Comment by Gareth321 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Gareth321 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Dane here. Europeans have a different appetite for risk. Venture funding is 100x harder to get in Europe, meaning far less dynamism in start-ups and far less innovation. Sweden and Denmark buck the trend a little, but it's still a different league.

Why is funding harder? Culture and laws we created as a result. We're far less accepting of things like leverage M&As, options, flexible employee remuneration and conditions (especially for start-ups), etc. VCs therefore need to clear a far higher bar to mitigate risk, meaning only the very best proven ideas receive funding.

Further, investors tend to prefer lower, but more stable returns. There is much less appetite for moon-shots. I could speculate that this is partly driven by the tax structures. Why risk $50M if you know that 60% of the rewards would be taxed? You would use a much more conversative risk ratio, preferring 5% returns but very low risk. This extends to individuals, too. Why start a business when most of the rewards from the considerable risk will be taxed? Especially given the onerous business laws.

Denmark and Sweden are notable standouts. Our laws make it easy to start businesses, operate, and fire workers as needs change. However we still have very high taxes.

There is one final thought: most people I know do not aspire to become Ferrari owners with five mansions. We aspire to happy and healthy families with good friends, good wine, and cozy holidays. If this is one's aspiration, risking their financial stability for something they don't care about would not be very common. Danes who do aspire for the Ferrari lifestyle leave for the US.

This is a great summary, and I agree with everything you mentioned here.

One additional thing to mention though is that Americans are also just richer. Even if you include government benefits (social transfers), Americans rank extremely high on measures of disposable income per household. As far I’m aware that is the most complete measure of income, and despite being a massive country of almost 400 million, the median American is comparable to someone living in Luxembourg.

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

As you’d expect, this effect only grows when you go up the ladder, and American millionaires are on average richer than say, Danish millionaires.

(Note, I’m not saying that this is good or bad, just that it is. For what it’s worth I think we could learn a lot from the Danish model, but that’s my own distinct, normative option.)

Thus, since there is just generally more capital to go around, capital is easier to raise.

(And as an American, there’s plenty of us here too who enjoy the good life, free of Ferraris and mansions!)

It's a good point, and I think it's self-reinforcing. Americans are richer because they invest more because they're richer. This is why productivity declines are so pernicious. They lead to a negatively reinforcing cycle of poorer -> less investment -> poorer.

This is interesting and makes sense, the first thing I thought of is how California and the west started as gold rush, land, mining opportunities.

The people who risked their (and families) lives going west were taking very large risks for large rewards. And it's never stopped.

Great point. So many people I know who have worked in Silicon Valley have spoken about a different mindset there. Culture matters a great deal, but because it's intangible and hard to measure, we don't often see it in productivity and prosperity metrics and research. I think it's true that culture is contagious, but we also see that people who share values like to hang out together. The largest expression of this is a nation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com