violent. So your reasoning is just plain wrong.
[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_conflicts_in_Europe
Shocking.
You might want to visit the Louvre and the British Museum.
There are two types of companies in the United States that are taxed on retained earnings, not profits: bdc and reit.
They can keep 4% of earnings but must distribute everything else otherwise those get taxed.
Since those distributions are sent to people, they are taxed with personal income tax (though they are taxed at a much lower rate than earned income).
What the author missed is that corporate taxes are a great way for legislators to perform graft. The more complex the tax code, the more campaign contributions and other support