Hacker News Reader

Comment by trompetenaccoun | Hacker News Reader

Your comments are not contradictory, it feels you're both just looking at different corners of the same picture. like you mention yourself "they weren't really rich back then", now they are. How did they get so rich?

View on HN

Mostly industrialization and export of machinery and (later) pharmaceuticals. Banking is less of a relevant factor for Switzerland's GDP than most people realize. If I remember correctly even the insurance business (which is also considered financial industry) is larger than banking.

> Mostly industrialization and export of machinery and (later) pharmaceuticals.

Pharmaceuticals exports are highlight of Swiss exports, but as only 25% of the GDP is attributed to industry[0], this can't be a significant part of the economy.

Now how much of the 74% of the service revenue is banking is up for grabs, as tourism for instance is also a potentially big part. But even if it was only half of that, it would still be bigger that the pharma I guess ? (except if patents and/or IP was also counted as "services" ? but would it be that big either way ?)

[0] https://www.eda.admin.ch/aboutswitzerland/en/home/wirtschaft...

I know that the banking sector in Switzerland only employs 89'000 people. So the statement a bit above "banking doesn't contribute as much as people think" seems to be believable to me.

Bank's income depends on the volume of its assets, not the number of employees. The usual power law.

> How did they get so rich?

The sanest political system in the world, where power is only ever reluctantly relinquished to the higher authorities (individual -> city -> state -> federation), unlike - say - the US, where the power that still remains in the hands of local govts is nothing but a joke.

How does your neat "I have the conclusion before I even collected the data" explain Singapore, for example?

Lee Kuan Yew explicitly cited Switzerland as the best run country in the world and a model for Singapore in the 60's when he designed (with the help of foreign advisors such as Albert Winsemius [1][2][3][4]) the way the country's institutions would work.

[1] https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1457_20...

[2] https://www.worldscientific.com/pressroom/2022-05-25-01

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Winsemius

[4] https://thekopi.co/2019/09/02/albert-winsemius/

So, not sure your point carries much weight.

Singapore is effectively a one party state, with the same group (PAP) in power for over 60 years. They outlawed public protests except for ones specifically sanctioned by them. They control the press. The son of the guy you cited is the current leader of the country. It's nothing like Switzerland at all and never has been, unless your argument is that both countries are capitalist and have leveraged their unique positions as tiny nations between major powers, establishing themselves as banking hubs. Politically, socially and otherwise they're nothing alike.

And just to drive home the point why citing unbiased sources is important: According to the early fascists they were a movement lobbying for democracy and women's rights, among other positive sounding demands. That was right on their manifesto in big letters. It didn't quite turn out that way, and in fact looking back with the power of hindsight people like Mussolini had questionable motives from the start.

Switzerland is primarily characterized by direct democracy, frequent referendums and its federal system that delegates a lot of power to the cantons.

Singapore is primarily characterized by... none of those things???

> So, not sure your point carries much weight.

It's not "my point", it's reality on the ground.

They prey on poor Indians, Indonesians and Filipinos to advance their economy, just like the UAE. That's how.

Maybe because above all Switzerland always bring political stability as a key element of prosperity (a bit like the Chinese but with true democracy allowing this unique feature). The country has been in a permanent coalition government for the last 150years.

Arms export too. Currently it's blooming [1]. As during all previous wars.

1 - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2023-03-07/swiss-arm...

> How did they get so rich?

I don't know exactly, maybe you tell me?

If it were because of Neutrality, then surely Ireland, Austria, Malta must have become equally rich. But ... they aren't. So certainly other factors than just neutrality contribute to it.

> Ireland, Austria, Malta must have become equally rich. But ... they aren't.

You might want to look at some recent GDP growth charts for at least Ireland and Malta ;-)

Also, up until 2011 Austria was richer (GDP per capita) than the US.

Austria hasn't been neutral for very long. They were fighting all over Europe all of the time, including well after the CH went neutral.

Like, Austria was in both World Wars; the Swiss weren't.

not getting into wars helped a shitload

> not getting into wars helped a shitload

It very much did indeed.

And probably a lesson the rest of the world should finally learn.

a thing called industrial revolution. ever heard about it?

With money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com